General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsthe consistent effort by conservative, corporate dems to try and tarnish progressive
politicians in the eyes of progressives is a riot.
ooh, bernie voted for this or said this nice thing about President Obama. Ooh, Warren said/did this or that, Sherrod Brown voted for this.
It's so frickin' lame and one sees it all over the web as conservative corporate type dems try to wedge people who they actually don't like into their President Obama cubbyhole.
Laughable.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"ooh, bernie voted for this or said this nice thing about President Obama. Ooh, Warren said/did this or that, Sherrod Brown voted for this.
It's so frickin' lame and one sees it all over the web as conservative corporate type dems try to wedge people who they actually don't like into their President Obama cubbyhole.
Laughable."
...."laughable" is the selective labeling and slamming.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024458979#post21
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024441624#post51
"It's so frickin' lame and one sees it all over the web as conservative corporate type dems try to wedge people who they actually don't like into their President Obama cubbyhole. "
You're calling out people for trying to "wedge people"?
Now, that's "laughable," not to mention the irony here.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)Laughable it is -- and rather pathetic.
cali
(114,904 posts)and you're welcome, mark.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Otherwise we might be taken in. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They talk about PEOPLE. They talk about Greenwald and Snowden and Assagne, making personal comments about anyone who speaks out, or exposes corruption, hoping to divert from the issues themselves.
People who care about this country talk about ISSUESS. And even if their favorite politician is on the wrong side of an issue, they are willing to say so. That is how you tell the difference between corporate 'dems' and actual people whose interests are far different. But try as they have they have failed. It must be galling to have put their 'best minds' to work over the past decade trying to use Right Wing Personal attack tactics mostly on Progressive Dems and to have failed so miserably.
Now Liberals have to decide. Is it still possible to rescue this party from Corporate 'dems' or is it too late?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yes, we have to decide. It's a close call. The obvious are not helping their cause. Let me say that another way. They aren't going to change any minds.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the less like the Party people have belonged to for decades, the Dem Party is looking.
Which may account for the fact that fewer and fewer people are identifying with either party, creating the largest voting bloc right now, Independents. That may be the direct result of their 'work', alienating enough Dems that the whole political landscape is changing.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)data.
I can't even get them to admit Hillary is for the TPP, or that attacking Syria is a far right position.
The only thing they have is personal attack and misdirection.
Great post.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)issues their favorite politicians are on the wrong side of. It's very difficult to get them to state where they stand on issues as if they are waiting to be told where they stand.
DU used to be a great place for intelligent discussions, that was what attracted me to it. But if I found it today, I would be so turned off by all the support for everything we used to be against and it's getting worse, excuses for Bush policies, like spying on the American people eg, I would think I had stumbled on a right wing forum. Many people have moved on and sometimes I wonder why I am still here. Seems all we do anymore is try to defend Liberal ideals and I did that long ago before I found DU, on right wing dominated forums. I never thought I'd be doing it here.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)they are think tanks out to destroy the forum and turn it into a propaganda site.
Which will likely kill it. I hope Skinner is aware.
Anyway, I'll keep trying to get them to state there position on issues. Usually shuts them up.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)They try to obfuscate the message of progressives by co-opting it in that way. Hey, we all like Obama. No question.
He just isn't strongly enough committed to justice and, in spite of is rhetoric, to equal opportunity. To have equal opportunity, as another DU post so aptly pointed out today, you have to have something approaching economic equality. Economic equality does not mean that everybody gets the same income. It means that the gap between poor and rich is not so huge that it is in reality almost insurmountable. It means that, as long as there are rich people with several houses, houses that they cannot reside in at one time, anyone who works and contributes will earn enough to feed, clothe and care for a family.
Obama talks the talk on this issue, but, really, even his health care bill will mean that the rich at the top of the health insurance companies continue to get a bigger than life slice of our health care dollars while the rest of us struggle to pay deductibles and co-pays. I back Obama on the ACA, but I wish he had included single payer advocates at the table in the discussions prior to the passage of the ACA. Excluding them was an example of Obama's weakness and lack of courage.
Obama always gives the top dogs, the plutocrats in the country, their 30 pieces of silver.
And once Obama (and other third wayers) has paid those 30 pieces of silver to the wolves on Wall Street and in the corporate suites, we know that the outcome for working people, unions and progressives will be anything but really good. Who sits on the commissions and at the trade negotiation tables on behalf of the Obama White House -- big business and a couple of token union leaders, that's who. Ordinary people are very rarely, if ever represented or even recognized. Ordinary working people get to sit in the audience at speeches, part of the backdrop you know. And it has been this way in D.C. for a very long time, not just under Obama.
and they wander around here freely saying crap like this -
"people that do absolutely nothing but shit on this president that just makes my teeth itch.".
Operatives, I would say.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm not big on the Judas references, but the substance of your post is right on.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)He just isn't strongly enough committed to justice and, in spite of is rhetoric, to equal opportunity. To have equal opportunity, as another DU post so aptly pointed out today, you have to have something approaching economic equality. Economic equality does not mean that everybody gets the same income. It means that the gap between poor and rich is not so huge that it is in reality almost insurmountable. It means that, as long as there are rich people with several houses, houses that they cannot reside in at one time, anyone who works and contributes will earn enough to feed, clothe and care for a family.
Obama talks the talk on this issue, but, really, even his health care bill will mean that the rich at the top of the health insurance companies continue to get a bigger than life slice of our health care dollars while the rest of us struggle to pay deductibles and co-pays. I back Obama on the ACA, but I wish he had included single payer advocates at the table in the discussions prior to the passage of the ACA. Excluding them was an example of Obama's weakness and lack of courage.
Obama always gives the top dogs, the plutocrats in the country, their 30 pieces of silver.
....this completely ignores reality.
The heatlh care law raised the payroll tax for high income earners and taxed investment income.
A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.
Additional Medicare Tax
A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions
Krugman: Obama and the One Percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415
A CBO Report Shows How Obamacare Will Help the Working Poor
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rediscovering-government/cbo-report-shows-how-obamacare-will-help-working-poor
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Obama needs to get ideas from the working people and families themselves about what needs to be done. Enforcing existing antitrust laws and asking for new, more stringent ones would help. That would make it possible for small businesses to grow and compete, businesses that try to start out on Main Street and are crushed by the conglomerates.
Another idea would be to make sure we get net neutrality. That gives small, local businesses the opportunity to reach local customers through the internet. If we lose the neutrality we have now, the big companies will get even bigger and smaller companies will have even fewer chances to do well..
Same for working people. The TPP will again take a chunk out of our manufacturing sector. It could even completely put the finishing touches on the destruction of that sector.
But most important, Obama needs to do something really new and set up local commissions of ordinary people who come up with ideas for solutions to the nation's problems. And Obama needs to meet with those groups just as he does with Jamie Dimon and other big business representatives. Just having conversations on the internet with occasional ordinary people in no deliberative context is pretty useless -- just a show and not very meaningful. Obama needs to hold much more dialogue with people outside Wall Street and the beltway.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Obama needs to get ideas from the working people and families themselves about what needs to be done. Enforcing existing antitrust laws and asking for new, more stringent ones would help. That would make it possible for small businesses to grow and compete, businesses that try to start out on Main Street and are crushed by the conglomerates.
Yeah, "antitrust" enforcement to make "small businesses...grow and compete" means more than health care.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)gambling and fraud of the banks, mortgage companies, AIG and certain hedge funds.
We heard a lot about banks that were too big to fail. That is where antitrust laws come into play. It isn't just the banks that are too big to fail. We have a lot of corporations that are enormous, capable of squeezing out competition and are too big to fail and to heavy to bring success to ordinary people in our society.
Obama followed Bush's lead and bailed the banks out. He also eventually sponsored a rather puny program to bail out homeowners who were in over their heads.
Nevertheless, many, many, many homeowners who had been lured into second mortgages and bad mortgages not only lost their homes but in many cases were forced into bankruptcy due to their inability to pay off the difference between what they had borrowed and what their house was worth and sold for on the market following foreclosure. That pretty much put a lot of people, many, many people on the don't loan list because the bankruptcies ruined their credit ratings.
There were other ways to handle the bust at the end of the housing bubble. One would have been to require the bankers to turn really bad loans into rent-to-buy arrangements. The banks would have been able to recognize the value of the houses as assets but homeowners would have been able to stay in their homes at hopefully a reduced rental and with the opportunity to purchase the house when their income rose to cover the price of the house.
Another would have been to require banks in exchange for the bail out to bail out homeowners by renegotiating their mortgages. That practice is not uncommon when buyers (owners) face default on commercial properties. Why couldn't banks have been required to offer that kind of deal to taxpaying citizens in exchange for the taxpayer bail-out.
Think of the families that lost their homes and their credit ratings for, what is it, seven years due to bankruptcies?
Think of the families that were broken by the loss of their home and their hope of home ownership. Think of the pain and suffering that caused, the homelessness.
The contracts of workers in the auto industry were sacrificed to the god of reorganization. The argument was better a job that will pay new hires much less than their co-workers still covered by a union contract than no job and no industry at all.
But the contracts of the bankers were never renegotiated during the crisis. Therefore, the bankers received their bonuses and pay on schedule even though their, call it mistakes or fraud, I prefer the latter, but they remain innocent until Obama's Justice Department proves their guilt, were what caused the entire crisis.
And, as we have recently learned with Jamie Dimon's victorious announcement about his generous bonus, the bankers made money on the misery of the homeowners in default (including those wage earners who continue to toil or struggle to find work but now under the shadow of a dark and damaging low credit rating).
Obama could have handled the bail-out of the bankers differently had he consulted more with the homeowners and less with the bankers. Because the homeowners would have impressed him with the difficult choices that they faced. As it was, the dialogue with defaulting homeowners was short if it really existed while the dialogue with the bankers has been an ongoing and time consuming part of Obama's presidency and his cabinet and the responsible aides in his administration.
So, the bankers failed to recognize the obvious outcome of a housing market in which prices are skyrocketing while the wages of working people were stagnating. That is the kind of damage that companies that should be investigated for violations of the Antitrust Act but are allowed to continue to threaten economic security because of their great girth and the threat that their ruin poses to our entire country.
Who ended up paying for that huge either error or fraud of the too-big-to-fail banks? The poorest in the scenario -- the struggling homeowners some of whom had to deal not only with the loss of their homes but of their jobs and livelihoods.
Obama could and if he were really as concerned about economic inequality as he now claims would have used that crisis as Franklin D. Roosevelt did to investigate the most powerful figures in our financial circles, ferret out the basic causes of the crisis, perhaps bring a few of the kingpins to trial and at the same time work a deal that would have brought banks down to a safe size, limited their ability to gamble and allowed as many people in default as possible to retain their homes and their economic stability.
That was Obama's choice. He chose to help his friends and donors -- the bankers. And we still don't see much antitrust action or downsizing and splitting of the banks.
Now Obama is belatedly talking about tackling the ever growing problem of economic inequality in our society. I am willing to take back everything I am saying if he really does deliver on a workable plan to lessen the economic inequality in our society to a point that markets and banks and workplaces can function for the benefit not just of the top of the heap but for all of us. But he has a lot to prove in this respect before I can give him the benefit of the doubt that we all including me gave him when he first came into office.
The inequality has increased since Obama became president. Had he negotiated more effectively with the banks at several junctures in his presidency when he had the leverage, when he was in the position to ask and not beg, the inequality would at least be diminishing more rapidly.
And, by the way, Obama had a good number of Democrats in Congress at the time he came into office. It was in 2010 that we Democrats lost so many seats.
The ACA and the Tea Party know-nothings are blamed for our loss of seats. But the fact is that the failure of the Obama administration to really chastise the bankers and call for a strong correction in the economic divide in our country was a big contributing factor. People in the clutches of foreclosure are not likely to vote in a mid-term election that seems ever so dull and in which they feel they have no stake.
We are facing an election in 2014. Obama took a stand on economic inequality in his State of the Union speech. The proposal to raise wages is good. So is the proposal for universal and free pre-kindergarten. But we need much more. And enforcing and strengthening our antitrust laws to spread the risk and the opportunities across our economy would be one way to attack the economic inequality. There is an economy is size. But big companies present a huge risk for our economy when they fail or even begin to teeter and lose their bearings. Many jobs could be lost with just one really big corporate failure.
We all know just how insecure our lives are in this top-heavy economy. One tip of one company can mean many, many lost jobs and bring our entire economy to the brink. That is true of for example some of the big banks as well as at least one retail company I can think of.
So antitrust law and improving and amending our antitrust laws to bring more balance into our economy are very important to Obama's goal of reducing economic inequality, assuming that really is his goal.
And neither the ACA nor much else in our economy will succeed if we don't do something about economic inequality. Breaking up the huge companies is certainly more palatable to the rich and less damaging to our capitalistic system than simply transferring wealth directly from one person to another, a practice that Republicans will reject and that may stir a reaction and ultimately not solve the problem of economic inequality.
One area in which new antitrust legislation could help is the media sector. Same for retail stores.
And one of our biggest problems is the control by a company of its entire chain of supply to sales to customer service. That system makes service to the customer very efficient, but it puts very few people in control of the entire chain from manufacturing to servicing and insulates the individual systems from competition. It limits greatly the opportunities for potential competitors to start out since the entire chain from manufacturing to repair is controlled by the same management team in the end.
Breaking up huge conglomerates through antitrust law could refresh our economy and encourage a lot of creativity. I hope that the President will consider it if he hasn't already.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Obama followed Bush's lead and bailed the banks out. He also eventually sponsored a rather puny program to bail out homeowners who were in over their heads. "
...and I'm not trying to read comments that are book length and packed with inaccuracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
Also, since you mentioned mortgages.
Jan 7, 2014
Video of Senator Warren’s Remarks Available Here
Text of Senator Warren’s Remarks Available Here
WASHINGTON, DC – In remarks delivered on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, United States Senator Elizabeth Warren applauded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) new mortgage rules, which will go into effect on Friday, January 10.
Under the new rules, a lender must determine that a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage before issuing the loan. The rules will also prohibit brokers from being paid by lenders to steer customers into higher-cost loans and strengthen the mortgage market by improving mortgage servicing practices.
"Thanks to the consumer agency's new rules, families will be safer, pension funds and other investors will be safer, and our whole economy will be safer," Senator Warren said in her remarks. "And the rules will reshape the mortgage market for the better. They will give people a better chance to buy homes and a better chance to keep those homes, and they will force mortgage lenders and servicers to compete by offering better rates and customer service, not by tricking and trapping people. These rules will help markets work better, and they will reduce the risk that the economy will crash again."
Senator Warren highlighted the success the CFPB already has had helping consumers, including returning more than $3 billion to consumers who were cheated and resolving tens of thousands of complaints against financial institutions. The new mortgage rules will affect millions of families who own or plan to purchase a home.
"The consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show once again that government can fix problems," said Senator Warren. "Sure, we have to work hard, we have to fight against those who benefit from the broken system, and we have to stick with it even when the odds are against us. But when we do those things, real change is possible in this country. We're seeing that up close this week."
For more information about the new mortgage rules, a fact sheet is available at the CFPB's website here.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=309
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And that underlying purpose and theory was to save the big banks and force homeowners to repay what they owed with a minimal amount of bail-out for the homeowners facing foreclosure.
In my area of LA, an older area, developers came in, bought dilapidated old houses, put up a shiny new fence and rebuilt the interiors. Housing values have risen in this area. But we are the exception. The housing market in Detroit has fallen apart. As has that market in Florida and some other areas of the country.
Viewed as figures on a financial report, it looks like we are in recovery. And technically we are. But those over 50 who still don't have jobs and the families that suffered possibly a divorce, maybe a serious illness without insurance, the loss of a home and bankruptcy will never recover.
Sorry about the long posts. But if you read some of my posts, maybe you would learn something. I write most of the material myself.
I understand that copying and pasting from the work of others is quicker and easier than my long posts. In fact, I sometimes post with the copy and paste method myself. But when I really have something to say that DUers may not have read before, it can take longer to say it since I have to lay groundwork rather than just cite the name of a publication and the link to an article that is itself quite long.
Sorry for my longwindness, but I hope you will read my post in response to your post on antitrust law. I would like to have your response for the sake of a very interesting discussion.
Thanks for your input on DU. You give many of us lots to take issue with. But that is an important part of conducting a meaningful discussion. I like it when you really deal with issues. That is much more useful than merely characterizing the post of another DUer as stupid or infantile without explaining why you find it so.
After all, this is a discussion forum, not a propaganda website.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)sector over more banks. Plus we need to go back to a very strict division between banks that make risky investments and banks that hold FDIC insured deposits.
We need an overhaul on our antitrust laws.
It's like going all GMO seeds. If something goes wrong with those seeds, you have lost a whole harvest. That is very dangerous. We need diversity. In commerce as in growing plants.
And we should not permit companies to own vertical monopolies with subsidiary after subsidiary. It is not healthy for our economy.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)the big banks?
I know, you won't answer. Because you are pushing for the policies of the plutocrats, aren't you?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)expecting more than 'new rules' to tell those naughty people 'you just can't do that anymore'. How ridiculous, the FBI has been trying to stop that fraud for years, but Bush rather than allow them to go do their jobs, pulled many of them off the job leaving short staffed and unable to do so.
Then we elected Democrats expecting to see PROSECUTIONS for the fraud and corruption, and all we got was some new rules? When was it ever LEGAL to scam people??? Passing 'new rules' is like saying 'this USED to be okay but now it's not'.
So sick of the excuses and obfuscations. No wonder there are more Independents now in this country than members of EITHER party. Do you think you are helping the Dem Party with all these excuses for everything they HAVEN'T done?
We know what went on, you're not talking to a bunch of ignorant, blind Bush supporters. WE ARE DEMOCRATS who followed all of this AS IT WAS HAPPENING, and some of us know some of the victims of these scams who have received NO justice while the crooks have received TRILLIONS in bailouts. It's despicable and no amount of trying is going to change the facts.
Now we have to move on, and this time, make sure to get PROGRESSIVE DEMS elected, enough of them to start the job of applying the rule of law. Because what happened here was NOT 'just immoral' as Obama unbelievably said, as if that was okay, it was CRIME on a massive scale.
progressoid
(49,998 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)They like to be able to say things that aren't entirely accurate without being called on it. It's like trying to create the impression that Obama hates Warren.
You know what they say about an opinion (everybody has one) and facts (you're not entitled to your own).
progressoid
(49,998 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)just link to other posts of yours full of still more links to even more posts of yours creating a uroboros of spin carefully manufactured to shield and deflect.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)cannot answer policy positions directly.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
reusrename
(1,716 posts)
"And once Obama (and other third wayers) has paid those 30 pieces of silver to the wolves on Wall Street and in the corporate suites, we know that the outcome for working people, unions and progressives will be anything but really good."
...ignoring reality.
Court of Appeals Hands Victory to U.S. Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024450902
By Michael A. Fletcher
The National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday resurrected a proposal to implement new rules aimed at speeding up unionization elections, a move applauded by organized labor groups that have seen a steady decline in membership.
The labor board’s proposed amendments are identical to ones that the politically divided board was on the verge of enacting in late 2011...The latest version of the proposed rule change was approved by the NLRB’s three Democratic members, while the two Republican appointees dissented.
<...>
At present, workers must hold an NLRB-sanctioned election after filing a petition to organize a union. For years, union leaders have voiced concern that it takes too long after an organizing petition is filed to hold an election to determine whether workers want to create a union. The votes were often pushed back for weeks to manually distribute information and to appeal rulings by regional NLRB officials. The delays, union leaders complained, gave employers too much time to campaign to disrupt organizing efforts.
“When workers petition for an NLRB election, they should receive a timely opportunity to vote,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. “But the current NLRB election process is riddled with delay and provides too many opportunities for employers to manipulate and drag out the process through costly and unnecessary litigation and deny workers a vote.”
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nlrb-gives-boost-to-speedier-union-elections/2014/02/05/a0d0e35a-8ebe-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html
The National Labor Relations Board announced today that it is issuing proposed amendments to its rules and regulations governing representation-case procedures. In substance, the proposed amendments are identical to the representation procedure changes first proposed in June of 2011. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will appear in the Federal Register tomorrow. The proposals are intended to enable the Board to more effectively administer the National Labor Relations Act. Specifically, the NPRM presents a number of changes to the Board’s representation case procedures aimed at modernizing processes, enhancing transparency and eliminating unnecessary litigation and delay. Issuance of the proposed rule was approved by Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Members Kent Y. Hirozawa and Nancy Schiffer. Board Members Philip A. Miscimarra and Harry I. Johnson III dissented.
In announcing the proposals, Pearce said: “The Board is unanimous in its support for effective representation case procedures. I am pleased that all Members share a commitment to constructive dialogue, and we all agree that important issues are involved in this proposed rulemaking. With a Senate-confirmed five-member Board, I feel it is important for the Board to fully consider public comment on these proposed amendments, along with the comments we previously received in 2011. These amendments would modernize the representation case process and fulfill the promise of the National Labor Relations Act.”
“I believe that the NPRM first proposed in June of 2011 continues to best frame the issues and raises the appropriate concerns for public comment,” Pearce said. He stressed that the Board is reviewing the proposed changes with an open mind: “No final decisions have been made. We will review all of the comments filed in response to the original proposals, so the public will not have to duplicate its prior efforts in order to have those earlier comments considered. Re-issuing the 2011 proposals is the most efficient and effective rulemaking process at this time.”
“Unnecessary delay and inefficiencies hurt both employees and employers. These proposals are intended to improve the process for all parties, in all cases, whether non-union employees are seeking a union to represent them or unionized employees are seeking to decertify a union,” Pearce said. “We look forward to further exchanges of ideas to improve the processes in a way that will benefit workers, employers and all of the American people.”
The reforms the Board will propose would:
- allow for electronic filing and transmission of election petitions and other documents;
- ensure that employees, employers and unions receive and exchange timely information they need to understand and participate in the representation case process;
- streamline pre- and post-election procedures to facilitate agreement and eliminate unnecessary litigation;
- include telephone numbers and email addresses in voter lists to enable parties to the election to be able to communicate with voters using modern technology; and
- consolidate all election-related appeals to the Board into a single post-election appeals process.
The public is invited to comment on the proposed changes. The deadline for comments is April 7, 2014. Reply comments to the initial comments may be filed by April 14, 2014. Details on how to submit comments are set forth in the NPRM. In addition, the Board will hold a public hearing during the week of April 7, at which members of the public may address the proposed amendments and make other suggestions for improving the Board’s representation case procedures.
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/national-labor-relations-board-proposes-amendments-improve-representation
Teamsters Support Proposed Change That Would Speed Up Union Elections
The rule, if approved, would eliminate existing hurdles that can delay union-organizing votes with meritless and unnecessary litigation. The changes would streamline pre- and post-election procedures to help facilitate agreement and consolidate all election-related appeals into a post-election appeals process. Taken together, they would help stop companies from abusing the legal process to stall election votes, as many do now.
“Workers for too long have been forced to endure unnecessary delays when they have tried to start a union,” Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa said. “We urge the NLRB to move forward with these changes so hard-working Americans can organize and better provide for their families.”
http://teamster.org/news/2014/02/teamsters-support-proposed-change-would-speed-union-elections
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Labor and ordinary consumers -- not wealthy consumers -- do not sit on commissions that discuss business issues, but big business sits on commissions that decide issues that will affect them as consumers. For every meeting, Obama has with bankers, he should have a one on one with someone whose home has been foreclosed.
That's my view. Our Democratic leadership is not really listening to what ordinary people are thinking and saying about issues, hence Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party and the support for Elizabeth Warren's views on banking and oversight of our economy.
Obama talks about economic inequality but as far as I know he has not established a commission including people of all income levels to consider measures to deal with it. He could.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Exceptions to the rule and related only to labor issues. Labor and ordinary consumers -- not wealthy consumers -- do not sit on commissions that discuss business issues, but big business sits on commissions that decide issues that will affect them as consumers. For every meeting, Obama has with bankers, he should have a one on one with someone whose home has been foreclosed."
Now you're trying to marginalize "labor"?
Labor is about workers, and you simply ignore the reality of what the health care law means to "ordinary consumers" (whatever that means, as opposed to "labor," I guess).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024464691#post15
"That's my view. Our Democratic leadership is not really listening to what ordinary people are thinking and saying about issues, hence Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party and the support for Elizabeth Warren's views on banking and oversight of our economy. "
Selectively listen to Senator Warren is key to using her as a divisive figure.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the really big Wall Street players who committed serious fraud to court. They have been allowed to settle as if their wrongs were merely civil wrongs.
In contrast,
"SAN DIEGO (AP) — A woman who escaped from a Michigan prison nearly 37 years ago while serving time for attempted larceny was found living under an alias in San Diego, police said Tuesday.
. . . .
When she escaped, Hayman was about halfway through a minimum sentence of 1 1/2 years for attempting to steal clothes from a Detroit-area store.
. . . .
Authorities in Washtenaw County, Mich., where the prison is located, would decide whether additional charges related to the escape are filed, Marlan said.
http://news.yahoo.com/fugitive-found-california-37-years-escape-174324734.html
Now larceny is a serious crime, but not nearly as serious as the fraud involved in hiring robo-signers to sign foreclosure documents to be filed in a court or lying when selling securities to unsuspecting investors. Yet the police hunt down a woman who committed larceny while bankers who committed fraud that caused the near crash of the world's economy are allowed to pay retribution for their crimes.
And then Obama worshipers (I would not call them supporters because I am an Obama supporter but I and many other supporters am not blinded to his faults) point to rather ineffective policy measures as proof that Obama cares about little people.
The fact is that the income inequality has continued to grow at a very rapid pace during Obama's presidency. He acknowledged the problem in his State of the Union speech, but if he really wants to tackle the problem, he is going to have to reduce the percentage of big spenders on his invitation lists and start really listening to the poor and dwindling middle class people. The preference of his administration for charter schools is just one indication of his rather superficial approach to middle class issues. Charter schools are a way of taking the political control over education away from the community and putting it in the hands of wealthy benefactors of specific schools. They are a means of de-democratizing education and removing the control and decision-making power from democratically elected school boards in order to hand that power to the elite who sponsor the establishment of the charter schools.
Elizabeth Warren's comments about the lack of professional diversity among Obama's nominations for the judiciary is another very accurate critique of the Obama presidency. Appointing judges who are diverse in race, religion, sexual preference, etc. is unimpressive if those appointed are by and large have backgrounds mostly in corporate law. Granted, the corporate firms pick up law school graduates who were at the top of their classes, but still, more diversity in terms of professional experience would strengthen our courts.
Let's hope that Obama really does require companies holding government contracts to raise their minimum wages. That is the one really concrete proposal that Obama has made to lessen the disparity in incomes. But it is awfully late in coming. We needed that back in 2009. Not advisable to hold your breath until it is reality.
In addition, Obama did not come out fighting to clarify what the ACA really is and what it is intended to do. He let the Tea Baggers grab the steering wheel on it. He is paying for that dearly.
I want liberal policies like strong public education and single payer healthcare. I know I cannot always have what I want, and that is why I support the ACA although it is not what I think would have been best for the country. I support Obama and worked hard to get him elected.
But I do not criticize Obama lightly. He has made some serious mistakes and has not represented the interests of the middle class and working people with nearly the energy and dedication of a Franklin Roosevelt, and due to that fact, he has to understand that many of us will criticize him. Franklin Roosevelt had the wisdom to let the bankers know that their fraud and abuse of other people's money could no longer be tolerated. Until Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the relatively small ups and downs in our economy could be dealt with. Obama should have as we used to say "taken the bankers to the woodshed" and shown them who is boss when they brought down the world's economy. He didn't. And history will blame him for that failure.
To have neglected to really right the ship of state with regard to the financial sector and to continue to negotiate trade agreements at a time when prior agreements have cost so many working people their jobs and their livelihoods is disingenuous.
Well, it is 7:44 a.m. in Los Angeles and I am rambling. We shall see in November whether we can hold the Senate and make headway in the House on Obama's record. We shall see. You and I can express our opinions here all we want. The test will be in the ballot boxes next November. If Democratic voters like what Obama has done, we Democrats will make some headway. If Democratic voters think that Obama has been too weak and not represented their interests, they won't turn out, and we will end up with, at best, a split Congress that does not support the president. I'm hoping we do well, but it won't be all that easy on Obama's record. A lot of people who lost their homes or nearly lost their homes will back Obama but may not bother to come out for the midterms. Can't say I blame them even though I will do what I can to make sure they vote.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I agree with her. Do you agree with her about Dodd-Frank?
"There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice."
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf
I call them "supporters"
The fact that his policies are trying to reverse that is lost on those who seek to blame the President for a downward spiral decades in the making, one exacerbated by the economic crisis.
They'd rather ignore the facts (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024464691#post15) and make every attempt to dismiss his efforts (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024464691#post29)
Again, people heard what they wanted to. Completely ignoring the reality (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024458843) and her actual statement (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024454784#post6). Her comments were to call attention to the statistical trend, highlight the impact of Republican obstruction up to this point, and show how going forward the President has an opportunity to nominate a more professionally diverse set of people to the bench.
No it isn't, and again that comment ignores reality (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415)
That statement and the rest seems like an exercise in Gish Gallop. How is that relevant to his policies that address inequality.
I sometimes think the reason for the long rambling comments is to hide the distortions and attacks: "worshipers."
Spare me.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The critiques are intended to assist Obama's better angels.
He denounces the economic inequality in his State of the Union speech. But what he does not do is really fight that inequality where it starts -- the board rooms of his friends like Jamie Dimon and the companies behind the TPP negotiations.
That economic inequality is the major problem in America today. It is the cause of the entire housing bubble. The ordinary people on the borrowing end in that bubble did not have the income to pay their mortgages. Yet the wealthy on the lending end of that bubble still lent the money.
Talking to a banker a few years ago I said the obvious: that the bankers who lent the money during that bubble overlooked the fact of the bubble very simply because the bankers did not realize that while housing prices were rising at an astronomically fast pace, wages were stagnant. The banker stared at me with a look of shock. That had never apparently occurred to him. Why was he so surprised? Probably because his pay, since he was at the top of the heap in his company, had increased during the Bush years. He did not realize, he had not noticed, it was of no concern to him that the wages of middle class working people and the incomes of the poor were stagnant and in some cases declining.
Dodd-Frank is an improvement in some respects but it still permits banks to take risks that they shouldn't take with money that is not theirs. It was not strong enough although it is better than nothing.
The core problem is the disparity in wealth. The trade agreements and the failure of our tax system to deal fairly with the economic advantage that those agreements have given to the investor class and to imports is a major cause of our disparity in wealth. Our continued dependence on oil and gas is also a cause of the disparity in wealth. A really solid investment in solar energy including rooftop solar would help to ease that disparity. Thus far, the support for solar energy in the Obama administration has not been enough. Here in Southern California we could replace much of the gas, coal and oil that we use with solar if the federal government really supported an effort to subsidize solar panels on roofs to the extent that they subsidize oil, gas and coal. (And we see in West Virginia's disastrous spill by a now bankrupt company how oil and gas externalize the costs of their products while grabbing the profits.) If those environmental costs were included when comparing the costs of solar to those of gas, coal and oil, solar would be the cheapest energy source. Obama could change the dialogue on this issue and increase economic equality in the process, but I do not expect him to have the courage to do that. He would have had to have started years ago to change the public perception were he to succeed in working on economic inequality in a meaningful way.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were aware of the primary importance of dealing with economic inequality long before Obama was. I think that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are serious about the issue. And that is why I support Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic nomination in 2016. Because economic inequality is the primary problem in the US today. Obama's agenda did not recognize the link between the housing bubble and economic inequality. I think Elizabeth Warren gets it. So does Bernie Sanders.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Worshipers is accurate."
...labeling people "worshipers" is "intended to assist Obama's better angels"?
"He denounces the economic inequality in his State of the Union speech. But what he does not do is really fight that inequality where it starts -- the board rooms of his friends like Jamie Dimon and the companies behind the TPP negotiations. "
Please continue to ignore reality.
"Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were aware of the primary importance of dealing with economic inequality long before Obama was. I think that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are serious about the issue. And that is why I support Elicabeth Warren for the Democratic nomination in 2016. Because economic inequality is the primary problem in the US today. Obama's agenda did not recognize the link between the housing bubble and economic inequality. I think Elizabeth Warren gets it. So does Bernie Sanders. "
Another long rant that ends with an attempt to use these two Senators as divisive tools. They support Obama's agenda, from Dodd-Frank to health care reform. From raising the minimum wage to ending corporate subsidies.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I just think that should have been his agenda from his first day in office, and I want to see him propose some really strong measures to support that agenda. It is a winning agenda, but Obama needs to persuade voters that he is serious about it. Appointing a commission on the economy that includes a single mom, some unemployed working people, some nurses, some people who depend on programs like Social Security, rent subsidies, homeless assistance and food stamps as well as small farmers and others whose points of view will represent a broader spectrum of the population would be a first step to demonstrate that economic inequality is really his priority at this time.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I just think that should have been his agenda from his first day in office, and I want to see him propose some really strong measures to support that agenda."
....has been pushing for certain goals since his first day in office. Since then, his appeals have been drowned out by RW noise and attempts by those on the left to portray him in the most negative light.
Climate of Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html
FINALLY, A PROGRESSIVE BUDGET.
http://prospect.org/article/finally-progressive-budget
Armstead
(47,803 posts)pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Get ready for the waste of bandwidth!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And you are right, it has been a long slide downward for the 90% and as the gap widens it becomes more difficult for them to move up...the end result has always been oligarchical rule.
Good Rant...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) closeupready
(29,503 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)Well done, and time well-spent
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)One could almost imagine they're not really as contented as they maintain themselves to be.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)They can't address the substance of the revelations, it's all still supposed to be secret, so they are forbidden to talk about it. And anyway, the facts don't work for them, nobody wants to be spied on, I don't care what threats you conjure up. That's why they want it kept so secret, they know perfectly well the public won't like it. It's like Catch-22, and they are doing it to themselves, so to speak. They get in a tizzy and say stupid things every time they have to talk about it in public. And angry? Oh my.
It's one of the few things that keep me entertained since the 2012 election, watching the Snowden fiasco. It's going to be bigger than Watergate before it's done.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
TheMathieu
(456 posts)God help us all if that happens.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Let me ask you something, are you going to be going out to ask Liberals to vote for Democrats? Will you be telling them, not that you have to, how much the Party Leadership despises them and their Progressive ideas? I hope so, because it's always better to be honest with people.
Never mind, as each year passes, the Progressive Wing of the party has had to conclude that the party they have belonged to all their lives, is not the party it once was, it has swung so far to the right, that it is barely recognizable to Democrats.
The current iteration of the Dem Party does not want Progressives in the party. The ONLY time they want them and their money is at election time. The minute the election is over, they tell them to get lost. For a while it worked, but many have now received that message loud and clear.
So progressives have two choices, either stay and refuse to vote for Corporate 'dems', put all the effort they used to put into electing anyone with a 'd' after their names, into ONLY progressive Dems, or become an Independent, which many have already.
I'm for staying but never, ever helping any Third Way Conservative simply because they slapped a 'd' after their name, to get elected. As someone once said, 'if the people wanted to elect Republicans, they would elect Republicans, not Republican Lite.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And further that you think this bolsters your case against what Cali said.
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)The attack on party Democrats is non stop also.. sooooooooo.. at some point.. you put your hand up and yell .. enough already.. I have had it up to my ears with the continual carping.. and find what works and go forward..
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"find what works and go forward.."
If it isn't working, how do we fix it? Both politically and in terms of the greater good.
A lot of things aren't working. The only way to find out what might work is to critique the status quo, and raise different possibilities.
That's not just "carping."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)express their wish that Obama could be more on the side of ordinary people speak for the voters in November.
If Obama's record gets Democrats out and to the polls in November will be the test for Obama's presidency. We shall see.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It is so there will not be room for, or tolerance for, criticism from the left. Constructive criticism. And it is working to a charm.
Believe me, this is no mere accident, There are no coincidences. This has been planned out well beforehand just like when they ran the same scam when Clinton was president.
What this President needs, more than anything else, is criticism from the left. And he needs to hear it to the exclusion of all the goddamned corporate mouthpieces that have had his ear.
treestar
(82,383 posts)but how laughable that any of Obama's supposed left wing opponents would say that. It is Warren and Bernie they constantly use to diss Obama, thinking if they use a leftward figure they can get away with it on DU. They know what happens when they use Rand Paul.
And Bernie and Elizabeth are not down with it. They are not there to be used against Democrats. Being Senators, they know what compromise it takes to make any progress whatsoever, especially in today's climate. I wonder if they resent being used in this way, or just figure it is extremists who can't stop any progress with their rantings.
cali
(114,904 posts)conservatives who use progressive pols to try and make Obama look liberal.
Of course politicians such as bernie and warren are circumspect in their criticism and praise and that's fine. what isn't fine is conservative corporate democrats pretending that their philosophies and policies are in synch with a President who repeatedly claims he's a moderate and less liberal in many ways than Nixon.
that's just disingenuous nonsense.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes we worship both Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, even though on most issues their basic philosophies are so different from each other as to be mutually exclusive.
(I say most issues, because like the proverbial broken clock, the Pauls are occasionally correct about some specific subjects.)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Its perfectly fine if a few select others make compromises because they have pre-approval from DU's High Priests of liberalism.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Hypothetical Compromise:
They want to slash $100 billion from a social program.
We say this program is vital and should be increased. We'll say fight for that, but we're willing to negotiate.
A lot of dickering goes on and trade-offs are made. Ultimately "only" $50 billion is cut, in exchange for some concessions by both sides.
Not what we want, but half-a loaf, which is better than none.
Hypothetical SELL OUT:
They want to slash $100 billion from a social program.
We say "Yes you're right. It's important to cut the debt and deficit and we agree totally with you. But we think $90 billion in cuts is more appropriate, because there is some value to the program. But we'll also give you another $90 billion over the next ten years."
After a little kubuki dance the GOP gets almost everything it wanted, and also pushes the overall context of the issue further to the right.
The Dems get almost nothing, look weak and lacking in principle, and become a defacto echo chamber of the CONservative GOP Corporate Machine.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)real examples?
Let's go back to 2010. Obama makes a deal that extends Bush tax cuts for 2 years, but he gets an end to DADT, an an extension of UI, and some other concessions.
DU explodes in anger because he extended the tax cuts for 2 years while ignoring the other items as irrelevant.
I could use the ACA as another actual example. The high priests of liberalism on DU hated the ACA and complained endlessly for the last couple years. Now, the full benefits are kicking in, and where are they? Mostly silent.
I have to say, I find this OP funny in part because the author is upset that anyone dare question a couple of their favorites elected officials.
They don't seem to see the irony.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)For years, proponents of health care reform have advocated for some form of public social-insurance program, ideally single-payer universal care. Even President Obama in his prior life, made statements in support of that.
But when the issue finally made it to the table, the very people who had advocate for that werte shut out of even being in the room, literally. Instead the power to shape the bill was turned over to the Max Baucuses and Joe Lie-Berman's.
A whiff of compromise in the form of a "public option" and/.or Medicare buy-in option for younger people did surface. Still left the private insurance system in place, \but at least gave people an alternative of public insurance. It had the support of many Democratic politicians, including moderate ones. ...And those awful unyielding "progressives" did agree to support that compromise, as at least a step towards wider social-insurance.
But NOOOOOOO.....The corporate wing of the Democratic Party undercut even that compromise. And President Obama joined them, rather than putting his support behind a public option.
As a result we ended up with a system that went in the wrong direction overall.
It was designed by Republicans and the insurance industry to continue to keep us enslaved to insurance companies. It embedded the insurance companies even further into the healthcare system -- and it forced Americans to buy their overpriced coverage. (Only relief was to become poor enough to qualify for so-called subsidies or Medicaid. Middle class continues to be hammered.)
In other words, even the actual compromise was killed to placate Big Insurance. We were thrown crumbs while those at the root of the problem were given 90 percent of the loaf.
And you wonder why people get a little bit upset at the status quo?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Let's say you are the President. You need 60 votes. The GOP, on the night you took office, decided to never vote with you on anything.
You want the PO. You have 54 dems lined up to vote yes. All that remain are 5 of the standard blue dogs, and Joe Lieberman. You have to get those 6 votes to get to 60.
I'll spot you 5 of the 6. Something has happened and they are all willing to vote yes. You need just one more, Joe Lieberman.
You are the President. How will you get Lieberman to vote yes?
When you explain how you will accomplish this ... please include how you overcome these 3 facts.
1) Lieberman campaigned against you and for your opponent, John McCain. McCain would have made him SecDEF if he won.
2) Lieberman is known as the "Senator from Aetna".
3) Lieberman has already declared that he will not seek another term. He knows he has a cushy think tank job lined up down the road.
So please explain how you, as President, get Lieberman to vote YES vote for the PO.
(I'll give you a hint. You can't. But please feel free to try.)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)from the beginning i would not have let things get to that point in the first place.
Since you asked what I personally would have done if I were Obama and the Democratic leadership, there are many things that could have been done differently, starting from the beginning.
If it were me, for example, I would not have tried to push through an all encompassing systemic reform at a time when the nation was struggling to survive a devastating economic crash.
If a complete overhaul was not possible, I would have taken a step-by-step approach moving towards the concept of a public coverage system, and building public support for it.
I would have started by pushing for something straightforward, like an option for anyone to have the option to buy into Medicare, with the payments as a percentage of income.
It would be hard to object to that, since it didn't force people to change their coverage, but it would give them an affordable alternative. (And the same principle as private insurance would have made it fiscally feasible, by having young healthy people paying into the system to help offset the costs of older ones.)
It would have also addressed issues like pre-existing conditions. if your insurer dumps you, you'd have someplace to go for coverage.
I would have worked hard to sell that to the public, explain its benefits and reassure them that they still have the option of keeping their existing privater coverage if they want. And I would have cracked a lot of Democratic heads in Congress to line up for that.
If it were promoted right, and was still defeated, at least it would have laid the groundwork for another try. And also shown the GOP as being against the people, and projected the Democrats as the party that fights for people.
That' s just one possible strategy.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)He does not care what the public thinks ... most of which thinks your proposal of "socialist government coverage" means the death of freedom and America.
But let's pretend you get a majority of the public to support your ideas. Lieberman doesn't care.
How exactly are you going to "crack his head"?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)then the President and Democratic leadership is not doing their jobs.
You are missing -- or avoiding -- my point.
This fatalistic notion that we had to totally undercut real healthcare reform just to placate one recalcitrance Senator -- who is no longer there -- is a demonstration of the larger problem with Democrats. And its why the GOP almost always gets their way.
There are always going to be opponents to a policy, both among the opposing party and within ones own party.
Smart political leadership works to get enough people on the same page to pass what they want, or a reasonable compromise.
Perhaps, Joe would have defeated a different proposal like the one I mentioned. But at least the Democrats could have put it on the table and and set the table for doing it again. And capitalizing on it politically, by showing the GOP for what they are.
Instead we got this messy muddle of mixed messages and contradictory proposals, which ultimately undermined the very concept of real health reform and alienated the public....Just to placate corporate assholes and GOP CONNEDservatives, who would never support any kind of reform in the first place.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Of course, what you have described is something we are not supposed to have recognized.
One strategy to keep this recognition down to an absolute minimum is the familiar ramped up anti-ACA right wing noise machine.
It ain't no conspiracy if it's true.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)We give them what they want, and they give us what they don't care about...and we are told to celebrate it as a victory.
They got billions of dollars and we got an end to DADT...something that don't effect their bottom line in the least.
And with the ACA we got a mandate to buy insurance from private for profit companies and again those companies got millions of new customers and will increase their profits and CEO pay by billions...and we get to pay for it...But we got insurance...if we can afford it...and if we can't then there will be a fine.
What is wrong with this picture?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)we get to undo a previous compromise. That's a hell of a set up for the GOP and lots of needless delays for Democrats and for progress if that is to be the standard process. Cyclical sort of thing.
So wow, Democrats made a deal to undo the other deal they made. After 10 fucking years of harassment of gay troops. Very impressive.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)the outright banning of gays in the military?
Cause that was what was being pushed at the time. Sorry DADT was a victory at the time for gay rights. Calling it a mistake is revisionist history.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)
This should come as no surprise. The Democratic Party must crush its opposition to the left until such time as the American people are so miserable that the Democratic Party must, instead, co-opt the ideas and policy positions of those to its left.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Democratic Party actually trying to co-opt us on the left rather than crush us, but there's still a "crush the left" attitude expressed by many DU posters.
-Laelth
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think you just said a lot more about yourself and those agreeing with you under this OP than those folks pointing out this kind of evidence.
For instance:
Obama voting as a compromise to pass a law that contains some SNAP cuts = Bad to you and those who agree with you in this OP
Sanders voting as a compromise on that same bill to pass it in the senate = Silence from you and those who agree with you in this OP
Obama supporters in DU pointing this out = "Attempting to tarnish Sanders" in your estimation
No, we're not attempting to tarnish Sanders. We're attempting to show you that there are no superheroes out there who don capes when they dress. There are folks who understand political realities and deal with the hands they are given the best way they can.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"We're attempting to show you that there are no superheroes out there who don capes when they dress. There are folks who understand political realities and deal with the hands they are given the best way they can."
I don't have time to go into the many examples that contradict that stereotype. And i can only speak for myself.
At age 61, I think i realize there are no "superheroes." I also have a fairly good understanding of the concept of compromise.
But I also realize that compromise is a whole lot different that advancing the agenda of the other side -- meaning the forces of the wealth and power that attempt to siphon off the entire economy into their pockets, and take over the entire political system. The GOp is the most obvious example, but when Democratic leaders do it they deserves to be called out for it too.
That does NOT imply that I expect there to be any superheroes or totally pure politicians. But there is a difference between who clearly stand for a set of clear principles and make compromises and deals -- and others whose principles are muddy and who more often undercut liberal positions than advance them.
--- And by liberal, I am simply talking about what used to be considered mainstream liberal values which are now branded as "the left."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)people who point out when Sanders and Warren are doing the same things Obama is doing or supporting the things Obama is doing as tarnishing Sanders and Warren. And my analysis of that stands and is not addressed by your comments.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I agree with the point that too many people seem to set up a false dichotomy.
They have a fabricated universe in which it is all about personalities and loyalty or disloyalty to Obama and the Democratic Party leadership.
They assume that everything is put into that filter.
I am a big Bernie booster. I have been since the 90's when he was much moire of a voice in the wilderness in the 90's. When Clinton and the DLC were singing the praises of Greenspan, for example, Sanders was calling him onto the carpet, and pointing to the calamity that was building beneath the glossy surface of The Unsustainable Bubble.
I also happen to like Obama, and recognize he has done some good things. But he also has fallen deeper into that Corporate Democrat Trap that is not a matter of "compromise" but is a matter of actually advancing the interests of those who are undermining the natire of our economy and society for the gain of a few.
Those instances are when i get pissed.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)" There are folks who understand political realities and deal with the hands they are given the best way they can."
If that is true for the Democrats then it also is true for the Republicans, they have no agenda, they understand political realities and deal with the hands they are given the best way they can.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)it's like they are completely ignorant of who and what we once were, or in the alternative, prefer to be something different.
I know I have and I'm sure others have made this same case
These days, the Democratic Party acts more like an enabler of the Republican Party as it seeks to poison the memory of the 32nd president and bury the significance of what FDR accomplished. Instead of highlighting Roosevelt’s remarkable legacy, today’s Democrats seem afraid to argue the point that government is vital to a successful society. They shy away from that debate despite the fact that the lessons of Roosevelt are central to solving the problems that the nation faces in 2014.http://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/04/fear-itself-democrats-duck-fdrs-lessons/
Besides the mainstream Democrats and their timidity, many average Americans suffer from “terminal historical amnesia” and appear oblivious of the history of FDR’s era. Too many who came of age in the years of Ronald Reagan (and after Reagan) bought into his idiom that “government is the problem” and his prescription of ”trickle-down economics” (giving massive tax cuts to the rich and trusting that their investments and spending will spill over to raise the living standards of working- and middle-class Americans).
although I see it more of a matter of cooperation rather than timidity. There's no debating this as a factual matter imo, there's just mealymouthed nonsense designed for and intended to obscure it. DC has moved continually rightward as we the people have moved collectively in the opposite direction.
FDR was spot on with his "there's nothing to fear..." line, because it is the fear of the ever escalating rightwingnuttery that provides the impetus for acceptance of our "liberal" leaders to keep taking steps in the rightward direction with those feared. Call me silly, but I see orchestration in all of this, not happenstance. This can be seen in seemingly innocuous things like replacing "inequality" and the focus on it that most accurately describes the elephant in the room, to weazel words like "opportunity".
I've long wondered when and over what will enough be enough for the prisoners of fear to show the good sense of and exclusive support for what works and what doesn't that those like FDR gave us.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
Agony
(2,605 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)If someone talks and votes the way I would 90% of the time that is pretty darn good in the real world. If I really want someone whom I agree with 100% of the time, I had better run for - and win - the office myself.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)the need for one to resort to gross exaggeration to incite ridicule, while claiming a "righteous" position for themselves.
it's a dishonest tactic, whether it comes from Faux News or your average DU'er.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4436503
This mode of attack seems to be one of your favs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4435505
But hey, they lap it up every time.
supercats
(429 posts)The reality is that these corporate dems are not really dems at all.
They only use the democratic umbrella to get elected, but are truly
republicans in ernest. Kinda sums up Obama too, doesn't it?!
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)"the consistent effort by conservative, corporate dems to try and tarnish progressive politicians in the eyes of progressives is a riot. "
I agree, but I don't think it's either more widespread or sillier than attempts by people on the left of the Democratic party to make its centrists look bad - often using words like "conservative" and "corporatist" when they mean "left of centre, but not as left of centre as I am".
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)who is happy about NYC's new mayor. I hope that we find more democrats like him. Yes, I know it is early, very early days yet.
How about the different people on DU proposing a new platform for the Democratic Party. There are very intelligent persons here. Perhaps then we find out the true differences as well as possibly new ideas.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Well sometimes it matters what people say and who they were and how they voted before their last campaign. And sometimes it should.
cali
(114,904 posts)I knew it was based on lies. JK and HC and the rest were told by their peers that that was so. they voted for it to advance their presidential aspirations.
yeah, that's contemptible.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)And it's funny to watch!
Rex
(65,616 posts)Authoritarians of all stripes are getting extremely desperate. Pretending their shit don't stink!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)you don't give Obama any breaks at all - the constant whinging and belly aching and enrageaholicing here reads like a Bagger forum sometimes.
but you are willing to give Warren and Sanders breaks, and well you should. I do too.
So Warren voted for the military expenditures and Bernie did the Farm Bill vote - so what.
Neither of those votes changed my mind about the whole person - I'm old enough to realize that we have to do things that we don't like sometimes, and that sucks but it's a reality. So I am not going to throw away Warren because of that.
But Obama is very throw awayable and disposable, APPARENTLY. Any mistep real or made up and the big guns come out a blasting. It's fucking pathetic.
djean111
(14,255 posts)As a matter of fact, Obama is now a lame duck. I could care less about him, as a person. We got him elected, because he is a Democrat, and electing a Republican is a noxious thought indeed.
Obama's POLICIES will affect all of us long after he has gone to whatever nice job he has waiting for him.
Sometimes the dogged insistence on veneration makes me worried that his fans are angling for a third term.
We need to focus on Democrats, not just one guy. Warren and Sanders still have a political and legislative life ahead of them. Obama does not. This is not Obama Underground, it is Democratic Underground. If future candidates have to run with or against Obama's policies, that affects everyone, as it affects the makeup of Congress. And I am sick and tired of the Third Way Faux-Democratic shit.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)You could care less about him as a person?
djean111
(14,255 posts)It is not germane to politics or to my life.
You are twisting my words to mean something almost sinister, when that is not what I meant.
I am sure he is very nice. I do not wish him ill. I do not hate him.
I only care about his policies. This is not a fan club.
brooklynite
(94,725 posts)Explain how disagreeing with another politician's positions is "tarnishing" them.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)As his DU detractors make him out to be as evidenced by actual vote positions of "approved" progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
I'm sure this same point has been made multiple times up thread, but I just had to clarify in my own words.
These examples aren't being brought up to sow dischord among progressives--it is done to show how unfair people area being.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Exactly like people who bring up things they don't like about Obama are doing it in order to depress the vote.
The biggest problem is that any practical politics going on is happening within the Democratic party, gridlock ain't politics, the bigger the Democratic tent gets the more opportunity there is for scuffles or even more than scuffles going on inside it.
In a parliamentary system the Democrats would be at least two parties and quite possibly more than that, the interests are too diverse to comfortably fit within a single party.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)So great to see DU slapping down the bullshit.
