2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI wasn't coming back to GD P but Skinner's post prompted me in a way to do so.
Does the party even acknowledge the issue of income inequality? I can't tell. And my name isn't bro. We'll see but working together requires mutual respect and acknowledgement. It requires a few basics, not "where else are you gonna go?". My thoughts. I'll drop in later. Thanks.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Dems have only been talking about it since FDR, but carry on.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to deregulates Wall Street and the Banks so they can "grow the economy". And we all know that a growing economy raises all boats. And that the Rich And Powerful will trickle down some of their profits.
Oh wait. The economy has been growing, and the raising tide has been only lifting the yachts and sinking the dingys.
The progressives have been talking about it but not Clinton. She said she might close a loophole or two but not reinstate Glass-Steagall.
Baitball Blogger
(46,698 posts)million dollar swimming pool. The pond just got smaller for them.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Present company excepted, but the urgency isn't there in our leadership and inequaluty is still on the rise.
randome
(34,845 posts)Which is a soundbite and not a policy proposal. Income inequality, LGBT rights and climate change are all important issues but they can't be solved with soundbites. We need specific proposals and someone who can push things through Congress.
Clinton has a lifetime of connections to get things done. Or at the very least a better chance to get them done.
Sanders has never worked well as part of a team, it's why he has fewer Senate endorsements than Ted Cruz.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Income inequality isn't a concern of corporatists...anyone who thinks income inequality is anything but a sound bite for Hillary, and a life long passion for Bernie hasn't been paying attention....
randome
(34,845 posts)Hillary Clinton’s record proves she believes that every American should be able to earn an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work. As a Senator, Hillary Clinton introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act and was an original cosponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
In the Senate, Hillary Clinton supported increasing the minimum wage and voted repeatedly to protect and increase it. She was an original cosponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, and authored the 2006 and 2007 Standing with Minimum Wage Act to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage.
As a Senator, Hillary Clinton supported progressive tax policies that required millionaires to pay their fair share. She opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and she supported a variety of middle-class tax cuts, including tax credits for student loan recipients, and keeping in place the tax cuts for those who make under $250,000 a year.
Clinton has said “that inherited wealth and concentrated wealth is not good for America,” and she has consistently voted against repealing the estate tax on millionaires, doing so in 2001, 2002, and 2006.
Hillary Clinton supported working families going through difficult times through no fault of their own. In the Senate, she was a bipartisan leader on fighting to extend emergency unemployment benefits.
Hillary Clinton knows that tomorrow’s shared success starts with today’s child, and her dedication to children began long before she ever entered public office. In fact, her first job out of law school was for the newly-formed Children’s Defense Fund, an organization she would later chair.
Hillary Clinton has worked to increase health coverage for millions of children in low-income and working families through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a program she helped created as First Lady. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton looked for ways to strengthen the program, introducing bills to allow states to expand it.
Hillary Clinton has worked to expand access to early childhood education for children of lower-income families. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton introduced her husband to the HIPPY program, which expanded early childhood education to economically disadvantaged children. In the Senate, Clinton partnered with Kit Bond in an effort to expand voluntary full-day pre-K for children from low-income families.
Today, as part of the Too Small to Fail Initiative to improve the health and well-being of children five and under, Hillary Clinton is working to close the “word gap” for kids in low-income families who often have smaller vocabularies than their classmates.
I'm not all that big on specifics, myself. I go by a politician's general stance. Intuition, if you want to call it that. I feel fine with Clinton as our next President.
And as someone who voted the same as Sanders > 93% of the time, well, I'm okay with that, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Still, to say that only Sanders addresses income inequality is not a fair statement, I think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Match the words to the actions.
randome
(34,845 posts)Although it's short on specifics, too, it at least acknowledges the need to do something. All I'm saying is that I truly doubt Clinton would do nothing to address income inequality and to say that only Sanders would address it is disingenuous.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-goes-populist
She denounced the Bush administration for squandering those economic gains as well as a budget surplus in perhaps the toughest terms since she left politics for a non-partisan role as Secretary of State.
“That’s what happens when your only policy prescription is to cut taxes for the wealthy and then to deal with the aftermath of a terrible terrorist attack and two wars without paying for them,” she said. “Regulators neglected their oversight of the financial sector and allowed the evolution of an entire shadow banking system that operated without accountability.”
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
cui bono
(19,926 posts)She constantly changes positions on issues. The ONLY reason she has 'gone populist' with words is that Bernie is in the race. She will never follow through on anything progressive she is saying now and her record proves it. Bill also ran as a progressive and then governed as moderate Republican.
She is DLC/Third Way. It's in her blood. It's in her bank account. One would have to be a fool to believe she is going to change now.
.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Hillary Haters have their own set of "facts" and their bubble is impenetrable.
Absolutely "Ready for Hillary" and a return to a fact-based reality! 
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm not that good with math, myself, but I know that something is better than nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Bernie math, then! 
randome
(34,845 posts)No offense intended, Sanders supporters! There are some outrageous memes and videos about Clinton that I find hilarious, too!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)That is what we don't trust.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
artislife
(9,497 posts)That isn't a progressive.
randome
(34,845 posts)And I personally don't care in the slightest about GMOs. It's how we humans do things -we change our environment. That includes our food. But plenty of others don't care about this, either. Some do, and it's no point in denying that they do, but it's not a big issue for most that I can see.
And fracking? Well, two things: it's actually better for the atmosphere than burning oil. And she has said she's in favor of it with restrictions. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/03/hillary-clinton-debate-fracking
You and I might disagree but I think it's a valid viewpoint that if fracking can be done without damage to the environment, it's not as big an issue.
The same can be said for nuclear power. We might be against that for many reasons but looking at things objectively, on balance it's not as bad on the atmosphere as fossil fuels.
All I'm saying is those are legitimate viewpoints, even if we don't agree with them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)line in your propaganda.
randome
(34,845 posts)But that still doesn't refute the reality that she is a Democrat and a Progressive and she will get things done. With Congress' help and ours.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511863871
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't know. But you don't, either. I admit simply being on the Executive Board of Walmart doesn't sound good but, on the other hand, she probably gained valuable experience in learning how they operate. I'm not saying she was a trojan horse in their midst, just that it's important to understand things from all perspectives.
Apparently she did push the Board to include more women in executive positions and for better environmental practices. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?_r=0
And simply by serving on the board, it undercuts the GOP argument that Democrats don't understand economics.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Her husband was governor, Walmart is headquartered in Arkansas.
2016 standards for 1980's living. In Arkansas!
This is where a "fact" is associated with innuendo and speculation to create a false narrative.
Whatever.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)original AIDS activist and her entire support group on DU cheered that comment, defended it or excused it. None of them objected at all to her public smearing of our history.
I'll vote for out nominee but I will not forgive her nor her supporters.
randome
(34,845 posts)She says stupid things from time to time. I understand why it bothers you but I don't see why you can't accept her apology and move on. As I've pointed out before, my father is gay and I don't take offense at what Clinton said. Of course I'm one step removed from being the 'target' of her stupid statement but still...compared to the utterly outrageous and harmful things that the GOP says, I see this as a tempest in a teapot.
Obviously ymmv, and I can accept that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Arkansas Granny
(31,513 posts)“Yesterday, at Nancy Reagan’s funeral, I said something inaccurate when speaking about the Reagans’ record on HIV and AIDS,” Clinton wrote in a blog post on Medium published Saturday night.
“I made a mistake, plain and simple. …
To be clear, the Reagans did not start a national conversation about HIV and AIDS. That distinction belongs to generations of brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, along with straight allies, who started not just a conversation but a movement that continues to this day.
That distinction belongs to generations of brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, along with straight allies, who started not just a conversation but a movement that continues to this day.
http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/3/12/hillary-clinton-expands-apology-mistake-nancy-reagan-and-aids-history
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)have said such a thing. Let me be blunt with you. I have sat in the room with her while she heard and discussed the horrible things Reagan did. She now seems to have forgotten all of that. This is frightening. It is possibly a cognitive problem.
This is not a small thing. When Reagan finally broke his Seven Year Silence on AIDS 40,000 Americans had already died. There were massive protests all over the world.
Would you wave it away so casually if Bernie had 'misspoke' and said the George W Bush was the great hero of Hurricane Katrina, the sounder of the alarm and the savior of New Orleans? Would it be sufficient to say 'ooop, no he wasn't, I forgot that he was really the villain of Katrina not the hero'?
She never made amends, she never explained HOW and WHY she said that insulting shit. Her supporters on DU continue to excuse and defend those comments without explaining how or why they think such comments are acceptable.
I will vote for the nominee but I will not forgive her nor forget what she believes nor will I forget the calloused indifference of her supporters. Ever.
Arkansas Granny
(31,513 posts)to earn your forgiveness.
I am very much aware of the effect Reagan's inaction regarding AIDS. I lost several friends who might still be alive if research had begun in earnest at an earlier date.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I don't understand how you can just wave away that crap she said if you actually lost friends. Nor do I understand why you'd attack me.
She sought out TV cameras to make that bullshit assertion about Reagan and Nancy. She tweeted her 'apology'. That's not even an attempt at making things right. She lied to the country about very important things and then whispered a retraction in private.
You did not answer any question I asked you, but you did offer up judgement of me. And that's exactly what I am talking about. A lack of respect and a full assumption of superiority. It's disturbing to see such attitudes in this Party.
Arkansas Granny
(31,513 posts)Hillary said something stupid while eulogizing a dead woman, she was called on it and she apologized within hours. Her erroneous statement did not alter the truth about the horrendous way in which the Reagan administration reacted to the AIDS epidemic and no one was injured by her remarks.
If you want to hold on to your outrage and hurt feelings, there is nothing I can do about that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She has not committed to stopping the growing wealth gap that has made her a very rich women.
Saying that one can stand both with Wall Street and the 99% is bullcrap and you know it. It means she will see that the banks make trillions and maybe throw some cake to the 99%.
For the last 30 years the Rich and Powerful have been getting more and more Rich while the 99% has struggled. That's the status quo she represents.
randome
(34,845 posts)I disagree with being unable to let Wall Street be Wall Street and still address income inequality. Regulation of Wall Street and greater taxation are the ways to do that. Getting things through Congress is much more likely with Clinton, imo. Sanders has few connections among his colleagues.
I think the opposite is more likely: she'll offer some modest tax incentive for Wall Street in exchange for funding something more to our liking. If she can help us regain the Senate, that's more likely.
And the real power resides in Congress, anyways, and they will help keep her feet to the fire so long as we keep their feet to the fire. We have allies in Congress. We need to use them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And I know the standard response is "mayor is different than president" but ones skills and approach are the same. In any case it illustrates that he is much more than soundbites and actually knows how to get into the weeds of policy and governance and be a really good government CEO.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1863311
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Yes. The 2016 Democratic Party platform begins by addressing income inequality and the disparity and distance between the Dem and the GOP approach to the economy.
"I can't tell."
More accurately, yes-- you can tell, you've simply chosen not to.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)eve n recognize your Democratic party getting income equality and simply give this to Sanders as his issue, how do you expect "mutual respect and acknowledgement"
IamMab
(1,359 posts)"Both political parties seem to have a southern strategy to divide the electorate along racial lines."
I guess you continue to fail to understand that you must offer respect in order to be worthy of receiving it yourself. You're certainly not offering black Democrats much respect with such bullshit.
Peddle your relentless victimhood elsewhere.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
Account status: Active
Member since: Fri Apr 8, 2016, 01:55 PM
Number of posts: 951
IamMab
(1,359 posts)Do you have any response other than an ad hominem attack based on how long I've been on DU? No? I thought so.
Goodbye forever.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
buh-bye!
bigtree
(85,986 posts)The former Secretary of State sounded a populist note throughout a policy speech at the New America Foundation, rattling off an array of statistics describing rising inequality and falling economic mobility in America.
“The dream of upward mobility that made this country a model for the world feels further and further out of reach and many Americans understandably feel frustrated, even angry,” Clinton said.
Clinton told the audience that middle class incomes had stagnated over the last decade even as the average worker’s productivity had increased significantly in the same period. She pointed to studies that showed 4 out of 10 children born into the lowest rung on the economic ladder remained there as adults.
She cited troubling statistics indicating that many younger African-American workers were falling out of the middle class. She noted that life expectancies for lower income women were dropping. She warned that news that middle class Canadians now enjoyed better wages, hours, and government benefits than their American counterparts was a “wake-up call.”
“And where is it all going?” Clinton asked. “Economists have documented how the share of income and wealth going to those at the very top, not just the top 1 percent but the top 0.1 percent, the 0.01 percent of the population, has risen sharply over the last generation,” she said. “Some are calling it a throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons.”
“As Secretary of State I saw the way extreme inequality has corrupted other societies, hobbled growth and left entire generations alienated and unmoored,” she said.
“The 1990s taught us that even in the face of difficult long term economic trends it’s possible through smart policies and sound investments to enjoy broad based growth and shared prosperity,” she said.
“That’s what happens when your only policy prescription is to cut taxes for the wealthy and then to deal with the aftermath of a terrible terrorist attack and two wars without paying for them,” she said. “Regulators neglected their oversight of the financial sector and allowed the evolution of an entire shadow banking system that operated without accountability.”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-goes-populist
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"she cited", etc.
“The dream of upward mobility that made this country a model for the world feels further and further out of reach and many Americans understandably feel frustrated, even angry,” Clinton said.
Not one of this paragraphs discusses any plans to take action. She never says we need to regulate Wall Street or the Banks. When asked about reinstating Glass Steagall, she said no, it's not enough or it won't help. But she doesn't say what will help.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...her Wall Street plan, much of which is already endorsed by Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman, for example, contains specific actions she would take.
Elizabeth Warren praises Hillary Clinton's Wall Street plan
“Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass government funding bill,” Warren wrote on Facebook...
“Whether it’s attacking the C.F.P.B., undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisers, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we’ve made on financial reform, she and I agree,” Warren wrote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/elizabeth-warren-praises-hillary-clintons-wall-street-plan/
Hillary Clinton: How I’d Rein In Wall Street
SEVEN years ago, the financial crisis sent our economy into a tailspin. Over five million people lost their homes. Nearly nine million lost their jobs. Nearly $13 trillion in household wealth was wiped out.
Under President Obama, our economy has come a long way back. Our businesses have created more than 13 million jobs. People’s savings are being restored. And we have tough new rules on the books, including the Dodd-Frank Act, that protect consumers and curb recklessness on Wall Street.
But not everyone sees that as a good thing. Republicans, both in Congress and on the campaign trail, are dead-set on rolling back critical financial protections.
Right now, Republicans in Congress are working to attach damaging deregulation riders to the must-pass spending bill. They’re attempting to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They want to roll back common-sense efforts to prevent conflicts of interest by financial managers. And they’re trying to undo constraints on risk at some of the largest and most complex financial institutions.
President Obama and congressional Democrats should do everything they can to stop these efforts. But it’s not enough simply to protect the progress we have made. As president, I would not only veto any legislation that would weaken financial reform, but I would also fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond Dodd-Frank.
My comprehensive plan has already won praise from progressives like Sherrod Brown and Barney Frank. Here’s what it would do.
First, we need to further rein in major financial institutions. My plan proposes legislation that would impose a new risk fee on dozens of the biggest banks — those with more than $50 billion in assets — and other systemically important financial institutions to discourage the kind of hazardous behavior that could induce another crisis. I would also ensure that the federal government has — and is prepared to use — the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively. No bank or financial firm should be too big to manage.
My plan would strengthen the Volcker Rule by closing the loopholes that still allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits. And I would fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks, which were repealed during last year’s budget negotiations after a determined lobbying campaign by the banks.
My plan also goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector. Some have urged the return of a Depression-era rule called Glass-Steagall, which separated traditional banking from investment banking. But many of the firms that contributed to the crash in 2008, like A.I.G. and Lehman Brothers, weren’t traditional banks, so Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have limited their reckless behavior. Nor would restoring Glass-Steagall help contain other parts of the “shadow banking” sector, including certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks and other non-bank institutions. My plan would strengthen oversight of these activities, too — increasing leverage and liquidity requirements for broker-dealers and imposing strict margin requirements on the kinds of short-term borrowing that also played a major role in spurring the financial crisis. We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks.
Second, I would appoint tough, independent regulators and ensure that both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are independently funded — as other critical regulators are now — so that they can do their jobs without political interference. I would seek to impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading, which makes markets less stable and less fair. And we need to reform stock market rules to ensure equal access to information, increase transparency and minimize conflicts of interest.
Finally, executives need to be held more accountable. No one should be too big to jail. I would seek to extend the statute of limitations for major financial crimes to 10 years from five and enhance rewards for whistle-blowers. I would work to ensure that financial firms admit wrongdoing as part of settlements in instances of egregious misconduct, and increase transparency about the terms of settlement and the fines actually paid to the government. Fines should be more than just the cost of doing business to these companies — they should be an effective disincentive for illegal behavior.
And it shouldn’t just be shareholders and taxpayers who feel the pain when banks make bad decisions; executives should have skin in the game. When a firm pays a fine, I would make sure that the penalty cuts into executives’ bonuses, too. And I would fight to close the carried interest loophole that gives some fund managers billions of dollars in tax breaks: They should be taxed like every other citizen.
Republicans may have decided to forget about the financial crisis that caused so much devastation — but I haven’t. The proper role of Wall Street is to help Main Street grow and prosper. When our financial sector works the right way, it helps families buy their first homes, entrepreneurs start and grow small businesses and hardworking Americans save for retirement. Rather than pursuing the kind of high-stakes speculation that devastated our economy before, Wall Street should focus on building an economy that creates good-paying jobs, rising incomes and sound investments so that more families can achieve the security of a middle-class life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)meant any of the above they would see her as more dangerous than Sanders. But they don't. Even the Koch Bros favor her. So what could she have told them to placate them?
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...even though you've shifted your complaint.
Did you miss Charles Koch's op-ed in support of Sanders?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-koch-this-is-the-one-issue-where-bernie-sanders-is-right/2016/02/18/cdd2c228-d5c1-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html
Koch Bros. *heart* Bernie:
Jesse Lehrich @JesseLehrich
Every Democrat in the Senate voted to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank
Bernie channeled the Koch brothers: #DemDebate
Jesse Lehrich @JesseLehrich
Ex-Im was never controversial until Koch bros tried to kill it. Bernie was only D who joined their fight #DemDebate
Eric Bradner @ericbradner
Never thought I'd say this, but on Ex-Im, @BernieSanders' rhetoric exactly matches Koch-funded conservative groups. http://cnn.it/1RNeAoO
Jesse Lehrich @JesseLehrich
90% of Ex-Im transactions directly support small businesses.
#DemDebate
Jesse Lehrich @JesseLehrich
@RepDebDingell & @RepTimRyan hit @BernieSanders for voting with Tea Party Rs to kill the Export-Import bank:
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)trusted?
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...enough said.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)She's not in office yet and her actions versus promises aren't determined yet. Even our current president did not address all of his campaign promises. Gitmo is still open, campaign finance reform never happened as two examples.
But if she wanted to attack undue risks at all levels, the Glass-Stegel act would get the investment activities out of banks and visa versa. And the US Chamber of Commerce already assured their customers that Hillary will support the TPP once she's in office. So the right/wrong issue is still pending.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What do you think of Clinton's statements about income inequality?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the US government was neglecting to pay for as a pandemic took hold in the world and Reagan refused to do anything about it. I spent more than most people ever make. I will never catch up again with my peers who just sat on their straight wealth. I'm forever behind. Hillary says that I did not do any of that, she claims Reagan had to do all of that because people like me refused. She's full of shit. She should be speaking out for people like me, not for rich Republicans.
Let me know when she goes on TV and speaks the truth about Reagan and AIDS. Let me know when she tells America who paid their tab for them.
Horrible.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)On the plus side, she's had some good things to sat about inequality.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I will never forgive her nor the people who excuse that homophobic bullshit in our Party. I'm not a Reagan Democrat.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)No credence to poor lil ol me I'm just going along with the crowd when you herded it there in the first place.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)statements that says what she plans to do?
By the way, the growing wealth gap has made the Clinton Family in the top 1% of the top 1% of the wealthy not even counting her Foundation.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Interesting...
djean111
(14,255 posts)moment. So, to me, what Hillary says is irrelevant. All campaign blather.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)
I have not been demanding transcripts. I already assume that the Hillary who speaks to money, for money, behind closed doors, is the real Hillary.
I think those transcripts are probably some real ugly stuff, unless one is a banker or member of the 1%. And I think they will be leaked if she is the nominee. And if she is the nominee, I will be totally removed from the political "process", and I don't know that I will even read about it. I won't see it on TV, I don't watch TV for news.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Her stonewalling campaign is, unfortunately, paying mad dividends.
djean111
(14,255 posts)All I really have is my support and my vote. She won't get those.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)although it would more properly be iterative
step 1 decide you are going to be president
step 2 make a stump speech saying you'll fight inequality
step 3 make paid speech to the people responsible for said inequality. if any media are around fire up the white noise machine.
step 4 setup and attend $10,000+/plate fundraising dinner, give speech, collect money from the wealthy who would like to have you represent them
step 5 use that money against the candidate who has made it his life's work to fight inequality
step 6 evaluate if you have beaten the anti-inequality guy yet
Yes = you can move on to the step 7 general election
No = spawn a new thread at step 2 or step 3.
step 7 general election - fight with asshole billionaire who hammers you for taking all that money from the rich while saying you'll fight inequality
step 8 evaluate
Won the general election? Mission accomplished, thank your donors with policies that benefit them at the expense of everyone else
Lost? Blame the left for not fighting harder for you.
Autumn
(45,042 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)And the planks of the Democratic Platform are just decorative. Kinda old and peeling and shabby. But only for show.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)I'd rather people leave than abuse the alert and Jury system. Yesterday I had a post hidden for merely pointing out that a poster had 164 post. This has reached the level of being despicable.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...you got a hide when you thought you shouldn't; my heart bleeds for you. 
Yours is of course a classic case of PROJECTION. Look it up. Hillary supporters are far, far less numerous on this site, and yet they impose their will, often through alert swarming, all the time.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)As your post here demonstrates your cohort is focused on criticism of other Democrats, personal attacks and not on issues nor ideas. Whining that the community finds your standards lacking is just that, whining.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)You are complaining about others quite a bit but I think you need to worry about yourself.
.
onecaliberal
(32,814 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)She works hard for her money and how the hell can the 1% afford their lives and grow their hidden wealth if you and I and the other 99% don't carry our weight?
I don't think that DWS and the party leadership acknowledge income equality, I think they're willingly convinced that it's part of the business model everyone needs to follow.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)So many in the party leadership and the party overall are comfortable and this place of comfort has made them cold to the reality that is daily life for a great many people.
They make many assumptions from ivory towers of middle class or wealth with little awareness it would seem of those that are lower middle class (quickly falling into poverty even tho they work harder with multiple McJobs than they did before lower middle class meant poverty).
As to the poor - they seem completely oblivious to them and convince themselves that welfare reform didn't harm anybody, I know Hill and Bill believe this, but it did and does to this day I assure you, it was not a pragmatic solution to a "welfare queen" problem handled well because a Democrat helped to all but destroy it. It will not be a brave pragmatic solution to "earned benefit queens" they will likely label SS beneficiaries, as they collude yet again with republicans to begin to shred these last vestiges of the new deal and great society.
They cause the poor to become poorer still while so many in the party applaud the politicians responsible. Their applause and support are what make them just as responsible as their political idols.
They think this is a game, or a sport with my team and their team, not realizing or caring that the ball that is tossed around in this sport is a child that only gets to eat at school and will soon lose that food, or the ball is an elderly widow or widower that can only afford to take their medicine every other day or maybe will freeze to death in a small flat during a winter they could not pay their gas bill (this happens ALREADY where I live).
There are many other balls tossed around for their sport and amusement, too many to list them all here, some are dead or dying, some are living under a tarp in a vacant lot hoping the cops don't roust them or the suburban teenagers don't decide to slum it and amuse themselves by assaulting them while laughing and taunting the "bum" for cell phone footage. Some of these comfortable people give advice to "the poor that in fact do OK" as a famous DLC Democrat once said. One of the Conservative DU posters once even suggested dumpster diving as a viable and reasonable option.
Too many of them applaud policies and politicians that make all these problems worse, they need to get it through their heads, many are dying and more will die of poverty, this is no game and the poor aren't doing OK, they are doing worse all the time with less help available all the time.
It is not serious, pragmatic, or brave to cause more people to suffer and die in poverty because it is referred to flippantly as "eating peas" or "being adult". It is not pragmatic even when the ones shipping away the jobs or destroying welfare "feel your pain". It never was bravery, but cowardice. It is not balanced when an increasing number of people fall into poverty and die while others become wealthier at an exponential rate.
The punditry, politicians, and comfortable may think it is a fun sport full of serious brave adults that make hard decisions.
Cowards all really, making easy decisions, easy because their decisions don't harm them, but rather the poor they barely acknowledge exist for the profit of the wealthy.
Sometimes they even have the gall to pat themselves on the back and reassure each other "the poor in fact do OK".
I feel very sincerely about these class and poverty issues, I give my loyalty completely to the forgotten, struggling and increasingly poor working classes that birthed me. You decide if that makes me disloyal to a party that has all but forgotten us save for donations and Pyrrhic election victories, because I will fight tooth and nail against any one of them or any elected Democrat that is harmful to my class, in other words harmful to most of America.
For these reasons and others, my loyalties now lie only with Bernie Sanders, politicians that share his views, and the revolution that is necessary if we are to fight and win against overwhelming odds, a fight I take on for my class, the very survival of countless people, and for a better future to leave behind for our younger generations.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)I was raised by a blue collar family, my single mom became pink collar then white collar, but we never climbed out of poverty until my brother and myself were in our teens. I have never crossed a picket line in my life -- the behavior is so ingrained, I'm pretty sure I never will, certainly not knowingly.
We never went hungry, though. One of our family friends liked to call us the "genteel poor", i.e. we were educated and with artistic and literary sensibilities. We also had a great public school system at the time, where I was able to pursue music, drama, and art as well as all of the usual academic subjects; and there were high academic standards. So all in all, I wasn't really that badly off, and when I finally did get to university, I had a solid foundation to build on, nor did I have to shoulder a huge (and non-dischargeable) debt to do so.
But going to university, and working with a lot of high-tech libertarians, never ever wrung the blue-collar kid out of me. I know where my roots are. I know what it's like to have the country club set look down their noses at you, thinking they are better than you are "just because". I know what it's like to hide the holes in your shoes, to be embarrassed because you don't have any new clothes to wear at the start of school. It's not that bad, certainly; there are many who have had it much much worse. But my experience makes me more empathetic to that, not less so.
People sometimes mistake class consciousness for class envy -- they think that because we critique the hedge fund billionaires, that must mean we are simply jealous and wish we had that money. And they truly believe in the "meritocracy", where those who make it do so out of personal virtue and hard work.
No, just no. If anyone has followed this year's primary, and listened to the various stump speeches, including of course Bernie's, they just have no excuse for this twisted interpretation of the critiques of wealth inequality.
Anyway I just wanted to say great post, it should be an OP. And here's to those who do not forget where they came from! 
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I probably have him on Ignore.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Skinner is not his real name...that's David and he lives in the DC suburbs. (I'm not outing anything, this is publicly available information. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=100801 there used to be a picture of him and a short bio too on an Admins page that no longer exists.)
I used to see him in the grocery store from time-to-time when I lived in metro DC...I didn't say "Hi!", I figure he probably wants to be left the F alone while he's running errands so he can get them done with...I know I do. It would weird me out if random strangers came up to me while I was buying milk and cereal and started talking to me by name like they know me and I have no idea who they are.
Also, is it possible to block the Admins? I'd think not.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I don't recall seeing that handle so doubt he is there. But I hadn't seen a post that the OP referenced and was thinking that might have been how I missed it.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)There's no point in leaving and announcing it if you're just going to be right back. Nobody's telling you to leave. Just stay and be part of the conversation. That's my advice.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Autumn
(45,042 posts)again thing?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)1) because it's profitable.
2) because you're productively pursuing personal philosophical goals
3) because you're among friends
That realization has provoked some introspection on my part.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)I was still looking at signs on working together, executive actions that could be taken, pocket book issues left of the "recovery" type of things. Also more respect for people like Elizabeth Warren and a few others besides Bernie. Anyway, thanks.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)That apparently isn't actually goodbye. Looks like the OP can't quit this place.