HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Vote for Democrats. We ha...

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:19 PM

Vote for Democrats. We have no choice, really.

And ask everyone you know to vote for Democrats, too.

Last night I posted a rather scathing screed. I was in a foul mood for various reasons, and I stand by what I said - that neither political party, as a whole, is looking out for working Americans.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that both parties are the same. The Republicans are much worse. Much, much worse. Incredibly terrible. It'd be nuts to vote for them, or to not work to get Democrats elected.

Some of us are lucky - looks like I'll get to vote for one definite FDR Democrat this fall (Ms. Warren), and another probable Liberal (Mr. Kennedy). And, unless something unexpected happens, I'll grit my teeth and vote for the other people on our party's ticket. I hope that you'll do the same.

And then let's start getting more FDR Democrats on our tickets.

Excelsior!

131 replies, 14781 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 131 replies Author Time Post
Reply Vote for Democrats. We have no choice, really. (Original post)
MannyGoldstein May 2012 OP
TheWraith May 2012 #1
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #4
ProSense May 2012 #7
rug May 2012 #9
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #12
FarLeftFist May 2012 #15
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #22
treestar May 2012 #126
ProSense May 2012 #17
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #23
Luminous Animal May 2012 #30
ProSense May 2012 #32
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #33
ProSense May 2012 #36
Luminous Animal May 2012 #40
JDPriestly May 2012 #55
coalition_unwilling May 2012 #113
mvd May 2012 #8
ProSense May 2012 #10
mvd May 2012 #14
FarLeftFist May 2012 #13
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #16
FarLeftFist May 2012 #19
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #25
FarLeftFist May 2012 #50
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #69
ProSense May 2012 #21
JDPriestly May 2012 #59
Icicle May 2012 #89
bhikkhu May 2012 #121
JDPriestly May 2012 #57
JDPriestly May 2012 #54
ProSense May 2012 #56
JDPriestly May 2012 #63
ProSense May 2012 #74
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #67
ProSense May 2012 #71
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #73
ProSense May 2012 #76
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #84
treestar May 2012 #125
nevergiveup May 2012 #5
WillyT May 2012 #37
FarLeftFist May 2012 #51
JDPriestly May 2012 #60
mmonk May 2012 #66
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #68
ProSense May 2012 #72
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #75
ProSense May 2012 #77
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #83
WillyT May 2012 #86
JDPriestly May 2012 #53
WillyT May 2012 #87
JDPriestly May 2012 #96
ibegurpard May 2012 #58
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #98
SidDithers May 2012 #108
Dragonfli May 2012 #116
SidDithers May 2012 #118
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
Dragonfli May 2012 #119
treestar May 2012 #127
Poll_Blind May 2012 #2
chervilant May 2012 #97
mvd May 2012 #3
ProSense May 2012 #6
slipslidingaway May 2012 #38
ProSense May 2012 #46
krawhitham May 2012 #48
ProSense May 2012 #49
JDPriestly May 2012 #62
ProSense May 2012 #80
JDPriestly May 2012 #61
ProSense May 2012 #79
Thinkingabout May 2012 #11
bluestate10 May 2012 #18
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #24
longship May 2012 #20
ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #26
ProSense May 2012 #27
Zorra May 2012 #28
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #31
Jamaal510 May 2012 #29
abelenkpe May 2012 #42
lunasun May 2012 #47
Herlong May 2012 #34
just1voice May 2012 #91
Amster Dan May 2012 #35
pa28 May 2012 #39
Herlong May 2012 #41
NashvilleLefty May 2012 #43
Herlong May 2012 #45
abelenkpe May 2012 #44
JDPriestly May 2012 #52
Rhiannon12866 May 2012 #64
Douglas Carpenter May 2012 #65
DonCoquixote May 2012 #70
jambo101 May 2012 #78
KG May 2012 #81
SidDithers May 2012 #82
bvar22 May 2012 #88
Dragonfli May 2012 #99
SidDithers May 2012 #100
LineLineLineLineReply .
Dragonfli May 2012 #103
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #102
Dragonfli May 2012 #107
morningfog May 2012 #105
SidDithers May 2012 #110
morningfog May 2012 #112
scheming daemons May 2012 #85
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #94
sabrina 1 May 2012 #104
treestar May 2012 #128
sabrina 1 May 2012 #129
just1voice May 2012 #90
KamaAina May 2012 #92
Fire Walk With Me May 2012 #93
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #95
midnight May 2012 #101
Dragonfli May 2012 #106
SidDithers May 2012 #109
LineLineLineReply .
Dragonfli May 2012 #117
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #122
SammyWinstonJack May 2012 #111
peace pilgrim 19 May 2012 #114
randome May 2012 #115
MineralMan May 2012 #120
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #123
nolabels May 2012 #124
Douglas Carpenter May 2012 #130
MannyGoldstein May 2012 #131

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:27 PM

1. I find it ironic that you invoke FDR.

Considering the fact that at the time, FDR was the subject of the exact same criticisms you're leveling at Obama and current Democrats: Not radical enough, not really doing anything, doesn't care about the common man, etcetera. And yet, some people still don't get it that it's not a lacking of the Democrats that they can't wave a wand and make things better; it's a lack of understanding that there has never been a magic wand option, and "just try harder" isn't a strategy. The New Deal passed in a Congress that held three Democrats for every one Republican, and half of the proposals STILL didn't survive for one reason or another. If people learned more history, they'd realize that progress doesn't come associated with a trumpeting choir of angels, but with a slow, piecemeal advance. Social Security was decried when it was originally created as a weak half-measure of "reform" that left too many people out in the cold... sound familiar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #1)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:34 PM

4. In FDR's first four years, unemployment dropped by 40% and

GDP grew at 9% per year. Yes, per year.

Obama has packed the White House with Wall Streeters. FDR had Wall Streeters and folks on the far left as well. Can you name the Obama WH equivalent of Frances Perkins? Henry Wallace?

Could you fathom, in your wildest dreams, Obama making a speech like FDR's first inaugural address?

"The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."

and all of that?

I could go on and on - suffice it to say I think trying to compare Obama to FDR is not a fruitful exercise for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:39 PM

7. And then

"In FDR's first four years, unemployment dropped by 40% and"

...there are facts:



Unemployment climb during the first half of FDR's first year, dropped in the second half, and then in 1934, it steadily climbed back up to nearly 22 percent. It went from 25 percent to 12 percent in his first term, and then it shot back up to 20 percent in the following year. Next came the war.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:44 PM

9. If it went from 25% to 12% in his first 4 years, Manny's wrong. It dropped 52%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:46 PM

12. Not quite, but your graph does have value

FDR was inaugurated in March of 1933. Unemployment started dropping right away.

It went up in 1937 because FDR was not yet a full-fledged Liberal and he decided it was time to tighten our belts. Time for for eat-your-peas austerity. Federal budgets were slashed - just like they've been slashed for 2013 - and the economy tanked again. Something to be learned there, I think!

Your numbers for 1937 and beyond don't include WPA and other federal jobs programs, so effective unemployment was a good bit lower. FDR believed in getting money directly to unemployed workers, no trickle-down stimulus for him. Very cost effective, although no largesse for the 1%,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:48 PM

15. So FDR gets a pass for not being a "full-fledged Liberal" but you're holding your nose for Obama?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #15)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:56 PM

22. At least FDR was willing to try Liberal policies

He tried both Liberal and ConservaDem policies from the start. In 1932, he said:

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.


So FDR tried a lot of things, not just ConservaDem things. The Liberal things worked, the ConservaDem things did not. So he became a Liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #22)

Sun May 20, 2012, 08:15 AM

126. What do you mean "FDR" tried them? Without that Congress, none of it could have

been tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:49 PM

17. Really?

It went up in 1937 because FDR was not yet a full-fledged Liberal and he decided it was time to tighten our belts. Time for for eat-your-peas austerity. Federal budgets were slashed - just like they've been slashed for 2013 - and the economy tanked again. Something to be learned there, I think!

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:57 PM

23. Really.

Which part are you disputing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #23)

Fri May 18, 2012, 12:22 AM

30. I'm guessing the exclamation point at the end.

I hope to hell their is an activist historian to fill Zinn's shoes in order to update the People's History through the Obama years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #30)

Fri May 18, 2012, 12:24 AM

32. Actually,

" I'm guessing the exclamation point at the end."

...you guessed wrong. Ever heard of a rhetorical question?

If yes, you get a cookie!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #32)

Fri May 18, 2012, 12:29 AM

33. You must think I'm some sort of idealogue

I'm in favor of whatever works. It just happens that Liberal policies lead to the best outcomes. The data are the data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #33)

Fri May 18, 2012, 12:32 AM

36. Did you

"You must think I'm some sort of idealogue"

...mean "ideologue"?

"I'm in favor of whatever works. It just happens that Liberal policies lead to the best outcomes. The data are the data."

Saving lives works: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=699654

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #32)

Fri May 18, 2012, 12:48 AM

40. H...

ave you ever heard of snark?

Your assumption about my response is incorrect.

So sorry. No cookie for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Fri May 18, 2012, 02:11 AM

55. Yes. My mother is an expert on this. She lived through that time.

FDR was a saint who could do not wrong. She is a smart lady.

Obama has been to weak in the face of the Republicans. He did not focus enough on the economy. And Bernanke? To say nothing of Geithner? Why did Obama choose to go with these men who either are or think like Republicans?

You will not get Democratic ideas from Republicans. And Bernanke? And Geithner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #55)

Sat May 19, 2012, 11:53 AM

113. People easily forget who Obama's first Chief of Staff (Rahm Emmanuel) was and

 

the influence he brought to the first two years of the Obama administration.

I blame Rahm. And he's staying true to form as his Chicago PD mistreat and bully NATO protesters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:42 PM

8. Don't be deterred. We can do better..

despite what the DLC-types and others want you to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mvd (Reply #8)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:45 PM

10. Yes

"Don't be dettered. We can do better.."

...We. Can.

Elizabeth Warren: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002688392

She'll not arrive in the Senate by throwing up our hands and high-fiving spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:47 PM

14. We just won't agree all the time. But..

you're right about Warren. She's the type we need to nominate next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:46 PM

13. Times have changed ALOT since FDR

Shit, times have changed since the 80's. Here's all the items you would need to carry with you just to have the capabilities of a single iPhone today. GDP grew at 9% per year because we were the only place producing anything of value made by the best workers on the planet. Technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #13)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:48 PM

16. Given that imports and exports were only a small percentage of GDP back then

I'm not sure how your assertion makes any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:52 PM

19. That's exactly my point. We made stuff HERE and our citizens bought stuff made HERE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #19)

Fri May 18, 2012, 12:00 AM

25. So you'll join me in fighting "free" trade agreements?

That flood the US with stuff made in microwage countries?

Now we're getting somewhere!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #25)

Fri May 18, 2012, 01:40 AM

50. Except you're not fighting anything, except here on DU. Meanwhile, I'm in the streets OFTEN.

I've occupied, I've organized, I've formed picket lines with my union brothers and sisters, I've protested and still do. You can't even fight FOR our president from your chair at your computer. I'll be on the front-lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #50)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:34 AM

69. LOL. That's not fair!

My mother lets me out of the basement sometimes. And I have the coolest collection of Start Trek stuff. In fact, I'm wearing my Capt. Kirk tunic now (and my tightie-whities - mom made me put a new pair on yesterday).

PS: Nice way to change topic.

PPS: I once held a major position in a national Democratic campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:56 PM

21. And then

"Given that imports and exports were only a small percentage of GDP back then"

...came trade:

FDR’s Comprehensive Approach to Freer Trade

by David Woolner

<...>

The driving force behind this effort was FDR’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, who considered the passage of Smoot-Hawley an unmitigated disaster. Hull had been arguing in favor of freer trade for decades, both as a Democratic congressman and later senator from Tennessee. Given the long-standing protectionist tendencies of Congress — which reached their zenith with the passage of Smoot-Hawley, the highest tariff in U.S. history — Hull faced an uphill struggle to accomplish this task. He also had to overcome FDR’s initial reluctance to embrace his ideas, as the president preferred the policies of the “economic nationalists” within his administration during his first year in office. By 1934, however, FDR’s attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hull’s proposed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act — a landmark piece of legislation that fundamentally altered the way in which the United States carried out foreign economic policy.

Convinced that the country was not ready for a truly multilateral approach to freer trade, Hull’s legislation sought to establish a system of bilateral agreements through which the United States would seek reciprocal reductions in the duties imposed on specific commodities with other interested governments. These reductions would then be generalized by the application of the most-favored-nation principle, with the result that the reduction accorded to a commodity from one country would then be accorded to the same commodity when imported from other countries. Well aware of the lingering resistance to tariff reduction that remained in Congress, Hull insisted that the power to make these agreements must rest with the president alone, without the necessity of submitting them to the Senate for approval. Under the act, the president would be granted the power to decrease or increase existing rates by as much as 50 percent in return for reciprocal trade concessions granted by the other country.

The 1934 Act granted the president this authority for three years, but it was renewed in 1937 and 1940, and over the course of this period the United States negotiated 22 reciprocal trade agreements. Of these, the two most consequential were the agreements with Canada, signed in 1935, and Great Britain, signed in 1938, in part because they signaled a move away from Imperial Preference and hence protectionism, and in part because they were regarded as indicative of growing solidarity among the Atlantic powers on the eve of the Second World War. It is also important to note that Hull, like many of his contemporaries, including FDR, regarded protectionism as antithetical to the average worker — first, because in Hull’s view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor, and secondly, because Hull believed that high tariffs concentrated wealth in the hands of the industrial elite, who, as a consequence, wielded an undue or even corrupting influence in Washington. As such, both FDR and Hull saw the opening up of the world’s economy as a positive measure that would help alleviate global poverty, improve the lives of workers, reduce tensions among nations, and help usher in a new age of peace and prosperity. Indeed, by the time the U.S. entered the war, this conviction had intensified to the point where the two men concluded that the root cause of the war was economic depravity.

<...>

Of course, it is important to remember that the Roosevelt administration’s efforts to expand world trade were accompanied by such critical pieces of legislation as the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, which vastly strengthened the place of unions in American life. The 1930s and ’40s were also years in which the government engaged in an unprecedented level of investment in America’s infrastructure and industry — largely through deficit spending — that helped vastly expand our manufacturing base and render the United States the most powerful industrialized country in the world. Our efforts to expand trade and do away with protection were only part of a broader effort to reform the U.S. economy in such a way as to provide what FDR liked to call “economic security” for every American.

- more -

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/10/13/fdrs-comprehensive-approach-to-freer-trade-61632/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #21)

Fri May 18, 2012, 02:21 AM

59. Reciprocal trade agreements can work.

The current massive drive toward "free" trade is not working.

In fact, it is throwing Americans out of work.

If the profits that the elite make by selling in the US products made with labor earning near-slave wages were distributed fairly, everyone could benefit.

But as it is, "free" trade is only free for the very rich. It is costing the rest of us not just jobs and opportunity and a wider choice of quality, affordable products, but it will eventually cost the US its infrastructure, its military. At the rate we are bleeding jobs, we will not have the economic lifeblood to keep the country together for the next generation.

It's a very sad situation. We have people with very little foresight in charge of our country. I do not see much of a future for Americans unless we make some drastic changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #59)

Fri May 18, 2012, 02:05 PM

89. "Free" Trade is bad

FAIR Trade is what we need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Icicle (Reply #89)

Sat May 19, 2012, 08:59 PM

121. "Trade agreements" are what we have

and generally they are very carefully and deliberately put together to benefit both sides in fairness. There's plenty of examples where that didn't work out fairly for some, but overall trade raises economic activity, and economic activity increases standards of living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #13)

Fri May 18, 2012, 02:16 AM

57. And then our greedy millionaires decided they could make more money if they

"opened" our markets.

And now we have a leaking economy -- leaking jobs, leaking money, leaking optimism, leaking just about everything that keeps a nation's economy going.

Free trade has not worked for middle class Americans. And soon, wealthy people will leave our sinking nation and start fighting for fiefdoms around the globe.

It's very sad. Very sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink