General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre we much better than the Republican-voting rednecks?
Over the years, I've directed a great deal of contempt towards the "What's the Matter With Kansas?" boobs who vote against their economic interests.
But in all honesty, are we much better? We fancy ourselves to be intelligent and educated, and yet our last three Democratic presidents (sorry, Carter fans) have spurned FDR/LBJ liberalism. In their respective tenures, they've shoved deregulation and neoliberal trade deals down our throats, and we keep cheering for the schmucks. Shouldn't they be afraid of us, rather than taking our support for granted?
tridim
(45,358 posts)nichomachus
(12,754 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)People who don't understand this and how it effects policy and who gets what in this country, are rooting for Republicans. Period.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Using the word "period" to conclude a statement of opinion, as if that closes the subject and makes the opinion fact, is a weak tactic.
It's what my mother did when I, as a child, tried to argue with her about a decision. It's a "might makes right, don't question it" tactic.
Of course, it was effective in that I grew up determined to question everything. The opposite reaction Mom was hoping for.
And, of course, as an adult, when someone says <insert any opinion.> "Period," I simply do this:
Edited to add: Of COURSE Republicans are bad for the nation; that's beside the point of the OP.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)or common sense, I use this ---> , too. So...
LWolf
(46,179 posts)That's a shitload of assumptions, right there.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)they'd have sent you a request for a donation.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)but also
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Public financing of political campaigns dropped off the Party radar and it's been all Wall Street all the time ever since.
Hope that helps you.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)The political system is broken. It's really not set up to nominate great candidates, just the lesser of two evils, imo.
Exhibit A
(318 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I'm a fan of very few politicians.
edited
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)When we were young and innocent and trusting?
And f'n stupid to believe that our politicians were so pure?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Didn't take me long to figure out how wrong that thinking was.
edited
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Obama has for the first time ever established near-universal healthcare.
He has passed the most significant financial regulations in many many decades.
He rolled back tax cuts for the wealthy.
He passed a large package of domestic stimulus spending.
He's a vocal advocate for things like higher minimum wage, free community college, etc., which won't get passed only because of the Republican congress.
On what planet is he spurning FDR/LBJ liberalism?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If the worst you have (or the first thing you can think of) against the President Obama tenure is to point to something that isn't ... well ... that probably should have you re-thinking your position.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Many of President Obama's policies I approve of but certainly not all.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Regardless of what is, or is not, actually in the TPP.
I suspect that this TPP concern will fizzle, just like the "he's just itching to bomb the Assad Regime" over the gas issue concern, and the "he's gonna cut Social Security" over the CCPI concern, before that.
JEB
(4,748 posts)I'd say the burden of proof is on the proponents.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)so none of that matters.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)yeah, he's just like fdr.
advocacy ain't action. you don't get credit for advocacy; otherwise we'd have that public option.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Obama actually raised the top rate, of course, but who's paying attention to that. As far as blaming Obama for the fact that the GOP congress blocked a lot of his agenda, well, if you're really looking despise the man irrationally, no doubt you will succeed.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)question is what's the economic climate and what's the effect.
The stated goal of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were met to some degree by the tax cut.[4] Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966.[4][5] Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964
and Obama didn't 'raise' the top rate, he restored it to what it was pre-bush tax cuts -- the ones that had a sunset provision he'd postponed due to the recession.
still less than 40% top rate.
and the elephant in the room is corporate rates.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)So there's that.
I'm not sure how you expect Obama to get a 40% top tax rate through the Republican congress. I actually agree that we should have a higher top rate, but there is vote-counting reality. If he had LBJ's congress, the top rate would be higher, there would be a higher minimum wage, and there would be free community college, a public option, and so on.
You realize LBJ had the senate by 30 seats and the house by 80, right? And this was before the filibuster was used on every bill.
Oh, and I seem to recall a little military conflict in southeast Asia during LBJ's presidency. Funny, same people who think Obama is a warmongering neocon because he drops bombs in the middle east are yelling "why can't you be more like LBJ!"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and eliminated in 88. 1981 Reagan reduced Corporate and Top Marginal rates, which were adjusted back up a bit but were never restored. 1982 saw an increase in the Payroll Taxes. The 1986 Reforms again cut the top marginal rates while 'closing loopholes'. Rates for lower incomes were increased.
" Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.[4] This represented a more regressive tax regime, with more revenue derived from the flat payroll tax versus the progressive income tax."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)blanket statements about so & so raising/lowering taxes are very useful.
The stated goal of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were met to some degree by the tax cut. Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966. Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964
and Obama didn't 'raise' the top rate, he restored it to what it was pre-bush tax cuts -- the ones that had a sunset provision he'd postponed due to the recession.
still less than 40% top rate.
and the elephant in the room is corporate rates.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Clinton used 99% populist rhetoric and Obama pretended to be a liberal, at least to get through the primaries.
And when we are stuck with the candidate for the general election, we have no choice but to vote for the Democratic candidate...
The American two party election system is what preserves the status quo and allows both parties to stay in power and shove neo-liberalism down our throats.
Left coast liberal
(1,138 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)
We get the ones that appeal to the widest swath of Dems. Despite many people thinking Du reflects the Democratic party it really does not. One need only look back to the last presidential primary where the leading candidates on DU were Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. Both of which were horrible general election candidates.
There is a big difference in mainstream electability and ideology.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)we have principles!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Maybe there's something to that?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you would note that those unelected ran away from President Obama and those elected didn't.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Those flying goal posts almost hit me!
Be more careful next time, please!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The electable candidates choose to run away from President Obama. How is that goal post moving?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)You don't understand.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is this where I protest about making personal attacks?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Tough crowd.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I couldn't tell with all the "goal post moving" and "you don't understand" assertions.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And I agreed that you don't.
What am I missing here?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for no particular reason other than to cry victim when I become antagonist back.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)One of my therapists suggested that I try to be more agreeable, try to find ways to agree with people so that they'll like me more. I tried, but this attempt has clearly not gone well.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)perhaps medication might help.
Or, maybe just a little more respect.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Dems have held the white house for 12 of the last 20 years and only had a break for dimson both of whose elections were questionable.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)20 years ago? 30? 40? 50? Why don't you look up the Senate House profiles, and governors' mansions and state houses for those years, then tell me how we're doing. Or maybe point to some legislation that compares to the New Deal, Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or Voting Rights Act.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Fox news was not part of the equation then nor was the rise of the evangelical vote. Also Congress had not reached the abuse of the philibuster they have mastered today ensuring no big ticket legislation passes.
The ACA however was passed and like SS can be built on to become every bit as historic. Part of the rise in power of the Republican party can be traced back directly to the times you talked about as well when Dems controlled everything many of the people that are the most dependable voters were born in that era and have voted Republican all of their lives in direct opposition to democrats of those times.
Despite all of the good legislation that you listed in many cases during those years the Democrats in power abused the control they had and people are still voting against them because of it.
840high
(17,196 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Remember Dukakis? Mondale?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)But even ignoring your math deficiency, please read reply #44
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)See reply 44
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)"Our candidates are a result of a process. We get the ones that appeal to the richest set of donors."
There you go. No charge.
progressoid
(49,992 posts)Some of us aren't. Some of us are.
phylny
(8,383 posts)better than no one.
cordelia
(2,174 posts)Terms like "redneck" are divisive and cause much more harm than good.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)One I have asked quite a bit lately. If the party knows in advance that you will vote for whomever they put forward, there is NO LEVERAGE to get a candidate who supports your ideals. The early posts on this thread show that many so-called Democrats don't really think we can do much better. But I think that we can and that the country will elect a liberal. We just did, TWICE, in the sense that Obama campaigned as an old-school liberal. That swanky campaign knew what people wanted. He didn't campaign as a moderate Republican of the Reagan era. Now it's time for the rhetoric to match the governing philosophy.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Many around here demanding zombie loyalty Hillary, and she hasn't even won the Primary yet.
She's.Shown.No.Intention.Of.Representing.Left.Dem.Social.Interests.
Do I need a bullhorn or something?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)and maybe people are just wired differently , assuming they are how do we go about getting along when politics is about polarizing people .
I believe there are peace makers and war makers , that and 2 bucks buys a cup of coffee . These 2 species are allways at odds with each other but the room we have to share gets smaller with a growing population .End of dumb thought
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Lot of truth in it.
Generic Brad
(14,275 posts)When I first observed this for myself decades ago I referred to this as "mind tribes". Glad to see I am not totally alone in how I see the world.
edhopper
(33,604 posts)didn't do enough.
The GOP ones went the other way and did harm.
BIG difference.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)we never did before.
It is the system that drives everything down.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)their minions just have to say "lesser of two evils", and nothing ever changes.
840high
(17,196 posts)of us don't listen to that phrase anymore.
blue neen
(12,327 posts)Did you read this thread?:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026268382
Iggo
(47,563 posts)Well, I am, anyway.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Kind of a silly question.
We are better, we are smarter and we tend not to vote against our own best interests.
Our leaders, on the other hand, kind of suck. They are beholden to Wall Street. We vote for them because we are not given any real choices. Money in politics is the real problem.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)BubbaFett
(361 posts)are mostly scumbags. Not all, but the vast majority.
They are not statesmen or the best among us.
Martin Eden
(12,874 posts)... WE vote for the lesser of two evils
... THEY vote for the greater of two evils