I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

stuff

By the way, speaking of moderate democrats, any one have any idea how hard Bernie had to work to find an anti-choice Dem to endorse? That's really not an easy thing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't know who these "moderate" democrats you speak of are. One of the realities of the Congress today is that it is very polarized, and Democrats are more liberal and Republicans are more conservative than ever before. I suspect if we win back the house there will be more moderate democrats in it, but right now there just really aren't. Our last Presidential candidate, Hillary, was certainly not a centrist by any objective measure.

What policies are you focused on? The last time the Dems were able, they raised the minimum wage; when the Rs took back the house, it stagnated. Dems have been tremendously pro-union. ACA turned out to be one of the best job-creators around, pushed through at great political cost. Likewise, we put in place in Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The last time Dems could effectively legislate, we did a lot, but we had a lot of repair work to do. And we spent the political capital that had won the majority doing it, especially healthcare.

However, we're fighting a losing battle on unionization. Anti-trade stuff is a convenient rallying cry for many, but probably does more to undermine working class incomes than help them. There is broad political consensus within the democratic party for raising the minimum wage, protecting unions, implementing financial reform, expanding health care, building infrastructure, and making public higher education more affordable or free. The debate within Democratic party circles is not whether or not to do this things but how much of them to do (e.g., $12 versus $15 minimum wage, a minimum wage that is tiered by market or consistent across the country, single payor, expanded medicare or fuller ACA). The only serious proposal I've seen to address the biggest problem in working incomes, automation, came from Bill Gates.

So what proposals do you think centrist dems are thwarting? What specific horrible things are they doing?

There's nothing wrong with any of those policies, but they don't hold a lot of promise for many people. (If you earn minimum wage, are going to go to college, or can get an infrastructure job, you're an exception.) I think we would be better off with much stronger unions, but I don't believe that Democrats are actually going to do things that will move the needle there.

I'm not saying that Democrats are blocking great proposals or doing horrible things. They're certainly better than the Republicans. They just lack a program that will make a difference in the economic lives of most people. I wish I had better solutions.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

AON, Hasan Minhaj killed at last night -- worth watching.

Really? I don't think I laughed once. He's no Colbert.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There's nothing wrong with any of those policies, but they don't hold a lot of promise for many people. (If you earn minimum wage, are going to go to college, or can get an infrastructure job, you're an exception.) I think we would be better off with much stronger unions, but I don't believe that Democrats are actually going to do things that will move the needle there.

I'm not saying that Democrats are blocking great proposals or doing horrible things. They're certainly better than the Republicans. They just lack a program that will make a difference in the economic lives of most people. I wish I had better solutions.

I wasn't asking about Democrats as a whole, but supposed "moderate" dems, whom you had just attacked.

I'm not a moderate Dem, but I know many and think they're key to winning the next round of elections. But today's moderate dem would have been a McGovernite in '72.

I think the centrist wing of the party is trying hard - very hard - to come up with productive solutions, both from a policy perspective and from a political campaign perspective. I am frankly very disappointed in my own progressive wing of the party, particularly the white men in it but also some like Liz Warren, who seem to be casting stones at others without any serious proposals of their own.* They are just whiny little bro flakes.

If you don't have proposals, can I suggest beginning by entertaining some of the proposals others have?


* There is one very solid proposal that has come from the left, which is to push Medicare for all as a healthcare approach. The problem right now is no one has fleshed this out much yet, and someone needs to do the heavy lifting to develop it as a legislative idea in committee.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

By the way, speaking of moderate democrats, any one have any idea how hard Bernie had to work to find an anti-choice Dem to endorse? That's really not an easy thing.

I recall reading somewhere that Omaha is a pretty Catholic place. (You're talking about the mayor, right?) While the term "Catholic Left" has faded, there's still a few Dorothy Day types running around.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

These oversimplifications are why people keep confronting you on this issue.:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No one thinks he needs the money.

No one thinks he needs the money like no one thinks anyone who makes tons of money needs it. But that's very different than saying he shouldn't take it.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No one thinks it's good for the Democratic Party.

No one thinks it's good for the Democratic Party, but everyone arguing with you here takes issue with your assertion that it is bad for the Democratic Party. I've tried to distinguish between being paid huge amounts of money before running (Hillary). You won't bite and continue to act like these two things are the same or should be treated the same way. You actively ignore the many reasons why Obama would be paid handsomely and act like the fact that the perception of corruption is dispositive of whether or not he should take money for speaking engagements after leaving office. I do not think people are focused on this the way you are. I do not think if he (and every Democratic President) declined all money from anyone forever after leaving office that that would change one voter's impression that politicians are bought and paid for. I and others have said that it's the actual access lobbyists and industries have, the campaign finance laws, and the actual decisions politicians make which continually favor corporations over people, etc. that make it so. You ignore it all and continue to act like this "soft corruption" theory is settled.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I recall reading somewhere that Omaha is a pretty Catholic place. (You're talking about the mayor, right?) While the term "Catholic Left" has faded, there's still a few Dorothy Day types running around.

Yeah, but a lot of the Catholic left is like me and has long since become somewhere between actively pro-choice (me) and accepting of the status quo if still opposed personally to abortion (my wife).

It's mostly the Catholic right that is rabid on the issue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I wasn't asking about Democrats as a whole, but supposed "moderate" dems, whom you had just attacked.

I did not "attack" them. I probably am one. What I said was,

The more fundamental problem, of which this is a reminder, is that the policies backed by moderate Democrats have not done much for ordinary people over the last decade. The economy is doing OK, but the gains are being captured by the richest. If Democrats had a better response to that, Cantor's offer would seem like less of an issue.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm not a moderate Dem, but I know many and think they're key to winning the next round of elections. But today's moderate dem would have been a McGovernite in '72.

I think the centrist wing of the party is trying hard - very hard - to come up with productive solutions, both from a policy perspective and from a political campaign perspective. I am frankly very disappointed in my own progressive wing of the party, particularly the white men in it but also some like Liz Warren, who seem to be casting stones at others without any serious proposals of their own.* They are just whiny little bro flakes.

If you don't have proposals, can I suggest beginning by entertaining some of the proposals others have?


* There is one very solid proposal that has come from the left, which is to push Medicare for all as a healthcare approach. The problem right now is no one has fleshed this out much yet, and someone needs to do the heavy lifting to develop it as a legislative idea in committee.

I am happy to entertain any proposal. Without minimizing the importance of healthcare or the environment or other things, I'm really talking about the economy, and the distribution of the gains from whatever growth we enjoy. How to create good jobs with good wages. This is a big problem, and it's not just the US.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

These oversimplification are why people keep confronting you on this issue.:

No one thinks he needs the money like no one thinks anyone who makes tons of money needs it. But that's very different than saying he shouldn't take it.

No one thinks it's good for the Democratic Party, but everyone arguing with you here takes issue with your assertion that it is bad for the Democratic Party. I've tried to distinguish between being paid huge amounts of money before running (Hillary). You won't bite and continue to act like these two things are the same or should be treated the same way. You actively ignore the many reasons why Obama would be paid handsomely and act like the fact that the perception of corruption is dispositive of whether or not he should take money for speaking engagements after leaving office. I do not think people are focused on this the way you are. I do not think if he (and every Democratic President) declined all money from anyone forever after leaving office that that would change one voter's impression that politicians are bought and paid for. I and others have said that it's the actual access lobbyists and industries have, the campaign finance laws, and the actual decisions politicians make which continually favor corporations over people, etc. that make it so. You ignore it all and continue to act like this "soft corruption" theory is settled.

TM

It's good for the Democratic Party for Obama to be talking to Wall Street types, even if he is paid for it.

There, someone does think it is good.

We shouldn't cater to them, but we should talk with them.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We shouldn't cater to them, but we should talk with them.

Especially right now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No one thinks he needs the money like no one thinks anyone who makes tons of money needs it. But that's very different than saying he shouldn't take it.

True.

No one thinks it's good for the Democratic Party, but everyone arguing with you here takes issue with your assertion that it is bad for the Democratic Party.

I hear people saying that if I think about it, I shouldn't have a problem with it (OK), that Democrats should work harder to explain to other people why they shouldn't have a problem with it (noble but foolish), and that Democrats shouldn't abandon core principles to satisfy idiot voters (true, but if it's a core Democratic principle that someone with a lot of money should have the opportunity to get more on Wall Street, that's not the hill I want to die on). I don't see anyone actually disputing that it is unhelpful.

I've tried to distinguish between being paid huge amounts of money before running (Hillary). You won't bite and continue to act like these two things are the same or should be treated the same way.

You are quite right that Hillary hurt herself doing this, and you are quite right that there is a distinction between what she did and what he is doing, but since I wasn't talking about her in the first place it doesn't change my view about what he is doing.

You actively ignore the many reasons why Obama would be paid handsomely and act like the fact that the perception of corruption is dispositive of whether or not he should take money for speaking engagements after leaving office.

I'm not ignoring them, but they don't address my point.

I do not think people are focused on this the way you are.

OK. I respect your view on that one, and we can agree to have different views. FWIW, I don't think it's a lot of people.

I do not think if he (and every Democratic President) declined all money from anyone forever after leaving office that that would change one voter's impression that politicians are bought and paid for. I and others have said that it's the actual access lobbyists and industries have, the campaign finance laws, and the actual decisions politicians make which continually favor corporations over people, etc. that make it so. You ignore it all and continue to act like this "soft corruption" theory is settled.

I think Democrats need to be better than Republicans on this stuff, and that it's not just the actual decisions that matter -- it's the narrative and the story around it as well. YMMV. It's a big tent, and we can agree to disagree on this one, too. Thank you for taking seriously what I had to say.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I did not "attack" them. I probably am one. What I said was,

I am happy to entertain any proposal. Without minimizing the importance of healthcare or the environment or other things, I'm really talking about the economy, and the distribution of the gains from whatever growth we enjoy. How to create good jobs with good wages. This is a big problem, and it's not just the US.

Well, we've effective had two years of effectively legislating in the last 16, during which we got major bills through that include healthcare, minimum wage, and CFPB. If we can build a majority, there is more, but those have some impact.

The hardest two areas to deal with are the demise of unions, who to some extent helped bring it on themselves by failing to support things like trade agreements that support unionization abroad or coordinated Mexican unionization drives when NAFTA was adopted, and automation. The unions in particular need more focus at the state as well as federal level.

The other really tough area is encouraging the growth of tech industries outside SV and Boston. One of the key issues here is resistance: building strong university tech communities is key, and a lot of red states aren't willing to support that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Well, we've effective had two years of effectively legislating in the last 16, during which we got major bills through that include healthcare, minimum wage, and CFPB. If we can build a majority, there is more, but those have some impact.

The bills passed during those two years were good and important, but did not make much of a difference to the issue I'm talking about. I understand why Dodd-Frank (e.g.) was a priority, but it's hard to explain to voters why it should matter to them, and that's a problem. Democrats have lots of priorities, and the windows to change things are not big. It's easy to imagine getting another window and using it to accomplish good and important things which nevertheless do not change the economic outlook for many people. Free college doesn't do much for people who are already in the workforce.

The hardest two areas to deal with are the demise of unions, who to some extent helped bring it on themselves by failing to support things like trade agreements that support unionization abroad or coordinated Mexican unionization drives when NAFTA was adopted, and automation. The unions in particular need more focus at the state as well as federal level.

I guess I am skeptical that Democrats will really do much to improve things for unions, because I haven't seen it. There are too many pro-business Democrats who don't want to upset corporate interests who want to stick it to unions. eta: I really do think strong unions are good for the country and the middle class, and I wish that Democrats would do more here.

The other really tough area is encouraging the growth of tech industries outside SV and Boston. One of the key issues here is resistance: building strong university tech communities is key, and a lot of red states aren't willing to support that.

Everyone likes tech jobs, but there are only going to be so many of them. Not sure it is an answer to what ails much of the country.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Everyone likes tech jobs, but there are only going to be so many of them. Not sure it is an answer to what ails much of the country.

What jobs are? That's not a bad question to start with.

I'm very lucky. I've worked with two Universities in red parts of the country on their tech transfer programs. Both have created a lot of jobs in their areas.

It's my hammer. I look at other red states and see nails.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What jobs are? That's not a bad question to start with.

Maybe so, but that's a political problem.