"Seattle's Socialist City Councilor Offers Radical Response to Obama Speech"

[grahamhgreen]

Last edited Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Tonight, President Obama talked about the deepening inequality.

But that is a testament of his own presidency. A presidency that has betrayed the hopes of tens of millions of people who voted for him out of a genuine desire for fundamental change away from corporate politics and war mongering.

Poverty is at record-high numbers – 95% of the gains in productivity during the so-called recovery have gone to the top 1%.

The president’s focus on income inequality was an admission of the failure of his policies.

An admission forced by rallies, demonstrations, and strikes by fast food and low wage workers demanding a minimum wage of $15. It has been forced by the outrage over the widening gulf between the super-rich and those of us working to create this wealth in society.

While the criminals on Wall Street are bailed out, courageous whistleblowers like Edward Snowden are hunted down and the unconstitutional acts he exposed are allowed to continue.

Obama is the president who is using smartphone apps – games like Angry Birds – to spy against tens of millions of ordinary people in a completely blatant violation of basic constitutional rights.

The President claims ending two wars while he continues to intensify a brutal campaign of drone wars in multiple countries, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, and not to mention the plight of US soldiers returning with permanent medical conditions and declining veterans’ benefits.

Obama is the president whose broken website is a symbol of the broken hopes of millions who believed his promises for affordable healthcare.

“Climate change is a fact,” says Obama.

Here is another fact: Climate change is getting worse and worse, on his watch. There has been a massive increase in incredibly destructive practices like the use of coal and fracking.

Leadership in stopping the disastrous Keystone XL pipeline has come not from Obama or Congress, but from the thousands of courageous people organizing and taking direct action to stop it.

Obama shouts “Fix our broken immigration system.” He is the president with record numbers of deportations.

My brothers and sisters, these problems are not new. And they are not an accident.

Working people have faced nearly four decades of wage stagnation and rising income inequality.

Four decades, with four Republican presidents and three Democratic presidents. Four decades that show neither party can solve these problems and that both fundamentally represent the same interests – the interests of the super-wealthy and big corporations.

We will only make progress on the basis of fundamental, systemic change. We need a break from the policies of Wall Street and Corporate America. We need a break from capitalism. It has failed the 99%.

Both parties bow down before the free market, and loyally serve the interests of their corporate masters – the only difference being a matter of degree.

The political system is completely dysfunctional and broken. It is drowning in corporate cash.

Working people, youth, people of color, women, the elderly, the disabled, immigrants – the 99% – have no voice or representation

We need our own political party. Independent of big business, and independent of the parties of big business.

Some say it cannot be done.

But look at the example of my campaign for Seattle City Council. I ran as an open socialist. I did not take a penny in corporate cash. My campaign raised $140,000 from ordinary working people. I ran as an independent working-class challenger to the capitalist establishment.

I ran on a platform of $15 minimum wage, taxing the super-rich to pay for mass transit and education, and for affordable housing, including rent control.

I am only taking the average worker’s wage while politicians in Seattle and in Congress are totally out of touch with the lives of the rest of us.

We built a grassroots campaign of over 450 people. With almost 100,000 votes, my election was the first time in decades an independent socialist was elected in a major US city.

Americans are hungry for something different. And it’s not just in Seattle. A recent poll showed that sixty percent of Americans want a third party.

Let’s talk about minimum wage. Obama said, “No one working full-time should have to raise a family in poverty.”

And his solution? Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 over 3 years.

I absolutely welcome any step forward on raising the minimum wage. And it is outrageous how the Republican Party is standing in the way.

But let’s be honest: $10.10/hour over three years – or $20,000 per year if you are lucky enough to have a full-time job – is not a ticket out of poverty for working families.

Fast food workers and Walmart workers have gone on strike and built powerful protests in cities in every part of the country over the past year for $15/hour. And that is the only reason politicians are now talking about raising the minimum wage.

Look at the example of the SeaTac $15/hour initiative. A initiative for $15/hour minimum wage was on the ballot – and won!

“Let’s make this a year of action,” Obama said.

In my view, we need action by working people and the poor for higher wages and a $15/hour minimum wage. Action by young people fighting student fees and the debt around their neck for the rest of their life. Action by homeowners against the epidemic of foreclosures. By trade unionists against anti-trade union laws and for workers’ rights.

Get organized!

Get active in your union. Get active in a local movement. Join the struggle to defend the environment.

Join with me and my organization, Socialist Alternative, to challenge big business and fight capitalism.

The epicenter of the fight back in 2014 is the Fight for Fifteen. I urge you to be part of this struggle. Find out more and sign up to get involved at 15Now.org.

Solidarity!

We will lose if we do not excite the left wing of this country.


EDIT: oops, link http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/29/1273414/-The-Real-Socialist-State-of-the-Union#

[Scootaloo]

1. And we'll ALL lose of the left is not accomodated, welcomed, and heeded

Politics in this country - and it seems even on DU - consists of reactionary right, and somewhat-less-reactionary right. What does nothing but right turns get you, except a constant, ever-tightening spiral that can only expand downwards?

[warrant46]

8. +1

[liberalmike27]

112. With 4 Republican Responses

I couldn't help but wonder where the Democratic Democrat's response was. I guess this will have to do.

[socialist_n_TN]

131. With the exception of the call for a workers' party.........

This IS a Democrat's Democrat response. Her platform is left reformist, so it's a 50s/60s Democratic platform. It's NOT socialist.

Hey bro!

[aggiesal]

62. I always say that ...

if you lean to the right on every issue, you'll only go around in circles.

Which is exactly what the Greedy One Percent (GOP) is doing.

[sabrina 1]

71. 'Even on DU'. You know what? Maybe this is what was needed. While we all thought we had

a party that was united for all the things mentioned in the OP, opposed to all those Right Wing policies, we remained in a state of denial. It wasn't until we won it all and still saw the same policies, the disgusting bi-partisanship garbage, they called it 'compromise' and it was always DEMS being asked to compromise even when they won.

And then the numerous appointments of Republicans, the remaining Bush people still operating with impunity five years later, like Clapper and Alexander eg.

It just occurred to me that we NEEDED to see what we are seeing now so openly on DU, so that we no longer remain 'hopeful' where there is no hope.

IF they continue to bash REAL DEMOCRATS, here or anywhere else, something good could come of all of this. Either we kick every fake, corporate Dem out of the party or as THIS is very, very likely to happen:

From the OP:

We need our own political party. Independent of big business, and independent of the parties of big business.

Some say it cannot be done.

But look at the example of my campaign for Seattle City Council. I ran as an open socialist. I did not take a penny in corporate cash. My campaign raised $140,000 from ordinary working people. I ran as an independent working-class challenger to the capitalist establishment.

I ran on a platform of $15 minimum wage, taxing the super-rich to pay for mass transit and education, and for affordable housing, including rent control.

As he says also, and I've seen these polls, 60% of the people want another party now. If the Dem Party continues to bash its own voters, as we are seeing right here on DU, if they are not smart enough to start giving their members something to vote for, then they will have only themselves to blame if voters finally get the message they've been sending 'We don't need your ideas, they are retarded, so just shut up and vote'. The first part is likely to sink in and finally be taken seriously.

[Scootaloo]

75. The trouble I see is false progressives

The term "progressive" as a political appellation is problematic in itself - it's another term for conservatives who aren't reactionaries. For this reason - and the feeling that adopting the term was just giving ground to the right's demonization of "liberal" I've been refusing to use the term (not that liberal has a spotless history, but calling myself a leftist seems to derail any discussion right off the bat)

But you know, whatever, words change meaning over time, right? And then 2008 happened. And suddenly I'm hearing a lot of conservative bullshit coming from this "progressive" camp - not the politicians, they've always been middle-right twits because, well, they have money and power and that's what happens. but from the rank and file.

So, why did that happened? Did Obama make people conservative? BRFFFFFFT nope.

Two things; Authoritarianism and opportunism.

For the first, there are people who simply figure that everything coming from "their side" is perfect, and that any contest to that is therefore evil. Black and white thinkers. Thus why "firebaggers" like you and who say "could be better" are lumped with the shitting dicknipples in the tea party. I know the term "authoritarian" rankles a lot of people around here since it conjures images of a host of other political -isms, but it's a personality trait rather than a political movement, and no matter what, some segment of the population (sadly a surprisingly LARGE segment - yay psychological evolution) will display authoritarian traits.

The second, opportunism, is much more problematic, if no less annoying. You've seen of course all these republicans jumping from the GOP to become democrats. Are any of them changing their ideas and positions, do you think? I'm pretty certain they're not. The party switch is just a way for them to try to hold or gain power, of course; they're rats jumping from a sinking ship. They might be desperate, but they still carry the plague. And of course if politicians are making the very risky jump to what they see as the "winning side" of course voters, who have far, far less to lose, are doing the same.

I think DU has a large number of the latter, as well as a statistically normal number of the former. You'll note the number of posters who have long histories of anti-left, anti-labor, poor-bashing, racist and warmongering positions - which they shore up by paying lip service to marriage equality or choice. That is, they're conservative trolls on every issue that won't get them banned from DU, but sparkling angels on the issues that explicitly would get them chucked off the site.

right now the left's trouble is that most leftists are drawn from the people who AREN'T authoritarians and opportunists. naturally it's much easier to organize people who go with the flow, or limpet on for the ride, but not so much a grouping of people where everyone has four different ideas about how the thing should go.

[LuvNewcastle]

89. Good post, Scootaloo, and a perfect description of DU.

[A Simple Game]

100. Nice post. Sadly DU hasn't been a liberal site for quite some time.

Even sadder is the fact that liberal bashing is openly and enthusiastically encouraged.

We even have posters defending bigots because they have a (D) after their name, and that is all they are, (D) in name only.

I think the time for liberals to abandon the Democratic party is long past due.

[VanillaRhapsody]

269. Did it get a name change to Liberal Underground?

You are welcome to start that...but for now...the domain name is Democratic Underground....and Unlike Republicans...we have a BIG tent...

[A Simple Game]

282. I shouldn't have to do this, please read the mission statement from the about section.

Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
• Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
• Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
• Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
• Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
• Having fun!

After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!

So this was and is supposed to be a primarily liberal site that supports the Democratic party, not a conservative site that supports the Democratic party. So continue your liberal bashing if that is what you feel like doing, but I will remain here. The about section is linked at the bottom of every page, you should familiarize yourself with the working of the site and especially what a mission statement is.

On Edit: Sorry, forgot to mention that the bold was mine.

[sabrina 1]

107. Exelellent post. Then the left will probably have to get organized. Sometimes it takes a while

before people realize they will have to start working hard for what they want and if the party doesn't want them, then the choices are to either start working within the party to get rid of the Corporists who have taken over, or leave. So that is the question, what next?

[VanillaRhapsody]

270. do it then....all talk and no action...

put your hat in the ring!

We have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren agreeing with the SOTU...so you can't take them with ya!

Otherwise maybe Ralph Nader is up to try again!!!!

[LiberalLovinLug]

145. Very well put

It has been actually quite enlightening from a sociologist angle to watch the process on DU since Dubya left office. I found this place in 2003 in order to be part of a community that was just as outraged and frustrated with the Bush cabal as I was. For the most part we were one voice. Since Obama was elected there has been an incremental but visible split on DU. Those that were slowly shocked and disappointed as the months and years went by watching the Democrats under Obama's leadership drift further and further to the right, where incidents like Rahm Emanuel calling those of us who hold more traditional Democratic Party values, "fucking retards", started giving us clues that this leader may not be the progressive, ...or liberal, he painted himself as during the primaries

.......and those that abandoned Party principles for a cult of personality. And so when the GOP was arguing a position from the extreme whacko reich wing, they have convinced themselves that it seems perfectly acceptable to support a leader who instead argued a position that would have been to the right of a Reagan or Nixon.

Personally I don't think Obama is a "right winger", any more than a "left winger". I think its become sadly clear that he is just another opportunistic politician who had and has no plans to rock the establishment boat. And like Tony Blair, who also turned out to be just another opportunistic lapdog to the 1%, is hoping to be richly rewarded by the powers that be once he leaves office for doing their bidding.

Sure he will side with socially liberal positions like gay marriage and even marijuana laws, (but only after the tide has turned on those issues) to opportunistically take advantage of the fact that Republicans are forced by their own rabid base to NOT take those same positions. Why wouldn't he? While those positions are a good thing, this only camouflages his capitulation to the ruling elite on the biggest issues like the Keystone pipeline, NSA spying on behalf of mulitnational corps, whistleblower persecution, and the slap on the wrist for Wall Street criminals. And not taking a stand for Net Neutrality, which I think is the biggest issue for free speech in decades to come.

[sendero]

302. Well said..

.... and right on.

[Ichingcarpenter]

187. Wow..... this post deserves its own OP

so more can see it.

[Phlem]

195. Love this too!!

I grew up under a Republican Authoritarian. Made me the liberal I am today!



-p

[VanillaRhapsody]

271. Hillary Clinton called herself Progressive before you called yourself that....

but I bet that never occurs to you!

[Scootaloo]

275. Not hard, I don't call myself progressive

I stick with liberal, or "leftist" in company that won't start a screaming match over it.

[woo me with science]

299. Great post. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. So the Democrats are now completely Socialist...not Socialist Democrats...but just full on

Socialists...and these pure Socialists....are the "real" Democrats?

[socialist_n_TN]

111. Nope they're not.........

What I think it proves is that a lot of so-called Democrats ARE socialists, maybe even revolutionary socialists. But they just don't know it yet. One thing about the two party system is that it forces you to pick a side and identify with that side, even if that side doesn't really represent what you believe.

Anyway don't get your knickers in a knot about it. Sawant ran on a platform that is merely left reformist. Any left populist Democrat could support it. Socialist Alternative is, AT BEST, a right centrist political grouping. Subjectively Trotskyist, but objectively reformist. This platform would have to take a serious left turn to even become a right centrist one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. She is a full on Socialist...that is what she identifies at...

I still do not see how THIS in anyway answers the question...

[socialist_n_TN]

178. Why yes, yes she does......

She and her group are subjectively Trotskyist. But the PLATFORM that she ran on for council is a left reformist platform, NOT A SOCIALIST ONE.

That was my point. Her platform is nothing that should frighten a Democrat. Maybe her subjective identification could be scary (OOO! Big Bad Socialist! , but what she called for is not socialist. It is however a platform that a Democrat of the FDR to McGovern era could get behind.

So if the Dems go back to this kind of economic left populism, what are you going to do? Vote Republican?

[VanillaRhapsody]

181. Never.but I also do not see the Democrat'ic' (because the purity trolls found my typo disconcerting)

Party becoming the Socialist Party..

the pendulum would definitely have to swing back as far as it did to reach Huckabee and Walker for example...and I just don't see that happening. I don't think we are going to see FDR resurrected...but what are YOU going to do? Vote Republican?

I tend to be a bit of a realist vs idealist...I like the ideals...I just don't see them being so easy to pull off.....but I don't get discouraged by it...I don't need to see radical reform to be convinced...I just need to see PROGRESS...

[AndyTiedye]

185. The Pendulum Only Goes One Direction

[navarth]

196. Did you just call it the 'Democrat' Party? That was a typo, right?

[kath]

198. I was thinking the same thing. WTF??

[VanillaRhapsody]

218. yes it was a typo...

[SMC22307]

204. The veil is pulled back a little bit every day...

but that was pretty blatant.

[navarth]

210. It's like I need a scorecard anymore

to tell the trolls from the real liberal progressives.

If right-wing assholes are infiltrating this site to create confusion, they're having some success. My personal list of posters I consider suspect grows daily.

[SMC22307]

213. There's a handful here to shit-stir, but they're pretty obvious.

Sometimes I look at post count and sign-up date, and usually peg those who come on like gangbusters. But the site does offer some nifty tools to filter out the noise. I have to check, but I don't think I have anyone on ignore. I might miss something *good*! There are some really thoughtful, informative discussions, and try as they might, they're unable to derail them.

[1000words]

214. Years ago, a DUer introduced the word "distractivist"

I always thought that was spot on. The moment a discussion becomes productive ... there they are!

Ignore is your friend. Vote them all off the island, and reduce them to talking to each other.

[VanillaRhapsody]

220. I have a phrase too...

perpetual malcontent...

[SMC22307]

227. Heh, that's perfect.

They do show up, but they're shown time and time again that they're wrong (see the Greenwald thread about the executive branch and prosecutions for Congressional testimony... it's pretty damn funny). Those are the ones I don't want to miss. I'll admit to it, I find them perversely satisfying! And they NEVER admit to being wrong. That right there is a clue that they're not participating in good faith (a rather insane thread about orgasms during rape comes to mind).

[VanillaRhapsody]

221. Yeah there sure are...aren't there mr SMC?

[VanillaRhapsody]

223. it was a typo...get over yourself sheesh

talking about looking for needles in haystacks!

Is that all the evidence you need? Right...doesn't take much evidence at all to convince you of things does it? makes sense...

[navarth]

266. huh?

what the hell do you mean get over myself

I asked you if it was a typo, that's it

what is this about needles in haystacks, that didn't come from me.

maybe I'm not the one who needs to get over themself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

267. and I replied....trying to "discover" something based on 2 letters is a bit of

needle and haystack kind of search....

[navarth]

268. I'm not trying to "discover" anything

I asked you if it was a typo and you replied with insulting comments.

A simple 'sorry guys, that was a typo' would have sufficed.

But look what I'm getting instead. Go look in the mirror before you tell me to get over myself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

272. I found it to be condescending....so there you go...

why you got the response you deserved.

Don't tell me its raining while you piss down my leg...

Here is my proof:

"....to tell the trolls from the real liberal progressives.

If right-wing assholes are infiltrating this site to create confusion, they're having some success. My personal list of posters I consider suspect grows daily."

THAT is called jumping to huge conclusions...based on 2 letters that even YOU admitted could have been a typo...

[navarth]

277. I was responding to SMC22307.

Talk about "jumping to huge conclusions". Response I "deserved"?? What EVER. You assumed I was talking about you.

It was downthread from your 'typo', Ill give you that.

Try asking me if I'm talking about you next time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

278. Yeah well you said that ...you know in public where I could see it....not in a private message..

It was plainly obvious who you were talking about.....

[navarth]

283. Obvious to you maybe

remember how the 'Your Posts' tab works? When I see a post there I respond there. You weren't in it. I responded to the person that posted to me.

Once and for all, get past it.

Or not, I really don't care anymore. Feel free to be friends with me or be a drama queen. Your option.

[VanillaRhapsody]

284. obvious to anyone...

oh yes...and here comes the accusations again...its almost predictable...

If I don't agree with you...I must be a drama queen. I will be sure to let everyone know that is how you feel about those that dare "disagree with YOU".


My feelings are soooo hurt I suwannee!

[navarth]

285. Okay you win.

Enjoy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

286. thanks...I think I will!

[VanillaRhapsody]

219. I have no veil...I made a typo...

I am a Democratic Socialist...but even we can mistype!

[cali]

258. I have yet to see you express anything liberal. You're a supporter of the President's.

It appears to me that that is the beginning, middle and end of your political "philosophy". You post in defense of celebration of Obama and criticize anyone and anything that isn't in line with that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

287. Then you are just not paying any attention...

You know support of the highly successful...twice elected by MAJORITY Democratic President on "Democratic Underground hardly rules it out does it? I guess it makes someone sooooooo not "liberal enough" to the party purists or the perpetual malcontents.

[VanillaRhapsody]

217. typo

[sabrina 1]

234. Yes, well you've been pretty clear about not believing that the 'democrat' party

needs to FIGHT for those ideals. Nothing happens when you constantly 'cave' and 'compromise' which some people here tend to encourage for some odd reason.

[VanillaRhapsody]

256. Bullshit...

this is the silliest argument you have given yet....

[DireStrike]

170. Calling for a workers' takeover of Boeing factories is center-right reformism?

The transitional program calls for meeting the working class where it is, doesn't it? How far left can you run a campaign, right now, without alienating workers?

Whatever you think of the tactic of using the electoral system, I think the success of the minimum wage campaign alone speaks to the usefulness of this strategy. SA says it is part of a more overarching revolutionary strategy, and hasn't done anything in their actions yet to disprove that.

There was a big thread on this at another forum, if you haven't read it yet, so I won't argue much more here, but I wanted to present a bit of the argument.

[socialist_n_TN]

176. As I recall, she didn't really have that as a part of her electoral platform.......

My thinking is that SAlt is not a left reformist group. They are, however, a centrist group, vacillating between reform and revolution.

They couldn't help, but being centrist. They came out of the Ted Grant tendency. They were a left turn compared to the Grantites they split away from, but they didn't run away from Grant's entryism and parliamentary tactics either, they merely went heavier on the running on the overtly socialist label rather than deep entry into the current "workers" party.

And I disagree they haven't done anything to disprove their revolutionary aims. I think it's a big (pardon my pun) "red flag" that they don't even mention the word "revolution" when they're talking about a socialist transformation of society. That's pretty big right there. I can't see Trotsky shying away from the word "revolution".

[DireStrike]

180. Fair enough.

That is a pretty unique use of the word "centrist", though.

Sawant is either a poor speaker or is following a misguided strategy when speaking about revolution. She will say things like the Boeing thing I mentioned, which is pretty damn revolutionary, but she always seems to shy away from the actual topic of revolution in interviews. A group that calls itself "Socialist Alternative" needs to have a real answer when an interviewer asks, "so what is the alternative, exactly?"

I am troubled by this tactic/flaw, but as it is only a public speaking tactic I am not sure it constitutes "not being revolutionary". I was unaware of the Grantite history, I'll be looking into that, thanks. My personal experiences with the group make me think they are making a poor choice of tactic, rather than that they aren't aiming for revolution.

[socialist_n_TN]

194. We in Workers Power use centrist all the time to describe groups.......

that are subjectively "revolutionary", but use reformism and reformist tactics most of the time. Trotsky used it in the same way. When he talked about "centrism" (as in "Centrism hates to hear itself named&quot that's what he meant. Now, centrist groups can swing between revolution and reform, but the big problem with centrists is that when they spend so much of their time fighting for reformist goals, they run a BIG risk of BECOMING reformist, no matter what they say.

There's some folks here in Nashville that take it even farther. I suspect that they follow the Grant entryism tactic, but during the Occupy period, they wouldn't even call the systemic problems they were calling out "capitalism". They told me it was a "strategic decision" not to use the actual word to condemn the system even though that's what they believed. Sounds to me like they were actually calling a tactic a strategy too.

One of the BIGGEST problems with a self identified socialist, and ESPECIALLY a revolutionary socialist and Trotskyist, running on a left reformist platform is that when those policies fail, as they inevitably will, then most people who supported him/her will consider the failure to be socialism and socialist policies that have failed and NOT the policies of reformism. That's why you should always call it what it is.

And I agree that Comrade Sawant (who doesn't even use the appellation "comrade". Ever notice that?) sometimes calls for objectively revolutionary tactics. But, once again I reiterate, part of being a centrist as Trotsky understood the word, is to be revolutionary at times.

[1000words]

229. Let's be honest ...

If Sawant even mutters "comrade," she is done. In the end, even if deep down most Americans support the fundamental tenets of Socialism, and are awake enough to acknowledge benefiting from it's rare implementation, they still want it to be a "unique" American idea. Socialism simply needs to re-brand in order to appease the myth of exceptionalism.

[nomorenomore08]

250. And why does a new quasi-revolutionary socialist movement need any of the taint of old-school

Communism anyhow? Why not try building a new kind of system instead of one which, much like our current hyper-capitalism, has been tried and has failed?

[socialist_n_TN]

251. Because it HASN'T been "tried and failed".........

It's never been tried at all, except for a very few months very early after the October Revolution. Then it came under attack by the world capitalist states which directly lead to it's degeneration under Stalin.

And why do you think SAlt is a "new, quasi-revolutionary socialist movement"? SAlt is subjectively Trotskyist. They CALL themselves Trotskyist. I'm just taking them at their word and since my view of Trotskyism is somewhat different than theirs, I think it's important to offer support, but also point out where they DIFFER from what Trotsky himself would have offered. And you don't offer that criticism because of ego. You offer it because some of the things they're saying and wanting to try have BEEN tried and have failed in the past. The main failure is trying to pass off some sort of left reformist platform as a socialist transition.

You're not going to reinvent the wheel. The EXACT SAME CHALLENGES THAT FACED LENIN AND TROTSKY WILL BE EXTANT IN THE USA IF CAPITALISM IS OVERTHROWN! It will include a violent reaction from the capitalists to the expropriation and redistribution of their excessive assets. ANY changeover to socialism will lead to this reaction whether it's done through revolution or reform. We need to learn from the experience of the ones that have attempted the changeover rather than thinking you can do something totally new and different. NOTHING will be totally new and different. The details will change, but the basic challenges will remain the same.

[nomorenomore08]

280. Okay, I get that you're not advocating Soviet-style Communism (or faux-Communism, more like).

I was referring, narrowly and specifically, to the use of terminology like "Comrade." And I was just wondering why any of that kind of baggage is necessary.

And when I said "quasi-revolutionary" I was referring, as you did, to a mix of "reformist" and "revolutionary" tactics or aims. The distinction between the two, of course, is also somewhat subjective - "revolution" doesn't have to be violent, and likewise "reform" doesn't have to be entirely peaceful.

[kjones]

115. Yeah

I'm not sure if I like that level of ideological purity.

I think it sounds like something the republicans recently tried...


And if I'm not mistaken, that's sort of how the socialist organizations
in America were put into decline during the latter bits of the 20th century.
Conservatives were able to split the coalitions of a broad spectrum
of left of center individuals into small, manageable, and defeatable
groups by attacking their fissures.

[Laelth]

128. Hmm ...

The Socialist Party in the United States was crushed in the early 20th century by Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat. The Socialist Party's leader, Eugene V. Debs, was imprisoned for sedition (which, according to the 1st Amendment should not be a crime).

It's not conservatives who work to destroy socialists. Conservatives sometimes fund socialists in order to split voters away from the Democratic Party. No, from what I can tell, it's the Democratic Party that works very hard to crush any opposition from its left.

-Laelth

[socialist_n_TN]

130. That's why the bourgeois "liberal" parties will support fascism.......

IF fascism is the only way they see to break the power of the working class and socialists.

[VanillaRhapsody]

169. baloney!

that is What a Socialist WOULD say...but i don't agree...Was FDR a full on Socialist? No he wasn't...was he trying to break the "power of the working class"? No he wasn't...Full on straight up Socialism isn't the answer either...it ALSO has flaws...

[tomg]

189. Out of curiosity,

what do you mean by "Full on straight up Socialism."? Are you equating it with "communism"?.
As to your second point: clearly, FDR was not a socialist. As you probably know, in some quarters he is considered the person who saved capitalism in the United States ( personally, I don't agree with that assessment. In the mid-1930s Fascism could have won that little wing ding in the United States as much as a "People's Republic.&quot .

"Full on straight up Socialism" - if by that you mean some form of communism - it clearly has problems. That is a real, "thanks, Captain obvious." I don't assume you mean that. Iwould not insult you by thinking you are equating "Full on straight up Socialism" with communism. But if you mean, say, a form of Democratic Socialism ( by way of any number of folks, but i'll toss out my guide Michael Harrington) - aside from the fact that most Americans won't vote for it ( do I have to go into misinformation since Hay market?) - what are the problems with it?

Seriously, what do you see as the problems with a modified form of democratic socialism?

[VanillaRhapsody]

215. No I am not confusing them...I know the difference...and by the way

I call myself a Democratic Socialist....that's why I said "full on straight up Socialist".

[socialist_n_TN]

197. FDR was trying to save capitalism by his socialistic reforms, but........

like most liberals, he wouldn't attribute the source of these policies. And yes, in the sense of trying to stop a worker's government in the USA, he WAS trying to break the power of the working class.

And as far as "full on straight up Socialism..." that does depend on what you think that is. The bureaucratic parasitism that Stalin instituted in the USSR was NOT what Trotsky or Lenin envisioned. And even though I disagree with Comrade Sawant's reformist tactics, I would NEVER impugn her with the bureaucratic legacy of Stalinism.

[VanillaRhapsody]

216. YES socialistic reforms....

Your second paragraph explains what I meant....but you knew that.

[socialist_n_TN]

222. And I explained in another post in this thread what Lenin and Trotsky meant......

by socialism. And it wasn't the bastardization that Stalin instituted.

[VanillaRhapsody]

224. but the fact remains....

it doesn't change what I said...and what I also believe ALL forms of "isms" are flawwed.

[socialist_n_TN]

226. So go ahead and reinvent the wheel.......

and call it something different. That's the capitalist way after all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

228. but I am not a Capitalist...

I'm a Democratic Socialist.

Wow reinventing the wheel...that's NEVER been done before...hmmmmmm

[DireStrike]

237. Sounds like you are a social democrat, and not a democratic socialist.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_democracy

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Socialism#Democratic_socialism

[VanillaRhapsody]

255. I accept my Social Security AND Medicare....therefore I...like every other American that does

are Socialist...that is why its called "Social" Security....But I am also a Democrat...

Define YOURSELF please and I will thank you not to define me!

[socialist_n_TN]

263. Kind of a broad definition of a "socialist" you've got there.......

I wonder if the Tea Partiers who get Social Security and Medicare would agree with your characterization? I guess I should be pleased that you're not scared to use the word to self identify (progress from a few years ago), but you are NOT a socialist just because you take advantage of certain social benefits provided by government.

Socialism is a belief in an economic system that provides for the people or the workers to own some, most, or all industries (also called the "means of production&quot rather than individual ownership.

Cashing a social security check doesn't make you a socialist.

[sabrina 1]

235. Like Capitalism you mean, the system we are now surviving under?

I agree!

[nomorenomore08]

281. Exactly. As I said before, our current hyper-capitalism is just as much as failure as Soviet

faux-Communism was. What the solution is, I honestly don't know - I may have quasi-socialist tendencies but I'm not a utopian - but it's obvious that things can't continue like this indefinitely.

[treestar]

125. It's dumb. Socialists aren't Democrats

and yet we are told we have to obey them or we won't win? How does a minority get to do that?

They haven't made themselves even as relevant as the Tea party did to the right.

Extremists stamping their feet and making demands which they have no political power to get elected to enforce.

[socialist_n_TN]

127. So if the Dems turn in this direction........

Her program IS merely left reformism after all, what are you going to do, vote Republican?

[treestar]

138. No, because then there would be some chance

I would vote for him, but a vast majority might not. Progress requires compromise. People who don't get that aren't part of the political realm. They go off and sulk and not vote and just don't count. There's no point in doing that. It gains nothing.

Here we have gotten somewhere, but slid back in 2010. I'm going to hang onto the progress and try to see more of it rather than indulge in above-it-all perfectionism. And certainly we should not cave to people who would have us lose, and thus lose real ground, in the comfort of being "right."

It's not working for the right, illustrated before our very eyes, yet we have people claiming we should do the same thing Republicans are doing.

[socialist_n_TN]

146. IF, by your last paragraph, you mean.......

the recent stirrings of a potential split in the Republican ranks between the Tea Partiers and the establishment Republicans, I too hope it happens, but I'm sure for different reasons.

If the Republicans split into two parties, the Democrats won't be far behind. The only reasons Dems have held together up till now is because of the threat of a united Republican Party takeover of government. If the Reps DO split, there will go the primary reason for current Democrats who DON'T support the neo-liberal economic agenda (or the "moderate, Republican policies of the 80s&quot to stay in the Democratic Party.

You ought to support this split when and if the Republicans split first. You would get rid of that pesky "perfectionist" wing of the Democratic Party and can go ahead and support what you want without somebody carping about it from the left. Shoot, you can even be "bi-partisan" and join up with the establishment Republicans to keep the status quo the same without intra-party criticism. And the rest of the country would wind up with 4 political parties that will more closely represent what we believe.

IMO, having 4 political parties might even bring in that other half of the voting age population that doesn't even bother to register.

[tomg]

177. Couldn't agree more. The best thing

to happen in this country would be for the Tea Party to split and for the Dems to split. You know the corporatists on both sides would not want that.

[progressoid]

159. But a lot of Democrats are Socialists.

Hispanics aren't always Democrats, but a lot of Democrats are Hispanic. Atheists aren't always Democrats, but a lot of Democrats are Atheists. Etc etc etc.

Big tent and all that.

[tomg]

186. You know, this reminds me of Venn

diagrams that I learned about in high school (back in 1963-67).

The upshot, though, seems to be that there are more on the "left" than there are "Democrats" in terms of where the party is now. It is simply that the term "Democrat" had been traditionally embraced by the largest portion of X numbers of people in certain groups ( unions and workers, peace activists, the economically dispossessed, a struggling middle class, those committed to human rights - GLBT communities, women's rights, immigrants rights - and the list goes on) as a way of ultimately achieving their ( the particular groups) goals. Since, for the most part, they shared similar agendas of economic equality and social justice, the dems were good to go.

Unfortunately, in the current Democratic party, the Third-Way won, or seems to have won. And at the center of the Venn diagram, now, - the thing that - to differing degrees, - motivates the elected representatives is the interests of the corporatists. For the Democrats, it is the "nice" corporatists, but still, the corporatists ( we hate Koch, but the Pritzker's aren't so bad - one is even involved in venture capitalism for weed). Time to draw a new Venn diagram that puts the communities committed to economic and social justice at the center.

[1000words]

78. Good post

Opening paragraph is spot on!

[CrispyQ]

93. Yesterday on CNN I heard the Prez say once again how he wants to work with the repubs.

Holy fuck, has he not learned a fucking thing in the last five years? Or is it just that he's more a repub than a dem?

Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten me exactly what I was voting against in the first place. It's time to start thinking outside the two party box.

[treestar]

124. We have to work with Repubs

They hold offices.

We don't have to work with Socialists - they don't have any power.

[socialist_n_TN]

147. Not yet.

nm

[Maedhros]

148. At present, Socialists and others on the Left have no power

because we keep ceding it to the right-leaning Democratic Party by voting for politicians that have no intention of enacting Leftist policies.

First order of business: stop voting for politicians that don't represent the Left.

Sure, the right-leaning Democrats will tell us how bad this will be for Leftists, but what else should we expect them to say? They are the ones benefiting from this lopsided arrangement.

The Left needs to find its power, and they won't find it in the Democratic Party.

To paraphrase a speech from President Andrew Shepard in "The American President":

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Democrats are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.

[treestar]

259. We keep voting for?

You don't account for the people who just aren't socialists. You aren't convincing them. Only if they will vote too will the socialists have any traction. The politicians won't stand for things the people who voted for them don't want. Human nature is not like that. You'd have to run deceptively, then try to convince the people who voted for you into socialist policies.

Rejection of the middle doesn't help. Rejection of the Republicans might.

[Maedhros]

274. Voting AGAINST the Republicans hasn't done me any good.

Our military adventures have continued and multiplied in number. Democrats use former Republican talking points when pushing austerity and Social Security "reform." Teachers unions are under assault. The TPP is queued up to greatly expand corporate power. Adversarial journalism is being criminalized. The national security state is growing exponentially. Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy continue to be extended. When the Left objects to these things, people like you tell us to sit down and shut up.

It's time for those who believe in Liberal ideals to start voting FOR something, rather than just accept being told what to be afraid of and who to blame.

[RC]

231. And so we keep drifting farther and farther to the Right.

We has damn well start working with those on the Left, no matter what they are called, or else are going to follow the Right side over the cliff. The Democratic Party is already the Conservative's shadow, doing precious little to stop that Rightward drift.

[hfojvt]

104. have you seen those polls

"60% of people want another party now"

Uh huh.

And how many of that 60% want a party that is more CONSERVATIVE?

[sabrina 1]

106. That's the point, isn't it? They don't want a party that's more Conservative.

They want a party that represents THEM not two parties that represent Corporations.

And having been told over and over again by the Democratic Party operatives that all they are needed for are their donations and their votes, they are finally listening, getting the message.

[socialist_n_TN]

113. That's a fair question, IMO.......

Anytime you see a figure like this from a generalized poll question, it's going to include people who have different ideas about what the "new" party should look like. My guess to answer your question would be about 20% of those respondents would want a MORE conservative third party and the rest would want something like Sawant is talking about, a Progressive Workers' Party.

But that IS a guess. It would be interesting to see if anybody would poll those folks and differentiate about what their vision of a third party would include. Easy enough. Just ask, "Do you want a third party to be more left or more conservative than current Republicans or current Democrats.

[hfojvt]

137. but if there are that many people (potential voters)

who want more leftism in their politics, then how do you explain New Jersey?

New Jersey, a blue state, which just handily nominated and elected Cory Booker, and which also re-elected Chris Christie. Certainly there were options that were to the left of both of those candidates. So if there is a large group of people who want representatives to the left, then why didn't they show up and elect them?

Then there's Kansas, and South Dakota.

Forget about having a 3rd party in Kansas, unless it is the tea party. What we need is a 2nd party. 4 congressional seats in 2012 - only two Democratic Candidates. Here it is January (whoops, now it is February) 2014 and we are still waiting, waiting for a Democrat to enter the race for the US Senate. In 2010 in South Dakota, the Republican Thune, go re-elected to the US Senate with NO opposition.

If we were gonna have a viable candidate for the Senate, then I think they should have started running last August.

Although I just read something in the Daily Howler. He noted that John Kennedy entered the race for President on 2 Jan 1960, only ten months before the election.

In my memory it was Carter who started THAT "race to the bottom". He started his Presidential campaign early and sorta came out of nowhere to win the primary. And people were like "hey, starting early helps you win". Well, duh, especially if you are running against an incumbent.

[socialist_n_TN]

149. The easiest way to explain it.......

is to point to the approximately 50% of the voting age population that is not excited enough about politics to even register to vote. A populist candidate just MIGHT bring in enough of that group to win or at least show and pressure the rest of the politicians.

But it's like I tell the Tennessee Democrats I'm around. Why NOT go left populist? You lose most races anyway trying to be Republican Lite. You might as well frame your campaign around "us vs them" and take the side of "us".

Dust off and update some of Huey Long's speeches and see what happens. Are you afraid you'll lose? That's the probability anyway, so try something new.

[AndyTiedye]

200. About Half of that 60% Want Whatever the Tee Vee or the Preacherman Tells them to Want

?w=450

[socialist_n_TN]

206. Disagree slightly. I think it's about a third of that 60%.....

rather than half. They are there though.

[MO_Moderate]

296. At least 40%

[Phlem]

192. ^^^^Love This!^^^^

More of this!



-p

[hfojvt]

103. no, we will all lose

if 3rd party idiocy is heeded and more Republicans are elected.

[treestar]

121. How is that?

They have to be heeded to vote with us? Why should we cave to that any more than to anyone else?

[JRLeft]

2. She served up table full of truth.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. I had been wondering if I should look into the Green Party, but she definitely makes me want to

check out the socialist party as well. I love Sawant. She rocks.

[1000words]

4. This is the same woman who is accepting only 40K of her salary

The rest of the 117K salary is being donated to various charities and community groups.

That's called walking the walk ... while everyone else talks.

[mike_c]

5. hmmm, I don't see her name anywhere in the OP, so this is Kshama Sawant...

...socialist city council member in Seattle. Yay Kshama!

[Maraya1969]

6. What a bunch of unsubstantiated bullshit! Reminds me of

Free Republic

[Scootaloo]

11. Spend a lot of time at FreeRepublic, do you?

[Maraya1969]

23. You don't have to to notice the similarity.

[grahamhgreen]

27. Right, because FR wants $15/hr minimum wage, lol. NOTHING like FR. In fact,

the opposite.

[1000words]

31. Now, now ... it's possible to confuse a socialist with a teabagger.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. Well they're both fed up with the status quo........

and don't think that the people are being represented by the two major parties, so of course, THEY MUST BE THE SAME!

Sometimes I think the "Obama Derangement Syndrome" is actually involving people who are OK with ANYTHING Obama does no matter how much it hurts the working class and poor. I mean this IS the president who called his policies (paraphrasing) 80s moderate Republican. I wonder if, when making that statement, he ever thought that some of us actually OPPOSED Republican policies in the 80s. Even moderate Republican policies.

[1000words]

40. It's funny ...

How Turd Way Democrats think their outrage will somehow offend a socialist. I see it as having done (or said) something right.

[Scootaloo]

33. Actually, I think one WOULD need the level of brain damage FR causes to think that

[NuclearDem]

41. It's alright, Freepers can't tell the difference between socialism and fascism either.

[Maraya1969]

86. So I suppose all the wrong "facts" in the post don't matter!

Someone up-thread said she got most of the facts right. Since when do we applaud getting most of the facts right?

I found 2 of them right at the start.

[NuclearDem]

92. So how on earth does something that calls for a 15/hr minimum wage,

encourages people to support unions, and calls for getting rid of capitalism remind you of FR?

All it tells me is that you assume all criticism of the president comes from RW racists, and no true leftist would dare do so.

[last1standing]

60. Please explain the similarities, or admit that your post is the unsubstantiated bullshit.

By the way, the fact that both say mean things about Obama doesn't count.

[Armstead]

67. unsubstantiated bullshit?

You might disagree with the tone, and the proposed solution of a third party.

But her analysis of the current situation is substantiated every damn day in the news and in the lives of the increasing number of people who are getting squashed by the unholy alliance of Big Money and Big Politics.

[cui bono]

84. Sure because Freepers want "$15 minimum wage, taxing the super-rich to pay for mass transit

and education, and for affordable housing, including rent control."

Link to those sentiments at FR please?

[DhhD]

97. The 1960 Democratic Party Platform in no way reminds me of Free Republic.

It reminds me of the Seattle Councilwoman's philosophy and practices.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29602

[socialist_n_TN]

116. EXACTLY! As I said above........

her minimalist political platform was left reformist. IT WAS NOT SOCIALIST OR EVEN TRANSITIONAL TO SOCIALISM!

As a Classic Red of the Trotskyist persuasion, this was a problem for me. Not that I can't support left reformist positions, I can and do, I just don't think they will ever solve the basic problem. And that problem is that capitalism. As long as the current system is in place will IMMEDIATELY begin to try to undermine and destroy any "reforms" that are instituted.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

155. Please show as unsubstantial each point in the letter, or fail. nt

[Curmudgeoness]

175. I guess it be "fail". nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. K&R

[Maraya1969]

9. For example.....

From the post: "Here is another fact: Climate change is getting worse and worse, on his watch. There has been a massive increase in incredibly destructive practices like the use of coal and fracking."

From Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-26/u-s-carbon-emissions-on-track-to-fall-17-meeting-obama-goal.html


"The report said average U.S. emissions of the gases blamed for climate change from 2009 to 2011 fell to their lowest level since the mid-1990s. Emissions are down 6.8 percent compared with 2005, but are expected to “rise gradually” over the remaining six years of the decade under the current policies, the report said."

If the slate of actions Obama unveiled in June are implemented, the net effect could be the 17 percent reduction, the report said. The report was issued the day before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-based organization created to assess climate change, is scheduled to issue its analysis of the causes and impacts of global warming."

=============================

Your rants are not taken seriously by me if you complain about every single thing this president has done. And bringing up the broken website that has been fixed for months now??? Please! This does not sound like a socialist. It sounds like a tea bagger.

[1000words]

15. You're not taken seriously by me ...

That's it ... End of message.

[Maraya1969]

29. So why bother with you post?

[ChiciB1]

73. Perhaps You Haven't Noticed Yet, But

it does seem to me that there are many here who aren't taking YOU seriously. But what do I know?

I suppose I could say that I've lived long enough to have seen a different America once. I saw a post here today that actually called the Democratic Party, the "Democrat" Party! That phrase was started some time back by Repukes who simply wanted to belittle those on the other side! It was intended as an insult and remains so today... but HERE at DU? What's even worse was the fact that the person didn't even realize how it got started and why it's was offensive.

Just sayin...

[1000words]

76. Thanks for sharing

For what it's worth, my general philosophy regarding this site is to not take any of it very seriously.

[socialist_n_TN]

95. That's my general philosophy for ALL internet sites.........

It's a discussion board, so discuss. But a post slamming me ain't gonna affect my day. Good attitude AFAIC.

[OnyxCollie]

19. George W. Obama

"His Nickname Is George W. Obama": Leading Climate Change Denier Embraces U.S. Stance at U.N. Talks
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/his_nickname_is_george_w_obama

AMY GOODMAN: Interestingly, on Wednesday, a group of climate change deniers held a news conference here at the U.N. climate change summit in Durban. Speakers included Marc Morano, publisher of the "Climate Depot," a website run by the organization Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT. I spoke to Marc Morano just before this broadcast and asked him about President Obama.

MARC MORANO: His nickname is "George W. Obama." Obama’s negotiator, Todd Stern, will be here today. They have kept the exact same principles and negotiating stance as President George Bush did for eight years. Obama has carried on Bush’s legacy. So, as skeptics, we tip our hat to President Obama in helping crush and continue to defeat the United Nations process. Obama has been a great friend of global warming skeptics at these conferences. Obama has problems, you know, for us, because he’s going through the EPA regulatory process, which is a grave threat. But in terms of this, President Obama could not have turned out better when it came to his lack of interest in the congressional climate bill and his lack of interest in the United Nations Kyoto Protocol. So, a job well done for President Obama.

AMY GOODMAN: That was, interestingly, Marc Moreno of CFACT, which is the climate change denier group, saying that President Obama is basically their best ally, "George W. Obama." Ambassador Pablo Solón, what do you make of this?

PABLO SOLÓN: Well, when Obama came into the presidency in the U.S., in Latin America and Bolivia there was a lot of expectation, a lot of hope. But it’s true. After all these years, we can say nothing has changed. And even the politics of the U.S. in relation to climate change has went worse and worse, because we don’t see at all an initiative from the side of the U.S. to push for a stronger deal that has to meet the great problems of climate change.

[Maraya1969]

28. The US is a global leader in solar. It has decreased its

carbon footprint. Our energy initiatives are creating jobs and helping the environment.

I'd hardly say that they have kept the same principals and practices of the bush administration. That I think is preposterous. Even the bullshit about bush undoing all the recycling programs in the cafeteria and making everyone throw away their plastic instead of recycling it. Obama changed that right away.

Too many times people who want to criticize this administration do what tea baggers do. They criticize everything. They say nothing that Obama did was any good. And that makes their arguments lack substance. It sounds too much like Fox news.

If you have a legitimate complaint by all means make it. But don't add a bunch of lies to make your point seem..........more of a point because it does the opposite.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/obama-on-energy-having-it-both-ways-102784.html

[OnyxCollie]

39. True Believer. nt

[El_Johns]

56. Global leader in solar? Where do you get this stuff?

[1000words]

79. Bulgaria? ... We're not better than Bulgaria?

Damn.

[Marr]

101. Don't expect a response. The cheer squad only reads WH press releases, and they never, ever

acknowledge it when one of the lines they parrot is shown to be bullshit.

[progressoid]

161. We're beating Portugal so I guess that makes us a world leader?

[kelliekat44]

20. i agree with you. What President has ever done everything you wanted him to do? With the kind of

obstructionism on the right and faux supporters on the left, it is any wonder the man isn't impeached for breathing.

[1000words]

21. I'm shocked!

By the way, those "faux supporters on the left" helped get the man elected. Twice.

[gLibDem]

24. Who obstructed the President in years one and two?

Who is preventing the President from rejecting Keystone XL. Who is obstructing the President and causing him to open more oil leases and more drilling leases?

The President has taken as much action against the environment as he supposedly has been prevented from taking.

Nobody is expected to do everything, but he should certainly do some things.

[Maraya1969]

30. Geeze he has. Look at some of my posts on this thread!

[gLibDem]

35. Democrats had the House and the Senate

In years one and two. Only Democrats could truly obstruct the President.

[Amonester]

72. Many Democrats in Congress are DINOs, Blue Dogs, so ...

I guess it's "Thanks Obhama!" for these too...

[gLibDem]

80. No. But I think it important that we realize what kind of Ds we elect.

And that the President had a progressive ally in the House but seemed to defer to the blue dog heavy Senate, and COMPLETELY ignored the left of center electorate by abandoning the bully pulpit.

[AndyTiedye]

96. He Never Had a Bully Pulpit

The "bully pulpit" is the Tee Vee. Every Tee Vee station in the country is under Repig control.

[gLibDem]

98. If the President had barnstormed the country,

He would have been covered. If the president actually held press conferences, he would have been covered.

These Saturday morning non Q&A "radio" addresses are a waste of oxygen.

[Kermitt Gribble]

143. Exactly.

Shrub barnstormed the country on his Privatize Social Security Tour, and almost gathered enough support to pull it off. The bully pulpit is available for any president if he/she chooses to use it.

[gLibDem]

154. And as one of the great orators of our day, President Obama would have succeeded.

[Maedhros]

261. The fact that he didn't even try is the problem.

Obama had ridden a huge wave of popular support into the White House and, at the beginning of the health care reform process, polls showed 70% of Americans in favor of Single Payer.

So what did Obama do? He preemptively removed Single Payer and even a Public Opton from his proposal before negotiations started because Big Pharma told him to.

It's not that he couldn't overcome Republican obstruction that pisses people off. It's that he didn't even try.

[gLibDem]

265. Absolutely correct.

And this is how we know that the President is a Conservative Democrat at best, and would comfortably fit in the Republican Party of old.

[Maedhros]

273. It certainly put to rest the question of which constituency Obama represents -

the landslide of voter support in the 2008 election, or moneyed corporate interest.

[bvar22]

171. "Thanks Obama for these too" (RE:BLue Dogs and DINOs)

Here is what happened in the Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010 when we tried to replace Blanche Lincoln with a Pro-Labor/Pro-healthcare Democrat.
Guess WHO who our biggest obstruction.


The Arkansas Democratic Primary was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass in The Primary until the White House stepped in

Guess what happened.
Our BIGGEST enemy to bringing "change" to The Senate was NOT The "Obstructionist" Republicans.
NO!
Our BIGGEST obstruction to bringing "change" to The Senate was The Obama White House!

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda,
and Bill Clinton was dispatched on a Campaign Tour for Blanche around the state bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the answer was ridicule and insults to Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

After the Arkansas Democratic Primary, many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

Of course, EVERYBODY predicted, Lincoln lost badly in the General Election, giving that Senate Seat to The Republicans.
So what did the White House gain by Stomping Down Labor and the Grass Roots?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults and more ridicule.

So, YES!
Thanks Obama and the "Centrist" Democratic Party leadership for the DINOs.

[1000words]

172. A thorough indictment

Well done. Sadly, it will be ignored.

[socialist_n_TN]

199. It was ignored when it was going on, so I suspect.......

that you're right. It'll be ignored now too.

[Phlem]

201. Bravo.

Perfect!



-p

[SunSeeker]

158. Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for only 24 working days.

That line about Dems "controlling" the Senate and House for 2 years is misleading.

[gLibDem]

182. Oh stop!

Shrub was able to start our still on-going War on Terror - Afghanistan Edition (TM) as well as enact the largest tax theft in the nation's history without a filibuster proof majority.

Shrub didn't even have majority!

This is why Democrats can't have nice things.

[SunSeeker]

183. Dems never employed the filibuster in the unprecedented way the GOP did starting in 2009. nt

[gLibDem]

190. And who's fault is that? Who controls the filibuster rules?

[SunSeeker]

202. By the time it became clear the GOP was blocking EVERYTHING, it was 2010.

And the GOP had the majority in the House. With all the conservadems in the Senate, Reid now needed the filibuster himself to block the horrid laws the GOP House was passing.

[socialist_n_TN]

208. I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit.......

It was clear within six months of Obama taking office that the Republican plan was to block everything. I think I heard about that McConnell "obstruction" meeting within a month or two of it happening. Obama and his people HAD to have known about it WELL before 2010.

[SunSeeker]

211. During the first 6 months was when we had that 24 days of the filibuster proof majority.

It didn't really become evidence until we lost that supermajority. They had no idea that McConnell and Ryan and the gang had plotted on inaugeration night to block EVERYTHING. Such a move was unprecedented. Have you seen the graphs charting filitbusters by year?

And as I understand it, any major filibuster rules changes could only occur at the beginning of a new Congress. If you have a link to the contrary, please provide it.

[socialist_n_TN]

225. Then how did DU get on the obstruction meeting......

within a month or so of it happening? Does DU have better sources than the Obama WH?

The truth is the Obama administration didn't WANT any major changes in the Reagan Revolution that reached it's logical conclusion during the W administration. They didn't want changes because they BELIEVED in the capitalist, trickle down bullshit that has been the viewpoint of the political class for the last 30 years. The people voted for something different in '08, but they didn't get it.

[1000words]

212. Furthermore, even if they hadn't openly stated it ...

it was a logical conclusion. Is the defense really going to be, "no one could have imagined ..."?

[SunSeeker]

241. The Senate's formal rules can only be changed at the start of a two-year Congress.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2013/11/23/harry-reid-nuclear-option/
I notice you offer no link to the contrary, despite me asking.

In order to change the filibuster rules on time, they would have had to have known at the time this meeting was happening that it was happening. Even you would have to acknowledge that would be impossible. The level of obstruction that eventually played out was truly unprecedented. It was a whole new world, many times worst than the obstructionism of the 1990's GOP against Clinton. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

Instead of trying to blame this on Harry Reid, or the Dems, please place the blame where it belongs: the Republicans.

[gLibDem]

230. From Yes We Can to No We Can't.

So disheartening to be Liberal Democrat in a Defeatest Democratic Party.

[SunSeeker]

233. Changing strategy is not the same as saying "No We Can't."

That fact that you think it does says more about you than the Democratic Party.

[gLibDem]

238. No it doesn't.

One day the Democratic Party will return to its FDR roots, where the American public already is, and will stop employing the Republican Lite/Republican's Fault failed strategery.

[SunSeeker]

242. I think the new minimum wage increase push is a good, FDR-style strategy, don't you? nt

[1000words]

243. FDR took bold steps ...

When I compare $10.10/hr to $15.00/hr, who reminds me more of FDR?

[SunSeeker]

244. FDR had huge majorities in both houses of Congress.

Today's Dems have to deal with much less support. Hell, it's hard to get everyone on DU to agree to a $15 minimum wage, let alone Congress, as I sadly found out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=579375

So what are you doing to push for $15? (hint: bashing Dems doesn't count)

[1000words]

246. Which sort of undermines your own assertion re: strategy

But I get your point, and it is valid.

[gLibDem]

247. Yes, I am glad he's doing what he can independent of Congress.

And I'm hoping that with an election year coming up there will be some more action in the Congress. I can't tell of the tea is weak or not, but I am sensing that is the case.

[grahamhgreen]

32. May I remind you, all he had to do to end the bush tax cuts was nothing, also, he refused to look at

Medicare for all, etc..

How bout saying, "Yeah, those sound like good ideas, let's implement them!"

[SMC22307]

129. That, to me, is his biggest mistake...

or at least one of his biggest mistakes: not letting the Bush tax cuts fully expire.

[AndyTiedye]

193. Ending the Tax Cuts Would Have Crashed the Economy. Medicare for All Was DOA in the Senate

Medicare for All was DOA from the start. Could not get through the Senate even in 2009 due to LIEberman and the other boll weevils. The votes were not there and will not be for the foreseeable future.

Ending all the Bush tax cuts would have replaced a fragile recovery with a deep recession.
Just what the Rapeuglicans want.

[RC]

239. Hog wash.

That was the Republican talking point. Ending the tax cuts would have given the government money for long term unemployment compensation, expanding medicare, the Public Option, or even enacting Single Payer, Universal Health Care. It would have stopped the attempted raids on Social Security on false pretenses. No need for the President to present his idea for the chained CPI to save something that does not need saving, because it already has enough money to last for the next 35 to 70 years.
Ending those tax cuts would have given the government the money needed to repair and rebuild our still crumbing infrastructure. That means jobs. Living wage Union Jobs, with benefits. To say nothing about the spin-off jobs. Ending those tax cuts would have strengthened the recovery. As it is, mainly the 1% recovered nicely. The rest of us not so much.

[AndyTiedye]

253. It Wasn't Just the 1% Whose Taxes Would Have Gone Up

They would have gone up for a lot of people who were just barely making it.

It would not have affected the funding of Social Security which is not funded through the main budget.
They would still try to raid Social Security because they always try to do that.

The money would not have been spent on infrastructure/union jobs/etc. because the House would still have refused to appropriate it.

[RC]

254. You apparently don't understand economics very well.

The Republican tax cuts were designed to cause a financial shortage for the Federal Government. meaning less money for the safety net programs and less money flowing back to the states for whatever purpose. That was the intended design. And it did just that.
The Republican tax cuts for the lower income people were not really that much to begin with. Mine at the time was somewhere around $300 a year. We got it back in a lump sum and were suppose to pay taxes on that money again, even though we had already paid it in as taxes in the first place! How was that a tax cut? It hardly made a dent for me at the time. My "tax cut" was only that big because I had two dependents at the time. Otherwise it would have been much less.

What those in need received in welfare, food stamps, whatever, far exceeded whatever their tax cut was. These Republican tax cuts were use as an excuse to cut holes in the safety nets and lower the money available for the safety nets. That is when people started hurting. If you are barely making enough to pay taxes in the first place, what good is a tax cut? You are depending on the Safety Nets that they cut the funding for because of those Republican tax cuts. Tax cuts which many couldn't take advantage of, because they were not making enough to pay much, if any taxes for in the first place!

The design of the Republican tax cuts and the attached propaganda was such as to cause a recession, but they did too good of a job. The crash was supposed to happen AFTER the next President was in office. Look at who the Republicans ran. The Geezer and the Moose Hunter. The Republicans, by their own design, were supposed to lose that presidential election. Obama and the Democrats were to get the blame for the crash and resulting recession. However the crash happened while bu$h was still in office, which threw a monkey wrench into their plans.

Obama should have let the Republican tax cuts expire. He did not - TWICE! We would have been well on the road to recovery now, instead of being in the slowest economic recovery in our history. Wall Street recovered nicely, Main Street is still struggling.
The government could have used that money to jump start Main Street (read the economy), instead of bailing out the moneyed Wall Street brokers. Also the Government could have use that tax money to fund the Safety Net programs, but instead Congress further cut those Safety Net programs, citing a lack of money. A lack of money caused by continuing the tax cuts of those most able to pay taxes in the first place - The well to do.

[socialist_n_TN]

262. Somebody was paying attention I see......

This has been the playbook since Reagan. They cut taxes to starve popular government programs. When the tax revenue falls, they cut those programs. When they cut those programs ENOUGH, it provides a governmental surplus which they then go to Congress and claim (as Bush did) they need a refund, aka, ANOTHER tax cut.

It's a continuing game to destroy popular programs over the long term without actually voting to destroy them. It's worked for 30 years and over that 30 years the Dems have ALSO bought into this neo-liberal bullshit. There's no one left but us commies to call them on it.

[RC]

264. There is not many people left around here that are not buying into the conventional wisdom.

How many more years before they will have to change the name of this place?

LIBERAL & proud of it.

[AndyTiedye]

293. The Could Not Have Used that Money for Anything With the GOP in Control of the House

[RC]

294. The Democrats did not have to go along with the cuts either.

But they did. And Obama signed off on them.

[AndyTiedye]

300. Because of the Effect It Would Have on the Economy

Everybody's taxes would have gone up. Instant "double-dip" recession.
You talk about all the great things we could have done with that money,
but the Repiglickins would have blocked all of them.

[RC]

301. What part of "Tax Cut" are you having a problem with?

The part where the higher taxes during the Clinton years brought prosperity, or when, after the tax cuts, this country went into a recession, from which we have yet to recover?

People's taxes would not have gone up. They would have returned to where they were before the tax cuts went into effect. That is not raising taxes.

BTY, You are regurgitating Republican talking points.

[AndyTiedye]

303. If You are Trying to Clarify your Position, You are Not Suceeding

The part where the higher taxes during the Clinton years brought prosperity, or when, after the tax cuts, this country went into a recession, from which we have yet to recover?

Higher taxes do not "bring" prosperity under any economic theory I have ever seen. If they are spent in a way that stimulates the economy, as they were during Clinton's Presidency, THAT may bring prosperity.

The shift of a lot of government spending from the military to civilian purposes had a great deal to do with the prosperity during Clinton's Presidency. At the time we called it the "Peace Dividend". We don't get to do that anymore.

People's taxes would not have gone up. They would have returned to where they were before the tax cuts went into effect.

That is still up, and the money would not have been spent on anything that could stimulate the economy.

I supported what most Democrats supported: Rescinding the tax cuts on incomes over $250K.
The GOP would not allow that.

[JoeyT]

59. The President is Tinkerbell?

He'd totally do good stuff if only we believed hard enough? How ridiculous.

He's a politician, not my boyfriend or family. I'm not supposed to support him unconditionally. Unconditional support for a leader no matter what they do isn't praiseworthy, it's authoritarianism.

Dear Leader can get shit done with or without us when he wants to. He certainly doesn't seem to have any trouble pushing for FTAs, MOAR spying, and drone strikes.

[bobduca]

22. got it, kill the messenger

[okaawhatever]

34. Absolutely agree. After this rant, I have zero respect for the woman. I still support some of her

political ideas, but if her idea of politics and raising support is to bitch about everything, blame everyone else, especially with incorrect assertions I don't need her. But then, I'm not a socialist I'm a democrat so she wasn't exactly preaching to the choir.

[1000words]

44. You think her ideas and opinions should only appeal to socialists?

Okay .... Ahhhhh ... Whatever.

[cui bono]

85. Yeah who can take anyone seriously when they run on "a platform of $15 minimum wage,

taxing the super-rich to pay for mass transit and education, and for affordable housing, including rent control."

I get it. Criticize Obama and get put on the shit list. Sheesh. I can't believe how many people on here are so willing to sell out Dem Party principles and ideals to support a man who is selling them out.

[PowerToThePeople]

102. The people doing this are NOT

traditional Union backing, populist, democrats. They are neo-Dems, turd way, etc. They are trying to claim the party as theirs. They worship Koch brothers and TPP. They love blowing up citizens of other countries with drones and spying on the citizens of this country as long as Raytheon and Haliburton can rake in profits.

[dotymed]

141. That, to me, is an argument

for a Progressive third party. One whose platform spells out the need for wealth equality, alternative energy, a living wage for all.. etc. A "peoples party." WE (the majority) are not represented. That is a fact.

[socialist_n_TN]

150. I call it a "Progressive Workers' Party"......

[gLibDem]

248. It's the Democratic Party. Let the Turd Way Blow Dogs

Join the sane Republicans as the Republican Party and let the Tea Party be the Tea Party.

[socialist_n_TN]

252. The Democrats have NEVER been a worker's party.......

What's more, they've never CLAIMED to be a worker's party. They are a political party that, in the past, has claimed to be all things to all people. A bourgeois party that supported capitalism and the owners in society, while saying they supported the workers too.

Under capitalism, it objectively does not work like that. Over the long term, class war is a zero-sum game. When workers win, owners lose and vice-versa. If you claim to represent both like the Democrats have since their inception, you will eventually come to the point when you have to betray one side or the other. When he Dems betray the owners, they will have become a workers party. That hasn't happened ever, but that would be the Rubicon for turning the Democratic Party into a worker's party.

[gLibDem]

257. I'm not advocating socialism. Neither did FDR.

I believe in regulated capitalism with a strong social contract for the commons and for social security in the broader sense of both health and welfare.

Democratic Socialism is not a zero sum game. Unregulated Capitalism certainly is.

[socialist_n_TN]

289. But unregulated capitalism is what you get when you allow capitalism........

at all. It doesn't work as it should when it's regulated. Which is why the capitalists spend so much time, money, and influence to buy out the politicians and the regulators. THAT IS ALWAYS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN REGULATIONS ARE PUT ONTO CAPITALISM.

I'll repeat because it's important and history shows it's true. As long as capitalism is allowed to exist it will do everything in it's power, legal, illegal, violent or non-violent to throw off those regulations. And BECAUSE they own the means of production, they own the power over people's livelihoods which means they own the power over politics and society. And THAT power means that they will ALWAYS eventually throw off any regulation put on them.

Look at the last century plus a few decades. Every time capitalism has been "tamed" by regulation, within a few short decades it has thrown off that regulation in it's quest for it's natural, unregulated state. Which mean the people fight this particular battle every few generations.

Regulating capitalism is like riding a hungry tiger. It's VERY difficult to do and you're ALWAYS in danger of being eaten.

[gLibDem]

290. What you are really saying as that people who have

power will do what takes to retain power. That would be true under any economic or political system.

[socialist_n_TN]

291. Then it's time for the people to actually TAKE the power......

Several million people taking power over the economic means of production and the political system that abets that control would provide a check on each other. Right now you got a few hundred people owning the means of production, especially in the big industries which means they control politics and society. That's capitalism, the opposite of democracy.

[dotymed]

279. This nation can no longer wait for that to happen.

Where do I sign up for the "Progressive Workers Party?"
I'd like to nominate Senator Bernie Sanders as our first President of the NEW United States.

[socialist_n_TN]

292. Unfortunately you can't sign up yet.......

All we can do at this point is advocate for it. I think that the AFL-CIO and Change2Win should provide the organizing base and the money to get a worker's party on the ballot in all 50 states. Then you could decide in each area whether the Dem is best for the working class or whether the PWP is best and run and support candidates accordingly.

Unfortunately, the labor tops are wedded to the perks they get from the current two party system. They will have to be forced into this course by pressure from below.

[ZombieHorde]

142. The broken website comment

bugged me too, but I do love the overall message.

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. I would vote for her.

[theHandpuppet]

88. So would I.

Wish we had someone like that to vote for in WV. Our Democrats might as well be Republicans. It's depressing to even go to the polls.

[mindwalker_i]

12. She's just got ODS

He doesn't love our great, Democratic leader

[1000words]

14. She

[mindwalker_i]

17. Thanks

Fixed.

[1000words]

18. No Prob

[last1standing]

61. And she's a racist.

She might even have boxes in her garage.



Do I need the sarcasm smilie for this?

[swilton]

13. K&R @ 1,000

[westerebus]

16. Whole lot of truthiness in this one.

[gLibDem]

25. But not truth?

[westerebus]

249. Same difference.

Her statement is accurate. Welcome to DU.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Words fail.

A cornucopia of awesomeness isn't even adequate.

Dynamite!

[Phlem]

46. I know Manny

and we did it here in Washington, I still tear up every once in a while. It can happen elsewhere, the truth.

-p

[MannyGoldstein]

47. Your Sawant and our Warren...

They both make me want to be a better person.

Something good will come of it!

[Titonwan]

50. Feel the same way. N/T

[Phlem]

51. I hope and pray everyday for the sake of my daughter, family, and friends, that

We can do SOOOOOO much better. Thank you my friend, I hope it can happen in your and my lifetime.



-p

[DisgustipatedinCA]

64. What about my Feinstein?

On further consideration, nevermind. I see the flaw in my reasoning.

[Laelth]

151. DUzy candidate. n/t

-Laelth

[1000words]

66. Don't forget Bernie!

Give some love to Vermont

[ProSense]

69. Who is

pushing for a $10.10 minimum wage

A Victory for Workers

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday welcomed a White House announcement that President Obama will sign an executive order setting the minimum wage for workers under new federal contracts at $10.10 an hour. The White House also said the president would discuss the issue in tonight’s State of the Union address.

“I applaud President Obama for issuing this executive order which will raise wages for hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers. The president has made it clear that employees working for government contractors should not be paid starvation wages. This executive order also gives us momentum for raising the minimum wage for every worker in this country to at least $10.10 an hour,” Sanders said.

The senator in September sent a letter to the president urging him to issue an executive order to setting a minimum wage for federal contractors. Sanders also is a cosponsor of Senate legislation to raise the minimum wage for all workers to $10.10 from the current $7.25 an hour.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/a-victory-for-workers

[MannyGoldstein]

70. You. Are. Correct.

I was just talking about Bernie tonight. My wife mentioned that Waxman is retiring, that it's a shame we're losing a real Liberal. It struck me that while Waxman and others like my own Barney Frank were Liberals and are/will be missed, they were of a breed that kept themselves as "sensible adults" while awful, awful things were happening around them. For years, Bernie has been one of the only consistent voices yelling "Bullshit! Utter, abject bullshit" when it needed to be yelled. Now he's getting some reinforcements. His time is coming, and so is ours.

[ProSense]

68. Here:

Statement by Senator Warren on President Obama's State of the Union Address
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024407391

[johnnyreb]

36. I agree with much of this.

And I respect the heck out of her taking a reduced salary and donating the rest. That will amplify her voice.

[QC]

37. Kshama Sawant never really loved him!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

49. I think she's a racist.

Yes?

[QC]

52. Yep, and she's got ODS, too!

[MannyGoldstein]

55. And she's a Paulite worshipper of Ayn Rand

And worst of all... she's just not a sensible person.

[QC]

57. I have it on good authority

that she's an emotarian firebagger.

[NuclearDem]

58. What's her Freeper handle?

[QC]

94. I don't know, but I'm sure it has something about

hating Obama in it!!!

[Doctor_J]

90. she doesn't understand how government works

and she's a Ted Cruz leftist

[QC]

91. She thinks he has a magic wand!

[Phlem]

53. Dude!

-p

[Phlem]

42. She is so awesome.

I feel so lucky.

-p

PS...And I will add that the left wing of this country has been overshadowed by third way centrist, bought and payed for by corporations. Not with out the addition of supporters and cheerleaders pounding the media everyday.

[arely staircase]

43. people are talking of little else around here nt

[daleanime]

45. K&R....

[Phlem]

48. Thank you so much grahamhgreen.

for passing this along.



-p

[defacto7]

54. That will burn in the ears

of the John Birch Society's legacy of two. Or will they just laugh it off till we show them the meaning of "no more".

[ProSense]

63. That

Obama is the president whose broken website is a symbol of the broken hopes of millions who believed his promises for affordable healthcare.

<...>

I ran on a platform of $15 minimum wage, taxing the super-rich to pay for mass transit and education, and for affordable housing, including rent control.

..."broken website" is going to help tens of millions more people than her rant, which helps no one.

Medicaid for the Homeless
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090692

From 'I don't want any part of Obamacare' to 'It's a godsend'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024349685

Obamacare Will Help Reduce Income Inequality

by TomP

Obamacare is far from perfect. Many of us have long sought a single payer system, but that was not doable in 2010. Perhaps a public option was, and it is unfortunate that we did not achieve that. It is one of the reforms to Obamacare that progressives should fight for.

My post today is about some good news. A study from the Brookings Institution shows that Obamacare will help reduce income inequality. Of course, much more is needed, but it all adds up. This is a step forward. (Raising the minimum wage also is very important because it will cause a bump in wages at minimum wage and wages above it (and it likely will have to be done state-by-state).)

Here's the study on Obamacare and inequality:

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA) sought to expand health insurance coverage, slow the growth of health care spending, and improve the quality of care. Changing the distribution of incomes was not a stated objective. Nonetheless, the ACA may do more to change the income distribution than any other recently enacted law. It does so by requiring employers to offer affordable health insurance to their full-time employees, by providing refundable tax credits to help make private health insurance affordable, and by expanding eligibility for Medicaid. The law penalizes nonpoor adults who are offered affordable coverage and do not buy it. It reduces subsidies for some Medicare plans and imposes new taxes on the labor and investment incomes of high-income families. In each of these ways, the new health law will change the net incomes of Americans at all income levels.

Brookings Institution: POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ON INCOME INEQUALITY

You can read the entire study at that link. Here is a synopsis from TPM:

Obamacare is poised to mitigate soaring inequality by raising the incomes of the poorest Americans, according to a new study by the Brookings Institution.

By 2016, when its core provisions will have fully taken effect, the law will lift the average incomes of the bottom one-fifth of earners by nearly 6 percent, and the incomes of the bottom one-tenth by more than 7 percent, the study found.

The "great majority" of beneficiaries of the law's subsidies and Medicaid expansion will be in the bottom half -- and the "overwhelmingly majority" in the bottom third -- of the income distribution.

Obamacare is worth defending.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/27/1272820/-Obamacare-Will-Help-Reduce-Income-Inequality

Krugman: Obama and the One Percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415

The new heatlh care law raised the payroll tax for high income earners and taxed investment income.

Net Investment Income Tax

A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.

Additional Medicare Tax

A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

[Phlem]

162. Of course!

Third way is always better than alternative.



-p

[ProSense]

164. Actually,

"Third way is always better than alternative. "

...no. The "better than alternative" is doing anything to prevent people from dying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023835481

[Phlem]

166. Of course your right.

the other healthcare plans that didn't even get to see the light of day would have been much worse.



-p

[ProSense]

167. Yes,

"Of course your right.

the other healthcare plans that didn't even get to see the light of day would have been much worse. "

...I am. You see things that don't become law don't help anyone. It's like a climate change bill that passes the House and gets killed in the Senate changes nothing.

Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

Evan McMorris-Santoro

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

“It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that’s it,” he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.

Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation’s health care crisis.

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually — but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.

Sanders has put forward an amendment to the current health care bill in the Senate that would allow states to use federal funds to create their own single-payer plans, he said.

- more-

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090281

[Phlem]

174. Oh Damn it I forgot my blue links too. Sorry, here you go.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/OtherCancers/44034

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/can-vermonts-single-payer-system-fix-what-ails-american-healthcare/282626/

I try to get answers from other places rather than politically charged institutions like "Talking Points Memo"

Nice talking to ya, I've an errand to run but I'll be back for more of you juicy blue links.



-p

[ProSense]

184. Vermont's exchange is 100 percent federally funded. Here

"Nice talking to ya, I've an errand to run but I'll be back for more of you juicy blue links. "

...for when you get back:

Lessons from Vermont's Health Care Reform

By Laura K. Grubb, M.D.
The New England Journal of Medicine, April 4, 2013

In May 2011, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed legislation to implement Green Mountain Care (GMC), a single-payer, publicly financed, universal health care system. Vermont's reform law passed 15 months after the historic federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law. In passing reforms, Vermont took matters into its own hands and is well ahead of most other states in its efforts to implement federal and state health care reforms by 2014. The Supreme Court decision last June to uphold most of the ACA left many states scrambling, since they had postponed reforms pending the judgment. Although Vermont is a small state, its reform efforts provide valuable lessons for other states in implementing ACA reforms.

<...>

Finally, Vermont policymakers are maximizing federal financing and have projected cost savings. In January 2013, the state released a 156-page financing plan for its single-payer arrangement; the plan outlines federal financing sources and the anticipated generation of savings. Vermont has been awarded more than $250 million in federal funding for its state exchange — the fifth-highest amount among the states, although Vermont has the country's second-smallest state population. “We feel strongly that the exchange is not the answer to all of Vermont's health care problems,” Shumlin remarked, explaining that “the exchange is helpful to Vermont to bring us federal dollars to achieve our single-payer goal.”3 In fact, state exchange development will be 100% federally funded.4

- more -

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/april/lessons-from-vermonts-health-care-reform

Section 1332 of the health care law:

State single payer waiver provisions in the Senate healthcare bill - legislative language and fact sheet from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders

Why the 1332 Waiver in the Senate Health Reform Bill is the Only Opportunity for State Single Payer Systems Under the Bill

The health care reform bill passed by the Senate requires that all states set up Exchanges through which private insurance companies could sell their plans. Because federal laws preempt state laws, the federal health care reform bill would supplant any state attempt to set up a single payer system in lieu of an Exchange, which by its nature calls for multiple payers to compete. If the Senate bill is enacted, the only opportunity for states to move toward a single payer system is found in Section 1332. This section would allow a state with a plan that meets certain coverage and affordability requirements to waive out of the requirement to set up an Exchange for private insurance companies. Only with such a waiver could a state move in the direction of a single payer system.

- more -

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/march/state-single-payer-waiver-provisions-in-the-senate-healthcare-bill-legislative-langu

Release: President Endorses State Waiver Proposal

Vermont Delegation and Gov. Shumlin Hail Obama Endorsement of State Health Reform Waiver Legislation

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - The Vermont congressional delegation and Gov. Peter Shumlin today hailed President Obama's endorsement of legislation allowing states to provide better health care at a lower cost starting in 2014.

At a meeting of the National Governors Association Monday morning, Obama announced his support for amending the Affordable Care Act to allow states like Vermont to seek a federal waiver to the new law three years earlier than currently allowed. States would be required to design plans that are at least as comprehensive and affordable as the federal model and cover at least as many people

Last month Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced in the Senate and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced in the House legislation that would advance the date waivers would be accepted from 2017 to 2014. The three joined Gov. Shumlin at a Montpelier press conference to announce the legislation, which would provide Vermont the flexibility it needs to adopt reforms Shumlin is pursuing.

Leahy said, "This is a wise decision that keeps in focus the goal of continually improving health care in America. I applaud President Obama and Secretary Sebelius for supporting efforts by Vermont and other states to go above and beyond what the Affordable Care Act requires. They know that the federal government does not have a monopoly on good ideas, and innovations by the states will prove - and improve --- the benefits of health insurance reform, on the ground, and in practice. While some in Washington want to turn the clock back and repeal the new health reform law, Vermont and other states want to move ahead. Vermont has already been working hard to improve the state's system of health care, and passage of the delegation's waiver bill will move our state one step closer to that goal."

Sanders said, "At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer approach. I am delighted that President Obama announced today that he will, in fact, support allowing states to innovate with health coverage models sooner rather than later. I worked hard to draft and secure the waiver provision in the health reform law and I am very pleased the president now agrees that we should make it available in 2014 as originally intended. While there is a lot of work to be done, I look forward to working with Sens. Leahy, Wyden, Inouye, Brown and others in the Senate and Rep. Welch and others in the House to get this done as soon as possible."

Welch said, "President Obama's support for allowing states to innovate sooner is a good news for Vermont and all states looking to tailor health care reform to individual states' circumstances. This legislation will give Vermont a green light to lead the nation in providing quality health care at a lower cost. I'm hopeful that Democrats and Republicans alike will support this practical step to give states flexibility to achieve progress their own way."

Shumlin said, "I was excited to learn about this today during a visit to the White House. All along officials from Health and Human Services have expressed a willingness to work with us, as long as we don't compromise standards under the law. I think this is an excellent example of how we can work together to control skyrocketing health care costs and implement meaningful health care reform as soon as possible."

A fact sheet on the delegation's "State Leadership in Healthcare Act" is available here.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=44a664de-8e92-43f4-a871-d26e0b5a252d

FACT SHEET

"State Leadership in Healthcare Act‟

Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – the “Waiver for State Innovation” – allows states to waiver out of some of the requirement of federal health reform if they meet certain standards. The provision in the new law was authored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and strongly supported by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

The Sanders-Leahy-Welch “State Leadership in Healthcare Act” moves the availability of state waivers from 2017 to 2014. This would allow a state to avoid the expense of setting up an exchange – which is otherwise required in every state in 2014 – only to dismantle it later.

The federal waiver would allow a state to:

a) Collect all the federal funding and use for financing coverage for individuals through a plan designed by and for that state.
b) Coordinates this waiver process with Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP waiver processes that may be required depending on the design of the system. The state

The federal waiver would not allow a state to:

a) Offer lower quality or less affordable care to their residents than would be available in the exchange.
b) Obtain waivers from the health insurance market reforms implemented under the law such as those benefiting ending the use of pre-existing conditions to exclude individuals from coverage or those allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plans longer.

How does the waiver provision of the law work?
Step 1: The state passes a law to provide health insurance to its citizens.
Step 2: The Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of the Treasury review the state law and determine that the plan is:

a) At least as comprehensive as its residents would receive in the exchange;
b) At least as affordable;
c) Deficit neutral to the federal government; and,
d) Covers at least as many people.

Step 3: If the federal government finds that the alternative state system meets these requirements without certain federal rules, states can get a waiver. The state plan could receive waivers from:

a) The section requiring establishment of the exchange
b) The designs for how federal subsidies would have to reduce premiums and co-pays.
c) The employer penalty for providing coverage
d) The individual mandate.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/graphics/011411state_waiver_fact_sheet.pdf

The Affordable Care Act: Supporting State Innovation
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2012/02/state-innovation02222012a.html

[Phlem]

188. Huh, we agree.

Thought that would never happen.

What I'm saying is that they're doing it and the shame is the fact that we can afford humongous institutions like the MIC but we somehow can't include money for everyone to get health care, in the richest country (supposedly) in the world.

So ya it's true the ACA is better than what we had before, but people are still falling through.

Sounds like the tougher issue is that people don't like change. They're afraid of it

Fear a great tool for the R's and for some here in DU.

[ReRe]

65. K&R

Hey... Didn't we give "capitalism" a good ole college try? I think it might b e time to try something else for an economic system. This one's broke. Besides, socialism is just kinder and gentler to everyone.

[Amonester]

74. Although there are a lot of "Thanks Oba_ma" falsities in her rant, she should try to run nationally

... or pass the ideas of using the internet for popular fundraising... although again, 450 people wouldn't be enough: 60% of voters, perhaps, would...

I am only taking the average worker’s wage while politicians in Seattle and in Congress are totally out of touch with the lives of the rest of us.

We built a grassroots campaign of over 450 people. With almost 100,000 votes, my election was the first time in decades an independent socialist was elected in a major US city.

Americans are hungry for something different. And it’s not just in Seattle. A recent poll showed that sixty percent of Americans want a third party.

Let’s talk about minimum wage. Obama said, “No one working full-time should have to raise a family in poverty.”

And his solution? Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 over 3 years.

I absolutely welcome any step forward on raising the minimum wage. And it is outrageous how the Republican Party is standing in the way.

But let’s be honest: $10.10/hour over three years – or $20,000 per year if you are lucky enough to have a full-time job – is not a ticket out of poverty for working families.

Fast food workers and Walmart workers have gone on strike and built powerful protests in cities in every part of the country over the past year for $15/hour. And that is the only reason politicians are now talking about raising the minimum wage.

Look at the example of the SeaTac $15/hour initiative. A initiative for $15/hour minimum wage was on the ballot – and won!

“Let’s make this a year of action,” Obama said.

In my view, we need action by working people and the poor for higher wages and a $15/hour minimum wage. Action by young people fighting student fees and the debt around their neck for the rest of their life. Action by homeowners against the epidemic of foreclosures. By trade unionists against anti-trade union laws and for workers’ rights.

Get organized!

Get active in your union. Get active in a local movement. Join the struggle to defend the environment.

Join with me and my organization, Socialist Alternative, to challenge big business and fight capitalism.

The epicenter of the fight back in 2014 is the Fight for Fifteen. I urge you to be part of this struggle. Find out more and sign up to get involved at 15Now.org.

[MO_Moderate]

297. Nationally?

[woo me with science]

81. Wow.

[quinnox]

82. *clap clap clap*

[Ichingcarpenter]

83. I saw the video days ago thanks for the text

kick and nominated

[Victor_c3]

87. The only problem with voting for someone other than a "democrat" in a major election is something

like the 2000 election cycle can happen. Had the Nader voters gone for Gore, we wouldn't have had Bush for 8 years.

Now, I'm not in a position to bash people for voting for Nader or Al Gore in 2000 as I was one of those idiots who voted for bush (I was young and still only saw the world through my parents eyes and politics), but at least I got to eat my vote when I was in Iraq and see first hand how much of a mistake that was.

I like seeing third party or independent politicians running for local races, but I don't think they have enough appeal to have any real shot at an upper level office just yet. A representative like Elizabeth Warren in her level is a fluke and realistically isn't they type of person we could ever hope to get elected in more "moderate" regions.

For any real chance at economic change, we also need to sometimes hold our nose and work with some of the groups on the right that also agree with many pieces of the positions we do. For example there is a sizable segment of the right wing that detests over sized corporations just as much as we do. On a personal and one-to-one level, we need to talk to these people and get them to realize that there are sections of both of our positions that we agree on and move from there. We also need to get people on both sides to realize that social issues serve as wedge issues to keep us from recognizing that we agree on many economic issues. From the bottom up, this would change both parties.

[PowerToThePeople]

99. She never loved him.

ODS. Paulite.

[socialist_n_TN]

108. Did you forget the..........

thingy? Calling a Trotskyist, even a right centrist one, a "Paulite" might be a bit unbelievable.

[PowerToThePeople]

110. I thought it was obvious. =)

[socialist_n_TN]

117. I don't believe in obvious around here nowdays.......

[Hell Hath No Fury]

105. Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about...

Reminds me of the Democratic Party of my youth -- the one that inspired me and gave me hope for a better future.

The Clinton/Emmanuel/From embrace of Big Business has been toxic for the Party AND the Country. Time to cut the purse strings and welcome their hatred once again.

[socialist_n_TN]

119. I'm going to repeat this one more time because..........

I think it's important. It reminds you of the Dem Party of your youth because that's EXACTLY WHAT THIS PLATFORM IS! It is a left reformist and populist platform which is what the Dems of 50+ years ago claimed to be.

Now they never really WERE that. They were always a Party of business and capitalism which CLAIMED to be on the side of the working class. And. at least compared to the Republicans, they were more worker oriented. The only place that Sawant's current minimalist program differs from old style Democratic platforms is in calling for a TRUE workers' party. Because class war, over the long term, is a zero-sum game. If workers win, owners lose and vice versa. The Dems, even the Dems of the old days, thought you could find a sweet spot between workers and owners. Over the long term, as has been proven over the last few decades, that spot does not exist. You can't serve two masters without betraying one of them and the Dems will betray workers in order to keep capitalism in place.

[DonCoquixote]

157. sweet spot

" The Dems, even the Dems of the old days, thought you could find a sweet spot between workers and owners. Over the long term, as has been proven over the last few decades, that spot does not exist."

The problem is, there does need to be a balance between right-wing anarchy (what we have) and total control of the state (what the Soviets tried.) The oligarchs and the corporations need to be hacked down, but we do not want to go Robespierre on the lemonade stands.

[1000words]

163. Well said

[socialist_n_TN]

205. There is a balance point. It's the Leninist-Trotskyist way.....

a bottom up system of workplace and neighborhood councils with immediately recallable delegates to state, regional and national conferences to set policy. And nobody makes more than the average income of the area they represent. The people own the commanding heights of industry (a phrase from the Manifesto) and the "necessities of life" and they're both run not for profit, only allowing administrative costs. Smaller, local businesses, as long as they treat their workers right and don't rip off the public, would most assuredly be allowed to carry on. After all, why would a worker's government having control over a trillion plus dollar economy want to even bother with a owner-operator making $20/30k per year?

And most Trots, and I would suspect even Comrade Sawant, wouldn't want to go "...Robespierre on the lemonade stands." Nice phrase BTW. However, going "Robespierre" on the Masters of the Universe boyz will depend ENTIRELY on how they react to having their ill-gotten gains expropriated and redistributed to the people in an economy of need rather than greed.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

160. Yup, that is the damn truth --

The Party of the people/worker was the Dems and the Party of the wealthy/corporations was the GOP. And the more GOPers who leave the currently crazy GOP and join up with the New Dems, the further the Party strays from its pre-Clinton modern roots. The workers are starting to rise again -- about time.

[Phlem]

207. 100% agreed.

-p

[frwrfpos]

109. recommend

Excellent article

[PotatoChip]

114. A little harsh, but still K&R

Tough times call for tough measures, and leaders who will always be willing to take the high road.

[Laelth]

118. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[woo me with science]

120. Kick!

[treestar]

122. The Republicans would lose if they didn't bow down to the Tea Party

Oh, wait.

[AndyTiedye]

191. The "Tea Party" Has Massive Corporate and Media Backing

Our left wing has none of that whatsoever.

[treestar]

260. Massive corporate and media backing seems to work to convince the masses

If that's the way you see it, it's pretty tough for the socialists, I would agree. In that uphill battle, it is odd for them to spend more time rejecting those closer to them on the scale than they do the monied Republicans.

The part of the left that thinks threatening us is going to move the country leftward is just delusional. Frustrated bullies. Not a single middle, independent voter is gained by it. And those are the people needed, like it or not. Stamping feet does no good.

[Octafish]

123. Now THAT's a Mayor.

Guy tells it like it is:

While the criminals on Wall Street are bailed out, courageous whistleblowers like Edward Snowden are hunted down and the unconstitutional acts he exposed are allowed to continue.

Thank you for the heads-up, grahamgreen. This didn't make it onto my television screen or noosepaper.

[socialist_n_TN]

126. Just a slight factual correction..........

The comrade is a gal and she's not mayor, she's a councilmember.

[Octafish]

133. Thank you, socialist _n_TN! My mistake.

Old eyes. Hers -- and yours -- are great ideas.

[socialist_n_TN]

134. Thank you Octafish......

Right back atcha. I DO notice the political stands of some of the poster here and one of them is you.

[Bennyboy]

132. Yeah...

love it.

[840high]

135. ...

[LiberalEsto]

136. K&R

We need thousands more elected officials like this one

[OutNow]

140. I supported the Sawant campaign

and believe she is doing a super job representing the 99%. Yes, I voted for President Obama twice and would vote for him again vs McCain or Romney. But we really do need to push from the left on both local and national political an economic issues. I'm old enough to remember when the Democratic platform called for a repeal of the hated Taft-Hartley Act. Heard about that lately? My God, the Democratic Party didn't even push the union card check law that unions proposed in 2008.

Is $15/hr minimum wage realistic? A better question is "can a family live on the current minimum wage?"

[sadoldgirl]

144. I think there may be a perception problem here

If you mention the word socialism it means to a lot of Americans =communism, dictatorship,and no allowance for enterprize. On the other hand the word capitalism seems= free enterprise, no ( or very few) government interference with business and FREEDOM. The latter is always screamed in capital letters. Therefore I cannot believe that our country will ever understand what socialism means, and much less what it could do for "the people". There is a distinct dislike to look at countries like Sweden or Danmark, since we adore the concept of "exceptionalism". At least that is what I hear and see.

[socialist_n_TN]

152. That's what 175 years of capitalist propaganda will get you.........

But times and people's attitudes DO change. V.I. Lenin once said (paraphrasing), "Sometimes years go by with nothing much happening and sometimes years go by in months." And I think that there's a socialist wave slowly building that will eventually reach a tipping point. The only thing that could blunt that wave is if the capitalists stop doing what they've been doing for the last few decades. Does anybody want to bet they will stop?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

153. Yep. Even though capitalism isn't mentioned in the constitution, it controls our government.

Welcome to DU.

[struggle4progress]

156. It's wonderful she can share insights she's gleaned from her long career in government,

which actually goes way back, to 6 January of 2014

So many Americans think that city councils are elected to help solve problems in town -- but many also have ideas about state or federal government, and some even have ideas about galactic federation

Yet where is the national coverage? Why didn't mainstream media set aside broadcasting time to allow Americans to hear responses to the State of the Union address from city council members across the country?

Kshama Sawant is no political neophyte: in 2012, she even ran for state representative in Washington's 43rd district. That was a historic loss

[djean111]

203. The point is about what she said. You agree, or not.

Oh, and I hear she has boxes in her garage and dumped her boyfriend.

I would rather listen to a fresh perspective than the stale and purchased rhetoric of bought and paid for Washington politicians who have mostly only cared about being reelected. For years.

[grasswire]

240. gettin' under your skin, eh?

This is just the beginning.

[struggle4progress]

245. If she wants to organize the working class, let her organize the working class

If she wants to serve the people of Seattle through the city council, let her do that

But the fact is, if she just wants to run her mouth about the SoTU address, not many will take her very seriously, and she'll lose her seat the next time around: her total political experience to date consists of a few weeks on the Seattle city council -- a slot she won by the rather slim margin of 50.7 to 49.0, and she got squashed in her 2012 bid for a legislative seat about 70 to 30

Talk is cheap, and all politics is local: those are useful adages, which have nothing to do with whether or not you think she gets under my skin

[brentspeak]

288. Could you please change your avatar

from Harriet Tubman -- a pioneering American hero -- to an avatar more representative of your actual views, such as DLC founder Al From or former Senator Joseph Lieberman?

Thanks in advance.

[Autumn]

165. I have to say this and don't get upset.

I think I love this Kshama Sawant of yours. WOW!!!

[bvar22]

173. DURec!

This Democrat wants more of this!

[PigBodine]

179. YES!

Run for President ... You have my vote ... enough is enough.

[colsohlibgal]

209. So Many Are Confused On Socialism

Socialism is an economic term applied to the political arena. Nothing wrong with democratic socialism.

You can still get well off under this system, it's just really hard to get filthy rich.

I think part of the psychology of middle class folks supporting unfettered capitalism is the lottery mind set - I'm going to hit the lottery and when I do I want to pay lower taxes on it. Of course they odds are astronomically against any thing of the sort. So in the end almost every person like that just winds up carrying water for the Walton heirs and their likes.

In the end, even old Henry Ford knew a rising tide lifts all boats, it's not top down, it's bottom up to the top. When people have the money to buy stuff they buy stuff and boom goes the economy.

[Lysistrada]

276. Most don't know what "socialism" is

Yep, nothing wrong with democratic socialism...great point.

[frwrfpos]

232. kick again

[liberal_at_heart]

236. The Socialist Party's platform for education rocks. I just went out and checked it out

and I like their platform even better than the Green Party's on education.

[woo me with science]

295. kick

[MO_Moderate]

298. Her area in Seattle is in no way

representative of the nation as a whole. In fact, she would be lucky to get 1% of the vote on a national level.