Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kaleckim

(651 posts)
71. Nope
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:48 PM
Mar 2016

The Democrats DID support austerity, how in the heck can you claim otherwise? In fact, Obama was very much open to cutting the big three, which would have yanked even more demand out of the economy. Why do you think that hundreds of thousands of public sector workers have lost their jobs under his presidency? It is true that some Democrats, and Sanders, want more spending, increased investment in infrastructure and the like, but it is absolutely not true that the Democrats opposed austerity. Obama in fact, right after taking office, supported a smaller stimulus than what the left was proposing (and it would have made a big difference).

The ACA is okay, but lets not kid ourselves about it. In my state, Illinois, Medicaid was expanded, which is great. However, they expanded Medicaid by privatizing it. It is now basically managed care. The rate of increase in health care costs has decreased, which is good. However, it still outpaces wages growth for most people. It is still not sustainable in the long run, and the reason is that private health care companies are at the center of the system. As long as that is the case, we will continue to pay more than other countries, and have endless people die and go into bankruptcy because of our system, and we'll continue to have far worse outcomes as a result of the system. The unemployment rate has come down (don't know where in the hell you get 4%, the official rate is 5.5% and everyone knows the real rate is much higher), which is good, but we were losing 750,000 jobs when he took office. We've improved in that regard (hard not to), but I challenge you to name me a single thing that caused the crash that has been truly addressed. Is private debt not much larger than when Reagan took office (yes, and it is much larger than public debt, kind of a problem in an economy that relies on consumer spending), have we changed our trade model (which has caused mass de-industrialization)? Are the too big to fail banks smaller or larger? Is inequality higher or lower than when Obama was president? Is infrastructure improving and not what it was when was elected, or is it continuing to crumble? The black community was destroyed by the crash of 2008. Have most in the black community recovered? Obama made most of Bush's tax cuts permanent, and most of that benefits the rich (carried interest, dividends, the estate tax, capital gains). Did he have to (no)? What have they really done to get at the root causes of all of this, stuff like inequality? Nothing, in fact Obama is trying hard to pass a complete disaster in the TPP. Have you read, or read about, that bill?

Your party is less bad than the Republicans, but that is all I'll give you. On non-economic issues, it is much better. On foreign policy and judicial nominations, better, same with the environment. However, isn't it kind of an easy thing to say when we are comparing your party to the modern Republican Party? The plague wasn't nearly as bad as that party, so what is it saying that your party is better than the Republicans? The left has to have a breaking point with the Democrats. If it doesn't have one and let it be known, it will remain the pathetic shadow of its former self nationally.

Bernie supporters should stop telling us what we should be doing. upaloopa Mar 2016 #1
You can't answer the question. Cobalt Violet Mar 2016 #3
We don't need play Bernie supporter games. They is no reason to accomodate you upaloopa Mar 2016 #9
you will in November if she is the nominee. Cobalt Violet Mar 2016 #12
That stuff doesn't phase me. You do what you want upaloopa Mar 2016 #14
Hillary stands for Disinvestment Baobab Mar 2016 #36
Hillary will fight for all Americans: she will always stand with the people lewebley3 Mar 2016 #39
Juridicial people, i.e. corporations Baobab Mar 2016 #41
Hillary track record is fighting for the people: Not coporations lewebley3 Mar 2016 #42
I thought that too for a long time - Not any more. Baobab Mar 2016 #48
Hillary has been fighing for the American people: I know I have watch her myself lewebley3 Mar 2016 #87
She's been involved with the WTO who have a huge guest worker program in the pipeline Baobab Mar 2016 #88
Hillary has not been involved with WTO the United States has: lewebley3 Mar 2016 #89
Bill Clinton is the single human being most associated with the WTO Baobab Mar 2016 #90
He is not the single human ass with WTO: You post is political because of the Clinton lewebley3 Mar 2016 #92
What track record? Just because she says it doesn't make it so. She talks a good game ... ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #79
Her record is a fact: Hillary has not been closed to coporations: She votes lewebley3 Mar 2016 #85
"She votes...for what is best for all...corporations" Baobab Mar 2016 #91
Wrong; Hillary in her votes has always sided with people against the Corp lewebley3 Mar 2016 #93
She hasn't yet.Bernie wants what the people want.Hillary wants to be president bjobotts Mar 2016 #61
ahh yes PatrynXX Mar 2016 #43
the next phase is putting entire back offices on the other side of the world Baobab Mar 2016 #49
Hillarians cannot. ChairmanAgnostic Mar 2016 #27
Isn't that the truth. Cobalt Violet Mar 2016 #31
yeah. they seem to think the hate originated from Bernie's side PatrynXX Mar 2016 #45
LOL! kaleckim Mar 2016 #22
ahahahahhahhahaahahahahhahhaa laughter is infectious saturnsring Mar 2016 #15
So... kaleckim Mar 2016 #33
that post was for that poster at that time saturnsring Mar 2016 #67
Hillary stands for the Democratic party leadership: and the progressive party lewebley3 Mar 2016 #38
perhaps PatrynXX Mar 2016 #46
Their one in the same: but not every liberal is rep by her: (you for expample) lewebley3 Mar 2016 #50
Yes kaleckim Mar 2016 #60
Its does make logical sense: Hillary has long history with the union: lewebley3 Mar 2016 #69
Nope kaleckim Mar 2016 #71
"progressive" in the trade context means irreversible. Not in a good way, they want to privatize Baobab Mar 2016 #68
Who cares: progressive politics is about people: not semantics lewebley3 Mar 2016 #70
Not sure how that helps your argument kaleckim Mar 2016 #72
The trade deals went bad because of the GOP: The Clintons had very lewebley3 Mar 2016 #86
Bernie supporters should stop telling us what we should be doing. AlbertCat Mar 2016 #6
see #9 upaloopa Mar 2016 #11
see #9 AlbertCat Mar 2016 #13
see #9 upaloopa Mar 2016 #17
not only do you sound like a broken record, ChairmanAgnostic Mar 2016 #28
"you started it"? saturnsring Mar 2016 #16
"you started it"? AlbertCat Mar 2016 #18
omg the horror of it saturnsring Mar 2016 #19
omg the horror of it AlbertCat Mar 2016 #64
Stop telling us Hillary is the nominee or that she's a good person Baobab Mar 2016 #55
Herself. forest444 Mar 2016 #2
Ding! Ding! Ding! n/t markpkessinger Mar 2016 #56
Thanks, Mark. forest444 Mar 2016 #58
.+1 840high Mar 2016 #77
Corporations, especially the multinationals. nt antigop Mar 2016 #4
Winning! HassleCat Mar 2016 #5
That's it exactly. zentrum Mar 2016 #37
Whatever she's told to stand for AlbertCat Mar 2016 #7
Exactly. n/t Herman4747 Mar 2016 #24
And New Democrats have been privzatizing everything they can, every since. DhhD Mar 2016 #32
Progressive liberalization. This has been pursued for the past few decades on a bipartisan basis. stillwaiting Mar 2016 #52
Her bank account. Gregorian Mar 2016 #8
Wall Street, the MIC, Weapons makers, PNAC, and money, money, money ...... nt. polly7 Mar 2016 #10
Easy...She stands for LibDemAlways Mar 2016 #20
$$$$$$ EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2016 #21
+1,000 !!! happynewyear Mar 2016 #78
Obviously not the 99%. Hillary stands for anyone willing to pony the big $$$$$. SammyWinstonJack Mar 2016 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author IHateTheGOP Mar 2016 #25
Only defensively not offensively. She didn't attack the Banks or Wall street or anything else bjobotts Mar 2016 #63
Thanks for posting an answer. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #76
This message was self-deleted by its author IHateTheGOP Mar 2016 #84
No she hasn't. It's all a game of good cop/bad cop. Wall Street walks away with the loot. ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #80
This message was self-deleted by its author IHateTheGOP Mar 2016 #83
The status quo Lydia Leftcoast Mar 2016 #26
Nothing, but she does have gravitas so there's that ... Scuba Mar 2016 #29
I remember the Beltway Media praising her for her ability to NOT take a position. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2016 #30
Looking at the numbers, she stands for lots and lots of people. procon Mar 2016 #34
Let's go for the visual evidence... chervilant Mar 2016 #62
Pictures are lovely, but only the numbers count, yeah? procon Mar 2016 #65
The visual images I suggest you view chervilant Mar 2016 #66
How is it about "ideological purity"?! kaleckim Mar 2016 #73
She is not honest. Madmiddle Mar 2016 #35
She stands for "I have wanted this for 30 years and by God its my turn" INdemo Mar 2016 #40
No, thats just the cover story, its far worse than that Baobab Mar 2016 #51
Important questions curiouso Mar 2016 #44
She will tell us what she stands for after the election. She has already made this clear. jalan48 Mar 2016 #47
please tell me thats you trying to be sarcastic Baobab Mar 2016 #53
I'm a Bernie supporter so yes, I'm being sarcastic. jalan48 Mar 2016 #54
It depends. nt grasswire Mar 2016 #57
Hilliary speaks like a typical attorney... Squaredeal Mar 2016 #59
I have no clue what she stands for :( nt slipslidingaway Mar 2016 #74
Except for all those conglomerate companies too numberous to mention Duckfan Mar 2016 #75
She stands for $153 million in speaking fees since her and Bill left office. She has to keep ... ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #81
Ask the Hillary Clinton group. longship Mar 2016 #82
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Seriously, What The Hell ...»Reply #71