Vote for Democrats. We have no choice, really.

[MannyGoldstein]

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!

[TheWraith]

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?

[MannyGoldstein]

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.

[ProSense]

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.

[rug]

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

[MannyGoldstein]

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%,

[FarLeftFist]

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

[MannyGoldstein]

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.

[treestar]

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

been tried.

[ProSense]

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?

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Really.

Which part are you disputing?

[Luminous Animal]

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.

[ProSense]

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!

[MannyGoldstein]

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.

[ProSense]

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

[Luminous Animal]

40. H...

ave you ever heard of snark?

Your assumption about my response is incorrect.

So sorry. No cookie for you.

[JDPriestly]

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?

[coalition_unwilling]

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.

[mvd]

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

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

[ProSense]

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.

[mvd]

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.

[FarLeftFist]

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.

[MannyGoldstein]

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.

[FarLeftFist]

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

[MannyGoldstein]

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!

[FarLeftFist]

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.

[MannyGoldstein]

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.

[ProSense]

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/

[JDPriestly]

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.

[Icicle]

89. "Free" Trade is bad

FAIR Trade is what we need.

[bhikkhu]

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.

[JDPriestly]

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.

[JDPriestly]

54. Not to mention the Pecora Commission which educated Americans about the

individuals who caused the Depression, their dishonesty and fraud. Most Americans have no idea what caused the current economic problems.

[ProSense]

56. The Pecora Commission

was launched under Hoover by Republicans.

Investigation was an inquiry begun on March 4, 1932 by the United States Senate Committee on Banking and Currency to investigate the causes of the Wall Street Crash of 1929. The name refers to the fourth and final chief counsel for the investigation, Ferdinand Pecora.

<...>

The investigation was launched by a majority-Republican Senate, under the Banking Committee's chairman, Senator Peter Norbeck. Hearings began on April 11, 1932, but were criticized by Democratic Party members and their supporters as being little more than an attempt by the Republicans to appease the growing demands of an angry American public suffering through the Great Depression. Two chief counsels were fired for ineffectiveness, and a third resigned after the committee refused to give him broad subpoena power. In January 1933, Ferdinand Pecora, an assistant district attorney for New York County was hired to write the final report. Discovering that the investigation was incomplete, Pecora requested permission to hold an additional month of hearings. His exposé of the National City Bank (now Citibank) made banner headlines and caused the bank's president to resign. Democrats had won the majority in the Senate, and the new President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, urged the new Democratic chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Duncan U. Fletcher, to let Pecora continue the probe. So actively did Pecora pursue the investigation that his name became publicly identified with it, rather than the committee's chairman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecora_Commission

Ferdinand Pecora was appointed Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate's Committee on Banking and Currency in January 1933, the last months of the Herbert Hoover presidency by its outgoing Republican chairman, Peter Norbeck, and continued under Democratic chairman Duncan Fletcher, following the 1932 election that swept Franklin D. Roosevelt into the U.S. presidency and gave the Democratic Party control of the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Pecora

Could you imagine Bush and the Republicans doing this?

[JDPriestly]

63. Bush and the Republicans? Who cares. They left when the realization

that we are in a recession hit.

Obama was president when a modern version of the Pecora Commission could have been formed and would have been appropriate.

Unfortunately, it's a bit late now. The documents that would need to be presented in evidence to prove who did what have probably been shredded or lost or burned or hidden by now. They existed when Obama took office. I'd be surprised if they still do.

History will judge Obama harshly for his failure to push for a thorough investigation of this, and also of Bush's role in starting a war based on bogus reasons as well as in torture. And now, the facts are lost for history.

So, no matter how long a president's list of small accomplishments, the president owes a debt to history -- to instigate investigations and establish a historical record. That duty is not in the Constitution, and it is shared by the courts and by Congress, but it is a duty that has been ignored by all three branches in the past 12 years.

Missed opportunities. Missed opportunities to do what is right and not just what is liked by wealthy donors.

The willingness to take the tough opportunities and do what is right. That is a test of character. It's been a long time, maybe since Carter, that we had a president who was up to it. Taking those tough opportunities and doing what is right has its risks. But history rewards it.

[ProSense]

74. The Pecora Commission

resulted in regulation.

The investigation was launched by a majority-Republican Senate, under the Banking Committee's chairman, Senator Peter Norbeck. Hearings began on April 11, 1932, but were criticized by Democratic Party members and their supporters as being little more than an attempt by the Republicans to appease the growing demands of an angry American public suffering through the Great Depression. Two chief counsels were fired for ineffectiveness, and a third resigned after the committee refused to give him broad subpoena power. In January 1933, Ferdinand Pecora, an assistant district attorney for New York County was hired to write the final report. Discovering that the investigation was incomplete, Pecora requested permission to hold an additional month of hearings. His exposé of the National City Bank (now Citibank) made banner headlines and caused the bank's president to resign. Democrats had won the majority in the Senate, and the new President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, urged the new Democratic chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Duncan U. Fletcher, to let Pecora continue the probe. So actively did Pecora pursue the investigation that his name became publicly identified with it, rather than the committee's chairman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecora_Commission

The banks survived:

Pecora's investigation unearthed evidence of irregular practices in the financial markets that benefited the rich at the expense of ordinary investors, including exposure of Morgan’s “preferred list” by which the bank’s influential friends (including Calvin Coolidge, the former president, and Owen J. Roberts, a justice of Supreme Court of the United States) participated in stock offerings at steeply discounted rates. He also revealed that National City sold off bad loans to Latin American countries by packing them into securities and selling them to unsuspecting investors, that Wiggin had shorted Chase shares during the crash, profiting from falling prices, and that Mitchell and top officers at National City had received $2.4 million in interest-free loans from the bank’s coffers.

Spurred by these revelations, the United States Congress enacted the Glass–Steagall Act, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. With the United States in the grips of the Great Depression, Pecora's investigations highlighted the contrast between the lives of millions of Americans in abject poverty and the lives of such financiers as J.P. Morgan, Jr.; under Pecora's questioning, Morgan and many of his partners admitted that they had paid no income tax in 1931 and 1932; they explained their failure to pay taxes by reference to their losses in the stock market's decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Pecora#Washington

No different from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Crisis_Inquiry_Commission

That commission did recommend prosecution.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. Given that Bush prosecuted more financial fraud than Obama...

I think a Pecora Commission would have had more of a chance under Bush (although not much more).

Sarbanes-Oxley was passed under Bush, and that had real teeth in preventing fraud against stockholders. Obama just signed Cantor's bill that dramatically relaxes Sarbanes-Oxley.

[ProSense]

71. Yeah,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002657064


I know you're a fan of Bush, but like I said: That looks like proof that prosecutions started dropping after the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Remember Glass-Steagall? Did you think repealing it had no impact?

[MannyGoldstein]

73. I'm a fan of Bush? Really?

That's uncalled for.

I may not care for Obama, but Bush was horrific.

[ProSense]

76. You keep

I'm a fan of Bush? Really?

That's uncalled for.

I may not care for Obama, but Bush was horrific.

...touting the claim that Bush prosecuted more financial crime despite the fact that there was a steady decline in prosecutions resulting from the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Why?

Look at the chart you posted. It's clear.

[MannyGoldstein]

84. Correlation does not imply causation

You're a long ways from showing causality, although it's possible.

Questions:

1. Can the difference in prosecutions be thoroughly explained by a drop in prosecutions for actions that were crimes under Glass-Steagall, but were no longer illegal after it was repealed?
2. Why a gradual drop in prosecutions? If the drop were due to Glass-Steagall, wouldn't we expect a sharp, sudden drop in prosecutions rather than a gradual decline?

[treestar]

125. It was not FDR alone

It doesn't matter who is in the WH as advisors or whatever. It matters who is in Congress.

OP is right - deifying FDR is ridiculous - you'd be deifying Obama 70 years from now.

[nevergiveup]

5. Thank you!.

[WillyT]

37. FDR Was Elected To FOUR TERMS... 'Nuff Said...

[FarLeftFist]

51. He rounded up American citizens into internment camps. Obama more progressive. NUFF SAID!

[JDPriestly]

60. If we were at war, let's say, with Mexico, who knows what Obama would do.

He was very willing to sign a bill that gave him the power to put people in prison indefinitely without trial -- here in the US. The fact that he signed the bill is quite distresslng.

[mmonk]

66. Seriously? Not if you go by economics only.

And we still have quite a bit of Constitutional liberties problems going on right now.

[MannyGoldstein]

68. How many Japanese-Americans were killed by the camps?

How many Americans are dying from failing to fight to turn around this 99% depression?

Interning Japanese-Americans was wrong. But they got shelter and three square meals a day. That's more than can be said for those, among the hundreds of thousands who are projected to lose there jobs due to the Bush-Obama "free" trade agreements, who'll be made homeless.

[ProSense]

72. So

"How many Americans are dying from failing to fight to turn around this 99% depression?"

...you're OK with the fact that they were rounded up as long as they weren't killed?

Good to know.

[MannyGoldstein]

75. Which part of "Interning Japanese-Americans was wrong." do

you have trouble understanding?

Poster bizarrely claimed that Obama was more progressive than FDR. I was addressing that.

[ProSense]

77. So why

Which part of "Interning Japanese-Americans was wrong." do you have trouble understanding?

...are you objecting to this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=699983

[MannyGoldstein]

83. Already explained. nt

[WillyT]

86. Wow... Your Sweeping Grasp Of History Is Truly...

Myopic.

[JDPriestly]

53. According to my parents who lived through the Depression and my mother,

especially, who is now living and remembers FDR, only an ignorant minority felt that way about FDR. Most Americans hung on every word he said and trusted him. He was a true leader. He spoke to people on the radio. He hired those who could not get jobs elsewhere. He brought in Social Security. He fought and brought the country to the point of winning WWII -- in far less time than it has taken us to roust a few troublemakers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

FDR was beloved by the vast majority of Americans. Don't believe people who tell you otherwise. They don't know what they are talking about. They haven't met and talked to ordinary people who lived through that time.

[WillyT]

87. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

My 82 year old mom still has here war rations booklet. And she/we, agree with you and your mom.

[JDPriestly]

96. I still have some sugar ration stamps. Sheets of them.

They were filled out incorrectly and could not be used.

Interesting historical items.

[ibegurpard]

58. Jesus Christ, people!

You've got a vociferous Obama critic telling people to vote for Democrats.
STFU!

[MannyGoldstein]

98. Sore winners. nt

[SidDithers]

108. Or maybe we don't believe you're being genuine...nt

Sid

[Dragonfli]

116. Don't you have anyone in your own party that needs loyalty testing?

Maybe I don't think you are being genuine as you are likely the only one here that will not vote a straight Dem ticket.

I would think that you'd be busy now trying to strengthen Harper's coalition rather than give loyalty tests to foreigners that are in a party you will never even join.

Strange behavior, I think you only post here to disrupt, don't you think it's a little weird that you are so concerned about blind loyalty to a foreign party by foreigners that actually belong to that party and have skin in the game?

What exactly is your purpose here besides using America and Americans as fodder for your silly little jokes and belly laughs?

Actual registered Democrats would very much like to know.

[SidDithers]

118. ...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

119. .

[treestar]

127. It's interesting how these vociferous critics

Demand our catering to them. We're supposed to think OP has power and we have to cater to him to make sure he won't use it against us? That part of the leftists "critics" has always bothered me. It's not very "liberal" to demand that one should have power over others.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Damn! That thread got 238 recs! That's gotta be up there for DU3!

I'm not happy with Obama but of course I'll vote for him. The grim alternative is Romney for Christ's sake, LOL.

I'm glad you post here, Manny.



PB

[chervilant]

97. me, too... n/t

[mvd]

3. Your post, while strongly put, had good points

FDR had to be moved to the left at first, and it seems no one can do that now. Yes, I think Obama definitely needs to be re-elected, but I want a stronger opposition message in our party.

[ProSense]

6. Yeah,

"Vote for Democrats. You have no choice, really."

...if you're desperate for a reason:

<...>

We still have over 30 million Americans who cannot see a doctor when they are sick. According to this Harvard study, adjusting for gender, race, smoking, weight, and just about everything else that you can think of, in any given year, the uninsured are 40% more likely to die than the insured are. That results in 44,789 additional deaths in America each year. All of which are avoidable.

This is more than twice the number of homicides in America.

It is more than ten times the number of deaths on 9/11. And it happens every year.

Do you think that we should solve this problem? I do.

And the Democratic Party does. Which is why we passed health care reform. And why we brought the wrath of lobbyists and their sewer money down on our heads in the last election – over $65 million by the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads” alone.

I see one party taking on the special interests and enacting laws to keep Americans alive, and assure that you can see a doctor when you are sick. Like in every other industrialized country in the world.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/20/937697/-What-I-Didnt-Hear

CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116



The reason the 111th Congress is considered one of the most productive ever is because they got things done. Add the policy achievements and it has been a damn good Presidency.

Food Stamps Reduced The Poverty Rate By Nearly 8 Percent In 2009, As GOP Tries To Gut The Program

By Travis Waldron

Congressional Republicans have targeted the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps, for budget cuts, and have attempted to paint it as a program rife with fraud and abuse that is on an unsustainable path. While their argument ignores a host of facts, including that food stamp fraud is at an all-time low, it also ignores the economic benefits that the program brings to millions of low-income families.

According to a new study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food stamps substantially reduced the poverty rate in 2009, the last year data is available, the New York Times reports:

The food stamp program…reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, the most recent year included in the study, a significant impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed by policy makers. [...]

The study, which examined nine years of data, tried to measure the program’s effects on people whose incomes remained below the poverty threshold. The program lifted the average poor person’s income up about six percent closer to the line over the length of the study, making poverty less severe. When the benefits were included in the income of families with children, the result was that children below the threshold moved about 11 percent closer to the line.

The USDA study aligns closely with a similar one released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which found that food stamps reduced the number of Americans living in extreme poverty in 2011 from 1.46 million to just over 800,000. SNAP’s effects on children are even bigger — the program cut the number living in extreme poverty by half, according to CBPP.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/10/461337/food-stamps-reduce-poverty/

The benefits increases via the stimulus expire next year.

<...>

The Recovery Act’s increase in SNAP benefits has eased hardship and boosted the economy. SNAP has not only expanded dramatically to meet rising need during the recession, but has also delivered more than $26 billion (between April 2009 and September 2011) in additional SNAP benefits under the Recovery Act. The Recovery Act provided a temporary, 13.6 percent boost in the maximum SNAP benefit beginning in federal fiscal year 2009. Congress enacted this provision as a fast and effective economic stimulus measure to help push against the rising tide of hardship for low-income Americans. The increase is phasing down and is scheduled to end entirely on October 31, 2013.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3239

Obama administration issues report on homelessness in 2011; awards $1.5 billion to local programs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100249786

http://www.feedthefuture.gov/

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002599800

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/barack-obamas-had-pretty-damn-good-presidency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002530308

Obama 2012!

[slipslidingaway]

38. Pro ...

you seem to have bought the excuses hook, line and sinker.

Do you think the best way to fight the entrenched interests in the health insurance and pharma companies is to exclude those who advocate for a not for profit system from discussions (the March 2009 WH HC summit) or do you think including them in the process might have made for a better bill? Imagine if they had coverage at the WH summit, instead of Obama calling on Karen Ignagni at the WH summit, suppose he asked Marcia Angell to speak? Imagine if he let the not for profit advocates into the room!

Do you think telling the American people that the number of people eligible for Medicare would rise significantly with the boomers and that we need to address the HC system as a whole might have helped? Do you realize 'we' gave the Republicans an opening for a Medicare voucher?

Do you really think that all those people eligible for Medicaid will receive anything approaching the best health care?
We can blame "the other party" but we have to be honest about how hard 'our party' tried.

[ProSense]

46. Apparently,

"Pro ...you seem to have bought the excuses hook, line and sinker."

...you know nothing about me. Still, here's a good read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002699877

[krawhitham]

48. you seem to ignore facts and data

[ProSense]

49. Speaking of

"excuses" and "hook, line and sinker," here's a dose of reality: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002482243

One thing is certain: Pushing for change is not a rhetorical exercise, and change only comes when people are willing to or forced to listen. Until people who are willing to listen or a movement large enough to get their attention are in place, we get what we get from elected officials. Remember, there are progressives pushing for change who don't have the luxury of even a single Democratic representative. What should they do?

[JDPriestly]

62. They should get a friend who agrees with them and start walking their precinct.

Make friends with their neighbors. You'd be surprised how many people agree with liberal points of view but vote conservative because they think everybody else is conservative.

Be friendly. Be courteous. Never get angry. Ask the person you are talking to about their opinions and their problems, their life. And then talk from your heart about why liberal solutions are what they need -- if you sincerely believe that they are. Agree with people on things you agree about. Explain what policies you would prefer and why you prefer them when you disagree.

If you live in a conservative district, be a good neighbor. Help others find their way -- politically speaking.

So that is what Democrats in Republican districts should do.

And most important, they should form a Democratic Club or join the one that exists if they are lucky enough to live in an area in which one exists.

[ProSense]

80. Actually,

"They should get a friend who agrees with them and start walking their precinct."

...that wasn't my point. I was speaking in terms of putting immediate pressure on their Senators and Reps.

[JDPriestly]

61. Ah, a list of "accomplishments." How original.

Medicare and Food Stamps were, I believe, Johnson programs.

Obama's health care statute is better than nothing, but not what we really need. We really need and we really needed single payer, not insurance company roulette. And we needed it 2012, not in 2014.

Sorry, but Obama should have done better. I'm voting for him. I'm working for him, but I'm with the OP. Obama needs to do a lot better. He would not have lost the House in 2010 had he stood up for single payer. He never intended to advocate for single payer even though he told those of us who worked on his campaign in 2008 that he wanted single payer, just weeks if not days before he accepted the insurance company plan.

It's a crying shame. Obama has accomplished some things and it's easy to create an impressive list for any president, but Obama needed to do much more, and he hasn't done what needed to be done. I'm hoping he will change his course if re-elected. Unrealistic of me, I suppose, but our country's survival depends on his changing his course.

[ProSense]

79. False.

Sorry, but Obama should have done better. I'm voting for him. I'm working for him, but I'm with the OP. Obama needs to do a lot better. He would not have lost the House in 2010 had he stood up for single payer. He never intended to advocate for single payer even though he told those of us who worked on his campaign in 2008 that he wanted single payer, just weeks if not days before he accepted the insurance company plan.

Obama never campaigned on single payer. Never!

[Thinkingabout]

11. I am amazed at folks I know who eat beans often

Because they can not afford any more and they continue to vote for repubs based on repubs claim to be against abortion. It takes more than this to operate in positions of authority. This is where we get christine O'donnels from. Sara Palin had less knowledge than I do and I admit I am not up to the task of being a congressional member. They are voting against themselves. Another group are neo-Nazi and they would never vote for Obama and he is their best friend. We the smart party Dems is going to have to turn out at the polls and vote and also take someone with them. Wisconsin is a good example of repubs gone max, let's hope Scott walker will be sent packing to the nearest prison.

[bluestate10]

18. Manny. I am moderate. But like you, Liz Warren has my vote.

I can't vote for the newest Kennedy, but would if I could. I am in another Rep's district. Glad to see that you are coming to your senses, I was so pissed at you that I wanted to challenge you to a drinkoff at a Boston pub. Where, I would have drank you under the table

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Well, I'd give you a run for your money.

Back in my fraternity days, I was the pitcher-chugging champ. Was #2 or #3 in individual 10-oz cups, depending on the year.

[longship]

20. The last Republican I voted for was Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum

I did that twice, once while I was a county Democratic party officer. She was a very competent civil servant at a time before Kansas had tipped over the edge. After she retired?

Get a bowl and milk, because Kansas is Coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs.

I haven't voted for a Repuke since nor would I.

[ScreamingMeemie]

26. I agreed with your post last night, and I agree with this post today.

We cannot be afraid to demand representation. To simply vote for someone because there is a "D" after their name is not enough anymore. Because I have a uterus, a daughter, LGBT family and friends... I will never work against a Dem. I'll still get plenty mad at them though. And no one's going to stop me.

[ProSense]

27. "I will never work against a Dem."

It's called dealing with reality.

Robert Kuttner

A Tale of Two Elections

<...>

The comparison with Obama is all too instructive. Like Obama, Hollande inherits an
economic crisis not of his own making, but one that will soon be his. Like Obama, he faces both an oligarchy of bankers and a fierce set of political opponents determined to block his program. In Obama's case, the obstructionists have been the Republicans in Congress; in Hollande's, they are the conservative leaders of other European Union nations. Like Obama, he will have great difficulty producing change at a grand enough scale. And absent something close to a miracle, disillusion will soon follow.

The slightly hopeful news is that several other leaders will welcome a counterpoint to Merkel. Recessions, after all, destroy conservative incumbents as well as progressive ones. At the EU level, a senior commissioner, Olli Rehn, is already talking of loosening the fiscal screws.

In the headline to this post, I was thinking of two elections -- 2008 in America and 2012 in France -- but actually there are three more worth noting.

In France, parliamentary elections come later, in mid-June. Hollande has to win a working majority in the Chamber of Deputies in order to appoint a Socialist prime minister and effectively govern. If conservatives win the parliamentary elections, or if the far right and far left make major gains so that Hollande ends up governing in coalition with Sarkozy's UMP party, he is stymied before he starts.

- more -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/a-tale-of-two-elections_b_1495256.html

Please rec to show your support for the people of France, England and Greece in
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002653179

Hollande in Retreat
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002673754

Some people just like to attack. They have no solutions. It's all about tearing down hope, even before anything gets done. A good example is Wall Street reform

It's interesting to watch the same people who wanted to kill Wall Street reform before it passed now claiming to be upset because the bank lobbyists are trying to water it down.

Now that the bill is being implemented, they attack those who supported the massive regulatory package as being against regulation when these "kill the bill" advocates were the ones demanding that nothing was better than something.

There is a difference between working to strengthen legislation and working to kill it. Had they succeeded in killing the bill in the same way that climate change legislation was killed, there would be nothing for the banks to try to water down.

[Zorra]

28. Yep. A lot of us here are of the same mind.

Except you get to vote for Elizabeth Warren.

Please get her elected.

I'm donating to her campaign as often as I can afford it.

Warren 2016!

[MannyGoldstein]

31. I'll do what I can

I already converted one Republican, I think, by showing him a YouTube video of Warren tearing Geithner a new orifice.

[Jamaal510]

29. Our best bet is to make sure the majority in both houses

is filibuster-proof for the Dems in addition to Obama's re-election, otherwise it will be more of the same. The World's Saddest Tangerine, the Turtle, and Cantor have all got to go.

[abelenkpe]

42. +1000

Saddest tangerine....

[lunasun]

47. +10,000!

[Herlong]

34. Here is a choice.

Don't get all worked up and realize we aren't the only generation to realize this. Take a breath. Enjoy the sunshine.

[just1voice]

91. Should he look at pictures of kittens and bunny wabbits too?

He, like others, is "all worked up" for about 1000 good reasons.

[Amster Dan]

35. No choice is a tough pill to swallow!

But.....gulp

[pa28]

39. Vote for Democrats but take a long look in the mirror.

Your OP from last night went along the lines of "our leaders don't give a flying fuck about us" and you were right.

Recognizing the truth is the first step toward fixing the problem. So let's just get that part out of the way and not waste time arguing the point. Right now policy happens in a bubble populated by lobbyists and donors. We don't count.

I don't have the solution but we've got to have a family discussion about our values.

[Herlong]

41. Voting democratic is why I CAN look in the mirror.

n/t

[NashvilleLefty]

43. I was all ready to say "you forgot the sarcasm smiley", but

you actually sound sincere. And you are absolutely correct.

In the "off-season" I think we should have serious discussions about our platform and things that are important to us personally. We will never agree completely, because we are individuals and we think for ourselves. But, eventually we come to election time. Even though no candidate exactly matches our personal wishes. So we have to compromise with the group.

And, when it comes down to crunch-time, there really is no choice.

Ultimately, I think you and I agree on the desired outcome - we just disagree on the best way to get there.

On the other hand, there are people who desire an entirely different outcome.

Despite our differences, we HAVE to unite or else the consequences are contrary to both of our positions.

So even though I may slap you tomorrow, I will hug you today. And at least tomorrow I will respect your position even if I don't entirely agree with it. Again, I think we want the same outcome but we simply disagree on the best way to get there.

I stand with you, sir. Thank you for posting this.

[Herlong]

45. It's also about the realization that if we don't get out the vote, our vote is pointless.

What say you?

[abelenkpe]

44. As a woman of course I vote D

At least they pretend to care. The key is to get more real liberals and progressives in congress and at the local level to force the administration to the left.

Edited to add: and as a woman I always get insanely frustrated at women who actively work against democrats or worse vote republican. I mean really......WTF?!

[JDPriestly]

52. I'm with you, Manny. And I, too, am fortunate enough to get to vote for one

real Democrat -- Xavier Becerra.

I'll work for Obama though because he is far better than the alternative. Life does not always offer great choices, but we need to survive. And our nation will not survive another Republican. Not at this time anyway.

[Rhiannon12866]

64. I pretty much vote a straight ticket these days.

Well, except for the library board...

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. yah that pretty much sums up my feelings too

[DonCoquixote]

70. Thank you

I know this was rough to do, but you will do good because of it.

[jambo101]

78. Bottom line

Bottom line in this next election is whether America wants the 1%ers running the country or a party that at least appears to represent Americas middle class running the country.
Any one who isnt a 1%er voting for the GOP in this upcoming election is a fool in my opinion.

[KG]

81. dem party = vote for us, we suck less.

woohoo.

[SidDithers]

82. Just can't bring yourself to say "Vote for Obama", eh?...nt

Sid

[bvar22]

88. Neither can I.

I am an OLD Democrat who still remembers what a Democrat is supposed to do.
I cannot enthusiastically endorse Centrist Politicians selling old Republican Policy.

...but I also agree that any current Republican in the White House would be worse.
It is vitally important that the Democratic Party remain in control of the White House.
For THAT reason, I will help President Obama retain the White House,
but I just can't pretend that everything is Peachy,
and I am happy with Centrist Triangulation as a Political ideology.

Will YOU be voting for Obama?
I don't think so.

[Dragonfli]

99. Well, he said he would vote for Democrats plural and encouraged others to as well, How many Dems

will you be voting for in November?



I'd say he is far more the loyal Democrat than even you, and I know you take loyalty to OUR Democratic party very, very, seriously.


I will vote for them as well, but not to pass YOUR loyalty tests, I will do so only to buy some time for us to find some real Democratic leadership, it has been a thirty year wait thus far.

The lesser of two evils is still evil, many of us want to fight for something more like the opposite of evil, I think Warren may provide that in future.

Or perhaps some other leader that actually might care for the working poor and poor as well as the very small (and growing smaller) middle class and the very exclusive .1%

[SidDithers]

100. ...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

103. .

[MannyGoldstein]

102. Thanks!

You even got a response with the ROFL glyph, aka the "I surrender because I got nothin'" glyph.

Well done.

[Dragonfli]

107. I have perhaps 100 replies to me consisting of nothing but dots and a smiley.

I once thought the poster may have had a vocabulary consisting entirely of graphics and was prepared to learn the strange new language being used.

I later realized that Americans are just a source of humor for some, my first thought was far more interesting and may have been worth further study, finding out there was no strange graphic language involved was really very disappointing.

[morningfog]

105. Obama's not a Democrat?

[SidDithers]

110. All Democrats are Obama?...nt

Sid

[morningfog]

112. Wouldn't a vote for Democrats, especially in General Forum, include Obama?

[scheming daemons]

85. Maybe it would be a good idea to NOT spend the next 6 months discouraging people about Democrats

Bashing Democrats over the next 6 months will only result in making people LESS likely to vote.

You can't come on DU every day bashing Democrats and then say "Vote for them anyway" in an OP like this and expect it to help.

If all you do... and it has been almost ALL YOU DO, Manny... is bash Obama and prominent Democrats over the next 6 months, you discourage others from voting/donating/working.


It doesn't help and it is counterproductive.

[MannyGoldstein]

94. Hmmm... Maybe we can make a deal...

If Democrats don't spend the next 6 months bashing us, then I won't spend the next 6 months describing how the Democrats are bashing us.

Let me know if you can broker something.

[sabrina 1]

104. Maybe it's not the people who are at fault, maybe if Democrats start working for those

votes they seem to take for granted for a change, we could get enthusiastic about them. Blaming the victims is not exactly good campaign strategy. Do you realize that we are all grown up here and not likely to be influenced by someone else's opinion on the internet??

Are YOU that easily influenced?

People will form their own opinions and the fact that Manny's thread got so many recs is NOT because people were influenced by him, it's because they AGREE with him. Any political party worth anything does not ignore the people's reactions to what they are doing they listen and then attempt to fix what they are doing wrong.

Why are you blaming others for the unpopularity of politicians right now? Why do YOU think they are so unpopular? You think Manny is the reason? Seriously?

[treestar]

128. We aren't just victims

We are self governing. This type of thing is cult of personality. You expect the leaders to lead us into nirvana - that they have the power and we just receive the goodies if the leaders are good enough. We elect and choose the leaders. We are not just their "victims."

[sabrina 1]

129. We really do not choose our leaders. There are selection committees that choose who will run with

the backing of the parties. Anyone who runs without that backing no matter how good a candidate s/he may be, will not have a chance of winning. We've seen this happen over and over again as DLCers and people like Jane Harmon eg, were backed by the Party against good, progressive Democrats.

Which is why many people no longer donate to Pacs but directly to candidates they support.

I expect leaders to do what they promise to do, to uphold Democratic principles, the principles they use to get themselves elected and then, all too often, flip flop once they get there. I and many others would like to see an end to all the excuses we hear, to see them fight even if they lose. Each fight weakens the other side.

People do not feel that anyone is fighting for them, and that is not a 'cult of personality' it is a reality as they watch eg, Wall St Banks bailed out, no matter how corrupt, while the victims of their corruption are left to fend for themselves.

[just1voice]

90. Exactly

All the people that bullied you yesterday are probably off yapping like propaganda responders to the latest Zimmerman gossip now that you posted something that doesn't cause them cognitive dissonance.

Foul mood or not, you were correct when stating the 1% don't give a crap about the 99%.

[KamaAina]

92. That would look great on a bumper sticker,

satirically speaking.

[Fire Walk With Me]

93. Occupy.

Today in Chicago. Real change lies in the power of the people, united, not in bank-owned politicians.

[MannyGoldstein]

95. !!!

Great stuff. We will win, in the end.

[midnight]

101. Lots of people.... Good to see....

[Dragonfli]

106. I wanted to reply to your post but to be honest I have reached the same conclusions

you have expressed in both posts, but have little to add and would do so less clearly.

The biggest difference is I lack the writing skills that you possess (due largely to the fact that I am self educated).
All of my draft attempts mirrored your points but were not as clear.

So for lack of anything to add.
I will add only my gratitude for expressing what so many of us already feel and for doing it well.

I really respect a person that has no fear of speaking his mind and defending it with valid points and logic.

Another difference perhaps is I am always in a bad mood these days and often lack the civility you manage to show towards yes men that appear to see a very shallow sporting event wherein one must always cheer the team rather than face the adult truth that it is a battle for good governance and not a game to score points.

WE also appear to have spectators with no skin in the game that use our system and party as a joke (perhaps to replace the lost comedy gold of SCTV). I imagine it is fun to lecture foreigners on the proper responses to their politicians and making fun of those foreigners just to spend most of the time laughing at them.

[SidDithers]

109. ...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

117. .

[MannyGoldstein]

122. Seems like a lot of us have reached the same conclusion!

We're stuck. Many of us want a different Democrat, but we gotta go with the best alternative we have at hand.

Sigh.

Thanks for the nice complements, but I think you're being awful tough on yourself re: writing skills - your posts always stand out as being thoughtful, well-crafted and pointed.

It's easy to be in a bad mood these days, so much sucks. And many of us have personal issues, too. However, for what it's worth, I'm somewhat more hopeful than I've been in years - folks are finally starting to realize the horrific beating that they're taking at the hands of the oligarchs and the kakistocracy. Knowing that we're getting screwed is the first step in turning it around. And I do think we can turn it around - while there's been some shenanigans in some voting, I do believe that we fundamentally still have the ability to elect who we want when we become smart enough to know who can help. And I do think that the Judiciary is basically sound.

Don't sweat Sid - he's annoying but harmless. I suspect he'd be singing a different tune if he actually had to endure the pleasure of, say, US-style health insurance - less care at 50% extra cost, with tons of extra paperwork to boot.

[SammyWinstonJack]

111. As always, straight Dem ticket for me.

[randome]

115. I, for one, appreciate your willingness to see both sides of the situation.

Carry on.

[MineralMan]

120. Thanks for your half-hearted and belated

support for Democratic candidates, Manny. Better than nothing, I guess. Maybe if you'd grit your teeth a little more firmly and work up a little enthusiasm, you might be able to get some others to go to the polls and vote for Democrats, too.

But, hey, anything is better than nothing, I guess.

[MannyGoldstein]

123. Looking for a full-throated endorsement of "free" trade, lower corporate taxes,

deregulation of corporate accounting rules, protection of the bankers, abrogation of habeas corpus and due process, and all the rest? You've come to the wrong place. Those things are just wrong.

However I will work mightily to elect Obama and other right-wing Dems over insane people like Romney. I'd think that you'd appreciate the help rather than being a sore winner.

[nolabels]

124. I have a choice

I choose to think the OP is a little dim, but thanks for asking

[Douglas Carpenter]

130. not good enough Manny!! Unless you can love and believe in President Obama and the Democratic Party

with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind and live only for him and the Party - you are not worthy. After all nothing convinces people to vote Democratic except unconditional faith in the party.

[MannyGoldstein]

131. For a certain group, clearly.

Different strokes...