2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo Clinton supporters CARE about how concentrated Wealth and Power has become?
I'm deadly serious. This is not a cheapshot.
It is something I honestly do not understand. I have the same feeling of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" bafflement about non-elite Democrats supporting a neo-liberal, corporate set of values and policies that has systematically been robbing the poor,middle and working classes for 35 years.
The Corporate Democrats have stifled debate and discussion -- and, in fact demonized -- any action to change these situations. It's "fringe left" and all that. And the hippie bashing has gotten worse in the current primary.
And if Clinton is the nominee, these core problems will once again be shoved into the closet.
Why doesn't the basic message of Sanders matter to so many of you? Has Clinton really been working and speaking against these problems much? She and other "centrists" spout pablum like "if you work hard you deserve to get ahead" WITHOUT identifying the reasons that has become increasingly difficult for average people to do.
These are outrages. Why don't we care? Why do we bat down anyone who attenpts to bring it into the mainstream debate, discussion and politics....and government.
Meanwhile just about every industry and economic sector has morphed into monopolistic empires.
We talk about Big Banks -- but the same things has been happening in every industry. Below is media as an example.
You like "numbers" you say? Look at those numbers.
How about Food and Household Products? Most of those "subsidiaries" were once separate companies.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)They are so set on getting Hillary into the White House none of this matters.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)The most likely culprit is the corporate media. It would explain the young people voting for Bernie. None of my three kids watch TV and listen to music, not talk radio.
840high
(17,196 posts)Eko
(7,351 posts)Sometimes it seems as if you guys forget we are all Democrats.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)who when they earn enough to have disposable income they spend it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)catastrophic events such as the collapse of Empires, if the rest of us let them. Take the 2016 elections for instance.
elleng
(131,107 posts)that was my BUSINESS, and I was closely involved in regulating and reviewing merger proposals. FYI, we considered effects on competition, and imposed conditions to mitigate perceived adverse effects. AND we DENIED one perceived to be unacceptably anticompetitive.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)sometimes they are rubber stamped. Don't get me started on airline mergers, I was right in the middle of one of those, had to take early retirement.
elleng
(131,107 posts)but the statute did (and still does) incline in favor of them. We the staff did what we could to inform the commissioners of the significant issues, hence the numerous conditions we imposed.
WITH you, re: airline mergers.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)I don't necessarily believe that, but I do believe that they think their payroll is coming from the 3rd Way, and will go away if things change significantly.
Case in point is Krugman now and BLM earlier in the cycle. Both of them believed Hillary will give things for their support. We'll just have to see who actually gets their payout- BLM got a knife in the back instead. So did Obama.
shadowandblossom
(718 posts)It varies state to state, but here is some income info from exit polls for liberals who voted for Clinton in Texas.
income
Less than 30k
Clinton 72% Sanders 28%
30k-50k
Clinton 61%
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/tx/Dem
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)A small, suffering population, to be sure ....
shadowandblossom
(718 posts).
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Not even mild concern
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)The Democrats could have prevented, or at least slowed, it all along the line. They could have presented arguments that would most likely have weakened the GOP hold on the working class.
Instead people like the Clintons supported it and helped to accelerate it.
It is still going on and most Democrats still acquiesce...See what is currently underway in the cable/Internet access industry. Time Warner - Bight house/Discovery.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)for most of the US citizenry. For over 30 years.
CBHagman
(16,987 posts)Anyone elected president will have a degree of power in the executive branch but have to deal with the legislative and judicial branches. Legislative agendas can only be passed with a set of allies (in the right numbers) and a set of workable strategies. Of course timing and luck play a part as well, and so does public opinion, at least in some cases.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But too often it has not mattered whether Dems have the power, are out of power or power is shared.The line keeps being pushed to the right on issues of wealth and power -- with either acquiescence or collaboration of too many Democrats.
We need a clear alternative to the GOP, and not just on selected "social issues" while ignoring the larger issues related to distribution of wealth and systemic corruption of the system.
Without that bright line on economic and power issues, then politics just becomes a team sport.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)except the age old argument that we have to compromise to get anything done. Even though it's been the democratic party doing all the compromising since before Clinton.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)to nominate a true progressive. Instead of comprising between a conservative democrat and the lunatic right, I'd rather pull that comprise point move a little more to the left.
Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)On economic matters the D's start out meeting the R's halfway.
Then the R's tack further to the right.
Then the D's take another step towards them.
No real progress can be made that way, and politicians like Hillary Clinton know it.
The game is rigged against ordinary working Americans. Incrementalism will not change the fundamental financial structures that allow hugely profitable corporations to pay no taxes, the uber rich to hide their wealth in offshore accounts, banks too big to fail wielding enormous power, and the concentration of wealth into fewer hands that shovel huge piles of cash into the campaign funds of politicians who give lip service to economic justice while maintaining the status quo of this rigged system.
TimeToEvolve
(303 posts)i suspect that most linton supporters are too confortable where they are at the moment, and totally lukewarm about the issues that matter; climate change and the destruction of the natural world and how the fossil energy and mining sectors are enabling that, extreme wealth inequality, systemic racism, oligarchy, and how the banking and private prisons enable that.
ignorance = bliss,
most will be blissfully unaware of hoe Hillary is in bed with the aforementioned entities, who will have their way with the disempowered, working slave class, and turn the Earth, our only home, into a toxic garbage dump; but at least a lot of money was made for shareholders....
jwirr
(39,215 posts)season all those people in my dungeon seemed to be regular Democrats fight with us on these same issues and suddenly they are acting as if we can trust the corporate world and the bankers. As if we weren't all talking about the corruption and the lose of the middle class.
Now they act as if they think that the corporations and banks are going to save the world and that war is good. And having such a large wealth divide is somehow what Democrats have worked for for centuries.
??????
deathrind
(1,786 posts)The 180 is astounding.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The lengths people will go to, to justify what they do? In this case, they will go to unheard of lengths to justify voting for Hillary. Still not sure if it's just because she's a woman or what...I know some of them are well off, and that explains it, but not all of them, surely.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It doesn't matter whether you like himn or not.
The issue predates his current campaign.
Clinton has shown absolutely no inclination to talk about this, except in the most vague and innocuous terms. And most establishment Democrats do not.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)pengu
(462 posts)seaglass
(8,173 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)But the negative pile ons and misleading distortions and attacks on the overall positions and movement he reflects is truly disturbing.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Go Vols
(5,902 posts)http://thehill.com/policy/finance/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)America has 5% of the world's population but 40% of the world's wealth!!
http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/
The median household income ~$30k in America is in the top 1% of the world!!!
Ok, do you care? If so how would you propose to share the wealth more equally?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Our infrastructure will collapse if we can't get the wealthy to pay their share. The poverty rates will continue to climb. I guess that's ok as long as the Clintons amass a billion dollars by fri.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)to work towards economic justice equally we need massive wealth and income redistribution from the rich countries to the poorer ones
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)from the world's 99% to the world's 1% and Clinton isn't about to help us there. She likes the current system that has made her and Bill in the top 1% or the top 1%.
quantumjunkie
(244 posts)great response but no way that hill supporter responds back because you're right.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)TimeToEvolve
(303 posts)hillary is the one that the PTB has appointed to manage our decline.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)exponential growth of wealth going to the top 10% in the US help those third world countries?
Seriously...how does it help?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)In many instances the same Corporate and Wall St thieves.
Each ountry has its own situation. But the same Profit Uber Alles mentality, and the same global investors and corporate oligarchs are attempting to do the same things throughout the world. What do you think "free trade" is all about?
quantumjunkie
(244 posts)Not an attack. I just find it interesting that Hillary supporters tend to be more sympathetic to traditional republican ideas. This might explain why her supporters tend to be ok with Hillary's ties and dealings.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)if the US crashes?
You don't have to bring down the living conditions of this country to save other countries. And you know what? Those of you who are doing well are not affected by this. You will live well and make lots of money regardless of how the rest of us scrape by, and regardless of how the rest of the globe survives.
If I saw you giving up anything to help other third world countries, I'd think maybe you have something...but you won't. You want the middleclass and poor to give it up...to bring us down to the level of competition with third world countries for wages that keep you well off.
Well, sorry, we aren't having any of this any more. The only thing that offshoring is doing for you is making you wealthier. Well it's not working that way for us...it's bringing our wages down while your wealth goes up.
I hope you are scared, because we've had enough.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)much of that 3rd world labor is not even meeting our labor standards. Look at the situation in China where the building they lock workers into had nets to keep them from jumping from windows to commit suicide.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... by dragging the US middle class (the designated buyers of shit) to their level.
No consumers, no jobs. It matters not at all that global capitalists can drive the value of labor to near zero if there are no consumers.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)3rd world countries do become consumers...until their wages rise enough to take them out of the game. Kinda like China is now. Ooops...China thrown under the bus. Now we have to find cheaper labor somewhere else.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Because they voted against their own interests, and now so many of us are doing it. I can't fathom it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)then suddenly it becomes wanting "free stuff"
Response to Punkingal (Reply #18)
quantumjunkie This message was self-deleted by its author.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)and supporting HRC and putting down the grassroots of the Party in a haughty and dismissive manner gives them a vicarious thrill. It's similar dynamic as the one we saw during Shrub's two terms. The more he strutted and talked down to people better than himself provided his supporters with the feeling of being in cahoots with the schoolyard bully and pulverizing the smart kids with impunity. Similarly, her abuse of power and her skill at weaseling out of it is important to their emotional well-being.
That's why the issues don't interest them, they're not in it for what can be accomplished for people (even themselves) they need to identify themselves with the winner and sneeringly look down on the loser. Being on the winning side is enough for them. It's the reflected glory they're after and the more imperious she acts the better they like it. It's why they swear she won the debates, her sarcasm and hauteur is the way winners act they think.
Just my 2 cents.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)Carni
(7,280 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)They just want a woman regardless or they just want to vote for her because it is her turn in the Bush/Clinton revolving door.
As a woman I do think it is time for one of us in there but not this one.
TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)The Clintons themselves care, the only problem is they are in favor of it. They just wonder why more of this can't be outsourced to Asia.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)They don't care that she's a warmonger.
They don't care that she made private promises to the billionaires for money.
All they care about is her gender. NOTHING else matters.
polichick
(37,152 posts)They identify with the team without looking too deeply, believing that their team is best - the way people think their religion or sports team is best.
quantass
(5,505 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)They admire very wealthy people, seek to emulate them, elect them to public office, etc.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The morons who listen to Rush Limbaugh, and buy uinto the fallacy that "You have to support policies that help the rich because someday you too might be rich."
Sad to see that's becoming a more bipartisan attitude.
yardwork
(61,703 posts)Why would I want to respond? Scanning the thread I see the usual accusations and insults.
If anybody was genuinely curious and asked the question with the intention of learning something.... They might learn something.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It truly does puzzle me....Not just in the context of Bernie vs. Hillary. That is almost symbolic of the deeper question.
Doesn't mean I will just accept an answer...(always depends on the spirit in which a comment is made).
I think the same puzzlement and frustration is being expressed by others on this thread, even if not in a conciliatory tone.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I see a bunch of people who ranted, raved and marched against the Iraq War...then shrugged their shoulders and said 'meh' when confronted with Hillary's vote to authorize that war.
I see a bunch of people who wailed and gnashed their teeth when the Citizens United ruling came down...then cheered on the candidate who raked in enormous piles of corporate cash.
I see a bunch of people who grabbed torches and pitchforks when Wall Street gamed the economy and brought it down around our ears...then flocked to support the candidate that took $21 million in speaking fees from the same crooks.
I see a bunch of people who chastised and castigated Bernie Sanders for not caring enough about black peoples' civil rights...then worshiped as a paragon of virtue an architect of the private prison industry, the single most devastating example of institutional racism in our country.
I see rank hypocrisy.
So no, they won't care about income inequality until they can use it as a bludgeon against a political opponent.
and you're sexist for pointing that out.
quantass
(5,505 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)against all those things that were true during Shrub's regime, listed here.. though there are few names I won't mention that do belong on this list.
You've been here much longer than I, so you would know better than I.
But.. it seems to me that long before this primary, we had apologists (who turn out to be HC supporters) for an array of policies that we were against during the Bush/Cheney regime and we've consistently opposed.
And since as of this writing I don't see any HRC responses addressing the question in the OP, I have to agree with another observer, they just don't care about policy at all. They're about blood sport and that's just about sums it up as far as I can tell so far, sadly.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)bjo59
(1,166 posts)I have come to agree with those who argue that the Democratic party is on the verge of a split. It's been hijacked by corporatists and there are a lot of Democrats in this country who are not pro-Wall Street/pro-war corporatist "new Democrats" and I really can't seem them (us) remaining attached to a party in which the power structure actively works against their interests. The "New Democrats" have benefitted from the fact that a lot of traditional Democrats have, over the past several decades, been voting Democrat no matter what. I think those days are now coming to a close. It will be interesting because the Republican party is busting up too. Hopefully the upcoming breakdown of the two parties will benefit democracy and hopefully there will be enough time left for it to benefit democracy. I am dead certain that the corporate powers that be believe that they've completely captured the US political system and that there is nothing the population can do about it. But, on a happier note, I do not at all count Bernie out - not by a long shot.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The things we are being asked to accept are getting more and more wild by the day. Some people still cling to the belief that they are still on our side.
Personally, I think if someone asked Bill and Hillary that in private, they would laugh themselves silly.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)Fracking. Endless war. Private prisons. Healthcare being primarily in the hands of for-profit insurance companies. Young people starting their adult lives burdened with debt.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Fracking -- WEnergy industry controls Energy Policy and they don't want to change the goose that lays their golden eggs.
Endless war...well, you know. MIC.
Healthcare has been taken over by corporate conglomerates, and politicians don't want to cross tyhem.
Young people starting lives in debt. Public affordable educaiton options have been removed, and too many colleges have turned into investment enterprises.
Response to Armstead (Original post)
felix_numinous This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Has there ever been a time in history when there was no huge wealth gap? Decades ago there were fewer CEOs but almost the same number of wealthy families (and thus fewer millionaires) that controlled 99% of the wealth of the world. On a comparative basis the concentration of wealth was greater then than now.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But the issue is the extent, the trends and how it is distributed.
Yeah, in many decades past we had obscene concentrations of wealth, epitomized by the Gilded Age. But there was a trend in the 20th century to gradually even those out and expand the middle class.
There were also concerted efforts to deal with poverty, and offer people on the bottom more opportunities to move upward.
But in the late 1970's that began to revert back to the Bad Old Days on many levels -- and the Corporate and Investor Class devised new ways to close off ladders of upward mobility, while rewarding themselves obscenely in unGodly immoral ways.
This was not only statistical changes, but manifested itself in snake oil politics and policies, anfd business ethics that would have been considered totally unacceptable previously. And the results are evident in day to day walking around life.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The United States has never had another leader like Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died 70 years ago this weekend. Serving for 12 years, far longer than any other president, he had such a profound impact on the nation and the world that he is widely recognized as one of the transformational figures of the 20th Century and one of America's best presidents.
It took two generations, with the 1980 election of conservative President Ronald Reagan, for the government to pull back and for Americans to conclude that Washington had become too powerful. But the underpinning of FDR's New Deal remain in place today, including a powerful executive branch and a culture of celebrity surrounding the president, carefully enhanced and nurtured by FDR during his long tenure.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/04/10/fdr-franklin-delano-roosevelt-made-america-into-a-superpower
Reagan changed all that, and then Bill Clinton continued it with the New Democrats.
jfern
(5,204 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Before that it was Barack is corrrupt and before that it was Bill is corrupt. Republicans he doesn't worry about. Vermont voters seem to like it that way and so do a lot of others. Go figure.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You're not listening to what Sanders says beyond the soundbites.
The system is corrupt. Most people acknowledge that.
But whenever it gets down to talking about specifics, people pull up their heels and make it personal or claim it is an "attack" on favored Dem politicians.
It is possible to like and admire and support, say, Obama, but also disagree and not like some aspects of his policies or affiliations.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I very strongly disagree and whenever I hear Bernie make that claim I hear a dog whistle, the same one I've been hearing since 2009. That's one reason I'll be very happy to see his exit from this year's circus.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Obama has been a great president in many ways, but was both prevented by the system from being more pro-active, and he bought into it to an extent, especially in the beginning.
Why do you think the ACA was so convoluted and watered down, and did not contain thuings like even a public option? Because the system and the corporate owners of government won't allow it.
Your dog whistle remark is disgusting.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.
HILLARY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."
-- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/barack-obama-campaign-finance_n_1855520.html
Record Fundraising: After securing the 2008 Democratic nomination, Obama announced that he would be the first presidential candidate to refuse to take public funds for the general election. The public financing system, funded by $3 contributions from taxpayers checking a box on their tax returns, provides a set amount of money to a candidate if he or she abides by certain spending limits. Declining those funds freed Obama to raise a record $750 million.
All the candidates have always made decisions about what was best for their candidacies, said Nick Nyhart, president of the campaign finance reform group Public Campaign. Each step away, I believe, was a decision predicated on which system will allow [the candidate] to raise the most money.
Obama rationalized his choice, which went back on an earlier promise to stay in the system, first by stating his support for public financing. The decision not to participate in the public financing system wasnt an easy one, especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections, he said.
And second, he blamed the opposition. But the public financing of presidential elections, as it exists today, is broken and the Republican Party apparatus has mastered the art of gaming this broken system, Obama said.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)This is not about racism or sexism.
This is about people's lives. Lives that matter.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Bernie is anti-war but some of his supporters here on DU sure like to wage war instead of forming peace.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)No it is a question I have been struggling with for a long time.
It;s not just about Bernie. While I admire him personally, I see him in more symbolic terms. He represents the discussion we should have been having for the last 35 years, but have not had.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Neither Dem candidate can win in November without the other's supporters. We should be trying to work together instead of splintering ourselves even further.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We've let this shit slide for 30 years.
And whenever someone tries to break the stranglehold they get "the treatment" from the defenders of the status quo.
I am both puzzled that people who want corporate rule choose to be Democrats, and angered that moderate liberalism is now called far left fringe, and peopel associated with it are attacked.
This primary has ripped off the scab....If I have to, I'll vote for Clinton in Nov just to keep the GOP out -- but I'm not feeling very olive branch oriented at the moment.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)But maybe turning on the TV and watching Clinton yelling that Sanders is attacking the victims of Sandy Hook which "is not surprising because he has actively been advancing the agenda of the NRA"......I don't have warm and fuzzy feelings.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I can bet my bottom dollar you are voting for Hillary.
I've never seen you post anything negative about Hillary or her supporters...only about Bernie or his supporters.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Boy, was I mistaken.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You are always trying to shut up Bernie people. I never see you doing that to Hillary people.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Not only that but what's wrong with expecting people to be factual and rational instead of conspiratorial? It's kind of tough to have a discussion with someone who abandons reasonable dialogue in favor of unsubstantiated nonsense.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And some Bernie supporters probably curse me for it. But this was a serious thread with a real and serious question that needs answers. Not conspiratorial stuff or silly attacks. And you still try to shut it down.
I just can't believe you are on our side.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)The Hillary posters have unsurprisingly avoided the topic as the Bernie posters have predictably dogpiled on it. While the OP may indeed have noble intentions, the execution of those efforts and the sheer contempt many Bernie supporters have for Hillary effectively prevented any discussion desired by the OP. I never shut down any discussion. I simply called out this discussion for what it was (an attempt to create more hostility and distance between the two camps) instead of for what it should have been (an attempt to communicate in hopes of finding some understanding or even some common ground). I could easily have been proven wrong if the Hillary supporters had flooded this thread with meaningful posts and conversation. That did not happen and somehow that makes me the bad guy here for recognizing that.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)eom
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)it's truly disturbing. That's why they don't understand Bernie or Bust. They think this crazy shit we're in is normal.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
sentenza607
(22 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Some good ideas there in specific terms.
I think we need more, and some are old chestnuts.
But I appreciate your straightforward response.
sentenza607
(22 posts)I can't speak for other Hillary supporters, but I'm a HRC supporter, and economic inequality is one of my top concerns. I like Bernie - have for years, well before he became as prominent as he is now - and I'm truly grateful that he has brought these issues to the forefront of the debate in a way that they haven't been in the past.
But in the end, I simply have more confidence that a President Clinton would be able to make progress on these issues than a President Sanders would in terms of translating possible solutions into policies and actual legislation given the current power structure and political climate.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)there were probably lots of people who thought Roosevelt couldn't either.
Sometimes we have to dream big and go for it. Bite the bullet, so to speak. Or we just slowly meander back and forth without a real direction.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)So I looked at the plan. It was for profit sharing tax credit.
Under Hillary's plan, if you make 50000 a year, and you get an annual 5000 in profit sharing for that year, the company gets $750 in tax credit. This was their example.
Now this is nice, but if the company is making good profits and they can afford to give some of those profits back to the employees, why should they get a tax credit for it (meaning they get to keep more of their profits).
I worked for a company that did pay profit sharing and it was nice, but they were not bribed by the government to do it. They did it because they were a progressive company. When my company did it, profit sharing was based on a percentage of profit, and then given out according to income, so it varied every year based on profits, and varied by how much you earned . Which I'm assuming would be Clinton's plan as well.
So, is the tax credit a flexible number that depends on how much profit the company makes, or is it fixed? If it's fixed, they could make a lot more profit and pay out more and still only get that much tax relief. If your profits are low for a year, you get more tax relief compared to payout. Or if your profits are lower for a year, you get more tax relief?
Is it only for companies of a certain size/number of employees? Is this even for small Mom and Pops?
If so, do the small Mom and Pops get the same deal, and do they actually make enough profit that they can give out profit sharing? They may only have a couple of employees at minimum wage, so that might work, but do they get enough tax credit to help them with this program? They are the ones who will need the tax credit the most, and the amount of credit will determine whether or not they can even participate in it. I approve of this tax refund concept for smaller companies. But larger companies that are making a lot more in profit, should not require a tax credit to be asked to pay part of their profit back to the employees. Or it should be progressive, based on the size of your company...the smaller you are the more tax relief per payout you get. etc.
Also, profit sharing is not a progressive plan. If you make minimum wage, you only get $240 per payout (assuming Clinton passes the $12/hour min wage), compared to a Manager making 200K or more a year getting 20K or more a year. I don't think it should be flat, but I do think it should be somewhat progressive...especially since most of the employees of, say a manufacturing plant, are not going to be high earners. So getting a flat amount per employee is in a companies favor if they have a high number of min wage earners, or near that.
And this leaves out temp and part time employees. Part time employees usually don't get to participate in bennies like profit sharing (depends on hours worked), and temp employees (the new replacement for part time and seasonal employee) never do. So how do we get to help them participate in the growth of the companies they are working for?
Under Bernie's ideal dream of a fair economy and wage system, corporations would have employees helping to make decisions about what to do with profit sharing, in which case, we'd be seeing a lot more profit sharing, without requiring us (the people) to pay the company with our taxes to participate in that "fair" system.
elleng
(131,107 posts)A surprising big number of my friends, some cyber- some REAL, seem to be removed from thinking on the subject. Are my friends really so unconscious? I THOUGHT most of my friends were pretty intelligent.
OMG, about railroad mergers, that was my BUSINESS, and I was closely involved in regulating and reviewing merger proposals. FYI, we considered effects on competition, and imposed conditions to mitigate perceived adverse effects. AND we DENIED one perceived to be unacceptably anticompetitive.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I think a lot of people sense that the Emperor is naked, but since everyone else pretends not to notice, people question their own observations. That's been the theme since 1980 -- now more and more people are admitting what they see and sharing it. But the Emperor's new clothes effect is still strong...among too many Democrats it seems.
P.S. RE Railroads -- They're in my blood. Both my grandfathers were in the railroad industry. By coincidence that both my parent's fathers worked at different railroads.
elleng
(131,107 posts)but really what will it take to disassemble the dnc? TOO many 'need' things as they are.
Transportation's in my blood, kind of; really law. Dad (and uncles, cousin, brother, husband) are/were lawyers. Dad and uncle represented first trucking companies, then bus companies, so I moved into the business.
Which railroads were your family's?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And help me understand why no Hillary supporter is responding to this.
You had an honest and fair OP asking for real answers to real questions about the issues. I take on one of her issues and there is not a single response from Hillary supporters.
Do they ever talk about real issues?
I'm thinking no.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)For one thing there aren''t that many who are likely to take my OP seriously enough to respond (though a few have).
But also, within threads people are less likely to pick out something like that for substantial discussion. People are moe interested in scoring points...It's probably better for its own Op.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Discussing the issues. It would have been nice.
Zira
(1,054 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Same thing happening in the health care delivery system. Depending on who writes the law, they get to stay non-profit, too, unloading even MORE burden on the tax payers for keeping their streets neat and protecting with fire and police control.
But, to answer your question, I don't think Clinton supporters see this as anything more than what we have to deal with one election at a time. They're sort of distracted, plus they have a lot of social events, and accept bullshit tactics way better after the sniff-o-meter goes off.
That's not a very good compliment, is it? Well, excuse me, but I just got the dumbest and most insensitive e-mail from a brother in law who is a super-delegate in FL. He's drank the Kool Aide, so he needs his face pushed in this, too.
Shame on all of them for not waking up soon enough. Is there hope? Sure, there is. There always is.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)...I lose another chink of it, when I see too much lemming like behavior.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That is, I'm perfectly willing to see inequality and concentration increase if at the same time the real wages and incomes of people at every quintile are going up.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)KPN
(15,650 posts)Corporate666
(587 posts)and want realistic solutions.
Just banging your fist on a lectern and whining about the rich doesn't accomplish anything. Making promises you KNOW you can't ever deliver doesn't solve anything either. Neither does lying about the cost of programs that you promise to implement, or lying about the massive tax increases coming for the middle class if your programs were ever passed into law.
I think Clinton is about realistic solutions. Massive taxation is not a realistic solution to anything. The government is never going to start taking 90% of the wealth of the top 1% and writing checks to the 'little guys'. It's just never going to happen. The correct solution is to enable the little guys to hoist themselves up the socio-economic ladder.
Expanded small business loans would help. Expanded grants for new technologies would help (like Obama did with solar companies and the EV tax credits - which let a phenomenal company called Tesla emerge). Expanding research into biotech and medicine will help. Creating new industries (as we did with the dot.com world, as we are doing now with EV's and alternative energy) helps.
Complaining about successful people doesn't help.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)If she wins the pretzeldency she will get primaried by a progressive in 4 years because nothing will really change with her. Heck her stingy $12. hr won't even fully kick in until well after she out of office even if she does all 8 yrs. She's just saying anything to get elected. Everyone can see that except her supporters.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)The Economics of Inequality Hardcover August 3, 2015
by Thomas Piety
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41sYtUi3dkL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
Most causes of current inequality are international and driven by globalization. "Tearing down Wall Street" would have little or no effect. "Breaking up the banks" would not make a bit of difference. When it's more profitable to grow money by hoarding it offshore than by investing in new businesses; when it's easy to move money around the world; and when most large money is inherited, not earned - then the dynamics create inequality. A NY bank has no role to play in most of those causes of inequality.
Bernie does not understand the issues or the solutions. For example, simply raising income taxes or transaction taxes would have much less effect than international monetary agreements and profit sharing.
Hillary (and Warren) have proposed solutions to the extent that the US can make a difference, but it will take cooperation from Congress and other nations to turn around the economic trends. Even though Dodd-Frank and predatory regulations are helpful to the US public and help prevent criminal schemes, they still don't do much for inequality that's been building world wide for 40-50 years.
Caring about problems is not the issue - it's finding solutions that matters.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I think I realize that its a complex situation with many contributing factors and differing interpretations possible. I also know that globalization and technology make things more problematic. Been hearing that since the gas crises on the 70's started injecting that as a major theme.
I've also heard all the bullshit used to excuse bad morals, bad behavior and bad policies. And I've also seen how difficult realities have been used as EXCUSES to fuck over the masses, while the oligarchs and their political henchmen enriched themselves by hollowing out the middle class and adding to the ranks of the working poor and all of the disadvantaged.
They reversed the positive trends towards greater equality not for some "necessary" reasons for survival but just because they participated in a variety of cycle of accelerating greed.
And it has been a step by step process, in which different decisions could have been made at many points to avoid the mess that has been created.
And -- here's the kicker -- they bought the soul of the Democratic party and made it an accomplice, instead of a counterbalance. And that enabled them to purchase the government. The Clintons represent the problem instead of the solution. The behavior of Bill Clinton in the 90's embodied that. Hillary is an extension of it.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)inequality started long before the Clintons. When I was working through college, and A1 in the draft, I introduced Jimmy Carter when he was campaigning.
We saw the beginnings of inequality and discussed it 3 Presidents before anyone ever heard of Bill Clinton.
Just like the savings and loan crisis (where people went to jail) did nothing to stop a new set of financial crooks from showing up - there's nothing except regulatory tools like Dodd-Frank that can do anything to fix US banking.
OTOH, inequality has been growing since WWII depending on where you happen to live. I worked beside migrants, and I saw mill villages first hand. "You owe your soul to the company store.". I had several relatives who lived their entire lives in semi-slave conditions. Fortunately, because of the GI Bill and some lucky breaks, my parents generation were the first to get an education and start moving the family out of survival times. Also, railroad and educator unions provided the first retirement, health benefits, and security that anyone had ever seen before the mid-20th century.
Times have changed. The only way to get a handle on growing inequality includes TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH MONETARY CONTROLS INCLUDED. Also, anyone who does business with any government agency should have PROFIT SHARING and UNION CONTRACTS and SALARY TRANSPARENCY. Those are the easiest routes to turning around inequality. Playing a game of hide the money from taxes is a losing proposition in the long run.
The biggest boost to the US economy would come from an automatic path to citizenship for all undocumented people. Depressed wages in the US are usually tied to exploitation of low paid workers who can't complain. Turn off that spigot, and hourly wages would instantly become competitive.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am open to the fact that there are many differing problems and possible solutions to all this. And I think we need to discuss on a more reasoned level than whether we personally like Hillary or Bernie. They represent larger forces and issues.
I know (and was conscious but was still in schoo) in the 60's all of the forces at the time.
But boiling it down to the big picture, in the 60's there were concerted efforts to deal with the economic problems (wealth and poverty) which was an extension of what was started decades earlier by social change movements and FDR (and in different ways by Teddy Roosevelt in Trust Busting).
The economic and social problems of the 70's pointed out the need to rethink some of the basics of liberalism. However, instead of adjusting, the US took a sharp right turn, and bought into the supply side bullshit of the Reagan Revolution and the Corporate Power Grab.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party abandoned liberalism (in terms of wealth and power) and failed to challenge the crap of the GOP and Corporate America. Instead, it bought into it. Which removed an alternative from the mainstream.
Whatever specific solutions are available, we have to PRO-ACTIVELY start pushing the pendulum back toward the left, and a more balanced view of the "center." ...Unfortunately that requires changing the frame from what we have been conditioned to accept since the 70's.
I don't see reelecting the same Democrtatic Power structure that created the problem as being the solution....And I do think if elected, Sanders would surprise people with how pragmatic and solution-oriented he really is. (His record as chief executive as Mayor of Burlington bears that out.)
.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)My father was a military officer during Korea - even though he was based in the US. I grew up on military bases; we built a bomb shelter in the back yard (really), and everything was centered around the cold war.
In the 60's, it really was drugs, sex, and rock & roll. As Vietnam grew, I was one of those who burned a draft card, got a college deferment, threaten to go to Canada - and I couldn't go home for a year! Economic arguments often centered around inflation. The first house I bought in the early 70's had a 13% mortgage!! Inflation was one issue that really hurt Carter in the second election. Back then, the "manipulation" of players was more on dollar value and gold than the stock market.
At any rate, the Democratic party was horribly split in the 60's - LBJ, McGovern, ERA, civil rights, anti-war, and the cold war competed to break everyone up. Remember that 50,000 Americans were killed in Korea and almost 70,000 in Vietnam. Iraq was a small skirmish in terms of US casualties. The justification for war in Asia was always just as manufactured as Iraq - no real difference there. We all knew it. I marched for the 18 year-old vote (if you could fight, you could vote).
In the 60's and 70's we spent an insane amount of money on nuclear weapons and NATO and the MIC.
I remember unions, women working (not for equal wages, but just working), and getting rid of corporate/agricultural indentured jobs as important economic issues with all the backdrop of international drama. Most economic issues were overshadowed by the war and social change.
Right now, Democrats are very passive compared to the 20th century. Most people don't vote, don't protest, and don't pay attention. I've been an educator 40 years. HS and college students today are not very active compared to the 60s or 70s. When over 100,000 Americans died in Asia between Korea and Vietnam - everyone had a friend or relative that they lost. That's not true today. Most young people don't register or vote. If there's a magic way to get them motivated, I haven't seen it.
BTW, I met Nixon in 1965 at Gen. Mark Clark's retirement from the Citadel. He was a really personable politician, and brilliant, but shady and scary even before he was elected President. My father and I had lots of disagreements about Nixon.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He was a point man between a big military contractor and the Navy. I grew up with a lot of fairly high Navy officers visiting, and feeling a little conflicted because I was an anti-war leftie type, and they were really nice guys. My father was also a nice guy and very ethical, even though I felt somewhat guilty because the MIC fed me as a kid.
Like many kids then, I grew up with ambivalent feelings politically. Those were mixed up times, for sure. I was an idealistic socialist, but I also identified reflexively with Democrats because of the Kennedy Camelot and the better side of LBJ.....Unfortunately the Viet Nam War messed up the relationship....But overall my view of liberalism was the lunchbucket northeastern version of blue collar guys who were proud Liberal Democrats because they knew that economically it was on their side....Unfortunately the whole social issues and war screwed that up too.
I still have that inherent internal identification with the Dems compared to the GOP, But it has gotten a lot more tenuous and disappointed and disapproving over the years, because of the rightward drift.
The kids? Dunno. The draft shaped a lot of the activism of the 60's because the personal asses of young people were on the line. But today, kids asses are on the line for different reasons now -- including economic pressures, social tensions, impending environmental disaster...I do think Sanders has kindled a lot of idealism among some of them, and I hope that sticks.
Anyway, my own overall feeling is that the pendulum of politics and values swung drastically to the right around 1980....Now that the chickens are coming home to roost from that, we have an opportunity to push it back in a leftward direction. I would hate to think we'll blow that chance.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why this is good for the democratic party...yet the DNC ascribes to it.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)What are they now?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Carni
(7,280 posts)In real life sound exactly the same.
Bernie supporters "spoiled lazy kids who want a free ride" is what I have heard them say and then they laugh.
They share the same dumb memes on social media and in emails. Bernie getting gas, letting the guy behind him pay for it and the like.
A lot of the ones I speak of (that I know) are on social security BTW
I can't even...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)NAFTA has been good for the CEO and ownership classes. For those who actually works for a living -- everyone from farmers to those on the assembly line -- the Trade Deals so beloved by neoliberals and neoconservatives alike have not been good. An example:
There aren't as many UAW members as when NAFTA got passed. A lot less. NAFTA went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.
It's not all bad, though. What were once-bankrupt car makers and car suppliers are doing great, hiring like crazy. The problem for U.S. workers is that most of the hiring is for new plants overseas.
Consider the case of DELPHI Automotive, a parts maker spun-off when General Motors couldn't make it sufficiently profitable:
Talk about a turnaround. Delphi's epic 2005 bankruptcy exacted high costs on communities, unions and the pensions of salaried retirees. Yet the creative destruction of the four-year ordeal, shaped by management, private equity investors and the demands of the Obama auto task force, produced a global supplier that now offers 33 product lines from 141 manufacturing sites in 33 countries and employs 160,000 worldwide only 5,000 of which work inside the United States.
-- Daniel Howes, Detroit News
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/columnists/daniel-howes/2015/02/18/howes-delphi-surges-quietly-one-regret/23655511/
The above is from a business columnist describing the good work of DELPHI's then-president in turning the company around. "Good work" is, of course, defined in maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder," seems to me, is defined as "Owner."
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)To get his supporters to vote in the mid terms? If Democrats don't show up in the mid terms the republicans will continue to block any meaningful change. What will Bernie do?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)BreakfastClub
(765 posts)the democratic nominee because she is a democrat. What will Bernie do? I really don't know. He hasn't been a democrat for very long, and he doesn't seem to really care about the party. He's just using it to "get exposure."
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)because his supporters didn't give a damn about it. Didn't seem to matter in '08. Didn't seem to matter in '12... Why does it matter now? You seem to be using this line of attack against the opposition to your candidate because, well, what else can you say? Barnie keeps accusing her of this nonsense, and his supporters go right along. But Obama had the same money donors as Hillary. Where was the outrage then? It must be faux outrage because it is very selective. The hypocrisy is astounding.
randome
(34,845 posts)Instead, all you seem to want to talk about is Clinton, not this issue or any other. It's always about Clinton and that's why people tend to tune you and your fellow supporters out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Triana
(22,666 posts)Those who want that perpetuated (and encoded into law) vote for Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511775964
QC
(26,371 posts)The cool kids are all about that team spirit!
We're gonna win, nanny nanny boo boo!!!!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)As long we get New Orleans, Panama City and the Florida Gulf Coast, The Keys,
as a member of the lower 90%, I'll take it!
Joking, of course, though I DO love New Orleans and the Florida Coast.
The above is a good representation of the Wealth Disparity in the US today,
and under Hillary, it WILL just get worse.
It is already at the breaking point.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
---JFK
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm solid for Clinton.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)JSup
(740 posts)...how you all answer like you know what's in the heads of Hillary supporters, standing around in a circle stuffing your strawman.
You might actually get a real answer if you didn't make up ridiculous ones; but you don't actually want a real answer, do you? But I'll give you one anyway.
Yes, I care; it's one of the most important things to me and has been for a very long time. It is why I am voting for the candidate that I feel is the best one to accomplish that. Just as you are voting for the candidate that you feel is the best one to accomplish that.
We disagree. It happens.
Edit: For any jury, this is a rebuttal to people thinking they speak for me and people like me.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)lead to working together to find a better solution.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am not responsible for how people respond. (Although admittedly I will agree with those who agree with me)
FWIW, I replied courteously to those those who gave a real counter answer without snark.
If you believe she is more capable of addressing the problem of income inequality, fine. That's horseracing.
But I believe that the who ethical and legal climate of Corporate Monopolization and Wall St. immorality is a root cause of much of the problem. I have not seen evidence that she is concerned about that, and the faction she represents has actually fostered those conditions.
I see Bernie as bringing the root causes out into the open, and that's why I believe he is much more likely to be effective on reforms to the extent that are truly needed.
JSup
(740 posts)...I didn't really intend my post to be directed to you and I actually intended to answer. But as I scrolled down through all of the (can't think of a better word here) 'dehumanizing' (do people really think we believe that crap?) I became blinded by anger and for the first time I posted with anger instead of my typical, mild snark.
I have been hearing her talk about these issues for a long time and I'm perfectly fine with folks calling me an idiot for trusting her but I really don't like being reduced to some caricature of a railroad baron when I don't even make enough to be a railroad peasant.
vintx
(1,748 posts)Sigh.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)I could ask, "Do Sanders supporters CARE about ANY issue they proclaim?" Because from my point of view, they are -- just like Nader did -- out to put a Republican in office.
You can yell all you want about something. It doesn't put you in a better position to DO something, nor does it mean you CARE more than someone who's taking a realistic path to actually making progress.
Have we not seen the GOP fight President Obama at every step? We're going to do single-payer now, when they're still voting to repeal Obamacare? We're going to feed the poor, heal the sick and stop military involvement, on a dime? Because of yelling louder?
Please .
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Arneoker
(375 posts)That I support the candidate who not only has the necessary passion but who also has the necessary effectiveness.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)But do you? Because if you really did you would vote Democratic if you had to crawl through broken glass.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And too often otehr Democrats did likewise.
A party label does not excuse bad policies and actions.