What does the Democratic Party stand for? What are our values?

[Zalatix]

One day we are against extrajudicial killings, the next a sizeable faction forms an e-mob to defend drone killings while no one calls them on their silence about innocent bystanders being killed.

One day we're in favor of fighting for workers' rights, the next we're bashing people who fought for relief from 110 degree temperatures at an Amazon warehouse. Then there's the rampant union-bashing.

One day we're hating on the big banks and Wall Street's excesses, the next we're pouncing on Occupy Wall Street for getting out and protesting against these things, and in a naked show of ignorance, accusing them of being ineffective.

These are but a small slice of the big pie of Right Wing ideas that have managed to creep their way into acceptance.

Supposedly, the Democratic Party is not the party of the Left. Okay. So what does the Democratic Party actually stand for?

[Mojorabbit]

1. I am afraid it depends on what the corporations want

I am pushing 60 and am amazed at where we are. If someone had told me when I was young that things would be like this now I would have laughed in their face.

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. I'm with you. I would never have believed Americans were this flat-out stupid.

I'm a decade behind you, but had an absolute faith in the American People. I really believed that they, or at least enough of them, saw through the smoke and mirrors and would do the right thing when it really mattered. And you know what? They used to.

Now, simply talking to the "average" American is both painful and futile. Most are nice enough, but are just so monumentally ignorant of, well... damn near everything, that there is no longer any point to engaging with them. I feel alienated in my own country.

[Zalatix]

11. +100. Sadly so.

[HiPointDem]

10. +1.

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. Being elected. Being not-republican n/t

[cthulu2016]

3. DU is not the Democratic Party

And no group of posters on DU can reliably be said to represent the state of the Party.

The Party has been non-liberal in a lot of ways for a long time. But DU was more reliably left, in aggregate.

Obama's election changed that. It made DU more mainstream.

IMO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Not as bad. The lesser of two evils. The 3rd Way.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

[limpyhobbler]

5. being not as bad as the gop nt.

[white_wolf]

7. The Democratic Party are the real conservatives.

The Republicans are now reactionaries and want to take us back to the 1880s or something. The democrats want to preserve our current corrupt system. Republicans want to make it worse. So the Democrats are better than the Republicans, but they still aren't good at all. The Democrats may be the lesser of two evils, but they are still an evil and they still pretty right-wing. It's the problem with our two party system.

[12ZTR]

8. What values?

You have no values when the leader of the party signs the NDAA.
When there isn't any prosecution for mortgage fraud.
ETC.,ETC.,ETC.

[msongs]

9. so far as I have heard dems have NOT presented an agenda/vision on why we should vote for them other

than they are not republicans. and by that I mean an official party-wide "if you vote for us here is what we will do" agenda

[coalition_unwilling]

12. The Republicans are so execrable that it is enough for now for the

Democratic Party merely to define itself as the 'not-Republican' party. Republicans favor torture as state policy? Fair enough, the Democratic Party is the 'not-Republican' party. Republicans advocate cutting 280,000 children off food stamps? No problem, the Democratic Party is the 'not-Republican' party.

Ad infinitum.

[Hayes23]

13. Spam deleted by Paulie (MIR Team)

[PBass]

14. I don't want to bust anyone's chops, because I've felt pretty cynical myself at times,

but y'all (the first handful of replies) are some sorry-ass Democrats. Like, wow.

First of all, the Democratic Party is the BIG TENT. We embrace people from all backgrounds, races, economic levels, sexual identities, religious beliefs (or none, if NA), and so on (and NOT just on paper, like the Republicans do with minorities and LGBT for example). Because we truly are the BIG TENT then it's inevitable that you'll regularly come across other Democrats who don't believe everything that you do. When you start talking about specific events (drone strikes) and specific issues (how viable is Occupy?) then it's guaranteed to bring friction between Dems front and center. I'm not saying we can't talk about things... we must! But also, understand the context (a single issue doesn't define Democrats!)

So lets talk BIG PICTURE. What do Democrats believe, when you start getting down to brass tacks?

One major cornerstone of our party is that we all generally believe that the Government (aka We The People) with all of our massive combined resources, has a fundamental POSITIVE ROLE to play in peoples' lives. (Republicans generally HATE this idea). To continue, by using our collective skills, intelligence, natural resources, infrastructure and finances, the Government (aka We The People) is able to provide a social safety net for our most vulnerable citizens; They are able to protect our citizens from unscrupulous business practices; They are able to regulate heavy industry to protect our air and water from pollution; They are able to build infrastructure like roads and bridges; Protect our citizens from discrimination because of their race, sexual orientation, economic status, etc; And so on and so forth (a book could be written here!). Not only "can" the Government (aka We The People) accomplish these things in the most fair and efficient way (superior to private businesses) Democrats believe it is the PROPER ROLE of the Government to do these things, and absolutely MANDATORY that the government is able to carry these duties out. Republicans do not! (They believe in the privatization or elimination of these roles. They believe Government (aka We The People) does NOT have a fundamental positive role to play in peoples' lives).

That is one HUGE, unmissable, don't-you-ever-forget-this, fundamental DIFFERENCE between Republicans and Democrats!

So please, start looking at BIG PICTURE and LONG TERM issues. Don't worry about the 24 hour news cycle (it will drive you crazy!) Right now everybody LOVES Harry Reid (the Honey Badger!) but I can vividly remember other times when he has seemed like the WORST Majority Leader ever... like a total back stabber and sell-out! In the end, he's still a Democrat! He believes in the government social safety net, and other bedrock tenets of our party. In the Big Tent you have to take the good with the bad! Chin up people, WE ARE WINNING. We'll probably win the presidency and maybe even control of both the House and Senate! In the long arc of history, LIBERALS ARE WINNING. Look at the younger generation -- they're mostly not Wingnuts! Wingnuts are a dying breed!

[Skidmore]

15. What PBass said.

Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.

No, we don't agree on all issues all the time but that doesn't mean we can't work together as a party. One size doesn't fit all. That type of thinking is so concrete.

[Zalatix]

18. What's this time-table you have for us "winning"?

If things don't change drastically, within the next 10 years, it won't make any difference.

For starters, global warming. We're feeling the dire consequences of it now.

[barbtries]

20. wonderful post.

there is so much to carp about. at the end of the day i am very glad to be a democrat. and i am a leftist bleeding heart liberal democrat. when i try to put it in a few words, i came up with this: democrats care about everyone. a stark difference between us and republicans.

republicans believe that the ends justify the means (no matter who gets hurt, destroyed, killed). add to this belief that their ends benefit only themselves and their corporate backers and there you go. a country, a nation goes to hell.

thank you for your post.

[JoePhilly]

21. YUP ... and too much infighting doesn't help us.

[HappyMe]

25. If I could rec this post, I would.

I don't understand this need for 'purity' tests.

[RC]

28. The tent is already too big.

Shear numbers is not the answer. The Democratic party needs to cull the DLC, 3rd way and DINO's and stop following in the foot steps of the Republicans in their quest to see how far off the cliff on the Right they can get before gravity takes over and we all go splat on the rocks at the bottom. Think lemmings here. That is what Big Tent thinking is.

In other words we need to pull the country back to the center and away from the Right hand cliff both parties are headed for. Currently the Democratic party is to the Right of the Conservatives of 40 years ago. Both parties are going in the same wrong direction. The difference between the parties is only a matter of degrees.

[Zalatix]

34. Indeed, when Republican president Teddy Roosevelt is too extreme left for us

then we've done something terribly wrong.

[Mojorabbit]

37. Oh honey please

yes it is supposed to be this way but it is not. An example http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=187610

[AtomicKitten]

17. Well, here's a start.

When you say "we," you are lumping all DUers together. I would say most here consider themselves to be active members of the Democratic Party. With that in mind, a literal answer to your question can be found here -----> http://www.qnc.us/dems/Democratic-Platform-Summary-2012.pdf

Ps: Your transparency page is interesting!

[Zalatix]

19. I am thinking, unhappily, of a quote by Will Rogers.

[Selatius]

22. You don't really need to pay attention to the party platform, actually.

All you need is party registration papers. That's all any Democrat needs.

If you're an ultra-right wing billionaire who wants to tax the poor and pay the rich, you can be a Democrat too. You'll have plenty of opportunities to fund the campaigns of candidates running for office, and you'll have politicians writing laws for you in no time.

[Zalatix]

24. I wish you were wrong...

[HughBeaumont]

23. We the People: Economic Fairness and Human Rights for All.

Our Elected Representatives? Corporate purchased lemmings who mostly practice Go-Along-to-Get-Along Third-Way fuckery, which helps no one except the Profit vs Humanity Republican wealthy.

[just1voice]

26. Letting torturers walk, bailing out criminal banks, anything for-profit

There's a progressive faction of the democratic party that I'm a part of, I just can't get past the corruption the so-called (D)s freely accept and won't prosecute, it's destroying the entire world one country at a time.

Not to mention the propaganda that so many so-called (D)s fall for just as badly as every "Bushbot" ever did.

[fredamae]

27. Change begins in your local Dem Party

with us-go to meetings, become a PCP and begin to change our party Back to what it once stood for....
Thats grass roots and its effective.
If, that is-you believe it could be better---

[jeff47]

29. Your concern troll is noted.

Now, perhaps you could stop whining long enough to notice that those are different people saying those opposite positions.

Being a Democrat is not like being a Republican. We do not force uniform adherence to one ideology.

[Zalatix]

31. Noted by whom?

Perhaps you could show some evidence to back up your ridiculous accusation of concern trolling?

[jeff47]

32. Ok, as evidence, I point to your OP.

Now, am I authorized to disagree with your position, or do we need to submit the appropriate forms to the party's platform committee?

We're Democrats. We don't all march lock-step. That's a good thing. Stop trying to fix what isn't broken.

[Zalatix]

33. Faulty, ridiculous argument.

You've failed to define what a concern troll is and how it has any relation to my OP.

Not surprising, since you've got nothing.

No, we Democrats don't march in lock-step. Will Rogers was right. You do know what he said, right?

As for what isn't broken? Our inability to unite against Republican agendas is why we're getting our asses kicked by the GOP, and why they've been setting the tone of the economic discussion since Reagan got in office. Not broken? Look around you. What happened to job stability? What happened to the middle class? What is happening to the environment? Where is our Public Option? Where is the Equal Rights Amendment? Not broken? Really? It only gets more BROKEN than this if it's MADE IN CHINA.

[jeff47]

35. And your solution is for us to march in lock-step.

That's why your solution monumentally stupid and backed with vapid arguments claiming the party 'flip-flops' when you're talking about the opinions of different people.

This comes up every now and then, that we must all line up behind what one particular poster claims should be the party's platform, which just so happens to align perfectly with their own beliefs. They haven't quite clued into the fact that we don't all agree, and that debate is a good thing.

Our inability to unite against Republican agendas is why we're getting our asses kicked by the GOP

And your plan to discard the people you disagree with will help this how? "By reducing the number of Democrats to people who agree with me, we'll win!!"

What happened to job stability?

Companies decided to no longer have loyalty to their employees, and employees are returning that opinion. That's not due to politics. You can tell because no laws had to be changed to enable this.

What happened to the middle class?

Employers are paying less. What do you think should be done in politics about it? Raising taxes on the wealthy, while necessary and a very good idea, isn't going to expand the middle class.

What is happening to the environment?

It's better than it's been in 50 years. Are you so young that you don't remember when breathing in Los Angeles was painful? Doesn't mean we're "done", but it's stupid to ignore what progress has been made. Especially when the advances by conservatives (ie. EPA was created by Nixon) are wonderfully useful in getting support for more environmental regulation.

Where is our Public Option?

Cleverly hidden in the state exchanges. Blue states will add public options to their exchanges. The success there will get public options in purple states, and eventually red states, eventually leading to a national public option.

Are you one of the Democrats who thinks Social Security and Medicare were "done" when they first passed?

Where is the Equal Rights Amendment?

Which red states do you expect to vote for it? You need 34 states. There aren't 34 blue and purple states. Do you think voting for it 30+ times will work as effectively as the house voting 30+ times to repeal the ACA?

Not broken? Really?

Yes. The fact that your wish list has not instantly materialized is not evidence of the party being 'broken'.

[Zalatix]

38. I see you gave up trying to defend your "concern troll" accusation.

Which is good, as it means we're moving forward here.

Now let's look at the phenomenally, hilariously stupid arguments you made here.

1) "And your solution is for us to march in lock-step."

Republicans put up a united front to fight the Public Option. We caved and broke ranks. Now we have no Public Option. Your fantasy that state exchanges will present a de facto Public Option is so wrong that it is utterly laughable.

Really, I don't care about your "lock step" comments. And guess what? History doesn't care, either. When you have one side moving in near-perfect unity against you, and you come at them with a disorganized force, your cause will lose. The problem is that the voters will not respect your party. Ever wonder why so many Dem voters, particularly young voters, stayed home in 2010?

Again, we can't put control chips in people's brains, and I wouldn't want to, but our lack of unity has clear and proven consequences.

2) As for the environment getting better? Hello, have you stepped outside and felt the heat wave yet? Have you tried visiting a few corn fields and seen what's happened to them? Have you been reading the news lately about the drought? I've got two words for you: global warming. Guess who it's being caused by. Our oceans are becoming more and more acidic because of global warming. It's already fucking up fish populations and leading to an explosion of jellyfish. Sea levels are also rising. The Maldives and other islands are disappearing.

And air pollution? We've just outsourced that over to Mexico, China and India. We cleaned up our air by letting our industries go overseas and pollute them to death, so that we can exercise our God Given right to cheap iPads.

"We're doing better than we were 50 years ago".

3)

Companies decided to no longer have loyalty to their employees, and employees are returning that opinion. That's not due to politics. You can tell because no laws had to be changed to enable this.

Employers are paying less. What do you think should be done in politics about it? Raising taxes on the wealthy, while necessary and a very good idea, isn't going to expand the middle class.

No laws had to be changed to enable this? Nice way to look at the situation COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. We could have put up tariff laws (which are in fact now supported by 90% of Americans), we could have taken away tax breaks for going overseas, we could have put up fines or very high unemployment insurance premium increases for mass layoffs, hardened our laws mandating a 40 hour work week, RAISED THE MINIMUM WAGE... We could have passed laws to make sure that Reagan-style strike breaking was illegal, but we failed that, too. Another HUGE blow to the middle class. Republicans are totally united in their opposition to this. We are utterly disorganized. Nature dictates one side is perpetually at a disadvantage in this situation. Nature. Dictates.

As for raising taxes on the wealthy? It most certainly worked before. It worked in the post World War II years. When our marginal tax rates were far higher, job creation was much better than it is now. Your lack of knowledge of history is downright alarming. Higher taxes on the rich fund Social Security, higher taxes on the rich provide funding for social safety nets, higher taxes on the rich force them to hire people instead of try to build up massive cash reserves... wow. Your arguments are way, way off-base here.

4) There aren't 34 blue states because, as I said, we are not organized. Voters respect a party that is highly organized. If we were better organized, Romney would be down by 20 points by now.

5) Another BIG example that things are broken? We can't even get past the Republican ultrablockades to push forward funding for our roads. Given that you believe our environment is better than it was 50 years ago, I realize it is utterly pointless to explain the crumbling state of our nation's infrastructure.

Now before you come back and tell us how things are not broken, go ask people in Oklahoma about their street lamps.

[jeff47]

39. That's because it's obvious from your posts. It doesn't need defense.

Republicans put up a united front to fight the Public Option.

Republicans are authoritarian assholes who march in lock-step.

They are not Democrats. Their authoritarianism is part of why they are Republicans.

You need to get it through your head that lock-step will NOT WORK for the Democratic party because the authoritarians are Republican. Democrats are a broad coalition and that means they will NEVER march in lock-step.

Take a moment of you not being the center of the universe to think about it: Imagine some Democrat is demanding that the party officially endorse drone strikes as the most wonderful thing since Mom and Apple Pie. You gonna keep being a happy Democrat when that happens? No? Well then perhaps your laundry list of favorite ideas is gonna cause the same problem for others.

Ever wonder why so many Dem voters, particularly young voters, stayed home in 2010?

How many would stay home if the party marched in lock-step away from what they want?

Would you stay home if the party demanded you cheer for drone strikes?

No laws had to be changed to enable this? Nice way to look at the situation COMPLETELY BACKWARDS.

Then you'd have no problem listing all the specific changes that occurred....which you failed to do.

We could have put up tariff laws (which are in fact now supported by 90% of Americans), we could have taken away tax breaks for going overseas

So apparently you don't know that more than 80% of our economy is entirely domestic. I realize that the yellow menace makes a lovely scapegoat, but the south has much more to do with falling wages than China.

we could have put up fines or very high unemployment insurance premium increases for mass layoffs

Because large fines for a company in financial trouble is such an excellent idea. I can clearly see why the Democratic party needs you to decide what we all believe.

hardened our laws mandating a 40 hour work week

Against what? Overtime pay is already mandatory for workers that have a 40-hour work week. If an employer is engaged in wage theft, that's ALREADY ILLEGAL. You gonna make it double-plus illegal?

RAISED THE MINIMUM WAGE

Minimum wage workers, by definition, aren't middle class.

We could have passed laws to make sure that Reagan-style strike breaking was illegal

What, specifically, would you outlaw? And don't try to hide behind "Reagan-style" vaguarity.

Oh, you also forgot to mention WHICH LAWS WERE CHANGED to decimate the middle class. You've got a laundry list of what we could have done, but nothing about what was done.

As for the environment getting better? Hello, have you stepped outside and felt the heat wave yet?

So you're either a kid or have no memory.
Did you step outside in the 1970's? When you couldn't FUCKING BREATHE? When we were dumping PCBs and DDT haphazardly? When entire towns were wiped off the face of the map because of pollution?

There was a reason that Nixon created the EPA despite being a conservative. Things were worse then. They are better now. Doesn't mean we're done.

So why pretend I'm saying there's nothing more to do environmentally? Either you can't read, or you like lying.

We are utterly disorganized. Nature dictates one side is perpetually at a disadvantage in this situation.

Yep. We have to work twice as hard. But again, lock-step would utterly fail. So you can work twice as hard, or you can fail.

As for raising taxes on the wealthy? It most certainly worked before. It worked in the post World War II years. When our marginal tax rates were far higher, job creation was much better than it is now.

And your model where high marginal tax rates lead to job creation is........?

How do you explain the massive job creation during the Clinton boom with marginal tax rates 60% lower than Ike, if high marginal tax rates are what causes job creation? How 'bout the boom during Reagan? Taxes weren't as low as during the Clinton years, but there also wasn't the dot-com explosion. If high marginal tax rates are necessary for lots of job creation, those booms should not have happened.

But you'd have to actually come up with a model first.

Higher taxes on the rich fund Social Security, higher taxes on the rich provide funding for social safety nets, higher taxes on the rich force them to hire people instead of try to build up massive cash reserves... wow. Your arguments are way, way off-base here.

No, your strawmen are off-base. But hey, you'd have to actually read what I wrote instead of only being in your head. And we know that's difficult for you since you're demanding Democrats march in lock-step to your personal agenda.

My argument is that the marginal tax rate for top earners has nothing to do with the size of the middle class. Completely independent of that, top earners should pay higher income taxes.

I have no idea how you changed that into "taxes shouldn't be raised" other than lying or illiteracy.

There aren't 34 blue states because, as I said, we are not organized.

Which red states would turn blue with fascist-like adherence to the official party position? Name them.

We can't even get past the Republican ultrablockades to push forward funding for our roads.

Yep, Reid screwed up when he didn't reform the filibuster.
Now, why does that require marching in lock-step to your personal platform?

Given that you believe our environment is better than it was 50 years ago, I realize it is utterly pointless to explain the crumbling state of our nation's infrastructure.

So....you in your 20s or so? The world existed before your birth. You might wanna consider learning a bit about history before you start spouting off about history.

Now before you come back and tell us how things are not broken, go ask people in Oklahoma about their street lamps.

Right after you ask residents of Los Angeles if they were able to breathe without pain.

[Zalatix]

40. Obvious to whom? You, and your circular reasoning, and no one else, apparently.

Please define concern trolling and explain how it applies to my post. I am going to repeat this every time you respond, because you know your argument is wrong.

Republicans are authoritarian assholes who march in lock-step.

They are not Democrats. Their authoritarianism is part of why they are Republicans.

And that's why we don't have a Public Option, much less Medicare for All.

Enjoy the consequences - you clearly don't mind them.

Take a moment of you not being the center of the universe to think about it: Imagine some Democrat is demanding that the party officially endorse drone strikes as the most wonderful thing since Mom and Apple Pie. You gonna keep being a happy Democrat when that happens? No? Well then perhaps your laundry list of favorite ideas is gonna cause the same problem for others.

Then we would only be Democrats in name. We'd be Conservatives.

Which is the problem with your dream world. You believe that Dems taking a hard line leftist stance is morally the same as taking a hardline rightist stance. You cannot see the moral difference between the two.

You will most certainly REGRET that argument if Democrats start caving in the war on women like they did on the Public Option, or something that is near and dear to you. Or maybe you'll say "we aren't fascists, we let Rush Limbaugh fans in our group". According to your logic, you must accept them as long as they call themselves Democrats.

In the end, if we go with your mindset, we will have a unified Republican Party, and half the Democrats also voting for Conservative causes!

Then you'd have no problem listing all the specific changes that occurred....which you failed to do.

The tax laws were changed by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, allowing the rich to keep more money out of the economy. Then there was NAFTA. That's two HUGE ones. I can't believe you don't know about these?

And your challenge here is pointless. More damage was done by not CHANGING OUR LAWS to deal with rampant capitalism, than the negative changes that actually were made. You're trying to distract the discussion. From hereon I'm staying on topic - it's about our failure to respond to the changes in the economy.

So apparently you don't know that more than 80% of our economy is entirely domestic. I realize that the yellow menace makes a lovely scapegoat, but the south has much more to do with falling wages than China.

China is the CAUSE of falling wages in America. We're sending jobs to China and workers here are forced to compete with cheap labor over there. Do you get it yet?

Because large fines for a company in financial trouble is such an excellent idea. I can clearly see why the Democratic party needs you to decide what we all believe.

Company in trouble? Are you serious? We've got companies like Caterpillar making record profits while squeezing their workers to accept lower and lower wages, moving factories from the US to Canada and back just to play their employees against each other. You don't think companies like this deserve to pay more?

Against what? Overtime pay is already mandatory for workers that have a 40-hour work week. If an employer is engaged in wage theft, that's ALREADY ILLEGAL. You gonna make it double-plus illegal?

We need to harden our laws so that hourly workers do not work over 40 hours a week. Employers push their workers to work more hours in order to avoid hiring more people - this is doing phenomenal damage to our economy. Productivity is up 300% since 1947 but wages are up by only 100%. If you push workers past 40 hours a week, apparently time and half isn't enough. Perhaps double or double and a half time is needed in order to force companies to hire more people and not keep squeezing two people's work out of one person.

Oh and by the way, productivity drops after about 8 hours.

Another thing about overtime - it's downright DEADLYin some cases. Yet we have failed to pass laws to stop this.

What, specifically, would you outlaw? And don't try to hide behind "Reagan-style" vaguarity.

I would outlaw using the military, or any other group of people, to replace strikers. I'd push to make it a law that all Government employees have a right to form unions.

I would empower the workers, and to hell with anyone who has a problem with that. I'd take it to the workers. Their numbers are superior. Vastly superior.

Oh, you also forgot to mention WHICH LAWS WERE CHANGED to decimate the middle class.

Because that isn't relevant to the discussion. No, really, it isn't. It's your issue, not mine. I've already given you two examples.

So you're either a kid or have no memory.
Did you step outside in the 1970's? When you couldn't FUCKING BREATHE? When we were dumping PCBs and DDT haphazardly? When entire towns were wiped off the face of the map because of pollution?

There was a reason that Nixon created the EPA despite being a conservative. Things were worse then. They are better now. Doesn't mean we're done.

So why pretend I'm saying there's nothing more to do environmentally? Either you can't read, or you like lying.

Repeating your deceptive "pollution is down in America" argument doesn't make it any less wrong. Your argument is still deceptive. We've only moved the pollution overseas. We are still fucking up our world's ecosystem.

I noticed you completely avoided trying to refute the fact that we are contributing directly to the global warming problem. I wonder why.

Second of all, as I said, we have shifted the PCBs and DDT and smog out of this country, over to other countries, like China, Mexico and India. Apparently you either did not read this when I posted it before, or you are being intellectually dishonest.

Cites to support my point:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/how-big-deal-outsourced-pollution
http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/collaboration/2007/summer/outsourcing-pollution.shtml

Things are worse now than before. We've just moved the pollution overseas.

Yep. We have to work twice as hard. But again, lock-step would utterly fail. So you can work twice as hard, or you can fail.

Really, has a little bit of UNITY failed for the GOP? Show me this history of failure. Please. Cite examples.

And your model where high marginal tax rates lead to job creation is........?

How do you explain the massive job creation during the Clinton boom with marginal tax rates 60% lower than Ike, if high marginal tax rates are what causes job creation? How 'bout the boom during Reagan? Taxes weren't as low as during the Clinton years, but there also wasn't the dot-com explosion. If high marginal tax rates are necessary for lots of job creation, those booms should not have happened.

But you'd have to actually come up with a model first.

Wait, a job boom during the Reagan years? Oh that's great. Wait, you mean the boom in low paying minimum wage jobs that happened during his administration? Gotcha.

The dotcom explosion was more relevant to job creation than the lower taxes. If lower taxes were the solution than George W Bush would have overseen a huge job boom. Your "facts" are laughably confused, and the Chimp utterly refutes you, and I've never seen the Chimp refute anything before.

My argument is that the marginal tax rate for top earners has nothing to do with the size of the middle class. Completely independent of that, top earners should pay higher income taxes.

Sigh.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/marginal_tax_charticle.html

[img][/img]
Now who's illiterate?

Which red states would turn blue with fascist-like adherence to the official party position? Name them.

Wow, you accuse me of illiteracy and then you come up with this.

I'll repeat: voters do not and will not respect a party that is not united. Without the respect of voters, you will not see anything close to maximum growth.

I will point again to the disappearance of young voters from the 2010 election - they lost respect for us.

Yep, Reid screwed up when he didn't reform the filibuster.
Now, why does that require marching in lock-step to your personal platform?

Senate Dems could have stood their ground on funding and waited the GOP out.

So....you in your 20s or so? The world existed before your birth. You might wanna consider learning a bit about history before you start spouting off about history.

Great way to avoid addressing the fact that our infrastructure is in fact crumbling.

Our infrastructure is crumbling. President Obama has even talked about it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-02/obama-says-deteriorating-infrastructure-costly-to-u-s-economy.html

My account of history is correct. I've got cites. You've got nothing.

Defending free trade. Typical faulty arguments about low marginal taxes that we hear from one particular group. Opposing taxes for companies that do mass-layoffs, despite being shown evidence that they are making record profits. Intentionally not understanding the minimum wage issue.

Ah, I see, I understand where you're coming from. Your posts sound a lot like what is described here:
http://newsone.com/1424285/gop-site-plans-to-infiltrate-progressive-with-trolls/

[Spike89]

30. Always thought Democrats were the socially-aware/populist people

and repugs were primarily concerned with "infrastructure", i.e., the economy, military, etc. It was (at one time) a situation where both parties had very similar utopian end-games (everyone has many options and paths to economic success).

I'm afraid the republicans have become totally insane and actually can't articulate any semblence of a better society, only a society that may be better for themselves. Sadly, I don't think the democratic party has reacted well or appropriately to the meltdown on the other side.

There is far too much effort everywhere in talking about how the "other" side is totally wrong and will lead us into dystopia. Although I really do believe that is true in the case of today's republicans--they aren't interested in a better world for everyone, I think the Democratic party has too often fallen into the trap of working to avoid or minimize the damage repug policies can cause.

Where are the grand social programs that challenge and inspire our better natures? It isn't just about expanding welfare-style programs--I think true progressives have always seen those type of programs as necessary, but not the goal.

I would much rather see a world where the safety nets are simply taken for granted, but not strained because very few of are forced into precarious positions on dangerous high wires. The repugs have done a very good job on getting us all to focus on the safety nets, and in the process, we've stopped looking at how frayed and unstable the tightropes we're on have become.

[UTUSN]

36. If you have to ask... n/t

[woo me with science]

41. The party will stand for corporate interests

for as long as Democrats tolerate it.

Have we had enough yet?