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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Forget Sanders and Clinton for a moment. This is a symbolic schism that has been long brewing [View all]RichVRichV
(885 posts)153. Can't say I agree with all that.
That is, oddly, the exact opposite of my experience. Large businesses are watched. They are subject to corporate governance. They have huge piles of money lying around making them a worthwhile legal target for torts if they don't do absolutely everything exactly according to the law.
Where abuse happens in America is almost entirely in small and mid-sided businesses. And I'm not just talking about people refusing to sell cakes to gays. I'm talking wage theft. Employment abuse of illegal aliens. Sub-minimum wages. Hiring and firing based on illegal considerations. It happens all the time.
Where abuse happens in America is almost entirely in small and mid-sided businesses. And I'm not just talking about people refusing to sell cakes to gays. I'm talking wage theft. Employment abuse of illegal aliens. Sub-minimum wages. Hiring and firing based on illegal considerations. It happens all the time.
And that is the exact opposite of anything I have ever seen. Small businesses generally don't cheat their employees or customers because they don't have the legal means to be challenged by the NLRB, Attorney Generals, and lawsuits. When they do they usually end up sued or in jail. Not to mention they often can't afford the loss in customer base from bad publicity.
Every time I've seen people walked all over it's by large corporations, be it the employees (Wal Mart), the customers (Verizon with "billing issues" , or small businesses. Right now my local WISP is having to shut down a portion of its network because the local power company (who is a large monopoly) decided to install smart meters that stomp over an entire chunk of unlicensed spectrum. Instead of working with us to make everyone happy (as ever small wireless company has ever done) their response was tough luck. Not to mention how many times Wal Mart has sold at a loss in order to run competition out of an area only to jack prices up once all the mom and pops are gone.
About the Employment abuse of illegal aliens. A lot of that happens on farms. Most of the farms in this country are now corporate controlled.
Every single major abuse I've seen in business has been by the large corporations. They look at government fines as just a cost of doing business, not a deterrent. The bigger the corporation the more likely that is. Show me a small business that can afford to do that.
1) What do you judge the chances of passing a law to outlaw businesses from growing past a certain size to be? Consider any reasonable congressional electoral outcome in2016. Further, add in Supreme Court review.
The president doesn't need to pass new laws, just enforce the ones on the books. There's still tons of anti-trust laws that could be used to stop the worst offenses. It all starts with appointing people willing to enforce them as heads of regulatory agencies and giving them the green light to. No need to involve congress for solving a lot of this issue.
2) If someone who is very rich owns two mid sized corporations, instead of a single large corporation, what difference does it make?
That depends on how divested the corporations are from each other. If the corporations are sharing resources and knowledge, and using their combined power for influence then they fall under the same trust laws as a single corporation would. If they're truly divested of each other it limits the overall power they have to influence things (like owner or not).
3) Do you think fiddling with the rules about corporate governance are the key to energizing Millenials?
Considering Millennials are by and large going for Bernie (more than any other age group), you'd have to ask them that.
I will say that I agree that our system of allowing corporations to flee to Tax Havens should stop. Also, stop rewarding corporations that offshore with tax breaks. President Obama (who is called a "Corporatist" on the DU) has called for both of these things repeatedly in his SOTU address, with no action from Republicans. I'm not sure why that's his fault, or why the election of a Senator Sanders would change that.
No argument there. I don't blame President Obama for not getting things pushed through congress. I don't expect Bernie to get these things pushed through without a change in congressional layout. However, I do wish Obama would use the bully pulpit more as a bludgeon against the Republicans (it would help all Democrats). I also don't care for a lot of the appointees with strong corporate ties that he's put in charge of a bunch of the agencies. The lax regulatory oversight has been as big of an issue as the tax laws. It's something senator Warren is constantly harping on.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
290 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Forget Sanders and Clinton for a moment. This is a symbolic schism that has been long brewing [View all]
Armstead
Sep 2015
OP
There are Conservative Populists, Moderate Populists, Liberal Populists, Progressive Populists
Skwmom
Sep 2015
#11
I think the OP is correct about the split in the party. The DLC/Third Way takeover
sabrina 1
Sep 2015
#17
Your posts are full of attacks on your fellow DUers, express and implied, DUers who had not yet
merrily
Sep 2015
#188
Traditional Democrats were not the ones who initiated the division. The DLCers/New Democrats did.
merrily
Sep 2015
#186
Truth is, we need a different term. Liberal does have a component of laissez faire corporatism,
merrily
Sep 2015
#185
Well yeah but....I thin k a lot of people have no idea of what traditional Democrat is anymore
Armstead
Sep 2015
#237
Merrily, liberal is also 1 of 2 or 3 basic personality types. You could reject it because
Hortensis
Sep 2015
#275
Wow. Condescend much? You think we don't know about forging alliances or about Bernie?
merrily
Sep 2015
#190
I think middle ground exists, but the middle is not where DLC types say it is.
merrily
Sep 2015
#191
Okay, so like Armstead, you see corporate mergers as being the problem?
ConservativeDemocrat
Sep 2015
#141
Your pedantic claim that only you live "in the real world" is tiresome bullshit
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#219
One, thank you very much. And I reiterate, your claim is pedantic, tiresome, condescending bullshit
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#262
None of those things are the reasons why McGovern lost that election. And, this ain't 1972.
merrily
Sep 2015
#192
Yes. So stop ignoring the real reasons why McGovern lost and the real differences between 1972 and
merrily
Sep 2015
#196
I no longer attempt substantive replies to in the face of insulting, arrogant posts.
merrily
Sep 2015
#201
Most people who are looking at the polls believe that Clinton will be the nominee
Gothmog
Sep 2015
#255
Thanks, malokvale77. I never have a problem with anyone's disagreement on issues, even if
merrily
Sep 2015
#225
Yes: See 2010 and 2014 for the effects of running candidates unwilling to take
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#220
Nationwide polls? They show that, given a real choice, Americans are more liberal than the 3rd way
merrily
Sep 2015
#193
I certainly felt this schism back in 2008 when Edwards left the race then...
cascadiance
Sep 2015
#75
As did many of us, who liked that he was speaking more on many of the inequality issues directly...
cascadiance
Sep 2015
#134
Edwards, who was a third way legislator, was a slick talking snake oil salesman. JMO
merrily
Sep 2015
#198
A schism has been in the Party since Lincoln. FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ all dealt with it.
merrily
Sep 2015
#195
The problem we have is that we must draw the line somewhere. If Clinton wins the WH
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#118
Sorry, I don't think Conservative Democrat is right at all. Compare earlier posts in the Bernie
merrily
Sep 2015
#203
name calling? didn't you post up thread that liberals are actually communists who are
Doctor_J
Sep 2015
#152
Their name calling of us doesn't count, only our criticism of a professional politician on issues
merrily
Sep 2015
#211
"Pro-Business" is a Liberal capitalist. "Corporatist" is a Conservative capitalist.
ieoeja
Sep 2015
#76
So where did you get the idea that Secretary Clinton is a "Conservative Capitalist" ?
ConservativeDemocrat
Sep 2015
#82
So why is the ACA healthcare a modern version of conservative GOP Romneycare?
Armstead
Sep 2015
#105
Romneycare was modeled on Billarycare, which was modeled on Heritage Foundationcare, which was
merrily
Sep 2015
#206
so spot on -- it's about leveling the playing field so everyone can compete.
nashville_brook
Sep 2015
#233
Sorry, I'm not following. Who do you mean by "we?" Democratic politicians or Democratic voters?
merrily
Sep 2015
#215
Not woo. Your post could have been about me. Of course I have not a spec of woo.
Enthusiast
Sep 2015
#120
War has risks, well, winning a war requires taking risks, though, of course, one
merrily
Sep 2015
#218
American's now know that Wall St. isn't interested in solving economic and societal problems.
jalan48
Sep 2015
#19
I disagree. First of all, the large majority of Dems like both Hillary and Bernie.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#23
So what's the problem with Hillary then? She's basically the same place policy-wise.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#64
Those are labels, not policies. As far as gay marriage, again she's the same as Obama,
DanTex
Sep 2015
#67
It is a pretty brroad casting of the support of Hillary to say it is all "corporate"
Cosmocat
Sep 2015
#70
HRC - Is A DLCer & Obligated To Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks - A Favorite Friend Of The 1%
cantbeserious
Sep 2015
#24
I agree, and I would like to say that I think that Bernie is not talking about a socialist revolutio
JDPriestly
Sep 2015
#34
My husband says people are for Bernie because they are against corpotate crime.
JDPriestly
Sep 2015
#36
"Sometimes it's been subtle and duplicitous, hidden behind nice innocuous words. "
RufusTFirefly
Sep 2015
#54
Doesn't matter...When GOP is in power they get what they want. When the GOP is out of power...
Armstead
Sep 2015
#62
Hillary hatched her own discontent by supporting a shitastic set of policies
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#224
I disagree. Populists are not liberal and Populists are not Democratic or strongly democratic,.
Todays_Illusion
Sep 2015
#109
Populism itself is a fairly neutral term -- like all othrs open to interpretation
Armstead
Sep 2015
#148
The DLC/Third Way/Centrist faction cost us the House and the Senate and left Obama holding the bag!
Major Hogwash
Sep 2015
#149
I agree with you, we want a liberal not some fake liberal calling themselves populist.
Todays_Illusion
Sep 2015
#158
I see 2010 and 2014 as routs? Sorry, that is not exactly a subjective assessment.
merrily
Sep 2015
#240
I haven't forgotten how much I had before the Democratic Party went Third Way or what my vote was
mmonk
Sep 2015
#207