Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 07:39 AM Jul 2014

What Does the Democratic Party Actually Believe?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/180579/what-does-democratic-party-actually-believe



To put it crudely, the dilemma facing the Democratic party comes down to this: Will Dems decide next time to stand with the working people, or will they stick with their big-money friends in finance and business? Some twenty years ago, Bill Clinton taught Democrats how they can have it both ways. Take Wall Street’s money—gobs of it—while promising to govern on a heart-felt agenda of “Putting People First.”

It worked, sort of, for the party. Not so much for the people. New Democrats prevailed. Old labor-liberals lost their seat at the table. Among left-wing malcontents, Bill Clinton became “slick Willie.”

Now economic adversities have blown away the Clinton legacy, which is rightly blamed for much of what happened to middle-class wage earners. New voices like senators Elizabeth Warren and Sherod Brown are demanding a new new politics—big governing reforms that really do put people first. The old New Dems are stuck with their moderation and obsolete economic doctrine that is utterly irrelevant amid the nation’s depressed circumstances.

Sooner or later I expect politics will change, because the injuries and adversities will not go away in the absence of stronger government interventions. For now, however, the Clintonites are the Democratic Party, having deliberately excluded liberal thinkers and activists from the ranks of government policymakers for two decades. Economic experts recruited by the Obama administration are more likely to have been trained at Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. They do not personally share the public’s anger.
78 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What Does the Democratic Party Actually Believe? (Original Post) xchrom Jul 2014 OP
Extra-judicial drone killings, War&MIC, Banks, Big Oil, Off-shoring, and spying on US citizens. n/t PowerToThePeople Jul 2014 #1
+1!!!! newfie11 Jul 2014 #2
And healthcarecare expansion and ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #6
Health insurance expansion, not health care expansion JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #32
who promised you single payer, President Kucinich? nt geek tragedy Jul 2014 #36
Yes Kucinich did in fact, but Obama in contrast to Clinton promised a public option Dragonfli Jul 2014 #42
I don't see a veto promise in that video. geek tragedy Jul 2014 #43
Semantics? Really? "Any plan I sign must include" does not use the word veto but... Dragonfli Jul 2014 #45
what a shocking development, a president didn't get everything in legislation geek tragedy Jul 2014 #46
But ... But ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #47
I merely posted his own words, the ones that convinced me to vote for him Dragonfli Jul 2014 #48
Did I say anything about "single payer?" JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #61
Eliminating insurance companies geek tragedy Jul 2014 #62
Nor did I say anything about "eliminating insurance companies" JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #70
You are the one hurling attacks, not I, if one actually reads the posts. geek tragedy Jul 2014 #74
Well ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #44
Who promised me, what? JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #72
Yes, a fantasy ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #73
Well of course the policies look bad...when you list them out like that. nt Romulox Jul 2014 #17
enormous health insurance profits, fracking, TPP Doctor_J Jul 2014 #40
The Labour Party sellout Big_Harry Jul 2014 #77
This article is incorrect MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #3
Could be OR it could just be theater. stillwaiting Jul 2014 #5
I have been in several extended face-to-face arguments with mid-level bankers MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #15
They are mad because they know he is right on the merits, and they have no argument. bemildred Jul 2014 #18
You're right, I think MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #24
Words are just weapons. bemildred Jul 2014 #27
They just can't tell you what they really think, that's all. Marr Jul 2014 #41
You might be right MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #49
I KNEW Elvis wasn't dead!!! DeSwiss Jul 2014 #19
I can't imagine how they'd feel if a true progressive were in the White House. stillwaiting Jul 2014 #54
Perhaps they're getting a confusing mixed message from our government MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #59
You must lead a sheltered life. zeemike Jul 2014 #12
Yep. What they expect is lots of service and non-stop praise. Marr Jul 2014 #38
The (peaceful) "surprise rebellion" we need democrank Jul 2014 #4
Wouldn't it be pretty to think so? JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #33
If you can't beat 'em (GOP), join 'em! Demeter Jul 2014 #7
Whatever it takes Sherman A1 Jul 2014 #8
I think it is all pretty out in the open - TBF Jul 2014 #9
Agreed, with one difference... bullsnarfle Jul 2014 #50
I'll accept that change of vocabulary :) nt TBF Jul 2014 #53
They believe in "the people" for votes..... vi5 Jul 2014 #10
Excellent!!! Thespian2 Jul 2014 #11
I repeat myself. Hotler Jul 2014 #13
It's that bad. Fuddnik Jul 2014 #28
Papa Paul's infiltrators hard at work today, heh? Cryptoad Jul 2014 #14
Yup. FUDers gotta FUD...nt SidDithers Jul 2014 #20
Who you gonna vote for? Fuddnik? Fuddnik Jul 2014 #29
Harper appears to share many a view with my good friend Sid, that'd be my guess. Dragonfli Jul 2014 #31
Yes, The Nation is the go-to mag for Ron and Rand Paul supporters. smokey nj Jul 2014 #22
No shit. When you're dismissing The Nation out of hand for it's agenda, it's probably time Marr Jul 2014 #66
A nasty innuendo based on political ignorance n/t Oilwellian Jul 2014 #34
William Greider and The Nation = Papa Paul? progressoid Jul 2014 #57
C'mon, you can't expect "New Democrats" to be familiar with left-leaning publications. Marr Jul 2014 #67
Because if there's one thing libertarians are concerned with, JoeyT Jul 2014 #69
K&R DeSwiss Jul 2014 #16
Whatever Uncle Milty Friedman stood for. raouldukelives Jul 2014 #21
Depends on which Democratic Party we're talking about. NorthCarolina Jul 2014 #23
no, the Clintonites are NOT the Democratic Party --- there are many anti-DLC/anti-Third Way antigop Jul 2014 #25
Your post conflates two separate entities - politicians and the Democratic Party. sybylla Jul 2014 #26
K&R / Until later when I may have time to comment. Good post X we need to discuss the elephant ITR Dragonfli Jul 2014 #30
K&R. Well said. Overseas Jul 2014 #35
the Democratic party is not a single entity with a single consciousness geek tragedy Jul 2014 #37
Without a unifying set of beliefs, our party is vulnerable derby378 Jul 2014 #75
there is actually a lot more agreement within the party geek tragedy Jul 2014 #76
Dem voters believe in liberal policies and fighting conservatives. DC dems believe in nothing. Doctor_J Jul 2014 #39
I to tell the truth do not know what the Democratic Party believes... Xyzse Jul 2014 #51
Huge K & R !!! WillyT Jul 2014 #52
DURec leftstreet Jul 2014 #55
As far as I can tell, it believes in getting elected and then getting reelected, and anything djean111 Jul 2014 #56
That, I believe, is the long and the short of it. LuvNewcastle Jul 2014 #78
It believes that as long as the Repubs are awful they can win by being "Not as bad". Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2014 #58
I found the placement of this article to be ironic hfojvt Jul 2014 #60
k&r. Thanks, xchrom. I guess Greider is on the Clinton frenemy list. nt antigop Jul 2014 #63
Powerfull and truthfull!!!!!!!!! mylye2222 Jul 2014 #64
just win, baby frylock Jul 2014 #65
I believe you nailed it. Savannahmann Jul 2014 #68
Outstanding OP Populist_Prole Jul 2014 #71
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
6. And healthcarecare expansion and ...
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:21 AM
Jul 2014

gender equality and GLBTQ equality and racial equality and attempting to wind down two wars (in an effective manner) while avoiding at least 3 others and treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and getting other nations to do likewise and increasing green energy initiative/incentives and ...

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
32. Health insurance expansion, not health care expansion
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 10:35 AM
Jul 2014

There is a difference. It is still the for-profit health insurance companies that stand between us and health care. That is better than nothing, but it is not the reform we were promised. It is the same process expanded; a little more health care and a lot more health insurance corporation. Real reform would be changing the manner in which we deliver health care.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
42. Yes Kucinich did in fact, but Obama in contrast to Clinton promised a public option
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:13 AM
Jul 2014

In fact he claimed he would not sign a bill without it.



But the point the poster was making was that we did not get a health care law but rather a health insurance law, two very different things considering that the biggest role insurance plays is to deny procedures and medications, they actually provide no health care but simply act as unneeded gatekeeper middlemen that extract profit from misery.
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
43. I don't see a veto promise in that video.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:16 AM
Jul 2014

Well, if you want a government takeover of the entire healthcare system, you'll have to elect people who explicitly advocate that. Even Medicare for All wouldn't do anything about the actual delivery of health care.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
45. Semantics? Really? "Any plan I sign must include" does not use the word veto but...
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:23 AM
Jul 2014

you are just being silly with your semantic evasion, really, watch again and pay attention to the meaning of the very first sentence.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
46. what a shocking development, a president didn't get everything in legislation
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:26 AM
Jul 2014

that he insisted upon.

that only happens about 90% of the time

you're free to argue that he should have vetoed Medicaid expansion, ending pre-existing condition exclusions, etc because the public option got dropped from the final legislation.

but very few people outside of the Republican party share the viewpoint that it shouldn't have been enacted

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
47. But ... But ...
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:32 AM
Jul 2014

"If he hadn't bargained behind closed doors with Big Pharma and the Insurance industry, the Congressional legislation (and subsequent vote) would have been different!!!!"

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
48. I merely posted his own words, the ones that convinced me to vote for him
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:38 AM
Jul 2014
As you did not appear to remember them.

The discussion about what he claimed he would fight for and his very different starting position when the time actually came, as well as what he did and did not get that he insisted on is a rather large discussion that does not belong in a sub-thread.

What he insisted upon once elected and what he claimed he would insist upon previous to his election did change however. I realize you are not likely to admit to it (even to yourself) and so rather than argue pointlessly I will just accept that we disagree on what happened, but the events were recorded throughout the whole process and someday you really should look at the actual history rather than what you would like to believe.
 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
61. Did I say anything about "single payer?"
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 12:48 PM
Jul 2014

Did I claim we were promised single payer. Show me where I said that. Why attack someone for something he did not say? That's called a "cheap shot."

What I said was that what we were promised was reform, and what we got was an expansion of the existing system in which everyone purchases health insurance from for-profit insurance companies. That is not reform because it does not in any substantive way change the existing system.

The only way in which recipients are helped by the health insurance expansion is that a small amount of regulation is added to extend it to more people (about 50 million out of the 315 million population, or 15%), and the government will pay part of the cost. That's not a bad thing, but it's not the reform we were promised.

Reform: "make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it."

So insurance companies still make a guaranteed 25% markup on a larger volume of business, and the public still pays that markup along with higher and higher prices charged by providers.


 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
62. Eliminating insurance companies
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 01:05 PM
Jul 2014

necessarily implies single payer.

Also, it is factually inaccurate to claim that insurance companies are guaranteed 25% profit margins. Quite the opposite--their non-care items (profits, marketing, overhead , salaries) in TOTAL are CAPPED at 20%.

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
70. Nor did I say anything about "eliminating insurance companies"
Fri Jul 11, 2014, 01:29 AM
Jul 2014

Why are you so dedicated to attacking me for things that I DID NOT SAY?

There are many ways to reform the delivery of health care that do not require elimination of health insurance. Study Europe and you will find at least a dozen examples.

"it is factually inaccurate to claim that insurance companies are guaranteed 25% profit margins."

Which an another thing that I DID NOT SAY. I said that they are "guaranteed a 25% markup." If you have a smattering of business knowledge, you know that a 20% margin that the insurance companies are capped at requires marking up the cost by 25%. For example, if the provider charges $4 for a service, the insurance company adds $1 to that, which is a 25% markup. The resulting charge to the insured is $5, of which the cost to the insurer is $4, or 80% as required by the ACA. That is a 25% MARKUP, as I stated in my comment.

You are so busy playing attack dog that you merely display a vast degree of ignorance.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
74. You are the one hurling attacks, not I, if one actually reads the posts.
Fri Jul 11, 2014, 11:12 AM
Jul 2014

It is not my fault your posts make no sense and have little bearing to reality.

So insurance companies still make a guaranteed 25% markup on a larger volume of business, and the public still pays that markup along with higher and higher prices charged by providers.


...

If you have a smattering of business knowledge, you know that a 20% margin that the insurance companies are capped at requires marking up the cost by 25%. For example, if the provider charges $4 for a service, the insurance company adds $1 to that, which is a 25% markup. The resulting charge to the insured is $5, of which the cost to the insurer is $4, or 80% as required by the ACA. That is a 25% MARKUP, as I stated in my comment.


Sir, it is not I who is demonstrating, to use your phrase "a vast degree of ignorance."

1) they are not 'guaranteed' anything--if they don't deliver coverage at competitive prices, they will go out of business since consumers can simply take their business elsewhere. that's the entire idea of the exchanges. such market-based pressure may in fact reduce their overhead+profit below 20% in order to remain competitive. This is basic stuff, your inability to grasp it is not a mark in your favor.

2) insurance companies do not "mark up" costs--they take in premiums, and then pay the amounts invoiced by the providers.

And note that you said they "make" a mark up of 25%. Clearly an incorrect statement on your part--they make at most 20%. In fact, it is a GUARANTEED that they will make less than 20% profit, since their overhead and costs--from salaries to the electricity needed to run the computers--comes out of that 20%.

3) perhaps you meant to say that insurance companies can represent up to a 25% transaction cost (note: not guaranteed, 25% is a ceiling, not a floor), so if X is the value of services provided, and Y is the value of premiums paid, then Y=1.25*X. There are several embedded assumptions in this, some almost certainly false. One such assumption is that NONE of the maximum 20% devoted to profits and administrative expenses are necessary. Another is that insurance companies will have no motive to push back on provider prices, when quite clearly they will and are doing so--it is not uncommon to read about providers that are extremely expensive not taking certain insurance companies because those insurers are not willing to pay those prices.
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
44. Well ...
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:19 AM
Jul 2014
Health insurance expansion, not health care expansion. There is a difference.


I suspect that those previously denied access to healthcare, that now - because of the "health insurance expansion" - now have access, would disagree.

That is better than nothing, but it is not the reform we were promised.


Who promised you, what? I agree that the health insurance model should be a not-for-profit model; but this nation is a long way away from that ... the people are not ready for that big a change and government has not figured out how to do it without hurting the citizenry (in the short term).

The ACA allows states with their own exchanges to establish a single-payer model for healthcare financing ... how many states have acted? One! Doesn't that speak to the readiness of the people for the change?

And the state that is trying to establish single-payer ... Vermont ... is catching hell trying to figure out how to make it work.

But the benefit of typing your fantasy on the internet is you don't have to consider what others are thinking/willing to support AND you don't have to figure out how to make it actually work ... all you have to do is type.

{ETA: The ACA is an exemplar of how national programs should work ... an idea was developed, implemented and proved effective at the state level (Romney-care) ... That Massachusetts experiment was established on the national level (sans the problem areas proved in Massachusetts); while allowing the states to experiment with the next (and more desirable) healthcare financing scheme (Vermont's single-payer program). When/if Vermont is successful, it will/can be rolled out, nationally.

That is the most effective, least disruptive model for large-scale programmatic change.}
 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
72. Who promised me, what?
Fri Jul 11, 2014, 10:19 AM
Jul 2014

My memory extends back to the 2008 campaign very well. Does yours? So here's a qiick test. How many times did Obama mention "health insurance expansion?" How many times did he mention "health care reform?" The answer to the first question is zero, but that's what we got. The answer to the second question is one hell of a lot of times, and that's what we did not get. So don't play word games with me. I'm not saying that health insurance expansion is a bad thing, I favor it,k but it is not what Obama campaigned on and is not what he promised.

"But the benefit of typing your fantasy on the internet is you don't have to consider what others are thinking/willing to support AND you don't have to figure out how to make it actually work ... all you have to do is type."

Fantasy? Canada made the change from for-profit insurance controlled health care delivery to single payer health care for all, and they managed to do it without tearing their contrry apart or disrupting their economy. What do they have that we do not? Are they smarter than we are? Are they tougher or more able to adapt? All we have to do to figure out how to make it work is to look to Canada. And don't start with all the nonsensical tales of Canadian waiting lists, because any Canadian will tell you that we are idiots to stay with the FUBAR system we have.

Yes, Obama said that single payer would be "too disruptive" and took it off the table. When I see that accepted as a reason to avoid change three things come to mind: laziness, complacence and cowardice. We are too afraid of change to go for something better, but would rather stay with the messed up, costly, inefficient mess that we have. We lack the courage to improve.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
73. Yes, a fantasy ...
Fri Jul 11, 2014, 11:01 AM
Jul 2014

you do realize that it took Canada better than 20 years to come anywhere near the system that it enjoys today ... and it evolved exactly the way the U.S. system is headed - one Province (State) at a time.

All we have to do to figure out how to make it work is to look to Canada.


You hear that Vermont? ... All you have to do is look at Canada! Simplistic Fantasy Thinking.

Yes, Obama said that single payer would be "too disruptive" and took it off the table. When I see that accepted as a reason to avoid change three things come to mind: laziness, complacence and cowardice.


I can think of a fourth thing ... being bound by reality. Again, the benefit of typing your policy fantasy on the internet is you don't have to consider what others are thinking/willing to support AND you don't have to figure out how to make it actually work ... all you have to do is type.
 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
40. enormous health insurance profits, fracking, TPP
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:10 AM
Jul 2014

pretty much everything people voted AGAINST in 2008.

Big_Harry

(9 posts)
77. The Labour Party sellout
Fri Jul 11, 2014, 12:18 PM
Jul 2014

I stay in Scotland and the Labour Party have just join the Torie party and just pass a bill,, to keep all our phone and internet records forever,,, well fuck me with a baseball bat,, the Labour Party has just left me I be voting yes to a free Scotland sept.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
3. This article is incorrect
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 07:59 AM
Jul 2014

The bankers from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup *are* angry. At Obama. They feel he's unfairly demonized them.

It's as bat#%^* crazy as the folks who claim he's a Socialist.

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
5. Could be OR it could just be theater.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:21 AM
Jul 2014

If the bankers publicly demonstrated that they were happy with both political parties then the con on most Americans would be easily apparent for even the densest Americans.

I often feel like they know they must PRETEND they are furious with Obama/Democrats in order to put on the big show. After all, Obama has stacked his Administration with banking and finance guys, and they are pretty much getting their way. They just can't publicly acknowledge that. Anyways, that's how I feel quite often.

I'm sure they know that Obama must sometimes SAY "bad things" about them. If Obama governed (Cabinet appointments, major policy initiatives) along the lines of what he says in his speeches I would be a massive fan of his. Obama often says things that I support. It's what he does too often that I have problems with (TPP is at the top of the list right now).

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
15. I have been in several extended face-to-face arguments with mid-level bankers
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 09:18 AM
Jul 2014

and they hated, hated Obama because he has called them out a couple of times and mentioned income inequality. Great anger, these were friends and family and alcohol was involved, so I suspect it was real.

Having a discussion with an otherwise-very-smart person who's totally nuts about one subject like this is bizarre. It's like dealing with a genius who insists that Elvis is living in their basement.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
18. They are mad because they know he is right on the merits, and they have no argument.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 09:23 AM
Jul 2014

They are not used to being questioned at all.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
24. You're right, I think
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 09:56 AM
Jul 2014

It's weird. Their arguments shattered once I asked a few simple questions, such as "How have the wealthiest done compared to everyone else since Obama took office?", and "Why did GM need to change its CEO to get bailed out, but Wall Street got tens or hundreds of times more money with zero preconditions", etc.

Since they're smart, they know their arguments are broken and they tend to get into this weird state of amused, indignant, and quieter. Something like "You got me... maybe... clever... need to think about why you're wrong..." It's like they never, ever thought of these things before.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
41. They just can't tell you what they really think, that's all.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:12 AM
Jul 2014

I think they understand that much of their public dogma is nonsense, but that's just the sales pitch. Their only real ethos is "give me more because I'm better".

Every time I hear them talk about ideals, the negative space their arguments leave seem to be shaped like the poor neighborhoods in a Dickens novel.

I think most of these people believe, vaguely, in a kind of social Darwinism, where the people who don't make money simply starve to death or die for lack of healthcare, leaving only what they deem "the strong" (people just like themselves, surprise).

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
54. I can't imagine how they'd feel if a true progressive were in the White House.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 12:03 PM
Jul 2014

Their greed has made them irrational.

I am sure there are at least some bankers and financial elite that realize they have heavily benefitted from Obama and his policies, and I do believe some of them put on a show in the media.

That they want even more while they actively lobby for the 99% to receive even less while so many are struggling to make ends meet makes them quite vile.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
59. Perhaps they're getting a confusing mixed message from our government
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 12:28 PM
Jul 2014

They're hearing that they are good people, they're shrewd businessmen, they do nothing wrong, but somehow we should pay the 99% more.

Perhaps if they heard "cheating people and otherwise breaking the law will put you in jail" they'd understand that this is a "not following the rules" problem, not a "you're following the rules but you have a moral failing for doing that" problem.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
12. You must lead a sheltered life.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:52 AM
Jul 2014

No bat shit crazy would ever call Obama a socialist...he is a Marxist Communist, and a secret jehadist intent to bring Sharia law the the USA...that is how bat shit crazy is done...learn your bat shit crazy memes.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
38. Yep. What they expect is lots of service and non-stop praise.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:06 AM
Jul 2014

They want unquestioned bailouts whenever their scams require it, and they want to be lauded as geniuses and heroes and 'the people who make our country work'.

democrank

(11,052 posts)
4. The (peaceful) "surprise rebellion" we need
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:08 AM
Jul 2014

could happen with the help of a few principled, courageous leaders like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Their actions back up their words, something rarely seen in today`s political arena. Compromise can be a good thing....but not in this on-going atmosphere of false equivalency and parroting mainstream media. As far as I`m concerned, the 1% already have plenty of advocates and representatives in Washington.

Democrats will either find the courage to get back to their roots or many will continue to become more and more Republican. Take a look at how many Democrats today favor policies they were against under George Bush. It was pretty easy to get them to nod in approval.


 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
33. Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 10:38 AM
Jul 2014

But it doesn't happen in the real world. How long has Bernie Sanders been a "still small voice, crying in the wilderness?" People like Sam Nunn realized that and entered the private sector to do what they could do there. They realized they were powerless against the power structure in Congress.

TBF

(31,919 posts)
9. I think it is all pretty out in the open -
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:37 AM
Jul 2014

As much as I would advocate for Elizabeth or Hillary to be our next president (in terms of picking a person who is likely to be least hostile to women - as many know that is on my mind lately) - there is a larger problem here that we discuss daily in the socialist group:

Global capital is driving development in our world. Repugs are just out for profit - that is crystal clear. They keep the masses busy with God and guns while they plunder. Dems on the other hand are a little more people friendly on the surface but they are still playing ball with global capital. Jobs are being moved to cheaper areas and other cities left in shambles (see Detroit). We may be raising boats in some areas, but in others they are sinking. Dems are better (my opinion) at trying to extend the unemployment, retrain etc. Generally they try to make it a softer transition. But both parties are interested in keeping capitalism alive because they also are profiting off it. And too many people are falling in the cracks along the way.

How could this change? (1) Revolution (2) Redistribution via Taxes

Obviously most of us would rather see #2. Countries in Europe see all this happen and some have proposed minimum incomes. That is probably the best approach because there are not enough jobs for everyone in some areas. So I would advocate massive regulation and taxation on multinational corporations. The billionaires who ultimately run these multinationals have been plundering long enough and have so much influence that the corporations are considered people. That is wrong and needs to be reversed. We either rein them in (and we do it with threats of complete nationalization of major industries if they won't comply) or suffer the continuing consequences.

bullsnarfle

(254 posts)
50. Agreed, with one difference...
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:42 AM
Jul 2014

"But both parties are interested in keeping capitalism alive because they also are profiting off it."

You say "profiting". IMHO a better description would be "profiteering".

 

vi5

(13,305 posts)
10. They believe in "the people" for votes.....
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:42 AM
Jul 2014

...and corporations for money and legislating.

They believe they can get away with it because....well what are any of us peons going to do......vote for the other guys?

Hotler

(11,353 posts)
13. I repeat myself.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:57 AM
Jul 2014

I have no hope. I see no future.

Pretty damn sad when our best hope is with the Clintons.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
66. No shit. When you're dismissing The Nation out of hand for it's agenda, it's probably time
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 03:30 PM
Jul 2014

to ask yourself if you may have wandered a smidge off course.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
67. C'mon, you can't expect "New Democrats" to be familiar with left-leaning publications.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 03:32 PM
Jul 2014

What would Wall Street think?

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
69. Because if there's one thing libertarians are concerned with,
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:32 PM
Jul 2014

it's in feeding the hungry and regulating capitalism.

The desperate desire to label anyone that doesn't march in lockstep a libertarian gets stupider by the day.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
16. K&R
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 09:21 AM
Jul 2014
- There are other options that have worked -- for a while at least. For example:

''When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.....'' More@BigBrother'sArchives


raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
21. Whatever Uncle Milty Friedman stood for.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 09:38 AM
Jul 2014

Keep them in the dark, toss shiny things, they'll hardly notice the sting of the bite.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
23. Depends on which Democratic Party we're talking about.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 09:48 AM
Jul 2014

The old reliable one generally working for betterment of the 99%, or the new one catering to the 1% that's more into trade deals, pipelines, and a c'est la vie attitude towards anything Wall Street.

antigop

(12,778 posts)
25. no, the Clintonites are NOT the Democratic Party --- there are many anti-DLC/anti-Third Way
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 10:08 AM
Jul 2014

Democrats.

The Clintonites may run the Democratic power structure, but there are lots of Democrats who do not approve of the DLC/Third Way.

sybylla

(8,461 posts)
26. Your post conflates two separate entities - politicians and the Democratic Party.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 10:09 AM
Jul 2014

Unfortunately it's a common mistake.

The party, a democratic (small d) organization chooses what it believes through a democratic process and calls it a platform. Each state has it's own party platform. In most states it's surprisingly progressive, others not so much, but it's out there for everyone to see.

That's what the Democratic Party believes.

What politicians/candidates who call themselves Democrats do, say, and believe is very often another thing entirely.

The bigger the party, the more weight and pressure that comes to bear on electeds who call themselves Democrats. Conflating the two into one is like claiming Siamese twins are one person with one philosophy and one brain.

Worse, it contributes to the "both parties are the same" bullshit that goes around.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
37. the Democratic party is not a single entity with a single consciousness
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:04 AM
Jul 2014

and set of beliefs. It's a heterodox collection of millions of people representing the enormous diversity of the USA. There are some common principles, but there will always be internal disagreement as to how we achieve the best results, even where we agree what the best results look like.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
75. Without a unifying set of beliefs, our party is vulnerable
Fri Jul 11, 2014, 11:55 AM
Jul 2014

And we cannot afford to be known simply as the Party of Everyone Who Isn't a Republican.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
76. there is actually a lot more agreement within the party
Fri Jul 11, 2014, 12:12 PM
Jul 2014

than one would perceive, if one took DU to be representative.

there's general consensus that good paying jobs create prosperity for everyone, the need to recognize civil rights for everyone, that no one should die because they can't afford basic health care, the need to protect the environment and address climate change, that a society that concentrates wealth in a very few is on the wrong track, etc.

some people within the party disagree on how to achieve those, and there are some big cleaving points on some issues (trade being one, usually explained by jobs dedicated to the domestic market vs those that depend on exports), and there are dissidents on others (coal state democrats)

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
39. Dem voters believe in liberal policies and fighting conservatives. DC dems believe in nothing.
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:09 AM
Jul 2014

that's why we're facing another election debacle.

Xyzse

(8,217 posts)
51. I to tell the truth do not know what the Democratic Party believes...
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:47 AM
Jul 2014

However, whatever it is, it seems to align much closer to what I believe than what the Republicans currently espouse.

That is why I vote for them, no matter how I feel about the candidates that they end up with, as I vote against what some of the most damaging aspects of the Republican dogma.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
56. As far as I can tell, it believes in getting elected and then getting reelected, and anything
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 12:21 PM
Jul 2014

else is just what has to be said (not done) in order to get elected and then reelected.
What actually happens after getting elected is only viewed in the light of how it affects getting reelected.
And, of course, what happens after getting elected is whatever the big campaign contributors want, so that they will keep on contributing. So there can be getting elected and getting reelected.
The public good no longer matters, really. Unless doing something good for the public does not affect any bottom lines.

In the words of Brad Pitt (Killing Them Softly) - America is not a country. America is a business.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
58. It believes that as long as the Repubs are awful they can win by being "Not as bad".
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 12:26 PM
Jul 2014

And, reap the rewards of office while doing very little except being "not as bad".

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
60. I found the placement of this article to be ironic
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 12:30 PM
Jul 2014

this OP was right above (when I saw it) an OP that says "53% of millenials would support a socially liberal and fiscally conservative candidate".

This OP is saying that the Democratic Party needs to support the working class.

But to me, "fiscally conservative" basically means "pro corporate".

As in a majority of those youngsters, a slim majority, seem to support the old DLC - socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

 

mylye2222

(2,992 posts)
64. Powerfull and truthfull!!!!!!!!!
Thu Jul 10, 2014, 02:47 PM
Jul 2014

They even ostracized Dem leaders who didn't suit their agenda....and helped reinforce most corporatists GOPers...
Even Obama didn't suited to them...that's why the powerfull top staffers like Penn speaded all those horrible attacks on him in the 2008 Dem primiray...

Yes, the "Barack Hussein Obama Is a Muslim" non sense was MAINLY made by the Reps circle, but not only!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What Does the Democratic ...