HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » WhaTHellsgoingonhere » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 09:00 AM
Number of posts: 2,935

Journal Archives

So a different Democrat would have been more effective...

Obama gets a free pass from many here because people misrepresent the facts and say Congress blocks everything. There's also this notion that, with respect to the things he has delivered (which we know can't be much because of obstruction) they wouldn't have been championed by any Democrat. He's just a Democrat who moves to the right to comprmise, but otherwise can't get much done.

Nothing special.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Jul 19, 2014, 03:00 PM (0 replies)

To the DUers who constantly bemoan: what happened to DU?

What you're seeing here is playing out as follows:

On one side are the passive voice populists, which include both Clintons and Obama. They argue that our Gilded Age inequality is the product of technology and globalization, as if these were autonomous forces like the weather. The effects — a declining middle class, stagnant wages, spreading misery — can be ameliorated by sensible policies, like the agenda Sargent ticks off. Most of all, Americans need to make certain the next generation gets better education and training so they can better compete in the global marketplace. Universal preschool is a first step to that. But the largest thrust — driven by the party’s deep pocket donors — is an assault on teacher’s unions and public schools, investment in charters, public and private, and a focus on high-stakes testing to measure teacher and school performance.

Undergirding this is an acceptance that we can’t really afford to do even the minimum in public education or child poverty, so the focus has to be on cheaper ways to make progress. This assumption also fuels the interest in cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, experimenting with public-private partnerships to raise funds, and so on. All this assumes that we’re close to the limits on taxes, that corporate tax reform should be “revenue neutral,” (that is, companies should not contribute one dime more to our investment or budget needs), and that taxes on the wealthy can’t produce much additional revenue.

The activist-voice populists disagree fundamentally with both the analysis and the prescription.
They argue that extreme inequality results from rules that were rigged to benefit the few and not the many. That leads to the demand for structural reforms to change the rules: fair and balanced trade and tax policies to replace those created by and for the multinationals; breaking up big banks and curbing Wall Street’s casino as opposed to accepting banks that are too big to fail and too big to save; progressive tax reforms to create revenue for the public investments that we need in everything from education to infrastructure to an expanded safety net; empowering workers and curbing CEO license to ensure workers share in the profits they help to produce; expanding Social Security and public pensions while moving further towards true universal, affordable health care.

These differences are only now emerging, as the failure of the recovery forces a bigger debate about our economy.


The Wall Street wing presses forward with corporate trade deals that are opposed by a growing majority of voters. The bankers bear no accountability for their pervasive frauds and lawlessness, while most Americans are looking for perp walks. Well-heeled lobbies block any sensible tax reform, while polls show Americans strongly want the rich and the corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Obama has already felt the revolt of the Democratic base against his plans to pare Social Security benefits. Clinton and Obama have been essentially AWOL in the war on labor and collective bargaining, essential elements of any strategy to rebuild the middle class.


Capicse?

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/10/economic-populism-at-heart-of-emerging-debate-among-democrats/
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:31 PM (16 replies)

Economic sanctions...

Cut his water, electricity, etc... until he pays his bills. No confrontation.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 26, 2014, 02:19 PM (1 replies)

Actually, it will come in the form of a list of things we'd...

expect from any Dem President. Of couse, that list would omit the things that really make THIS Dem President very agreeable to the very people his cheerleaders hate so much.

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, You might not be a Democrat when you lose objectivity.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 26, 2014, 01:17 PM (1 replies)

Settle down...An argument predicated on obstruction can be turned on its face...

If moving to the right is a proven path of failure, at some point, start DEMANDING MORE!!!! In so doing, you'll energize your base. The alternative, you risk losing your base. That's exactly what's played out.

Duh...
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Tue Apr 15, 2014, 06:27 PM (0 replies)

Tweeted the BLM (exactly 140 characters link included)

@BLMNational Can you please see to it that Eric Parker of Idaho is arrested for aiming his gun at federal officers? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

also Tweeted ThinkProgress, The Nation, Harry Reid, and many, many more...
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Mon Apr 14, 2014, 06:35 PM (1 replies)

Good stuff Sunset and Pro!

Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sun Apr 13, 2014, 02:15 PM (0 replies)

We agree, it's not about Hannity, it's about law enforcement...

Can you imagine letting liberals get away with this?




I'm afraid MM thinks letting law enforcement get bullied AT THE WHITE HOUSE is just dandy, too.


Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sun Apr 13, 2014, 01:41 PM (0 replies)

If you understand implicity, I was very clear...

When I say "otherwise," I'm implying that this was acceptable action IF AND ONLY IF they knock on doors this week. If not, it sends an irresponsible and dangerous message. File this under: give them an inch and they take a mile. Happens on Wall Street, too. No punishment, "Fuck it, I'll take more next time!"

I posited my question to you to see if you would have taken a different position had there been adequate reinforcement, but you didn't want to answer that. Instead, you chose to opt out and take a "since it can't happen I won't answer" position.



OK, adequate BLM (or whatever local or state) presence and you're in charge. What's your call?

In case you didn't see the video.




I'm tired of seeing liberals get beaten and pepper sprayed and arrested whether they are provocateurs or NOT. I'm frustrated if that doesn't bother you, too.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sun Apr 13, 2014, 12:34 PM (1 replies)

Awesome, but that's an extremely rare stance around here.



I never even thought about it that way.

Hillary supporters, would you vote for McCain, Romney, Jeb, Christie.. if she loses the primary?



But, that's interesting, but beside the point.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 12, 2014, 03:46 PM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »