2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFrom a Bernie supporter to everyone who isn't one:
Last edited Sun May 22, 2016, 02:47 AM - Edit history (8)
Warning, this is more of a rant than I've ever done before. That said . . .
I hope that at least some Hillary supporters will recognize that I've supported the Clintons in the past, and really have no vendetta against or irrevocable allegiance to anyone; but am just trying to figure out what would be helpful to most of us, and how to further that.
That said . . . if you actually care about trying to persuade Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary, fwiw . . .
. . . in response to any DUers actually inclined to believe things like, "Of course there will always be a permanent underclass of minimally compensated workers. But those workers are free to leave at any time for higher paying jobs "
{you seriously believe that????}
. . . I'm going to go ahead and get more personal than usual.
I and my significant other average ca. 60 yrs. old.
Weve both worked hard and paid taxes since age 16. Were smart and well-educated I have an advanced degree; my significant other has an undergrad degree our degrees being from good schools plus we both self-educated in tech-related skills before those were taught in schools.
We avoided all debt, other than the mortgage on our home, which weve paid off; and bought our home in an area likely to appreciate. Weve lived modestly, and we didnt have kids, so we didnt have the expense of kids.
We and nearly everyone we know have been independent contractors for most of our lives, usually not by choice.
And we and nearly everyone we know saw a dramatic drop in our incomes ca. 2009 - 2010. Weve done better than many of our friends, but we've had little or no earned income since 2011, and have had to prematurely draw down our retirement savings.
And we and nearly everyone we know have not been eligible for any kind of unemployment benefits or other assistance, other than the Obamacare subsidies (thankful for those. But if you still work at a company that provides health insurance, please know that what's available to you {because you're working for the Man} is probably far better than what's available on the Obamacare Marketplace at any price).
And we and nearly everyone we know have been scrambling for years to get any kind of paid work we could find.
And we live in an area that is supposedly doing well compared to other regions.
Meanwhile, most of the costs that are hardest to forego food, healthcare, et al. have climbed steeply.
We were flooded ca. 2006, though were not in a flood zone, because the City had neglected the flood control system; and the storm that triggered it was presumably made more severe by global warming. Since we werent in a flood zone, we had no flood insurance. We lost a lot during that episode.
We were nonetheless more or less on track to be able to retire at the usual age without having to reduce our standard of living; then, a full quarter of our lifes savings was vaporized in the 2008 crash.
Were back on my college budget (beans and rice, washing plastic bread bags so we dont have to buy bags, etc.). Because we did manage to save what we did, I think well be ok, unless the economy crashes again which it seems very likely to do.
What kills me even more, is seeing other friends I love, who also did most things right, but had a kid or two, so their expenses were much higher; and now they are in total f*cking financial crisis. 50 - 60 -yr.-olds, who worked hard and lived prudently all their lives, and are now on involuntary weight-loss programs.
There are reasons the suicide rate is up.
And, meanwhile, Im hearing/reading/personally experiencing EVERY DAY new hosts of BASIC things our government USED to provide without any particular strain well-designed and -maintained roads & bridges, safe drinking water, healthcare for vets, disease control, public education, critical social work such as child protective services, national park maintenance, and on and on and on and on a daily litany of things that have been underfunded for DECADES, and theyre now all reaching the breaking point . . .
PLUS, global warming, because weve allowed the 1% to externalize costs for decades, etc. . . . .
And everyones like, w.t.f.? And Congress is all like, the only thing we have to fear is taxes on the 1%, or anything else the 1% doesnt like. And abortion, and gayness (aimed at the sexually distractible).
Among the political class, nearly NO ONE BUT BERNIE (and Liz Warren {omitting Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, and other worthies, but theyre not very visible lately) seem to understand the obvious cause:
That we have under-regulated and under-taxed most of the 1% for AT LEAST THREE DECADES.
After the 1929 crash, SERIOUS financial reforms were instituted, which successfully prevented crashes for decades, in one of the longest periods of economic growth and stability seen in human history until those reforms were dismantled under Bill Clinton and his successors.
After the 1929 crash, SERIOUS economic stimulus was implemented, which employed millions to rebuild infrastructure, which employees spent a considerable portion of what they earned, thus effectively restarting the economy; and the results of their work enhanced all our prosperity and quality of life for decades, in the form of essential infrastructure, great public parks, inspiring public art works, and other stuff that makes actual human progress possible . . . .
But under Obama, most of the stimulus went to the 1%, and surprise! Its never trickled down. The theory was, the banks will have more money to lend. But few can afford to borrow or, to the extent they do, their ability to repay is shaky.
Weve given the bank to the banksters, and instead of spending the money in ways that might create jobs or otherwise help anyone, theyre investing in more of the same kinds of unproductive speculation credit derivatives that caused the 2008 crash knowing that when it all comes tumbling down again and it will come tumbling down again theyll walk away unscathed and with big bonuses to boot, just like after 2008.
Meanwhile, during this three decades of under-regulation and under-taxation of the 1%, guess what? The 1% have amassed huge wealth and power and just about everything for the rest of us has gotten worse and worse. This, despite the fact that, during that same time period, our actual productivity literally DOUBLED!
Greater productivity should mean that we can all make enough to enjoy the same standard of living we had in the 70s, while working less hours. But instead, all that under-regulation and under-taxation enabled the 1% to scrape off and capture ALL the benefits of our doubled productivity.
So, yeah . . . now the 1% are intensely rich, rich beyond what most of us can comprehend, and seriously, the math has been done and if they could be divested of any substantial part of that wealth, a great many of the world's problems really could be solved . . .
. . . and of course the 1% have used part of their wealth to buy most of the media and our government (whats the point of achieving world domination, if you dont have the means to keep it?) . . . along with many of our essential services (if you like monopolies, youll LOVE owning services people literally cant live without); as well as private security services, ranches in Paraguay, etc., to remain safe while the whole, eviscerated system implodes . . . .
And since the 1% own the media, were hearing Trump 24/7 while Bernie has to pay dearly for every nanosecond of coverage. The 1% may not have been wild about Trump, but theyre terrified of Bernie.
So yeah, thats a rough take on how I see all that.
Now, I was never a big fan of Bill Clinton, but I considered the impeachment proceedings a ridiculous and outrageous witch hunt/fishing expedition/wasteful distraction. And that episode actually started me following politics more closely and being more active politically; and for a while, I liked Bill better and felt a lot of sympathy for both the Clintons.
But I happened to write a paper on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and as time went by I became aware of more and more aspects of Clintonian economic policy that didnt make sense to me.
And by now . . . Im not sure whether the Clintons don't understand or just don't care about my little struggles, but their actions through the years have made it clear that I should not trust them to look out for me or my friends; and I dont. Its not a matter of their intentions, at this point; they may think they have good intentions and that they know what's best for the rest of us; but I disagree. I.m.h.o., either they dont understand (or care) how hard it is out here, and/or notwithstanding Bills slogan, they dont get the economy and ditto Pres. Obama.
Im no economist, but the views of people like Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Yves Smith, Sheila Bair, and William Black seem to me to make more sense, and to have been proven right more often, than those peddled by Goldman alums and their ilk. Yet the Clintons and Obama seem totally hooked on Wall Streets economic kool-aid.
So the 1% are quite comfortable with Hillary, thank you; and theyre working on getting comfortable with Trump, in case Hillary cant beat him, after all. Like I said, the only one they really, really, dont want is Bernie.
And sorry to say, Im really not sure Hillary would be any better than Trump. The results of Hillary and Bills actual deeds have been, for me, not good. As for Hillary's words, she and Trump both seem prepared to say whatever it takes to get elected; beyond that, Trump at least seems capable of independent thought. No, I dont want Trump; but I really dont want Hillary, either.
Peace out.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Response to firebrand80 (Reply #1)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #140)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #143)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Rude, to be sure.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #153)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sort of a snarky way to blow off someone's commentary.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #157)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Zynx
(21,328 posts)"But under Obama, most of the stimulus went to the 1%, and surprise! Its never trickled down."
This isn't accurrate. ARRA, which was the primary stimulus bill, expanded Medicaid, Food Stamps, preserved public employment, implemented significant infrastructure spending, etc.
Obama also raised capital gains taxes from 15% to 23.8% and raises the top income tax rate to 39.6% again. These haven't been policies for the top 1%. Far from it.
Just correcting the record here.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Zynx
(21,328 posts)The economic forces that have been propelling it forward are very strong and taxation has to become more progressive to match it.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I applaud Obama for some of his policies. His hanlding of the thirteen bankers was loathsome. That was his chance to leave us a real legacy. Always small steps - incrementalism? Hasn't done us much good now has it? And frankly his ACA is on the ropes.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that incremental change, in our broken system, simply does not work for the 99%. IOW we need radical change, i.e. We need Bernie. So, thanks!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Thanks
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And so we're back to what I said the moment he declared. He is the wrong person at the wrong time.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)And by good goddamn, everyone knows that she'll give such to them. Look for "Common Sense Entitlement Reform" or other crass continued class warfare from a Hillary administration.
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)Remember quantitative easing, or whatever euphemism it was given, the lowest prime rate possible to allow banks continued access to cheap credit? As opposed to consumers - try getting a loan with .75% interest as a consumer?
ARRA was better than nothing, but it should have included a greater amount of infrastructure spending. The national train system could have had fuller funding - putting $400 billion in train infrastructure would have provided a more enduring stimulus, as opposed to supply side tax cuts, which were about $300 billion of the $770 billion dollar package, as I remember. This was when the Dems had a supermajority, a historic one, earned by Dems of all stripes through their activism in the 2008 election. There were a lot of arguments being made that the stimulus was too small - arguments put forth by some of the economists named in the OP, economists that got ignored when Obama put his team together, in favor of Clinton retreat Larry Summers.
I have great respect for President Obama, but he is subject to accountability for these choices on economic policy - better choices were politically and practically possible.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)be poor and work in a building that was collapsing, there's plenty of other maquiladoras out there!"
Trump talks infrastructure, Clinton has a record of "sell the country to Riyadh and Beijing and they'll give the party a lot of money to do good"
snot
(10,496 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)or very similar. What we want is representation, and with Clintons and Trump we will be totally left in the lurch. Neither has ever made it clear they are wiling or able to represent Independents, Greens, Democratic Socialists, Progressives except in lying rhetoric no one believes.
Our representation is literally for most of us, a matter of life and death, and we are mocked here and elsewhere for having to fight for human rights--in America--in our own party...
America is at a crossroads, what will unfold in Philly will be very interesting.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)snot
(10,496 posts)you said it better.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)needs to be heard, all the millions of us...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Second, Many of those posters do not understand. Well they don't want to. The short of this, the US is an oligarchy, and behaves like one. Oligarchies do fall...some violently, some from the streets...but not the ballot
dchill
(38,432 posts)Could have been the ballot, but they "fixed" that, too.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)make violent revolution inevitable
snot
(10,496 posts)I left out some other hardships that our current system has not helped with.
Urchin
(248 posts)It really gets interesting starting about six minutes into the video:
Response to Urchin (Reply #10)
carolinayellowdog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Urchin
(248 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I'll be watching it today. Richard Wolff is one of my favorite people. He's so smart, yet can speak in a way that is so easy to understand.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)This is simply untrue.
Bill Clinton: Glass-Steagall repeal had nothing to do with financial crisis
By focusing on the bill that officially repealed Glass-Steagall, Clinton's statement ignores the fact that the demise of Glass-Steagall took place over decades, amid a deregulatory push in which the Clinton administration played a role. By the time the law to repeal hit his desk, Glass-Steagall had been whittled down so much that it wasnt very meaningful. It's a matter of debate how much of a role the overall demise of Glass-Steagall had in causing the financial crisis, but we couldn't find any economists who argue that the regulation was the sole linchpin keeping the financial system stable until its official repeal in 1999. Overall, we rate Clintons claim Mostly True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/
Blaming the current state of affairs on Bill Clinton is not only old, stale politics, but it's just not provable.
DianaForRussFeingold
(2,552 posts)I agree, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, chipped away at Glass-Steagall.
But Clinton didn't have to go further, even after the S&L Crisis of the 80s.-- Bernie Sanders was for tightening regulations at that time.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/264675-clinton-and-summers-are-wrong-on-sanderss-glass-steagall-proposal
From the link above: "attacking proposals like those of Sanders, Warren and McCain on grounds that last century's Glass-Steagall wouldn't prevent this century's crises. That the 1930s Glass-Steagall wouldn't be enough today is precisely the point: It is why Sanders, Warren, McCain and others are calling for a 21st-century Glass-Steagall for an iPhone 6s, if you will, instead of a flip phone. Today's (not yesterday's) forms of shadow banking, in other words, are precisely what prompt these proposals.
If Hillary Clinton and Larry Summers are serious, then, in claiming that the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was not sufficient to address the shadow banking of 2008 or today, then they should join Sen. Sanders in and not attack him for advocating a Glass-Steagall fit for the today. To do otherwise is simply to play Wall Street's tune while pretending to play Main Street's tune yet again."
Bernie Sanders doing what he does best, standing up for the public.
He was concerned with the way the economy was being managed like a casino and explained that it's now possible (in 1998) for one person or institution to destabilize the entire economy world wide.:
Bernie Sanders on the Big Banks and Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act (7/1/1999):
Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) strongly denounces the Financial Services Modernization Act a repeal of the Glass-Steagall banking protections arguing that it will lead to mergers and monopolies by the big banks and expose taxpayers to potential subsidization of losses by bank speculation and risky trading practices."
senz
(11,945 posts)He saw what was happening, he spoke out about it, he voted against bad legislation, but few listened to him until he finally ran for president.
I am so glad he is running for president.
vintx
(1,748 posts)on her side.
senz
(11,945 posts)Talk him up, send a few dollars, volunteer to get out the vote/phonebank, get the word out, anything and everything.
This is the big push.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)PufPuf23
(8,747 posts)The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that officially ensured modernized regulation[1] of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Bill Clinton. It clarified the law so that most over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions between "sophisticated parties" would not be regulated as "futures" under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA) or as "securities" under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general "safety and soundness" standards. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) desire to have "Functional regulation" of the market was also rejected. Instead, the CFTC would continue to do "entity-based supervision of OTC derivatives dealers."[2] These derivatives, including the credit default swap, are a few of the many causes of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent 20082012 global recession.[3]
clip
Before and after the CFMA, federal banking regulators imposed capital and other requirements on banks that entered into OTC derivatives.[4] The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and CFTC had limited "risk assessment" authority over OTC derivatives dealers affiliated with securities or commodities brokers and also jointly administered a voluntary program under which the largest securities and commodities firms reported additional information about derivative activities, management controls, risk and capital management, and counterparty exposure policies that were similar to, but more limited than, the requirements for banks.[5] Banks and securities firms were the dominant dealers in the market, with commercial bank dealers holding by far the largest share.[6] To the extent insurance company affiliates acted as dealers of OTC derivatives rather than as counterparties to transactions with banks or security firm affiliates, they had no such federal "safety and soundness" regulation of those activities and typically conducted the activities through London-based affiliates.[7]
clip
CFTC/SEC dispute and PWG Report as basis for the CFMA
Dispute
In 1997 and 1998 a conflict developed between the CFTC and the SEC over an SEC proposal to ease its broker-dealer regulations for securities firm affiliates that engaged in OTC derivatives activities. The SEC had long been frustrated that those activities were conducted outside the regulated broker-dealer affiliates of securities firms, often outside the United States in London or elsewhere. To bring the activities into broker-dealer supervision, the SEC proposed relaxed net capital and other rules (known as "Broker-Dealer Lite" for OTC derivatives dealers. The CFTC objected that some activities that would be authorized by this proposal were not permitted under the CEA. The CFTC also issued a "concept release" requesting comments on whether the OTC derivatives market was properly regulated under the existing CEA exemptions and on whether market developments required regulatory changes.[24]
The CFTC's actions were widely viewed as a response to the SEC's Broker-Dealer Lite proposal and, at least by Professor John C. Coffee, as perhaps an attempt to force the SEC to withdraw the proposal. The CFTC expressed dismay over the Broker-Dealer Lite proposal and the manner in which it was issued, but also noted it was 18 months into a "comprehensive regulatory reform effort." The same day the CFTC issued its "concept release" Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Federal Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan, and SEC Chair Arthur Levitt (who, along with CFTC Chair Brooksley Born, were the members of the PWG) issued a letter asking Congress to prevent the CFTC from changing its existing treatment of OTC derivatives. They argued that, by calling into question whether swaps and other OTC derivatives were "futures", the CFTC was calling into question the legality of security related OTC derivatives for which the CFTC could not grant exemptions (as described in Section 1.1.2 above) and, more broadly, undermining an "implicit agreement" not to raise the question of the CEA's coverage of swaps and other established OTC derivatives.[25] In the ensuing Congressional hearings, the three members of the PWG dissenting from the CFTC's "unilateral" actions argued the CFTC was not the proper body, and the CEA was not the proper statute, to regulate OTC derivatives activities. Banks and securities firms dominated the OTC derivatives market. Their regulators needed to be involved in any regulation of the market. Bank regulators and the SEC already monitored and regulated bank and broker-dealer OTC Derivatives activities. The dissenting PWG members explained that any effort to regulate those activities through the CEA would only lead to the activities moving outside the United States. In the 1980s banks had used offshore branches to book transactions potentially covered by the CEA. Securities firms were still using London and other foreign offices to book at least securities related derivatives transactions. Any change in regulation of OTC derivatives should only occur after a full study of the issue by the entire PWG.[26]
CFTC Chair Brooksley Born replied that the CFTC had exclusive authority over "futures" under the CEA and could not allow the other PWG members to dictate the CFTC's authority under that statute. She pointed out the "concept release" did not propose, nor presuppose the need for, any change in the regulatory treatment of OTC derivatives. She noted, however, that changes in the OTC derivatives market had made that market more similar to futures markets.[27]
PufPuf23
(8,747 posts)new legislation that modernized Glass-Steagall rather than deregulation by repeal of G-S.
The financial economy had grown far more complex.
The New Deal reforms were not modernized and were repealed.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)He went along with the continuation of the dismantling of Glass-Steagall when he should have been putting the brakes on these relaxations - even if the repeal was mostly just "making official" the current state of G-S.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)The fact corporations are so out of control now comes down to good legislation from the forties that was unenforced and an administration of Wall Streeters thanks to the DLC. It's not that hard, folks. Good laws need enforcement. Same with EPA. The problem with rotating presidents is that one side enforces and then the other side stops enforcing or chips away at the good Who expected clilnton - democrat - to do such things? He succeeded due to Dot.com boom. Not because he understood economics. Rubin protected his own and Clinton thought it was great.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And I believe Politifact is wrong on a lot of this too.
Sorry, but Bill Clinton did have a lot to do with our current state of affairs, by taking us into neocon third-way dem territory and trade agreements that helped some people greatly in the US (the top) and hurt many many more (the middle class and poor), and even hurt other countries, like Mexico.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)EPA same thing. All the laws on the books have been enforced or unenforced depending on Presidents and administrations. Think Sherman Anti-Trust which Regan stopped enforcing. Politico is a right web site and you need to know enough(have enough facts and understanding) to know when they are spinning. They spin a lot.
snot
(10,496 posts)Agreed that the law is toothless without adequately-funded and -staffed enforcement, and we need to halt the revolving door!
andym
(5,442 posts)"But Clintons hands arent clean of the financial crisis, because his administration played no small part in the longer term deregulatory trend. Clinton and his administration did not make an earnest attempt to maintain oversight over the big, hybrid banks created by the demise of Glass-Steagall, Day said. Additionally, the administrations firm decision not to regulate other aspects of the financial market played a meaningful role in the crisis -- for example, the absence of regulations regarding over-the-counter derivatives, which were becoming increasingly prevalent, despite internal warnings."
Bill Clinton would do well to mull over this thought, because if his wife becomes President, it would be helpful for them both to understand the potential harm of deregulation, which has gone too far.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)snot
(10,496 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Are you really?
snot
(10,496 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)There are many out here who have experienced what you have described and have come to the same conclusion that you have. Remember when Bill ran on "It's the Economy, Stupid?" Well, its still about the Economy plus-- Jobs, Infrastructure, Equal Opportunity for All Citizens. We aren't going to bring back the Tech Explosion and Dot. Com. Investment Bubble of the Clinton years that masked the jobs we were losing overseas.
We are in some deep trouble here in the USA and Globally as we still suffer from the Bailouts of Wall Street Investing/Banking Crash of 2007-08. On top of that, Our Wars have caused Millions of refugees, who need jobs and will work for less because they are desperate. Things aren't going to be "Great" again in our lifetimes given the bad policies that have caused all this. Bernie sees this, Trump is Crazy/Unpredictable and Hillary and Bill haven't recognized their responsibilities for helping start all of this with the loosening of Regulations on Wall Street, Banking, Media and Trade Policy.
Snip from your excellent post:
So, yeah . . . now the 1% are intensely rich, rich beyond what most of us can comprehend, and seriously, the math has been done and if they could be divested of any substantial part of that wealth, a great many of the world's problems really could be solved . . .
. . . and of course the 1% have used part of their wealth to buy most of the media and our government (whats the point of achieving world domination, if you dont have the means to keep it?) . . . along with many of our essential services (if you like monopolies, youll LOVE owning services people literally cant live without); as well as private security services, ranches in Paraguay, etc., to remain safe while the whole, eviscerated system implodes . . . .
And since the 1% own the media, were hearing Trump 24/7 while Bernie has to pay dearly for every nanosecond of coverage. The 1% may not have been wild about Trump, but theyre terrified of Bernie.
So yeah, thats a rough take on how I see all that.
Now, I was never a big fan of Bill Clinton, but I wasn't following politics so closely in those days, and I considered the impeachment proceedings a ridiculous and outrageous witch hunt/fishing expedition/wasteful distraction. But that episode actually started me following politics more closely and being more active politically; and for a while, I liked Bill better and felt a lot of sympathy for both the Clintons.
But I happened to write a paper on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and as time went by I became aware of more and more aspects of Clintonian economic policy that didnt make sense to me.
And by now . . . Im not sure whether the Clintons don't understand or just don't care about my little struggles, but their actions through the years have made it clear that I should not trust them to look out for me or my friends; and I dont. Its not a matter of their intentions, at this point; they may think they have good intentions and that they know what's best for the rest of us; but I disagree. I.m.h.o., either they dont understand (or care) how hard it is out here, and/or notwithstanding Bills slogan, they dont get the economy and ditto Pres. Obama.
Im no economist, but the views of people like Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Yves Smith, Sheila Bair, and William Black seem to me to make more sense, and to have been proven right more often, than those peddled by Goldman alums and their ilk. Yet the Clintons and Obama seem totally hooked on Wall Streets economic kool-aid.
snot
(10,496 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)What an unmitigatedly conservative thing to say
Is this huge anus still.a.member... I bet so.since its.a.hillarian.
We used to try to keep the conservatives in their garbage out of here.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)seen similar statements here and it's unsurprising b/c one of the promises of Clintonianism is the professional class would be feted while the rest could suffer b/c their work was done in "dirty industry." I remember being duped by this thinking back in the 90s b/c the environment was my #1 issue. Yay, finally we'd move into an "information" economy and dump all that "dirty" industrial pollution.
but what that really looks like is dumping jobs of American workers overseas. and now we're faced with those same people folks i went to school with being treated like racist garbage b/c they're "white working class" who can't make ends meet and are ready for something (anything) to change that. i'm sick to death of the code-switching from class to identity politics. just b/c someone belongs to a certain race shouldn't discount their experience as being lost in this economy. Here's a decent article that deals with the disingenuousness of the Clintonian position: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/white-workers-bernie-sanders-clinton-primary-racism/
this is how Brock & Co use the "only whites like Bernie" trope to dismiss real concerns of real people who are falling so far behind they're killing themselves.
and i can't help but feel some guilt about this. you'd be hard-pressed to find a more ardent Clinton support than I was throughout the entirety of the first Clinton admin.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)That a country could be come purely service oriented and servicing money and information was unrealistic. Money and service didn't offer jobs or put food on the table. Where was the food, the clothing and the table going to come from? Overseas? I never understood how so many could fall for the message in that book.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Megatrends wasn't a book that I read and digested. it was more a cultural movement that we all were immersed in. it was like, "pollution is bad, progress is good...something something...we'll all be richer when everyone has jobs in FIRE industries (finance, insurance, real estate)."
and we bought it, more or less, depending on where we lived, and what our career trajectory was. i was in publishing/design/advertising and that field was being revolutionized by "information age" changes. looking back, i think i felt chosen -- for the first time ever in my life (having grown up in poverty).
i had ALL of the tools to resist this -- and i spent so many nights (literally) in a VW minibus (in the 80s, mind you) that stunk like a compost pile (b/c we kept a compost pile) agonizing over "which tribe to i belong to? the guys moving out to the mountains planting organic farms, or the guys building server farms?" my moral background said go to the mountains -- my pragmatic side said get the tools to get out of poverty, and then move back to the mountains. "come back to it" in other words.
the problem is, you can't "come back to it." you make your choices and that determines who you become.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Response to nashville_brook (Reply #25)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Demonizing, Not Engaging
Recent discussions about the white working class and racism (me, DeBoer, Mystal, et al) have me flashing back to the fascinating world of 2008 LGBT politics. In that year, the majority of Black voters came out and voted in favor of proposition 8, a successful referendum that sought to eliminate same-sex marriages in California. Needless to say, this put LGBT writers and activists in a tough spot: do you take out your frustrations and demonize Black people as anti-gay bigots fighting against equality or do you blame yourself for failing to adequately engage Black people on the issue?
After some initial grumbling, the consensus position was to blame themselves for not engaging. In a post at The American Prospect titled Engaging, Not Demonizing, Adam Serwer argued:
Dean Spade weighed in similarly:
Jessie Daniels at The Society Pages shared similar sentiments:
Of course, white LGBT advocates never did successfully engage Black people well enough to bring them around on the gay marriage cause. Instead, what happened is gay marriage advocates ran up their support among whites so much that it didnt really matter what Black people (a 13% minority) wanted. Put bluntly, majoritarian support for LGBT rights was largely won through a GOP-like demographic strategy of maximizing white margins.
Nonetheless, whats interesting to me about the 2008 moment is the rallying cry of Engaging, Not Demonizing. The liberal response to Blacks opposing gay marriage was not to demonize them as anti-gay bigots that can go fuck themselves for all liberals are concerned. They certainly could have responded that way. As history shows, winning the support of most Black people was not remotely necessary to win gay marriage. But instead liberals responded with calls for further engagement, calls for further outreach, and, crucially, calls for finding broader social justice goals and issues that are central to racial and economic justice that could possibly unify the LGBT and Black causes.
This is contrasted with some recent liberal sentiments about lower class whites, which are more about Demonizing, Not Engaging. Specifically, the fact that many lower class whites are racist is enough grounds it seems for many Discourse Liberals to say to hell with them.
DeBoer argues that this new posture shows that liberals have evolved towards more conservative modes of thinking, modes which emphasize that only the morally good are worthy of concern:
Yet in a deeper sense I think conservatives have won a major victory, one not understood by them or their antagonists: they have written the notion that dignity, respect, and material security must be earned into the progressive imagination. They have made the notion of a moral meritocracy inescapable in American civic life
While Id agree with DeBoer that this is a particularly conservative approach, the reality is that these Discourse Liberals do not actually adhere to the approach for populations other than lower class whites. As discussed above, they didnt and dont say to hell with Black peoples needs just because most Black people oppose LGBT marriage rights. And right-wing efforts to talk about how many Muslim communities across the world hold views about women and LGBT people that liberals find abhorrent are shrugged off instantly. For these and other groups, being morally problematic (under the liberal framework) does not make them undeserving of dignity, respect, and material security.
So whats going on, then? If liberals havent evolved generally towards a moral meritocracy worldview, then why do they seem to apply that worldview to the case of lower class whites? I dont pretend to know the answer to this, but Emmett Rensin suggested to me earlier that the main dividing line here is whether liberals think you will vote for Democrats or not. That is, lower class whites are seen as largely outside of the Democratic coalition and therefore their moral failings are seized upon as adequate grounds for dismissing them and their problems. But other groups, such as Blacks and Muslims, are seen as inside the Democratic coalition, meaning that when they hold morally degenerate views (again under the liberal framework), the proper remedy is not to dismiss and demonize them but instead to do more and better outreach. Which is to say, the moral high ground that Discourse Liberals stake out with regard to lower class whites is mostly motivated by a more crude partisan tribalism.
This is obviously just a speculation on Rensins part, but it seems plausible enough. At minimum, it accounts for why some groups are subject to moral meritocracy while others arent.
Response to nashville_brook (Reply #136)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)It also applied to people of color that are working class just as much and probably more but it seems they can get by because the "upwardly mobile" set are thriving and they aren't utterly scapegoating the poorest like the TeaPubliKLANS but mostly because they have learned to leverage influence with the churches whenever they want to sell a bill of goods that will bite black folks square in the ass like the crime bill, savaging welfare, or Duncan's education deform.
The upperclass blacks will continue their upper class agenda at current levels and will have a lot of influence in the wrong directions because black folks that have "made it" are at much more a premium than most other demographics but if headway can be made in those churches when the election isn't coming then the "firewall" will erode some.
Couple that with motivating young blacks to participate, especially in primaries and we can swing the dynamics enough for an even or better ground with that key demographic.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)it shouldn't necessarily be that way, but it's what's been emerging. we could form a wicked-bad alliance across the spectrum there wasn't such pressure from the top to mind the silos.
snot
(10,496 posts)Response to nashville_brook (Reply #25)
Live and Learn This message was self-deleted by its author.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Freeloaders on welfare, deadbeats, have to cut social security..." It's not far from freeperville in some places
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I sent the admins an email asking whether i as a southern moderate would be a good fit.
I got back a you take your chances email i think ( could be mistaken) and signed up
It was a mind opening place and the differing opinions expressed so well i saw myself being educated here with ideas from outside my bubble and the things i learned informed and changed my worldview
I fi d it ironic i once felt myself too moderate to be here
snot
(10,496 posts)funny about that.
(fwiw, https://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ .)
senz
(11,945 posts)What you're saying here needs to reach a wider audience. It captures the truth of what so many Americans have experienced. Not many have been able to put it into words, however.
I hope you journaled this.
Now back to your awesome OP.
snot
(10,496 posts)gawd no I've never journalled here.
DianaForRussFeingold
(2,552 posts)snot
(10,496 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)"essay" status. thanks for posting.
snot
(10,496 posts)I'm feeling kinda overwhelmed.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I prospered during the Clinton and lost much in 2001. Bills like CFMA which played heavy in the financial crisis was passed by a big majority in Congress. If TARP had not passed it would have been more doom and gloom. I just wish the Obama administration was in charge of the TARP rollout but it did not happen Obama fought hard to get the Auto Bailout and allowed the auto industry to retool and become successful.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)He facd thirteen bankers shaking in their boots and he let them off the hook. He was inexperienced and meek. Read Thirteen Bankers by Simon Johnson.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)It would have happened. He didn't want to take responsibility.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)snot
(10,496 posts)We didn't even investigate. But you can't look at what we know Goldman did even without investigation and not know that fraud happened.
See/read all you can by Bill Black. We handled the S&L crisis created by deregulation of the S&L's quite differently, and with MUCH better results.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Whatever the investigation in order to bring charges against anyone. The regulations was not in place at the time of the financial crisis, our laws are retroactive. Now tell me what could you charge any one with and what would the reason be to "investigate"?
snot
(10,496 posts)and could have been proved if investigation had taken place.
Read/see all you can by Bill Black.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Be charged with a crime, fraud or whatever just because some people wants them investigated. Would you want to be in the position of being investigated when you have not broken any rules, laws, etc? There are plenty of crimes occurring on daily and to just investigate without reason is a waste of money. It would liken to the police just walking into your home without a warrant because they have been told you might be doing something and therefore they are going to go through your residence and personal affair because someone suspects you are doing something wrong. We would not want this to become the law of the land rather than the protections we now enjoy.
snot
(10,496 posts)Again, please read/see all you can by Bill Black.
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #127)
snot This message was self-deleted by its author.
Califonz
(465 posts)when they can borrow at essentially zero interest and earn more with the payday loan racket, 20% credit card interest, 10% used car loans, 6% home loans to sub-prime borrowers, or just make a virtually guaranteed 5% by playing in the stock market? The money is in shipping the good jobs overseas, selling the product here for only slightly less than what they'd have charged if it were made in an American factory, and pocketing the difference.
But don't try to tell Hillary voters that. It's "her turn" after all.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)I like it because you lay out the REAL challenges the white working and middle class have experienced over the past 20 years. It was crystallized with the Great Recession. Whites between 30 and 50 years (mostly male) are dying in significant numbers. Heroin addiction is at epidemic levels in states with predominantly white populations (new Hampshire). If you recall President Obama tried to pass the American Jobs Act (the huge infrastructure bill) which would have put unemployed displaced workers back to work with training and job placement. I loved it because it reminded of the Roosevelt's public works projects that put millions of Americans back to work when the unemployment rate was over 25% probably closer to 50%. But this was the bill the GOP refused to pass because this would destroy their political prospects for the WH, and Congress. The GOP is in control of Congress and they say they're looking out for the white working and middle classes and yet, the American Jobs bill has never come to the floor of the House and now is completely dead with the GOP controlling both houses.
To me, the most important group that needs a way forward is the white working class. I'm saying this as an African American. Bernie emphasized economic justice and a big part of that platform was jobs but we are going to need those Wall Street partners to make it happen. Most working and middle class Americans are employed by them or their companies have an interdependent relationship with them. This is the reality. Hillary will need to make it very very clear how she's going to pay for it. That's the most important part for indies and moderate Dems.
A jobs bill has to be one of the first bills. I call them the first 100 days bills. The other two are gunsense and immigration. I would say another issue is expansion of healthcare and addressing the cost of prescription drugs. But that can happen during the first term because the infrastructure is already there. To get these things done we need to vote blue DOWN ticket, House, Senate, Govs, state houses, mayors, brd of supervisors, city council.
I 'm not perfect and I don't live in a perfect world but I believe the DEMS have at heart the PUBLIC interest.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Small businesses are backbones of communities and employ people. Working for corporations who buy politicians becomes oppression. Wall Street partners? That's a crock. I guess we could always hire Rubin back. Not.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)taking care of kitchen table concerns first. people
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Takes intelligence and information, Not slogans. Not accusations.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)But in this country, voter eligibility is not determined by maturity or critical thinking skills
snot
(10,496 posts)I do think Obama, and to some degree???? the Clintons, do or did have good intentions.
But the best you can say is that they are (among the most personally successful) part of the Dem establishment that has totally failed either to grasp? or care about? (not sure which) the bigger-picture takeover by conservatives since the 70's of the media, our election system, now they've half-way destroyed public edu. (another area in which I'm afraid Obama has seemed naiveArne Duncan?? really???), & etc.
elleng
(130,709 posts)snot
(10,496 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)barrow-wight
(744 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Response to snowy owl (Reply #70)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
barrow-wight
(744 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)I hope you can publish this relevant and meaningful essay more widely. It brings it all into much needed perspective.
You wrote a paper on Glass-Steagall.
I wrote a paper on the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
I wonder if anyone here wrote a paper on GATT/WTO and NAFTA?
Because these three definitive pieces of Clinton legislation -- banking deregulation, media deregulation, and trade deregulation -- cemented what Ronald Reagan started.
They, and their Reagan predecessor, are the primary reasons so many of our fellow Americans are now utterly screwed and helpless.
Esp. re- telecom/the internet it's hard not to cry over the potential we've already allowed to be stolen from us.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You could have been writing about My Wife & I.
Basically the same story.
You did a good job of telling it.
Kudos, and good luck to you and your wife.
Korean Free Trade Deal devastating for US Workers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-cohen/koreaus-free-trade-agreem_b_4965492.html
Meet the TPP: Crony capitalism on a global scale
https://represent.us/action/tpp/
Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html
Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210
Retirement: A third have less than $1,000 put away
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/03/18/retirement-confidence-survey-savings/6432241/
65 percent of working families are living from paycheck to paycheck.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/
"Obama Admins TPP Trade Officials Received Hefty Bonuses From Big Banks"
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/20/obama-admin%E2%80%99s-tpp-trade-officials-received-hefty-bonuses-from-big-banks/
95 percent of the economys gains have gone to the top 1 percent
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/
Billionaire wealth doubles since financial crisis
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/11/12/Billionaire-wealth-doubles-since-financial-crisis/5011384268135/?spt=hts&or=12
The Top .01 Percent Reach New Heights
http://www.demos.org/blog/9/13/13/top-01-percent-reach-new-heights
Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209
Obama appoints industry insider to head the FCC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140
The Totally Unfair And Bitterly Uneven 'Recovery,' In 12 Charts HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662029
Larry Summers Gets 'Full-Throated Defense' From Obama In Capitol Hill Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post1
Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/untouchables/supreme-court-ruling-a-blow-for-future-financial-crisis-cases/
Income gap widest ever: 95 Percent of Recovery Income Gains Have Gone to the Top 1 Percent
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/10/one_percent_recovery_95_percent_of_gains_have_gone_to_the_top_one_percent.html
Older Workers:.Set Back by Recession, and Shut Out of Rebound
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/booming/for-laid-off-older-workers-age-bias-is-pervasive.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&
40% Of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage
http://seeingtheforest.com/40-of-americans-now-make-less-than-1968-minimum-wage/
Daily CEO Pay Now Exceeds the Average Worker's Annual Salary
http://thecontributor.com/daily-ceo-pay-now-exceeds-us-workers-annual-salary
76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/index.html
New Rule (Passed by Congress and signed by President Obama) signals Kiss of Death for Pensions
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100694955
Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under Obama -- Highest Rate Since 1900
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/corporate-profits-have-grown-171-percent-under-obama-highest-rate-1900
Wealthy win lion's share of major tax breaks
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2013/05/29/wealthy-win-lion-share-major-tax-breaks/Ua0UyYle21EUXub7g1suCI/story.html
Wealth gap widens as labor's share of income falls
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/wealth-gap-widens-labors-share-income-falls-1B6097385
Corporate Profits Hit Record High While Worker Wages Hit Record Low
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/?mobile=nc
THIS ^ does NOT happen by accident.
vintx
(1,748 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)yet only a few posts above you someone is saying:
Most working and middle class Americans are employed by them or their companies have an interdependent relationship with them.
More trickle down shit that didn't work in the first place, and what you are posting up above shows exactly what has been happening since Clinton's time in the white house.
Productivity can keep going up and profits can keep going up (and more trade agreements will help this) but all the money is going to the wealthy. Fuck em. They don't need American workers or even consumers any more because now they have off shore workers and consumers to replace us.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Remember derivatives?
Agony
(2,605 posts)You can blame me, I voted for them 5 or 6 times so far in my life, I got suckered.
...which is why I will not be voting for a Clinton ever again, they had their chance and it has only gotten worse.
Response to bvar22 (Reply #36)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
snot
(10,496 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)PufPuf23
(8,747 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)They don't fucking get it. I don't fear a republican, not anymore since democrats work so well with them.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Your reference to:
which was a response to one of my posts, exemplifies the uncaring attitude of some HRC supporters. (I hope that this attitude is only subscribed to by a very few HRC supporters.)
But yes, the 1% are so undertaxed that they have the money to invent think tanks and advocacy organizations that flood the corporatized media with misinformation.
The 1% are so undertaxed that they have bought many politicians from both parties.
The 1% are so undertaxed that the principal Walton heirs are worth more than the bottom 40% of Americans. And taxpayers subsidize these Walmart thieves by paying for the public assistance that many Walmart workers need to supplement their minimal wages.
840high
(17,196 posts)k&r with love for Bernie.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bernie is no threat to the 1% because the GOP House would block everything he would try to do and would label it socialist and radical. I know this because they did the same to Obama. Smart people recognized they were full of it regarding Obama. Still too many folks believed it. There would be no impediment to believing it with Bernie because it would be true. They would run against him very successfully in 2018 and would throw him out in 2020 after blocking everything he tried to do.
For Bernie to have had a chance to actually do things if elected, the last six years would have had to have played out differently. We would have had to at least played it close in 2010, not lost all those state legislatures and governorships going into redistricting, not lost the House, etc.
As a result of what actually did happen, no Democrat can do much for the next 6 years and longer than that (16+ years) if we don't win back some of those legislatures through 2020 so that we can ungerrymander the districts in advance of the 2022 congressional elections.
Given that no Democrat can do much, I go with the person who has more experience at the national level.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)The average person now supporting Trump and Bernie are sick and tired of it. You're missing the change. this is not 2008. The electorate on both sides has seen an obtructionist government and they are finding another way. Your often-cited meme is simply incorrect. The electorate has changed. They want outsiders. they are ready to vote for them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you want to see a tepid change election see 2008. If you want to see a landslide one, check 1932.
In 2008, the establishment candidate of the Democrats was beaten despite all of her advantages. Bernie isn't doing nearly as well against her.
The GOP had a field of weak losers against Trump, all of whom assumed he would implode and so they let him go about doing his thing and they let him become a hero to folks who hate political correctness.
This election isn't playing out regarding change even as much as 2008, let alone something as monumental as 1932.
You want it to be so, but it just isnt there.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Liberals like me preferred Obama (and his false rhetoric which sounded much more ike Bernie today) to Clinton. Simple Blacks in droves supported Obama - early states You cannot ignore the black support for one of their own. Even given their Clinton love. In a white vs white, their loyalty to Clinton continued. And many other states followed suit. Some out of loyalty and some out of name recognition. And some out of belief in incrementalism. But polls clearly show it is the year of the outsider. You can spin it any way you wish but almost every political watcher can see that it is the year of the outsider on both sides. If Trump holds it together, my bet is he'll beat Hillary. If he doesn't, he'll lose.
We'll see because I believe she will be the nominee. But Sanders is going to pin her to a more progressive platform and he has my total support in that because an outsider is what the people want. Merge those on the right with those on the left and you'll see the establishment loses. The only thing keeping the establishment together is parties and closed primaries. No, not in every case but it is a piece of a different puzzle.
Can you name the last election when more than sixty percent of the electorate even voted? I'll tell you:
They estimate that as a percent of eligible voters, turn out was: 2000, 54.2%; in 2004 60.4%; 2008 62.3%; and 2012 57.5%. These were the same figures as given by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.
Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections - Wikipedia ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_...Wikipedia
Bernie is bringing them back. Trump may be bringing them back. That I don't know.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There is no such movement on the Democratic side. And to call Trump's victory in the 'pug nomination a movement for change is a joke. It's no more a movement for change than Schwarzenegger's victories in California both times was a movement for change. It's simply a media star with great name recognition who knows how to play the media better than weak opponents.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Reread what I said.
snot
(10,496 posts)1. Obama had less experience in DC, didn't realize what he was up against.
2. The GOP's (unlike too many, relatively pusilaminous Dems) will block EVERYTHING that's not totally in their interest. Hillary has no magic wand to make them do what they think is against their interests (even if she wanted to which too much of the time, it's not clear she does), any more than Bernie does. But Bernie will, at least, articulate the counter-argument!! Which is extremely important, since conservatives have been so successful in monopolizing the narrative for so long.
3. The Clintons and Obama seem to have believed we should cede the field first, and work with what's left. The Republicans seem to have believed, take no prisoners; we are 24/7 delivering our EXTREME message. Which strategy has worked best?
Uncle Joe
(58,268 posts)Thanks for the thread, snot.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)It really is as simple as that. I can add nothing except try to disregard all the flack, parsing, and idiocy you'll be flooded with from those who can't separate themselves from single sources and who fall for so much spin on what are really clear cut facts. Every media outlet is now spinning. They've been bought by the capitalists. It is hard to find the truth anymore. Those of us who've lived it understand it. i call it the institutional memory of those of us who are old and it is missing in those under forty maybe even fifty. Reagan told a great story that many people can't seem to let go. Government is for the people - for the common good But we've lost that understanding. So sad.
One thing not mentioned yet: Reagan's giving pensions to companies as assets. That put a lot of people in jeopardy and they still are. To me, that may have been the most corrupt act of all.
Down with plutocracy and oligarchy. But it may be too late. I guess we can always send our kids off to war.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)And it moved the dialog to the left.
It's time to move ahead and stop Trump.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)You definitely gave me more to think about.
I've read it all, and am reading through some of the responses here, which is quite informative...
Sad, but informative.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I'm a little surprised at the replies that assume I'm talking about the experience of "whites."
And if either Clinton did anything that helped PoC's in some special way, I'd be sincerely glad to be educated about that.
DLevine
(1,788 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)in February, but is almost June and Clinton has an insurmountable delegate lead. She will be the nominee...and at 60, unless you plan to eat cat food, you will vote for the Democratic nominee and pray she wins... and not Trump.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)What a threat - "vote for Hillary or you'll be forced to eat cat food." What a crock of shit.
Bettie
(16,058 posts)is the ironic and sparkly "K0indness and love" deal at the bottom.
I'm going to be nasty and make a threat, but "kindness and love". Yeah, right.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)If the GOP gets all three branches of government, we are all screwed. So vote accordingly. Bernie Sanders is not worth throwing an election to the GOP...he isn't. He can go back to the Senate and do us some good...he can work for income inequality...or other important issues. There is no need to allow a bad actor like Trump to win because your chosen candidate lost.
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)I am in my 50's with not much saved due to 3 kids, aging parent with me, and my own chronic health issues. I did have 2 kids graduate from the University of Texas yesterday so that will help, though one still has 3 or 4 more years of school, the other got his Master's degree yesterday (4.0 GPA, just a little proud).
We will not defeat the Fascism/oligarchy with Hillary or Trump. I regard most Hillary supporters about how they view me, out of touch. Despite making it clear in every speech how Bernie would achieve our goals, I keep seeing them say Bernie will not be able to get anything through Congress. They either haven't really looked into what he is saying or just don't think we can pull it off. Meanwhile they don't address what Hillary will give away to get anything passed. Sure she will have bi-partisian support for the financial give aways of our tax dollars, quietly of course, that's how all of this passes. The media doesn't report most of it, but most of the social bones she will throw us she will have to horse trade for after a very distracting drawn out battle with Republicans designed to draw attention away from the screws being put to us in other areas. That's just how Obama has done it.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)tom-servo
(185 posts)jimlup
(7,968 posts)thanks. Yes, that is very much my perspective as well.
mac56
(17,564 posts)kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)would have favored him big time. He has really disappointed me in the past few months, however.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)He's not a woman nor would he become one to get your vote. He's come very close to winning the nomination in spite of several disadvantages. Most importantly though, you think Sec Clinton is qualified to be president. Nope, he never had a chance with you.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)everything you wrote.
Thank you so much for sharing your story. Makes us feel not quite so alone.
Again, thanks.