dagblog - Comments for "Only By Uniting Together & Working/Fighting For Democracy, Will The People End Rule By Corporations & Billionaires"

Well I guess the progressive

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:57:31 +0000

Well I guess the progressive purists shouldn't have labeled Al Gore as the same as George W Bush, since Clinton/Gore raised taxes in the early 90's, added S-CHIP health care and tried to do universal health care, while balancing the budget to make room for more progressive projects (plus Al Gore proposed more international policing and agreements as our real answer to terror), while George W Bush slashed government spending, gave unaffordable tax breaks to the rich, got us into an unneeded unilateral multi-trillion war and stopped enforcing financial laws that led to the 2008 meltdown. (Clinton's team also tried to warn Bush about Al Qaeda and the housing bubble - roundly rebuffed on both counts)

Progressive purists then told me that Hillary was the same as Obama, but Hillary was too divisive. Instead I see Obama now trial ballooning a "centrist" Republican (something in the Unicorn/tooth fairy variety) for the empty supreme court seat, reminding me how much compromise he's done in 8 years. I'd prefer divisive.

So, you've been badly wrong twice, and now I'm supposed to climb on board train #3 because things have gotten horribly worse (as predicted*), and this time Bernie is going to set it right? When do purists apologize? oh, 15 minutes after never.

And yeah, I know it's hypocritical of Hillary to hug onto Obama, because the purists gave her no other way to go - she had to be a team player or go into terminal decline/retain the undeserved traitor and racist labels. Remember how unacceptable and overreaching it was that she might ask for VP slot after equalling Obama in the popular vote through the primaries? So now Bernie's won exactly 1 primary, and his followers are starting to expect he should be offered the VP slot if/when he loses. Hillary was pilloried for the PUMAs who never gained any traction since she shut them down and shut them up, but PUMA has become the explicit stance of many Bernie followers who can never "hold their nose" to vote for Hillary.

Hillary also recognizes the crisis in lack of wage growth and wage disparity and low job growth, and slams ridiculous pay for CEOs while others go without, and recognizes the need to improve health services for the poor, for women, etc. - as she's been doing for decades. I suspect it's time for you and other purists to get off your high horse and start recognizing that we're only discussing the degree and approach to tackling current problems with the existing Republican control of legislatures and governorships and Congress, and stop framing it as Hillary neocon vs. Bernie progressive savior. You're only making yourselves look petulant and inflexible and unrealistic, especially with the electorate not turning your way.

*note that "horribly worse" refers to during the 2008 campaign season. The situation's certainly improved over the disaster inherited January 2009, but there's certainly been no kumbaya as some expected in those again idealistic pre-tea party days.

(No subject)

synchronicity — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 04:59:21 +0000

In reply to Japanese whispers. A list

Japanese whispers. A list

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 03:43:02 +0000

In reply to http://www.politicususa.com

Japanese whispers. A list that includes grad student, a former congressman, someone in social research, etc morphs into "170 top economists". The only names of note are Baker, Reich and Galbraith, ie the usual suspects, and the message is political: banks must he broken up, thus this is our candidate, rather than an evaluation of the total economic package. Considering they want to bring down the biggest and baddest on Wall Street while Bernie wants to greatly use their assets to pay for his social programs, what happens in 8 years when they're too tiny so can fail and can't pay anymore? Oops, killed the goose laying the golden egg. And of course wall street's not going to sit still for the castration, and Occupy Wall Street already showed the public's not enough in arms the way a group of activists are over the then 4-year-old problems, now 7. Dead in the water. And the letter treats Wall Street and banks as monolithic, rather than look at where the Dodd legislation was effective and where it needs to be bolstered. Instead it's a panacea Glass-Steagall Bill-Clinton-wronged-us--and-we-want-it-right statement. More propaganda - we didn't buy it last time so Re-package and sell it to us in a different wrapper. #fail.

Hey, keep on keepin on.

Richard Day — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:07:18 +0000

In reply to Hi Dd, I am pretty busy

Hey, keep on keepin on.

You make me feel like a beautiful day! hahahahahah

Bernie is a goooooooooood man!

Hi Dd, I am pretty busy

synchronicity — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:01:42 +0000

In reply to Hi Sync, how you doin?

Hi Dd, I am pretty busy working to get Bernie Sanders elected. Our caucus is next Tuesday here in Colorado.

The weather has been really nice which is great:) How are things with you?

(No subject)

synchronicity — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:00:19 +0000

In reply to http://www.politicususa.com

http://www.politicususa.com

synchronicity — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:59:22 +0000

In reply to Bullshit simplicity as I re

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street.

A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street....

Bullshit simplicity as I re

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 06:03:17 +0000

In reply to (No subject)

Bullshit simplicity as I re-read this. It's easier to wage war against another Democrat than a grassroots movement against Republican conservatives nationally. Especially the hated Hilderbeast. I recall the same honorable "clean" campaign with Bradley and Obama - except that surrogates didn't have any such qualms, and of course the 2 candidates who came to the table prepared were roundly beaten by the media for being too wonkish and uninspiring and insincere and corrupt/going to jail, and this continued with the supporters. It's amazing how much traction the Buddhist Temple and invented the Internet "Scandals" got while Bush made up a fictitious tax plan to gut the budget and prepare for neocon Anschluss in the Mideast.

"There seems to be more common ground in the notion of 'things MUST change'." - yeah, I'd love that - so how about the fringe realize we live in a conservative country that requires a lot of compromise, and that calling the leading Dem candidate a bloodthirsty murderer who's going to jail doesn't help. Nor does misrepresenting her liberal career.

If Bernie has a real economic plan, have him push it in detail, rather than some bullshit economist wetdream that we can just pump out money and devalue it and raise taxes and because we're sovereign it all works out. First, that didn't help Jimmy Carter as us oldsters remember. Second, we can't just give the finger to Saudis and Japanese and Brits and Canucks and Chinese and French who own a lot of our debt without pissing them off and these days taking their money elsewhere - Asian investment is a lot more attractive and profitable than it was when these rules of thumb were devised in the 70s and 90s - we're no longer the only game in town.

It's funny that Trump can say"build a wall" and everyone laughs, but "progressives" can say "build an economic wall" and we think it's cool? It's great that we're giving software jobs to Indians and manufacturing jobs to Chinese and even a few It jobs are hitting Nairobi. But "progressives" want Bruce Springsteen/Deer Hunter days back. Sorry, we don't need tube Tvs anymore, but the good news is US automation and It and factory productivity up so we're increasing manufacturing jobs again even as people complain. The costs of dealing with the Chinese, bad communication and transportation have caught up and we're turning the corner - hooray anyone?

I don't buy the youth vote bullshit either. There was more crooked money in politics in the Mayor Daley and Jack Abramoff days, discounting the actual 2008-9 bailout. What we have is the usual every-4-year get out the vote civics class excitement combined with a bullshit social media echo chamber that makes meme harder to debunk in the information age. Oh, and people who don't understand processes. Of course I'm full of optimism that our levels of efficiency are improving - energy grid, getting oil, hopefully finally getting digitized medical records after 25 years, etc... But a lot of these efficiencies are outside gov where horse trading goes on. There was a large US mapping-the-genome project, 10 years, and some private firm came along and kicked their ass in 1 or 2. Elon Musk isn't doing the same thing as NASA or GM but he's leapfrogged a lot of their mistakes and old ways in a disruptive new way. But it's a mistake to think all problems can be innovated away in 1 year. It's taken solar 40 years to start being useful and practical. Some investments are dead end. And the reason the US S flexible and innovative is less about smart engineers and more about greedy venture capitalists and investment funds willing to take on higher risk looking for unicorns. Yeah, that includes those bastards Goldman Sachs - they may be lepers, but you want them on your side. Or else you end up like Europe, either a stodgy Germany or a disastrous Greek zone, even though European education is probably more advanced than ours. Smart people without capital are short-order cooks. But Bernie wants to tax these guys until they move their money overseas? The age of our Unicorns as already showing faultlines - the next president will have to deal withlack of profits that will again have a bad effect on wage inequality - I hope we have someone who understands this shit. We can squeeze the financial sector, but there are limits. It's not a wishlist personal piggy bank.

And there, a whole long comment without insulting Bernie's goals or ambitions, only questioning his financial advisors.

I guess I understand what you

Ramona — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:22:18 +0000

In reply to Point taken. All I can say is

I guess I understand what you're saying, Synch, but it's not comforting to know that some people would rather vote for Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton if Bernie doesn't win the primaries. That, to me, shows a complete lack of understanding of what's at stake.

You might feel a little trust of Hillary if you took the time to read what others have to say who have worked with her and know what she has done with them and for them. The caricature of her as a wicked, war-mongering Wall Street darling who lies every chance she gets and doesn't give a shit about the little people leaves out the parts about the good she has done over her 30-year career. That's not fair and balanced.

To say the divisions are all the fault of the Democratic party and of Hillary in particular ignores the attacks from the Sanders supporters who, as you say yourself, are so unhappy many of them are willing to punish the Democrats by undermining the entire election. I don't know how that helps anyone.

Hi Sync, how you doin?

Richard Day — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:07:43 +0000

In reply to Only By Uniting Together & Working/Fighting For Democracy, Will The People End Rule By Corporations & Billionaires

Hi Sync, how you doin?