That mostly addresses a bunch of strawmen arguments instead of the real reasons to be skeptic about Bernie. I simply believe Hillary is more capable and more likely to be successful at getting a democratic agenda passed than he would. I agree with Sanders on almost everything, but we don’t elect kings. Single payer healthcare would be great, we are not getting it no matter who we elect.
Really. Reich loses lots in my book because I know he is smart enough to know that lots of what he says is complete, as he loves to say, “baloney.”
Head to head polling meaning anything at this point? He knows that the multiple analyses by the 538 crowd are correct, that national polls right now are fairly meaningless. Yet he cites national head to head polling as a meaningful counterpoint to the fear that Sanders is less likely to win? That is a disingenuous argument and beneath Reich to make.
When people who don’t know that what they are saying is foolishness make arguments and cling to them, fine. When people who know better make the same stupid talking points, knowing they are untrue … disappointing.
The only point he made that was valid was that NET impact on families’ budgets true single payor would be a likely net gain for the vast majority, even as taxes go up.
But the battle was fought and we lost; fighting the same doomed fight again, likely without a majority, let alone the supermajority of those not only in the party but committed to taking the grief over a voting for a tax increase, is idiocy. Imaging that you are going to get that supermajority, delusional.
Of course Obama was transformative. Before he was sworn into office, the Republican party would field serious presidential candidates. Now look at 'em - the seekrit Muslim Kenyan born on the Moon has transformed the GOP into the FreeRepublic.com message board.
I don’t think it’s fair to slam Bernie of Single Payer. Of course it’s not going to happen, but what presidential candidate DOESN’T campaign on something that isn’t going to happen? Frankly, I don’t think he’s electable in the general, but I have a lot of respect for the guy even when I don’t agree with him-- at least he sticks to his principles much more than the other candidates in recent years.
It’s funny how none of us wants a president to be a a King, but we treat their campaigns as if we expect them to be one.
Robert Reich has publicly endorsed Sanders. In 2008 and he endorsed Obama over Hillary. There is no love lost between him and the Clintons.
So, that suggests he’s wrong, or suggests he’s right? Gotta give us clues, John, we aren’t that smart.
Did you read the post I was responding to? I was correcting the statement that RR is a Clinton supporter. He isn’t, and hasn’t been for quite some time.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, amigo.
You may not believe it, but if a particular group with strong and particular views on certain issues overwhelmingly controls the dialog and the message to the effective exclusion of differing views, then it manifestly is a pressing problem. Does the billionaires club typically have anything good to say about progressive taxation, workers’ rights or a minimum living wage, a social safety net, accessible and universal health care, environmental protection, or responsible corporate and financial regulation?
They seem to like saying the exact opposite. Loudly and often and with the aid of the most persuasive spinmeisters money can buy.
And that’s why you have the system that you have.
So the whole subject of campaign finance can be summed up and dismissed by a bumper sticker slogan? Who knew? But a more reasoned observation might conclude that if money buys influence in politics without limit, them money becomes the only influence in politics, and you no longer have a democracy.
And that, once again, is why have the system that you have. As per, for instance, the Gilens-Page study cited in the OP. FDR understood this long ago when he said that “we now know that government by organized money is as dangerous as government by organized mob”.
The fundamental requirement for democracy isn’t to eliminate the intrinsic influence of money, but to foster an informed populace and maximize their democratic influence relative to the inevitable moneyed interests. Contribution limits, advertising limits, laws governing the conduct of election campaigns, public campaign financing, free and equal media time, public broadcasting, and many other tools and principles are among the means of achieving a more level playing field and maintaining real democracy rather than something closer to a plutocracy.
Reich is saying what I’ve been thinking.
I’m with you, but you may find many deaf ears, septimus. This is an open subscription message board. What makes you think there’s only one employee of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy[sup]TM[/sup] being paid to sit at a computer and spam this board?
At least you’ll get more of a hearing here than the radical left gets on closed chambers like television “news.”
Really? A mass suicide reference? Are you still planning to vote for the party that considers the risk of catastrophic climate change not the government’s job? Because that’s actual mass suicide. Bernie would just raise your taxes.
OK, that was a weirdly gendered image. :dubious::rolleyes:;):cackle:
If a mellow cat like Barry Obama couldn’t do it, what hope does HRC have to “sweet-talk” anyone? Is that her plan? Or, alternatively, to look disapprovingly at them? How would one be able to tell?
Look, you want to change the behavior of, say, health insurers and Wall Street, you don’t elect their friend. You elect their enemy. Your actions as voters are the nudge. A vote for Hillary is a vote for losing your health insurance when you lose your job. A vote for Bernie is a vote against that. It’s that simple.
Don’t be stupid.
You really don’t understand social progressivism at all if you think it’s about returning to the past instead of building a better future.
Well, that’s why we are so charitable to you, you don’t seem to know better. 
I wasn’t under the impression that 538 considered Bernie more handicapped in the general than Cruz or Trump. As I understood it, all three were going to have a hard fight for the nomination, and it was Trump that had the* abysmally* low chances overall. In the present situation, where white GOP evangelicals are (amazingly) flocking to Cruz and Trump anyway, the matchups against them are relevant.
I grew up in the religious right. I think I understand generational fights, and pushing the Overton Window. And while I personally got sick of the futility of the Right-to-Life movement, and I find the anti-tax maniacs ridiculous, in fact they have helped build the strongest political faction in this country today. Sometimes the ideologues, even if they seem a little like fanatics, are leaders, while moderates are meat.
It’s time and past time for a progressive leader, and I remained unconvinced that Hillary, with her rep as the “triangulating insider,” is a better choice for that than Bernie, who’s kind of the “independent idealist.” They have different strengths, of course. But Bernie’s aspirational rhetoric is inspiring a lot of young people in a way I’m not sure Hillary’s more conservative agenda can.
Then he shouldn’t say, “Bring back”, he should talk about it as a new idea for a new future.
You know, the future where the government is the arbiter of who can speak on politics and under what circumstances. Power to the people!
Who said anything about progressive politics, much less whether or not any one thing is all about it? I just asked what Robert Reich meant when he said this, emphasis added. It was in the OP, but maybe you didn’t notice.
“In other words, either a dictator who promises to bring power back to the people, or a movement leader who asks us to join together to bring power back to the people.”
When was this mythical time when the people had more power than they do today? You can’t bring something back if it was never there in the first place.
Some political leaders, for example both Presidents Roosevelt, pursued an agenda of helping the common man at the expense of the super-rich.
Some of the comments in this (or the related GD) thread seem to imply that it is only political contributions that pro-democracy Americans like Reich or Sanders worry about. In fact, the deck is increasingly stacked in many ways in favor of the super-rich at the expense of the common man. (John, did you read the Stiglitz book I recommended? I didn’t think so. ) Various “rent seekers” have become entrenched with explicit or implicit government assistance. Tax policy favors the rich – Warren Buffet pays at a lower rate than his secretary. The ratio of corporate profits to total working wages is greater now than ever(?); much of that profit goes to financial firms. And unlike, say, automobile manufacturers which use resources to produce goods sought by ordinary Americans, much financial effort is spent in gambles or shenanigans of no consumer benefit (or often, injuring consumers). Deregulation favors corporate interests over common citizens; deregulation began under Reagan and has accelerated. Privatisation policies are largely to the benefit of vested interests: as an extreme example, recall the judge who was bribed by a private prison company to give harsh prison/jails terms to juveniles. The hoped-for privatisation of social security would amount to one of the greatest poor-to-rich wealth transfers in history. The high cost of American health care is due in large measure to support of corporations like insurers and drug companies. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
America is still the most innovative and, in some ways, most prosperous country on the planet. But, e.g. because of worker rights and the lower cost of healthcare etc., many other countries enjoy higher living standards despite a lower “productivity.” That American wealth and happiness were more equally shared in the 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s is not an illusion due to nostalgia but is a palpable documented fact.
All this should be so well known that comments in this (or the other) thread confuse me.
Millions of Americans were severely inconvenienced by the loss of their homes due to financial shenanigans and the stage is set for more repeats. Yet the worry of some gun owners that they’ll be restricted to 15-round magazines instead of 20-round magazines is treated as an equal or greater problem. :smack:
Speaking of reading books, I’ve read several books and watched several documentaries related to the mortgage bubble, 2008 credit crisis, etc. They all paint a picture of financial malfeasance. The Bush-appointed Special Inspector General of TARP complained about unpursued prosecutions.
Yet many on this board deny that criminal fraud played a large role in these scandals. Can those people please cite the books where they get their information? I want to broaden my knowledge.
BTW: A favorite right-wing talking point is that it was misguided liberal government policies that led to the mortgage bubble. This is incorrect (see, e.g., Stiglitz’s book) but to the extent that government misregulation exacerbates such problems it is largely due not to “liberal” overreach, but to subornation of government’s role by vested interests and their right-wing political stooges.
But that’s not power to the people, that’s rich people wanting to use their power to help the poor instead of enrich themselves. The reason we have our system of government is so that we don’t have to rely on the powers that be to be benevolent.
The rent seekers aren’t necessarily the super rich, or even the sorta rich.
That’s his claim, but not actually true unless his secretary is making a very high salary.
Now the link does show that some of the super rich pay under 15%, and that should be dealt with, but most do seem to pay their fair share. Those who promise to raise rates as a way to get people to pay their fair share are just serving the super rich, super connected, who will be exempt from such higher rates.
Bernie Sanders is addressing very real problems in the system, but rich people being able to buy TV ads is not one of the problems. I’d argue that Democrats’ desire to get the ignorant voting in large numbers is the problem. Despite getting young people and minorities out in record numbers in 2008 and 2012, Democratic Party policy has still primarily served the priorities of wealthy liberal whites. Which means, yes, some trickle down for the poor, but more interest in things like social issues and climate change, and now guns.
You know, the Democratic populists on this board have a point. Give up on the issue and then you can concentrate on what Reich and Sanders are talking about. Everything a party does expends political capital. Guns expends a ton of political capital that could be better spent on bread and butter issues. But again, that’s another example of the Democratic Party mirroring the concerns of Hollywood celebrities rather than the man in the street.
Wrong again. Why do we have to keep debunking the same trivial falsities over and over and [SIZE=“4”]over and [SIZE=“5”]over[/SIZE] again[/SIZE]? :smack:
Buffett’s claim is based on total taxes: income taxes AND SocSec tax and SocSec tax paid by employer. (Excluding the latter would give the employee- and employer- contributions a distinction of no practical value.)
Before calling Buffett ignorant or a liar, just do him the courtesy of reading the claim he actually made. And puleeeeze: If you need to “improve” on Buffett’s criteria, do it elsewhere, not in this thread.
The reason it’s a dumb claim even if technically true is that SS taxes were designed the way they were for a reason and have been that way for 80 years. Deciding now that it’s some kind of unjust policy that benefits the rich at the expense of everyone else would be news to Franklin Roosevelt.
Plus you’re giving away the game. THe SS tax is supposed to be “your money”, not a tax in the traditional sense.
I wish I could look into an alternate universe and see the talking points after Bush privatized SS and the economy collapsed. What a shitshow that would’ve been. Not just an American problem, either. The neo-libs are trying to privatize everything all over the world. I think they’ll win in the end. Beating them back doesn’t stop them, it’s just a minor delay.
Sometimes the scandal is what’s legal.
This line of argument doesn’t tend to work. Usually what happens is the conservatives, once you get them to believe in regulatory capture, use it as an excuse to not have any regulation at all. You see, these businesses only act badly to get around onerous government interference. This is one of the pillars of libertarianism. If the government is small and helpless there’s no reason for the rich to buy them.