How the Democratic Party became a tool for Wall-Street

[King]

Yeah, a McDonalds franchisee in Denver is going to make so much more money by moving his operations to Hong Kong.

[AggregateDemand]

Obamacare is FAR from perfect, but at its core, it is still a wealth distribution system that primarily benefits the poor and working class. So why is it that working class people are not rallying around this law and punishing the Republicans who unanimously opposed it (in fact, they rewarded them generously in 2010)? It's because people don't divide themselves politically by class, but by their ideology and political party. "The working class" is not a cohesive unit of voters.

Some working class are better educated than others, and they've realized they are the victims of wealth redistribution. Perhaps the American people could accept wealth redistribution away from young working class to elderly retirement class if our entitlements were properly managed. Unfortunately, our entitlements are not properly managed in even the loosest interpretation of fiduciary administration.

Therefore, this group of well-educated individuals is highly skeptical of the people who invoke the term wealth redistribution to chase the nebulous concept of social justice. These people have already done great damage to our nation.

[pbrower2a]

Obamacare is FAR from perfect, but at its core, it is still a wealth distribution system that primarily benefits the poor and working class. So why is it that working class people are not rallying around this law and punishing the Republicans who unanimously opposed it (in fact, they rewarded them generously in 2010)? It's because people don't divide themselves politically by class, but by their ideology and political party. "The working class" is not a cohesive unit of voters.

Some working class are better educated than others, and they've realized they are the victims of wealth redistribution. Perhaps the American people could accept wealth redistribution away from young working class to elderly retirement class if our entitlements were properly managed. Unfortunately, our entitlements are not properly managed in even the loosest interpretation of fiduciary administration.

Therefore, this group of well-educated individuals is highly skeptical of the people who invoke the term wealth redistribution to chase the nebulous concept of social justice. These people have already done great damage to our nation.

Education and income, once reliable proxies for partisan identity and voting, are no longer so.

The Democratic Party has become a conservative party as the Republican Party has become a semi-fascist party. As the Republicans make harsher demands on social issues they offend profit-minded interests  who can imagine those interests being threatened. The Religious Right may be anti-abortion, but once it starts demanding prohibitions on alcohol and pornography it will hurt the profitability of business.

Democrats have paid attention to the revenue side of business -- that Big Business needs well-heeled customers unless America is to become a Hell-hole of cheap, brutally-managed workers paid so little that they no longer form a market and that such prosperity as America has depends upon exports. That asks for too much. The Republicans have paid attention to the expenditure side, which normally looks good on paper to wealthy industrialists.

What Democrats have sacrificed is any support of competition in industry.     

[IceSpear]

Obamacare is FAR from perfect, but at its core, it is still a wealth distribution system that primarily benefits the poor and working class. So why is it that working class people are not rallying around this law and punishing the Republicans who unanimously opposed it (in fact, they rewarded them generously in 2010)? It's because people don't divide themselves politically by class, but by their ideology and political party. "The working class" is not a cohesive unit of voters.

This is why I'm highly skeptical that being tougher on Wall Street would do a damn thing to help Democrats, in terms of votes. Working class Republicans aren't suddenly going to break out of their FOX induced hypnosis and see the Democrats as the good guys, they're just going to use it to fuel their beliefs that Democrats are "anti-business, anti-capitalist, you didn't build that, socialist communists envious people who hate success!"

Of course, personally, I'd love it if Democrats were more economically liberal and tougher on Wall Street. But political parties and politicians operate what's in their best interest. If they see attacking Wall Street as a net loss (losing money while gaining few votes), they're probably not going to do it. And that's the sad truth.

Ever since the Ronald Reagan era, we seem to have completely lost all sort of respect for ourselves and whored ourselves out to Wall Street. He took office, passed tax cuts for his cronies, and the people didn't care, because the economy was quickly recovering. And the sad thing is, the Democratic Party could have embraced populism when they had a supermajority. They could have kicked Lieberman out as soon as he challenged Ned Lamont, but they welcomed him back like with open arms. They could have passed minimum wage instead of leaving it an issue to ignite the base for his second term, but they banked on the majority holding and saved it for later. They could have passed meaningful health reform, but they went on a conservative plan after a Republican in all but name stabbed us in the back. The Democratic Party had countless opportunities to go to bat for the middle class, but all they did was pass weak-wristed “reforms” that only tweaked the system instead of uplifting it. Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that we the base elected a Churchill, and we got a Chamberlain.

And to disguise their milquetoast “solutions” to the problems, they've decided to distract the base with feel-good social justice causes in order to give the base some sort of a token (usually to attract the middle-class voter). I've expanded my thoughts on this enough, but it boils down to the slogan of the Ronald Reagan era that's been popularized by Paul Ryan's philosophy - “I've got mine.” Gun control is okay because white middle class suburbia (where IIRC you're from) has theirs if they vote Democratic. Not having a public option is fine, because middle class suburbia has theirs. Never mind that Susan Collins could very potentially be the 51st vote for Mitch McConnell to take the Senate, she hates guns and drugs, so she's better than that horrible libertine Bellows. Instead of repudiating the new American culture of greed and selfishness, we've embraced it as soon as Clinton took power, and the moderate wing will even support Republicans if it means giving them theirs.

As for Obamacare, I've benefited personally from it. I am insured because my parents signed up for the Affordable Care Act. I know about Obamacare's successes very well – had the court struck it down, I wouldn't be insured. Thanks to Obamacare, I've got mine. But I don't think about how it's succeeded for me, or any of the other 15 million that it insured for that matter. I think of the 15 million that aren't insured, like one of my teachers, because it didn't go far enough. Obamacare has stopped some of the bleeding for a while, but the main problem stays: some members of the working class cannot afford it, even with the reform, and any system that leaves even one person uninsured is a failed system.

The saddest thing about the Obama presidency is that populism can work. The inner city would definitely vote for something that would get them out of the slums, and we can hold the minority coalition if we raise the wage and pass meaningful immigration reform. We can make people vote for us if we say that the Hobby Lobby (rightfully so) will actually lead to more abortions because people won't actually get pregnant, and we can defend a woman's right to choose by saying that the government shouldn't force you into having a baby on their terms. We can make the Republicans pay by calling them out on their bullsh*t: that they're only for big government when it helps out mega-corporations, and that they're only for a balanced budget unless those goddamned Moozlums are bothering the world or big business is in trouble and needs a tax cut. We can do all those things, but we just talk about them when the base is paying attention more. Coincidence? The stats say otherwise. When the working class has more confidence in Democrats to do something, they'll vote for them.

Whether you realize it or not, the Reagan Era has sent us into a Second Gilded Age, and Obama hasn't done jack sh**t to do anything to get us out of it. We need a William Jennings Bryan or an FDR to reignite the populist elements of our party, not lie down and watch as the rich reap all of the economic recovery that has happened, expecting everything to trickle down to them and only getting a few drops of piss. And if you think that Democrats would be better off waiting for Goldman Sachs's piss to trickle down, you're in for a rude awakening.

Well first of all, nice post. I agree with most of what you've said. Secondly, I think you're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not saying that Democrats SHOULDN'T be economically liberal. It's pretty obvious that some Democrats (cough Cuomo) have gone way too far in kissing Wall Street's ass. In addition, being more economically populist would likely energize people that already vote Democrat, and get them more likely to turn out, especially for midterms where we have issues with getting people to actually vote. I was responding to the assertion that being tougher on Wall Street would cause many "anti Wall Street Republicans" to turn to our side, which I think is a load of crap for reasons I already stated.

As for Lieberman, I despise the guy as much as anyone, but there wasn't much they could do. In 2007-2009 he could've flipped and delivered the majority to the Republicans at any moment, and in the next Congress he was the 60th vote (even though he screwed us over in the end). You're not telling me anything I don't already know about the 111th Congress. It was a huge missed opportunity, and one as good may not come again in a long time. Being so ineffective during 2009-2011 was easily Obama's biggest failure as president.

You can talk about how social issues have distracted Democrats from economic populism, but the same applies to the other side as well. Many people who would be natural allies of economic populism are now solid Republicans due to issues such as race, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and they won't be changing any time soon, and why a "New Deal coalition" is no longer possible. That's simply the reality of 21st century politics. And quite frankly, I'd prefer it that way. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other bigotry just for the sake of taxing Wall Street a bit more.

On Obamacare, nothing was going to fix the issue overnight. Single payer would've had an extremely messy transition as well, most likely even messier than Obamacare. But it establishes healthcare as a right and gives a good starting point for future reforms, and that's what is truly important.

[free my dawg]

Well first of all, nice post. I agree with most of what you've said. Secondly, I think you're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not saying that Democrats SHOULDN'T be economically liberal. It's pretty obvious that some Democrats (cough Cuomo) have gone way too far in kissing Wall Street's ass. In addition, being more economically populist would likely energize people that already vote Democrat, and get them more likely to turn out, especially for midterms where we have issues with getting people to actually vote. I was responding to the assertion that being tougher on Wall Street would cause many "anti Wall Street Republicans" to turn to our side, which I think is a load of crap for reasons I already stated.

As for Lieberman, I despise the guy as much as anyone, but there wasn't much they could do. In 2007-2009 he could've flipped and delivered the majority to the Republicans at any moment, and in the next Congress he was the 60th vote (even though he screwed us over in the end). You're not telling me anything I don't already know about the 111th Congress. It was a huge missed opportunity, and one as good may not come again in a long time. Being so ineffective during 2009-2011 was easily Obama's biggest failure as president.

You can talk about how social issues have distracted Democrats from economic populism, but the same applies to the other side as well. Many people who would be natural allies of economic populism are now solid Republicans due to issues such as race, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and they won't be changing any time soon, and why a "New Deal coalition" is no longer possible. That's simply the reality of 21st century politics. And quite frankly, I'd prefer it that way. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other bigotry just for the sake of taxing Wall Street a bit more.

On Obamacare, nothing was going to fix the issue overnight. Single payer would've had an extremely messy transition as well, most likely even messier than Obamacare. But it establishes healthcare as a right and gives a good starting point for future reforms, and that's what is truly important.

Goddamnit, I totally forgot about the majority being that slim in 2006 that we needed him. Nice catch.

I mostly agree with your stance that we need to advance social justice, and we can definitely become champions of the party and hold the Obama coalition with a populist message. Instead of mansplaining that companies not giving birth control is "bad for women because they should have the right to choose", we can simply say that the government forces you into a situation you (and the father) are not ready for and that it violates the First Amendment's freedom of religion. Same with abortion - if Democrats work to give women birth control and safe opportunities to have one, that can become agreeable to the public. We can give immigrants who cross our border looking for an opportunity a pathway to citizenship through our old ideals - after all, we were founded on immigrants, and we have been a shining beacon of light for those who seek home. We accepted the world's tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free, and they're no different from the ones we've had. As I've said before, gay marriage is being settled by the courts and will be before the next presidential election, and looking past that, we seem to be doing a decent job at ending gay discrimination. However, the best way to prevent social justice, after all of this, is to give them a fair, fighting chance.

My point about Obamacare is that there are still millions of people who can't afford health insurance, even without Obamacare. It's more economical for them to pay the "uninsured tax", and they simply go without coverage. That's why I don't like it - any system that leaves one person uninsured is a failed system, and as long as for-profit healthcare is a thing in America, there is no way out. If I were in the Senate during the healthcare debate, I would have probably proposed something like the German model banning for-profit healthcare altogether (which I'm sure Lieberman or Lincoln would have accepted) if single-payer didn't work out. Even though my family can afford health insurance thanks to the new law, I'm not going to sit here and enjoy my doctor's visits. I'm going to fight so nobody can go without seeing their doctor because I like to live in a healthy society. Now that I have mine, I have a responsibility to give other people theirs, and there's no way in hell I'm going to shirk it.

[AggregateDemand]

Education and income, once reliable proxies for partisan identity and voting, are no longer so.

The Democratic Party has become a conservative party as the Republican Party has become a semi-fascist party. As the Republicans make harsher demands on social issues they offend profit-minded interests  who can imagine those interests being threatened. The Religious Right may be anti-abortion, but once it starts demanding prohibitions on alcohol and pornography it will hurt the profitability of business.

Democrats have paid attention to the revenue side of business -- that Big Business needs well-heeled customers unless America is to become a Hell-hole of cheap, brutally-managed workers paid so little that they no longer form a market and that such prosperity as America has depends upon exports. That asks for too much. The Republicans have paid attention to the expenditure side, which normally looks good on paper to wealthy industrialists.

What Democrats have sacrificed is any support of competition in industry.     

Our country is awash in demand stimulus, and aggressive deficit spending is a contributing factor to the median income growth from the 80s until 2001, along with loose consumer credit. Republicans understand the income effect.

The biggest drag on the income effect, at the moment, is our inefficient entitlement system, which suppresses employment, LFPR, and income growth. Officially, Republicans don't believe in entitlements or workfare, which pushes corporate donors to the Democratic Party, where they are greeted by lazy lefties, like Obama, who couldn't care less about reform.

[IceSpear]

Well first of all, nice post. I agree with most of what you've said. Secondly, I think you're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not saying that Democrats SHOULDN'T be economically liberal. It's pretty obvious that some Democrats (cough Cuomo) have gone way too far in kissing Wall Street's ass. In addition, being more economically populist would likely energize people that already vote Democrat, and get them more likely to turn out, especially for midterms where we have issues with getting people to actually vote. I was responding to the assertion that being tougher on Wall Street would cause many "anti Wall Street Republicans" to turn to our side, which I think is a load of crap for reasons I already stated.

As for Lieberman, I despise the guy as much as anyone, but there wasn't much they could do. In 2007-2009 he could've flipped and delivered the majority to the Republicans at any moment, and in the next Congress he was the 60th vote (even though he screwed us over in the end). You're not telling me anything I don't already know about the 111th Congress. It was a huge missed opportunity, and one as good may not come again in a long time. Being so ineffective during 2009-2011 was easily Obama's biggest failure as president.

You can talk about how social issues have distracted Democrats from economic populism, but the same applies to the other side as well. Many people who would be natural allies of economic populism are now solid Republicans due to issues such as race, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and they won't be changing any time soon, and why a "New Deal coalition" is no longer possible. That's simply the reality of 21st century politics. And quite frankly, I'd prefer it that way. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other bigotry just for the sake of taxing Wall Street a bit more.

On Obamacare, nothing was going to fix the issue overnight. Single payer would've had an extremely messy transition as well, most likely even messier than Obamacare. But it establishes healthcare as a right and gives a good starting point for future reforms, and that's what is truly important.

Goddamnit, I totally forgot about the majority being that slim in 2006 that we needed him. Nice catch.

I mostly agree with your stance that we need to advance social justice, and we can definitely become champions of the party and hold the Obama coalition with a populist message. Instead of mansplaining that companies not giving birth control is "bad for women because they should have the right to choose", we can simply say that the government forces you into a situation you (and the father) are not ready for and that it violates the First Amendment's freedom of religion. Same with abortion - if Democrats work to give women birth control and safe opportunities to have one, that can become agreeable to the public. We can give immigrants who cross our border looking for an opportunity a pathway to citizenship through our old ideals - after all, we were founded on immigrants, and we have been a shining beacon of light for those who seek home. We accepted the world's tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free, and they're no different from the ones we've had. As I've said before, gay marriage is being settled by the courts and will be before the next presidential election, and looking past that, we seem to be doing a decent job at ending gay discrimination. However, the best way to prevent social justice, after all of this, is to give them a fair, fighting chance.

My point about Obamacare is that there are still millions of people who can't afford health insurance, even without Obamacare. It's more economical for them to pay the "uninsured tax", and they simply go without coverage. That's why I don't like it - any system that leaves one person uninsured is a failed system, and as long as for-profit healthcare is a thing in America, there is no way out. If I were in the Senate during the healthcare debate, I would have probably proposed something like the German model banning for-profit healthcare altogether (which I'm sure Lieberman or Lincoln would have accepted) if single-payer didn't work out. Even though my family can afford health insurance thanks to the new law, I'm not going to sit here and enjoy my doctor's visits. I'm going to fight so nobody can go without seeing their doctor because I like to live in a healthy society. Now that I have mine, I have a responsibility to give other people theirs, and there's no way in hell I'm going to shirk it.

That sounds like a pretty good platform to me. The main thing Democrats need to do is articulate a vision, and be more than the "catch all" party for anyone who isn't a far-right wingnut.

It should also be added that one of the major reasons Obamacare is not as successful as it could've/should've been is because of the SCOTUS and Republican governors rejecting Medicaid expansion for literally no reason other than because they're partisan hacks and want to stick it to Obama. As someone who fell through the coverage gap due to the asshole Corbett, I know this problem well.

[free my dawg]

And thank the Lord we're using Medex to get a leg up on Republicans. It's our key to taking back state legislatures.

[AggregateDemand]

That sounds like a pretty good platform to me. The main thing Democrats need to do is articulate a vision, and be more than the "catch all" party for anyone who isn't a far-right wingnut.

It should also be added that one of the major reasons Obamacare is not as successful as it could've/should've been is because of the SCOTUS and Republican governors rejecting Medicaid expansion for literally no reason other than because they're partisan hacks and want to stick it to Obama. As someone who fell through the coverage gap due to the asshole Corbett, I know this problem well.

Democrats can't talk their way out of socioeconomic policy failure, just like Bush couldn't talk his way out of Iraq/Afghanistan.

If Democrats want to win, they have to do something of substance in the domestic sphere. Promising to make our problems worse by shifting more income around isn't going inspire anyone.

[free my dawg]

It's certainly much better than "take two tax cuts and a deregulation and talk to me in the morning".

[Deus Naturae]

It's certainly much better than "take two tax cuts and a deregulation and talk to me in the morning".

What deregulation? Federal regulation increased significantly under Dubya.

[bedstuy]

It's certainly much better than "take two tax cuts and a deregulation and talk to me in the morning".

What deregulation? Federal regulation increased significantly under Dubya.

That's false.  The Bush appointed a bunch of anti-regulation bozos to run the government.  And, this idea that all Federal regulations are the same or fungible is idiotic anyway.

[traininthedistance]

Just a couple minor-ish nitpicks on what was generally a pretty great post, Sawx:

And to disguise their milquetoast “solutions” to the problems, they've decided to distract the base with feel-good social justice causes in order to give the base some sort of a token (usually to attract the middle-class voter). I've expanded my thoughts on this enough, but it boils down to the slogan of the Ronald Reagan era that's been popularized by Paul Ryan's philosophy - “I've got mine.” Gun control is okay because white middle class suburbia (where IIRC you're from) has theirs if they vote Democratic. Not having a public option is fine, because middle class suburbia has theirs. Never mind that Susan Collins could very potentially be the 51st vote for Mitch McConnell to take the Senate, she hates guns and drugs, so she's better than that horrible libertine Bellows. Instead of repudiating the new American culture of greed and selfishness, we've embraced it as soon as Clinton took power, and the moderate wing will even support Republicans if it means giving them theirs.

I don't think it's quite fair to say that the social justice stuff is a distraction from the bread-and-butter, or that it's necessarily meant just to attract comfortable middle-class folks.  I mean, sometimes it is used like that, yes (cough cough f**king Cuomo cough).  But more often than not it is bread-and-butter stuff for the disadvantaged.  Support for gun control, for instance, doesn't just come from soccer moms afraid of newsworthy sprees- it also comes from inner city folks for whom guns are an everyday threat to life and limb.  To the extent that the news media plays up the sprees to grab the attention of scared soccer moms who wouldn't care otherwise (and ignores when black kids get shot), that sucks, but I don't think it's quite fair to just pin that on the party.

The saddest thing about the Obama presidency is that populism can work. The inner city would definitely vote for something that would get them out of the slums, and we can hold the minority coalition if we raise the wage and pass meaningful immigration reform. We can make people vote for us if we say that the Hobby Lobby (rightfully so) will actually lead to more abortions because people won't actually get pregnant, and we can defend a woman's right to choose by saying that the government shouldn't force you into having a baby on their terms. We can make the Republicans pay by calling them out on their bullsh*t: that they're only for big government when it helps out mega-corporations, and that they're only for a balanced budget unless those goddamned Moozlums are bothering the world or big business is in trouble and needs a tax cut. We can do all those things, but we just talk about them when the base is paying attention more. Coincidence? The stats say otherwise. When the working class has more confidence in Democrats to do something, they'll vote for them.

I'm not 100 percent sure the arrow of causation is actually working in that direction; today's parties are intensely poll-driven outfits and I think it's at least plausible that their rhetoric in any one campaign is partially a reaction to the sort of support they get from various demographics rather than the other way around.  Also, I actually don't recall 2006 being particularly heavy on populist/redistributionist rhetoric.  That election was more than anything about opposition to the Iraq War, and a lot of fairly milquetoast Dems won in conservative areas with moderate-to-conservative platforms otherwise.

Really it's probably most accurate to say that it's a complicated, symbiotic relationship and the Dems do have a responsibility to lean on the Overton Window more than they're doing... but I'm also not convinced that rhetoric will be able to change an entire national climate by itself.

...

One last thing, which is mostly just my idiosyncratic urbanist hobbyhorse talking shop rather than any challenge to your main idea here.  When you say:

The inner city would definitely vote for something that would get them out of the slums

I get that you're trying to address residential segregation, lack of opportunity, systemic racism, etc., and those are all things that we deeply need to fix, but I'd like to suggest a possible change in tactics that learns from experience and achieves the same goals in a more sustainable manner.  Namely, saying that we should aspire to get everyone "out of the slums" smacks to me of the midcentury mistakes that ravaged our built and natural environment, and made things even worse for the folks stuck behind.  A lot of the areas that get labeled as "slums" have a tremendous amount of housing stock, much of which was actually better-built than subdivisions of the past sixty years; they often have tight-knit communities; good "bones" of infrastructure, transit links, etc.  

The better solution is to avoid the hollowing-out and metastatization that we see in places like Detroit where one's meal ticket is a matter of just crossing 8 Mile and leaving the core to rot in the most wasteful manner possible; where a city built for 2 million is reverting to prairie while its outskirts run on what's basically just a Ponzi scheme of disposable development.  Instead, we should work to transform these "slums" into positive places that are pleasant to live in and afford opportunity for all their residents.  Yes, some people will want to go out and get a half-acre lot in the burbs, that's fine- we should likewise be pushing those burbs to take on more diversity, both in terms of race and income.   Break down the barriers in both directions; strengthen and preserve and rebuild the infrastructure we have, y'know?

That was quite the tangential pontification, forgive me.

[AggregateDemand]

It's certainly much better than "take two tax cuts and a deregulation and talk to me in the morning".

While the Republicans have used all of the marginal benefit of tax reform and lower rates, those policies do not actively harm the United States. Sloppily administered entitlements that transfer money from the young have nots to the elderly haves (because we don't have effective means-testing) can be very damaging.

[free my dawg]

Great post, TITD. I'll address your points individually:

*I'm not really talking that much about full-on gun control like what's happening in DC. I'm not exactly warm to the idea of gun control (like I said, it took a crazed maniac for me to take a position for background checks) in the first place, and I think that that type of stuff is a  I'm talking more about the "assault weapons bans" that white people seem to champion because they're big and scary guns, even though people don't use assault rifles in shootings. The white media plays up constant fetishization of every white shooter that happens in white suburbia, and white Americans get scared and tell their white politicians to ban assault weapons because they'll get their "safety" if they ban them. Meanwhile, thousands of black Americans in the inner city get shot, like you said, and not a single news station bats an eye. It's just another event in the day of white people, and they won't do anything about it because it doesn't affect them. It's institutional racism that we as a party perpetuate, and we're as guilty as the media for playing along with it.

*I actually agree with your third post, and understand your second a little better (after all, I was only twelve when the wave of 2006 happened). It's definitely closer to the message that I wanted to deliver - give people the room for upward mobility and make the slums a decent place to live.

[traininthedistance]

Great post, TITD. I'll address your points individually:

*I'm not really talking that much about full-on gun control like what's happening in DC. I'm not exactly warm to the idea of gun control (like I said, it took a crazed maniac for me to take a position for background checks) in the first place, and I think that that type of stuff is a  I'm talking more about the "assault weapons bans" that white people seem to champion because they're big and scary guns, even though people don't use assault rifles in shootings. The white media plays up constant fetishization of every white shooter that happens in white suburbia, and white Americans get scared and tell their white politicians to ban assault weapons because they'll get their "safety" if they ban them. Meanwhile, thousands of black Americans in the inner city get shot, like you said, and not a single news station bats an eye. It's just another event in the day of white people, and they won't do anything about it because it doesn't affect them. It's institutional racism that we as a party perpetuate, and we're as guilty as the media for playing along with it.

*I actually agree with your third post, and understand your second a little better (after all, I was only twelve when the wave of 2006 happened). It's definitely closer to the message that I wanted to deliver - give people the room for upward mobility and make the slums a decent place to live.

Yeah, the focus on scary-looking "assault weapons" is ignorant and definitely comes from that classist suburban mindset that you're right to argue against.  If that's going to be the face of "gun control" in American discourse then it's not a cause I have any interest in really going to bat for. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah, a McDonalds franchisee in Denver is going to make so much more money by moving his operations to Hong Kong.

LOL. This McDonalds in Washington State can't even be bothered to move to thee empty lot across the street in Idaho for the $2.07 cheaper an hour minium wage.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mc+Donald's/@48.184203,-117.040228,397m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x53622472b2e66f35:0xb7db506c9a73e3c6

[Badger]

This is another case where Americans are hurt by not knowing themselves. Because people hold onto the mythology of Infinite Opportunity, they don't see themselves as Poors, Working Classers, or even Richers. Everybody is Middle Class, floating around like an Oklahoman in the Update, convinced that one of these days things are going to work out if we just believe. Americans need a serious dose of realism. We're all busting our butts for peanuts, and things are not going to change until we make low prestige jobs worthwhile. It is not possible for everybody to be a doctor, a CEO, or a lottery winner.

I agree about improving the plight of workers who bust their asses at minimum wage jobs, but raising the minimum wage is the wrong solution, and its a lazy shift of responsibility from government to private companies, who simply fire Americans and move overseas.

Also, most of us are middle class working-stiffs by choice. Buy overpriced garbage. Give your income to creditors, rather than accumulating assets. Wouldn't be so horrible if the government didn't actively subsidize the permanent indebtedness of the people.

"I'm so concerned about the plight of minimum wage workers, I want them to bust their asses for even less money!"

[AggregateDemand]

"I'm so concerned about the plight of minimum wage workers, I want them to bust their asses for even less money!"

Thank you for highlighting your utter lack of understanding regarding labor policy. I had no idea that workfare, negative income tax, etc  were too complex for the site moderators.

[memphis]

Yeah, a McDonalds franchisee in Denver is going to make so much more money by moving his operations to Hong Kong.

LOL. This McDonalds in Washington State can't even be bothered to move to thee empty lot across the street in Idaho for the $2.07 cheaper an hour minium wage.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mc+Donald's/@48.184203,-117.040228,397m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x53622472b2e66f35:0xb7db506c9a73e3c6

Moving a business, even a McDonalds across the street is a big, very expensive process. People act like businesses can stop on a dime and move. It's not that easy. Also, for a fast food place, which side of the street you're on is very important. A lot of people won't make a left turn onto or off of a busy street without a street unless they absolutely have to, so which way most traffic is flowing at peak operating hours makes a big difference . There are a lot of dynamics that go into any business that most people who are not in the specific field wouldn't know about.

[Deus Naturae]

This is another case where Americans are hurt by not knowing themselves. Because people hold onto the mythology of Infinite Opportunity, they don't see themselves as Poors, Working Classers, or even Richers. Everybody is Middle Class, floating around like an Oklahoman in the Update, convinced that one of these days things are going to work out if we just believe. Americans need a serious dose of realism. We're all busting our butts for peanuts, and things are not going to change until we make low prestige jobs worthwhile. It is not possible for everybody to be a doctor, a CEO, or a lottery winner.

I agree about improving the plight of workers who bust their asses at minimum wage jobs, but raising the minimum wage is the wrong solution, and its a lazy shift of responsibility from government to private companies, who simply fire Americans and move overseas.

Also, most of us are middle class working-stiffs by choice. Buy overpriced garbage. Give your income to creditors, rather than accumulating assets. Wouldn't be so horrible if the government didn't actively subsidize the permanent indebtedness of the people.

"I'm so concerned about the plight of minimum wage workers, I want them to bust their asses for even less money!"

So anyone who opposes a minimum wage does so because they hate workers? Great argument.

[pbrower2a]

Real hate of working people implies a reversion to the 70-hour workweek and 40-year lifespan of industrial workers as was once the norm. That they are in the more 'socially advanced' retail or food service business is hardly an improvement. All that is necessary is that the social norms mandate that wages be so low that people must work to exhaustion just to get the most basic needs and pay off the grafters.

 

[AggregateDemand]

Real hate of working people implies a reversion to the 70-hour workweek and 40-year lifespan of industrial workers as was once the norm. That they are in the more 'socially advanced' retail or food service business is hardly an improvement. All that is necessary is that the social norms mandate that wages be so low that people must work to exhaustion just to get the most basic needs and pay off the grafters.

The only change since the 1960s is that the rest of the world is tired of being agricultural peasants and Europe has grown tired of endless counterproductive wars. The United States is no longer alone at the top of the economic pile.

Lazy half-wit American Democrats can no longer dictate how the world should or shouldn't work anymore. Sadly, Dems still try to command the market to pay more money and deliver more services to their constituency, which makes the rest of the world looks like a more attractive place to do business. Americans suffer, particularly those at the bottom end of the income spectrum.

[Badger]

"I'm so concerned about the plight of minimum wage workers, I want them to bust their asses for even less money!"

Thank you for highlighting your utter lack of understanding regarding labor policy. I had no idea that workfare, negative income tax, etc  were too complex for the site moderators.

I understand such matters far betteer than you boyo. I understand that the arguments about graduated minimum wage raises supposedly resulting in a net job loss has never materialized in practice. I realize that broadly rising wages creates comsumer demand and thus greater job growth to offset the worst imagined job losses. I realize that raising the lowest paid workers is a way to end corporate welfare subsidies by companies paying so little even their full time workers are forceedd to rely on food stamps and other public assistance. I know that 98+% of minimum wages workers support a raise in their wages, but upper mmiddle class and rich toffs are oh so willing to to save the poor ignorant dears from themselves.

I also know there's never been a poster who has more relied on buzzzwords and bald unsupported assertions, who nevertheless thought he was SOOO smart without basis, than you.

[Badger]

This is another case where Americans are hurt by not knowing themselves. Because people hold onto the mythology of Infinite Opportunity, they don't see themselves as Poors, Working Classers, or even Richers. Everybody is Middle Class, floating around like an Oklahoman in the Update, convinced that one of these days things are going to work out if we just believe. Americans need a serious dose of realism. We're all busting our butts for peanuts, and things are not going to change until we make low prestige jobs worthwhile. It is not possible for everybody to be a doctor, a CEO, or a lottery winner.

I agree about improving the plight of workers who bust their asses at minimum wage jobs, but raising the minimum wage is the wrong solution, and its a lazy shift of responsibility from government to private companies, who simply fire Americans and move overseas.

Also, most of us are middle class working-stiffs by choice. Buy overpriced garbage. Give your income to creditors, rather than accumulating assets. Wouldn't be so horrible if the government didn't actively subsidize the permanent indebtedness of the people.

"I'm so concerned about the plight of minimum wage workers, I want them to bust their asses for even less money!"

So anyone who opposes a minimum wage does so because they hate workers? Great argument.

Hate? No. Just foolish to rely on dogma and myth.