PDA

View Full Version : President Elizabeth Warren?? The Emergence of the Third Left



IMPress Polly
11-13-2013, 08:20 AM
Here I'll be continuing my recent theme on the Democratic Party's turn back to progressive politics since the 2008 crash.

Most of the linked video here (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/minimum-wage-hike-more-popular-than-sunshine-63285315542) focuses on a discussion of the possibility that the federal minimum wage will be raised to something like $10 an hour (which would amount to returning the minimum wage almost to its 1968 record high, which equated to $10.63 an hour in today's money), BUT about three-quarters of the way through there's an interview with that guy from the New Republic magazine (certainly not known for its progressive views in recent decades) who authored that article Hillary's Nightmare (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare) on the prospect of Hillary Clinton having to compete with Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic Party's nomination for president in the 2016 election cycle. That's the part I'd like to focus on here because the author makes it clear in this interview that a leftist "political rock star" like Warren would start the nomination race off with the ideological upper hand because her type of worldview is where the party's heart and soul lies today. He estimates that the more pro-corporate, pro-Wall Street wing of the party composed about half its membership in 2008 before the crash, but today composes a maximum of one-third. He suggests that, as a result of this change, a leftist "political rock star" like Elizabeth Warren would be a force to be reckoned with if she were to run for the presidential nomination. Some news commentators have made comparisons between the suggestion of a Warren presidential bid and that of John Edwards in 2008, given that both have backwards as trial lawyers and consumer advocates and, as such, represented the more economically populist wing of the party. Specifically, they highlight the fact that Edwards came in third in 2008 in what was essentially a three-way contest for the party's nomination. That's a poor comparison for two reasons: 1) the party's ideological composition has changed fundamentally since the 2008 crash in a way that favors economic populism, and 2) the 2008 nomination race was mainly about the Iraq War, which wasn't Edwards' central focus on the campaign trail (though he did have a strong anti-war position), whereas since the crash the main focus of Democrats, as with population generally, has shifted away from foreign policy and onto economic issues. But of course it's not just Democrats deciding who will be our next president. The general population doesn't seem to be as progressive as the average Democrat, after all. For instance, exit polls from last year's presidential election found that slightly more voters (49% to 48%) preferred Mitt Romney's platform on economic issues to Obama. Obama therefore won the difference between that 48% and the 51% of the vote he actually got on the basis of social issues. If the public still has a slight preference for Romney-esque right wing economics to Obama's centrist positions on economic issues, then what does that say about prospects of a leftist like Warren when it comes to the GENERAL election? (You see, America is still a bourgeois nation after all; a nation of property owners; of net beneficiaries of the capitalist system.) Democrats, including the progressive ones, are aware that ideological differences between their membership and the general population exist and that those differences favor more right-leaning stances when it comes to economics. A centrist DLC candidate like Hillary would therefore raise the question of Warren's electability, doubtless to some effect, in competing with a candidate like Warren. The question is to how much effect. (e.g. Could Warren conceivably defeat someone like Chris Christie?) I too have my doubts that a progressive candidate could win the 2016 general election (sorry Rachel, I don't share your optimism on that), but nonetheless feel that it's at least worth a shot.

Anyway, beyond presidential politics, the implication that someone like Elizabeth Warren could today win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is symptomatic of a broad trend that I've observed the development of since the 2008 crash. The trend I refer to is the ascendancy of a new, if you will third left. What do I mean by that? Well let me break it down by defining the stages that progressive thought has been through over the last century:

The First Left, alternately known as "the old left", was defined by economic populism: politics like that of Woodrow Wilson and the Roosevelts. This was New Deal type leftism that tended to push cultural issues into the background the same way that most Republican libertarians (like Ted Cruz) are trying to do today: to the extent of pretty much just ignoring them. It was defined by a worker-farmer alliance that included and in many ways revolved around a major movement to organize the poorer, less "skilled" (read: educated) workers of the day, which were primarily industrial workers, and which also sought to protect the farmer from foreclosure by the common foe these forces had in the financial aristocracy. After World War 2, this alliance began to slowly break apart and was mostly destroyed by the 1970s, as the agrarians left the party in protest of progressive cultural reforms.

The Second Left, once termed "the new left" by the Students for a Democratic Society, was defined primarily by a focus on foreign policy and cultural issues (e.g. ending the Cold War peacefully, ending racial segregation and discrimination very broadly, etc.) and secondarily by the aim of consolidating the achievements of the New Deal by eradicating poverty (as per the objective of Johnson's Great Society). In terms of its demographic composition, the leadership of this movement differed from that of the first left in that the movement was founded and perpetually led by college students, whom in those days were broadly a middle class strata. The post-war baby boom had increased the percentage of the population that the youth composed and therefore their overall political strength as a group. Their demands hence came to the forefront of the national debate and their energy produced a wave of upheaval. This second, "new left" captured overall control of the Democratic Party after the 1968 presidential election, reaching the zenith of power and influence during the period of 1970-74. George McGovern was the most ideologically clean major party candidate of this student movement: the presidential candidate who most represented the views of the youth. But it was not to last, for the youth won the bulk of their main demands on the one hand, while, on the other, the baby boom ended by the mid-1960s thanks to the advent of birth control, thus, together with improved health care (as concentrated in the Medicare and Medicaid programs introduced in the mid-'60s under Johnson), ensuring that the population would henceforth age. With the aging of the population, the relative political strength of the youth gradually declined and by the end of the 1970s, partially as a result, social conservativism was on the ascendancy and the upheaval of the era was all but gone, by which point the strength of the American left in general began to drop off.

The Third Left is a sort of new "old left" built centrally around economic issues, but which also secondarily includes the demands for social equality of second left. This third left has emerged just since the crash of 2008 and is the direct product thereof. While the youth remain an important part of the Democratic Party, and one which forms much of its left wing, today college students increasingly belong to the ranks of the working poor rather than to the middle class as in '60s. Their interests have therefore changed. They, together with many others, are today facing the consequences of the termination of key items of the New Deal like the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that led directly to the financial excesses that produced the recent Great Recession and have now therefore tasked themselves primarily with the restoration of the New Deal; of what thereof has been lost in recent decades. The Occupy movement was one concentration of this third left, as has been the movement to unionize the working poor of today that has emerged over the last year. It is this third left that is today the Democratic Party's source of energy. With the ranks of poor people and low-income workers swelling, the re-emergence of economic populism has been a natural consequence.

To some extent, the essential trends that I've highlighted here are and have been by no means exclusive to this country at that, as I think you can all gather. I'm just focusing here on the particulars that apply to the United States.

Cigar
11-13-2013, 08:28 AM
Hummm I don't know ... maybe VP to Hillary.

I really do like Elizabeth Warren, she's brilliant and direct.

But in the Right-Wing Conservative thinking, especially from their leaders like Rush, Hannity, Cruz and Paul, she'd be called a Bitch.

... and a Bitch is exactly what the Democratic Party needs. Enough of this nice guy shit.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 08:30 AM
The election and popularity of individuals like Mayor de Blasio and Sens. Sanders and Warren is certainly encouraging. After our recent crop of Democrats like Obama and the Clintons, I had feared that American leftism was all but doomed to the ash heap of history, save for a small minority of us.

Now, I'm not so certain. The Libertarians are growing in power, as are us of the (I prefer this term) True Left. I predict that as the years progress, the Old Guard Republicans and Democrats will become so toxic, that us of the Third Way will only grow in strength. The new generation certainly seems to be mostly split between Libertarians and True Left (or Third Left, as you say).

I, personally, am encouraged. The odds seem to be increasingly in our favor.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 08:32 AM
Hummm I don't know ... maybe VP to Hillary.

I really do like Elizabeth Warren, she's brilliant and direct.

But in the Right-Wing Conservative thinking, especially from their leaders like Rush, Hannity, Cruz and Paul, she'd be called a Bitch.

... and a Bitch is exactly what the Democratic Party needs. Enough of this nice guy shit.

Hillary is part of the Old Guard. She is no longer relevant. We should be seeking new, fresh individuals with newer and fresher ideas, such as Sen. Warren.

The Clintons, and the McCains, and the Romneys, and the Bushes, should all fade into obscurity. The new generation doesn't need Old Guard dynasties.

Libhater
11-13-2013, 08:45 AM
Hummm I don't know ... maybe VP to Hillary.

I really do like Elizabeth Warren, she's brilliant and direct.

But in the Right-Wing Conservative thinking, especially from their leaders like Rush, Hannity, Cruz and Paul, she'd be called a Bitch.

... and a Bitch is exactly what the Democratic Party needs. Enough of this nice guy shit.

She's more than just your average liberal bitch, she's a full fledged communist.

Mainecoons
11-13-2013, 08:46 AM
Well, we've got a faux black in the White House now, why not a faux Indian?

:rofl:

nathanbforrest45
11-13-2013, 08:48 AM
How many early front runners have gone on to win the nomination? Generally they either burn out or they are so badly trashed they become ineffective.

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 08:51 AM
I'm from Massachusetts and I doubt she could win nationally. There are too many speeches of hers out there from colleges or groups shes spoken to. She's easily distressed over comments that don't go her way, she flakes mid speech, and you can't have that in a CIC. Hillary has balls. You may not like her politics or you may but people agree she is tough. The armed forces don't respect the current CIC because he comes across as being weak. People joke about Hillary having more balls than he does. With Warren people will look at her and see her shake and voice get shrill, they'll remember the "Indian" thing and outside of Mass it won't fly. If I were the DNC I'd pick Hillary.

nathanbforrest45
11-13-2013, 08:58 AM
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. ... You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Sound familiar?

I especially like the marauding bands thing.

Libhater
11-13-2013, 08:59 AM
I'm from Massachusetts and I doubt she could win nationally. There are too many speeches of hers out there from colleges or groups shes spoken to. She's easily distressed over comments that don't go her way, she flakes mid speech, and you can't have that in a CIC. Hillary has balls. You may not like her politics or you may but people agree she is tough. The armed forces don't respect the current CIC because he comes across as being weak. People joke about Hillary having more balls than he does. With Warren people will look at her and see her shake and voice get shrill, they'll remember the "Indian" thing and outside of Mass it won't fly. If I were the DNC I'd pick Hillary.

As a former Taxachusetts resident myself, and an arch enemy of the former governor Dukakis's tax policies (thus my move to NH), I have listened to this commie woman speak during her campaign against Scott Brown, and even the United Socialists base of Boston/Harvard Square were shocked at just how far left this screeching pathetic excuse for a woman had gone.

Cigar
11-13-2013, 09:20 AM
Hillary is part of the Old Guard. She is no longer relevant. We should be seeking new, fresh individuals with newer and fresher ideas, such as Sen. Warren.

The Clintons, and the McCains, and the Romneys, and the Bushes, should all fade into obscurity. The new generation doesn't need Old Guard dynasties.

I'd Vote for Warren in a minute ... she speaks the undisputed truth and that scares a lot of the establishment.

But as you can read in this thread ... the "C" word (communist) is a catchall for everything the TeaBaggers don't like. :laugh:

Cigar
11-13-2013, 09:21 AM
How many early front runners have gone on to win the nomination? Generally they either burn out or they are so badly trashed they become ineffective.

Notice the fear already ... :laughing7::Skeert:

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 09:24 AM
I'd Vote for Warren in a minute ... she speaks the undisputed truth and that scares a lot of the establishment.

But as you can read in this thread ... the "C" word (communist) is a catchall for everything the TeaBaggers don't like. :laugh:

I've already suggested you stop using "teabagger" to define your opposition, because it reflects badly on you, not them. You think you are invincible, that you have a lock on all elections for the foreseeable future, but you aren't. 56% of state and federal elected offices are still held by Republicans. You can't even dent that figure, yet expect to never have to really work for voters that aren't already yours.

If you want to win and win big, you have to put down the rhetoric, lose the negativity, and focus on positive affirmations. Smugly assuming that you're going to win it all just because only turns people off, not on.

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 09:25 AM
I'd Vote for Warren in a minute ... she speaks the undisputed truth and that scares a lot of the establishment.

But as you can read in this thread ... the "C" word (communist) is a catchall for everything the TeaBaggers don't like. :laugh:

Actually there are speeches where she has used the "C" word and they will come up in a national election.

Chris
11-13-2013, 09:27 AM
Polly, your new left sounds like the old left inasmuch as the focus is on economic equality, iow, use of government coercion to make people equal, rule of man, rather than rule of law. All that's really happened then is progressives dropped the label progressive because it was associated with such negatives as euthanasia and support for fascists and communist, and latched onto the label liberal--now that that label has been sullied, hoping Americans have short memories, they reuse the label progressive. A rose by any other name would be as thorny.

One thing progressives have and will never learn is you cannot design, own or manage economies, only distort them with economic interventions. You want for example a rise in minimum wage. But most any economist will tell you that harms the very people you intend to help. Why is a rise needed, because of government interventions already driving up inflation and making the dollar worthless. So you're pushing for something that sounds great in intention but has historically always failed--communism, fascism, social democracy.

Progressives never learn...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

Cigar
11-13-2013, 09:28 AM
Actually there are speeches where she has used the "C" word and they will come up in a national election.

I think anyone who uses it should be asked to prove it ... period.

Then move on

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 09:29 AM
Actually there are speeches where she has used the "C" word and they will come up in a national election.

I guess I'm one of the few for whom the "c" word doesn't invoke fear.

nathanbforrest45
11-13-2013, 09:31 AM
As a former Taxachusetts resident myself, and an arch enemy of the former governor Dukakis's tax policies (thus my move to NH), I have listened to this commie woman speak during her campaign against Scott Brown, and even the United Socialists base of Boston/Harvard Square were shocked at just how far left this screeching pathetic excuse for a woman had gone.


My son lives in Merrimack and works in Boston. He refers to expat Mass residents as Massholes

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 09:31 AM
I think anyone who uses it should be asked to prove it ... period.

Then move on

I actually hope they do run her. People outside of Mass don't know that much about her and people inside Mass are used to voting blue. She can win here but as soon as her brand of crazy leaves the state she'll be a detriment to Democrats. I almost think she's being pushed to make Hillary look moderate and Democrats reasonable when they support Hillary.

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 09:32 AM
My son lives in Merrimack and works in Boston. He refers to expat Mass residents as Massholes

New Hampshire? Merrimack's so different now. Before I went into the Corps it was all trees. Now it has the new minimall. We used to drive into Kittery for that stuff. Now we just go up 4. Well, when I'm home. I'm in VA now.

Cigar
11-13-2013, 09:36 AM
I've already suggested you stop using "teabagger" to define your opposition, because it reflects badly on you, not them. You think you are invincible, that you have a lock on all elections for the foreseeable future, but you aren't. 56% of state and federal elected offices are still held by Republicans. You can't even dent that figure, yet expect to never have to really work for voters that aren't already yours.

If you want to win and win big, you have to put down the rhetoric, lose the negativity, and focus on positive affirmations. Smugly assuming that you're going to win it all just because only turns people off, not on.

Here's the difference;

I'm on a political forum
I'm NOT running for any office
I personally couldn't care less what "anyone" thinks of me.

Lastly ... The Tea Party get's exactly the respect they "publicly" give.

So if anyone doesn't like the term TeaBagger ... maybe they should consider how they use rhetoric, lose the negativity, and broad brush negative accusations on other people.


... if the words from the hood; don't start none and there won't be none.

Cigar
11-13-2013, 09:39 AM
I actually hope they do run her. People outside of Mass don't know that much about her and people inside Mass are used to voting blue. She can win here but as soon as her brand of crazy leaves the state she'll be a detriment to Democrats. I almost think she's being pushed to make Hillary look moderate and Democrats reasonable when they support Hillary.

I don't expect anyone to have a prefect past, no one does ... but I do expect people who are going to criticize others, to better be aware of their own past and voting record.

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 09:40 AM
I guess I'm one of the few for whom the "c" word doesn't invoke fear.

It should. I don't particularly respond well to robbery and having someone like Warren believe she has a right to take a large portion of my check and give it to someone else because I "allegedly" got something.

What is the "something" I got that I'm paying forward? I got shot at. I got a piece of hot metal in my lower back. I got high taxes. I got shitty roads for those high taxes PLUS tolls --FUCK YOU NEW ENGLAND!--I got some of the most disorganized health service providers and they want to grow that across the country.

No thanks. If we get an Elizabeth "privatize banks" Warren into power I will move. If I want to live in a socialist state I'll move somewhere that's more tropical and less surveillance-y.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 09:52 AM
It should. I don't particularly respond well to robbery and having someone like Warren believe she has a right to take a large portion of my check and give it to someone else because I "allegedly" got something.

What is the "something" I got that I'm paying forward? I got shot at. I got a piece of hot metal in my lower back. I got high taxes. I got shitty roads for those high taxes PLUS tolls --FUCK YOU NEW ENGLAND!--I got some of the most disorganized health service providers and they want to grow that across the country.

No thanks. If we get an Elizabeth "privatize banks" Warren into power I will move. If I want to live in a socialist state I'll move somewhere that's more tropical and less surveillance-y.

I think you give the President more power than they have. A President Warren would only get what Congress allows her to get. If you don't like her economics, push for a majority in Congress that agrees with your economics. Then, you'll block her economic views and share her civil liberties views.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 09:57 AM
Here's the difference;

I'm on a political forum
I'm NOT running for any office
I personally couldn't care less what "anyone" thinks of me.


You should. Like it or not, your actions affect more than just you. You may not be running for office, but your words and actions will still affect how people see the person you support.

As for not caring what people think of you, that only works so far. Nobody wants to hire an asshole. Being tough doesn't do you any good when you're living on the streets because you can't get a job by being a dick. Sometimes, you just have to care.

Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't want to go through life with people seeing me as something I'm not.


Lastly ... The Tea Party get's exactly the respect they "publicly" give.

So if anyone doesn't like the term TeaBagger ... maybe they should consider how they use rhetoric, lose the negativity, and broad brush negative accusations on other people.


... if the words from the hood; don't start none and there won't be none.

You're not getting it. "Teabagger" isn't an insult, or shouldn't be. "Teabagger" means they are "teabagging" someone. If you are their opposition, you're the one getting teabagged. Getting teabagged is not a good thing, being the teabagger is. The teabagger is a teabagger because he has so thoroughly destroyed you that he is now desecrating your body.

I'd rather be the teabagger, than the teabagged. You're obviously not under 30 :tongue:

Cigar
11-13-2013, 09:57 AM
It should. I don't particularly respond well to robbery and having someone like Warren believe she has a right to take a large portion of my check and give it to someone else because I "allegedly" got something.

What is the "something" I got that I'm paying forward? I got shot at. I got a piece of hot metal in my lower back. I got high taxes. I got shitty roads for those high taxes PLUS tolls --FUCK YOU NEW ENGLAND!--I got some of the most disorganized health service providers and they want to grow that across the country.

No thanks. If we get an Elizabeth "privatize banks" Warren into power I will move. If I want to live in a socialist state I'll move somewhere that's more tropical and less surveillance-y.

In the town I live in, there was one major two lane route to the closest main highway; largely used by trucks during the day. The community wanted to widen the road and restrict the size and times trucks used this road for two reasons; safety and business development.

The Obama Stimulus and Local Tax dollars were used to add more lanes, better exits and better and direct routes for Trucking access.

Since then, several new businesses were built, business has shot-up and safety had greatly improved.

Yea for "everyone" ...

nic34
11-13-2013, 10:03 AM
One thing progressives have and will never learn is you cannot design, own or manage economies, only distort them with economic interventions. You want for example a rise in minimum wage. But most any economist will tell you that harms the very people you intend to help. Why is a rise needed, because of government interventions already driving up inflation and making the dollar worthless. So you're pushing for something that sounds great in intention but has historically always failed--communism, fascism, social democracy.

Progressives never learn...


It's already been shown on these forums that productivity and profitability is at all an time high while all that prosperity has translated to flat workers wages. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/ The higher profits haven't "trickled" down as the Reagan revolution had promised, in fact there has been a loss in labor’s income share.

It has also been shown that most studies show nearly no effect on job loss when the minimum wage is increased.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/Doucouliagos-Chart.png

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss


Chris, what you always seem to omit is what happens when "government" and "regulation" is weakened or removed. (Glass Steagall, Sherman Act) When corporations are left to their own devices the millionaires and billionaires will be right there to fill the void. And all that matters to them is profits, while workers and society in general are nothing but a means to those riches.

Conservatives never learn...

junie
11-13-2013, 10:04 AM
she's not yet ready for prime-time, imo.




Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 10:00 AM PDT

Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton in 2016: Great for women, the Democratic Party, and America (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/11/1229123/-Elizabeth-Warren-vs-Hillary-Clinton-in-2016-Great-for-women-the-Democratic-Party-and-America)

Cigar
11-13-2013, 10:08 AM
You should. Like it or not, your actions affect more than just you. You may not be running for office, but your words and actions will still affect how people see the person you support.

As for not caring what people think of you, that only works so far. Nobody wants to hire an asshole. Being tough doesn't do you any good when you're living on the streets because you can't get a job by being a dick. Sometimes, you just have to care.

Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't want to go through life with people seeing me as something I'm not.



You're not getting it. "Teabagger" isn't an insult, or shouldn't be. "Teabagger" means they are "teabagging" someone. If you are their opposition, you're the one getting teabagged. Getting teabagged is not a good thing, being the teabagger is. The teabagger is a teabagger because he has so thoroughly destroyed you that he is now desecrating your body.

I'd rather be the teabagger, than the teabagged. You're obviously not under 30 :tongue:

I have my own business and I provide a service and expertise that people pay for. My business, my product, my reputation speaks for me ... not a political forum ... enough said on that.

You're Correct (TeaBagger is and Insult)

It use to be a time (say 5 years ago) that waving the confederate flag in front of the White House and The Capital of The United States of America and disrespect for the Office of The President was considered and insult. It use to be a time that political opposition and political opponents like Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan could disagree during the day and have drinks at night. But those days are clearly over.

Trust me ... with all my heart ... the last people on Planet Earth who should be preaching about Reputation and Respect, is The Tea Party.

Cigar
11-13-2013, 10:09 AM
It's already been shown on these forums that productivity and profitability is at all an time high while all that prosperity has translated to flat workers wages. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/ The higher profits haven't "trickled" down as the Reagan revolution had promised, in fact there has been a loss in labor’s income share.

It has also been shown that most studies show nearly no effect on job loss when the minimum wage is increased.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/Doucouliagos-Chart.png

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss


Chris, what you always seem to omit is what happens when "government" and "regulation" is weakened or removed. (Glass Steagall, Sherman Act) When corporations are left to their own devices the millionaires and billionaires will be right there to fill the void. And all that matters to them is profits, while workers and society in general are nothing but a means to those riches.

Conservatives never learn...

When I saw that last night ... I hit the floor laughing. :laugh:

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 10:14 AM
I think you give the President more power than they have. A President Warren would only get what Congress allows her to get. If you don't like her economics, push for a majority in Congress that agrees with your economics. Then, you'll block her economic views and share her civil liberties views.

This was true before Bush. Now the use of Executive Orders and signing statements has given the President near legislative powers that he never had before. He also picks the heads of Bureaucracy and with a supportive Senate he or she can do a lot of damage.

She has said she wants to nationalize the banking system and believes that its okay to take "a chunk" of money from me and give that chunk to someone else because we all pay it forward. I never got "a chunk". I got bureaucracy. That's not the same as cash.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 10:15 AM
I have my own business and I provide a service and expertise that people pay for. My business, my product, my reputation speaks for me ... not a political forum ... enough said on that.

You're Correct (TeaBagger is and Insult)

It use to be a time (say 5 years ago) that waving the confederate flag in front of the White House and The Capital of The United States of America and disrespect for the Office of The President was considered and insult. It use to be a time that political opposition and political opponents like Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan could disagree during the day and have drinks at night. But those days are clearly over.

Trust me ... with all my heart ... the last people on Planet Earth who should be preaching about Reputation and Respect, is The Tea Party.

I am not a member of the Tea Party, nor will I ever be in the future. I am the one preaching about reputation and respect, because I try to keep a good reputation and show respect to everyone, regardless of how much we disagree.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 10:17 AM
This was true before Bush. Now the use of Executive Orders and signing statements has given the President near legislative powers that he never had before. He also picks the heads of Bureaucracy and with a supportive Senate he or she can do a lot of damage.

She has said she wants to nationalize the banking system and believes that its okay to take "a chunk" of money from me and give that chunk to someone else because we all pay it forward. I never got "a chunk". I got bureaucracy. That's not the same as cash.

I find a hard time opposing her position on banks. Banks caused our economic problems in the first place, and even as private institutions cause untold damage. She wasn't supported by any banks, and they still oppose her to this day. That's a good mark, imo. It's like if Goldman Sachs or Monsanto refused to support a candidate.

Cigar
11-13-2013, 10:18 AM
If anyone who lives in The UNITED States of America and isn't happy with the UNITED part, should probably look into relocating to a Country where the Surrounding Boarders are The All-In for themselves type.

Cigar
11-13-2013, 10:22 AM
I find a hard time opposing her position on banks. Banks caused our economic problems in the first place, and even as private institutions cause untold damage. She wasn't supported by any banks, and they still oppose her to this day. That's a good mark, imo. It's like if Goldman Sachs or Monsanto refused to support a candidate.

I find it somewhat confusing how lately, Conservatives find the word Slavery useful in making their many of their arguments, as if somehow they know what what it's like. But don't see our own Banking industry swelling larger that ever before only 4 years after the Biggest Economic Disaster of our life-time and how much they hold this country hostage.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 10:29 AM
I find it somewhat confusing how lately, Conservatives find the word Slavery useful in making their many of their arguments, as if somehow they know what what it's like. But don't see our own Banking industry swelling larger that ever before only 4 years after the Biggest Economic Disaster of our life-time and how much they hold this country hostage.

It's a buzz word, nothing more. It's like Democrats throwing around words like "terrorism," "treason," "hostage," and "extortion." It's designed to invoke an emotional reaction in people so their judgement is impaired and they react on emotion, rather than logic and reason.

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 10:51 AM
I find a hard time opposing her position on banks. Banks caused our economic problems in the first place, and even as private institutions cause untold damage. She wasn't supported by any banks, and they still oppose her to this day. That's a good mark, imo. It's like if Goldman Sachs or Monsanto refused to support a candidate.

Wait. You want the US government to be the bank?

Cigar
11-13-2013, 10:56 AM
It's a buzz word, nothing more. It's like Democrats throwing around words like "terrorism," "treason," "hostage," and "extortion." It's designed to invoke an emotional reaction in people so their judgement is impaired and they react on emotion, rather than logic and reason.

It's worked, in 2008 and 2012 :wink:

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 10:58 AM
I find it somewhat confusing how lately, Conservatives find the word Slavery useful in making their many of their arguments, as if somehow they know what what it's like.

Do you know what it's like? I don't want to assume anything. You could have grown up working for Nestle in west Africa, mining diamonds, or were a sex slave.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 11:00 AM
Wait. You want the US government to be the bank?

Heavens no. I don't even want the U.S. government to exist.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 11:00 AM
It's worked, in 2008 and 2012 :wink:

Of course it works. If it didn't, it wouldn't be used. That doesn't make it a good thing.

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 11:03 AM
Heavens no. I don't even want the U.S. government to exist.

She wants government banking. Have you actually listened to her? This government banking will pick a private bank and route through that as a subcontractor.

keymanjim
11-13-2013, 11:04 AM
It's already been shown on these forums that productivity and profitability is at all an time high while all that prosperity has translated to flat workers wages. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/ The higher profits haven't "trickled" down as the Reagan revolution had promised, in fact there has been a loss in labor’s income share.

It has also been shown that most studies show nearly no effect on job loss when the minimum wage is increased.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/Doucouliagos-Chart.png

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss


Chris, what you always seem to omit is what happens when "government" and "regulation" is weakened or removed. (Glass Steagall, Sherman Act) When corporations are left to their own devices the millionaires and billionaires will be right there to fill the void. And all that matters to them is profits, while workers and society in general are nothing but a means to those riches.

Conservatives never learn...
That's what you get when you start with the desired results and tailor the "study" to make those results fit.
But. reality tells a different story:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/keymanjim/media/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg.html)

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 11:07 AM
She wants government banking. Have you actually listened to her? This government banking will pick a private bank and route through that as a subcontractor.

I have listened to her. I don't agree with everything she believes, and some of it I find just plain wacky. But unlike most of our politicians, I think she means well and doesn't have the same evil donors.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but he's still one of my intellectual godfathers and I love the man dearly.

Libhater
11-13-2013, 11:11 AM
My son lives in Merrimack and works in Boston. He refers to expat Mass residents as Massholes

Yeah, I went to Pentucket Regional H.S. where we had students from Groveland, West Newbury and Merrimack rounding out the populace. Yeah, when I moved to the Live free or die state of NH I had a bumper stickers that included Massholes, Taxachusetts and slogans like welcome to NH Mass liberals--now turn around and go back home. How unfortunate that my beloved NH has turned into a melting pot for Mass liberals and the leftist agenda to ruin that great state. All of New England has now become an amalgamation of blue stated commies. So sad.

Chris
11-13-2013, 11:11 AM
It's already been shown on these forums that productivity and profitability is at all an time high while all that prosperity has translated to flat workers wages. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/ The higher profits haven't "trickled" down as the Reagan revolution had promised, in fact there has been a loss in labor’s income share.

It has also been shown that most studies show nearly no effect on job loss when the minimum wage is increased.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/Doucouliagos-Chart.png

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss


Chris, what you always seem to omit is what happens when "government" and "regulation" is weakened or removed. (Glass Steagall, Sherman Act) When corporations are left to their own devices the millionaires and billionaires will be right there to fill the void. And all that matters to them is profits, while workers and society in general are nothing but a means to those riches.

Conservatives never learn...



You offer political opinion and myth, nic, not economic facts. That's a nice graph. All it says is someone who supports min wage divided studies into those it felt were methodologically sound and those that it felt were not. Didn't you bother to go to the source of the study, or did it just look like it supported your opinion? All it says if if you bias your judgement of methodology of analysis you end up with no support either way. Here's the source: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/2008_14eco.pdf. In it they cite the following:

“However, even a careful review of the existing published literature will not provide an accurate
overview of the body of research in an area if the literature itself reflects selection bias.”
—De Long and Lang (1992; 1258)

That's all you've found, bias vs bias. Then your source misread and misrepresented the findings.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 11:11 AM
That's what you get when you start with the desired results and tailor the "study" to make those results fit.
But. reality tells a different story:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/keymanjim/media/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg.html)

I may be wrong, but your graph doesn't appear to show a correlation. Even when the minimum wage appeared flat from the start of the graph to about '04, the unemployment rate still spiked, and steadily rose until '02, where it went slightly back and forth. The unemployment rate also remained constantly rising from '07 to '09, despite the minimum wage staying flat a few times. Finally, your graph shows unemployment dropping some at the end, despite the minimum wage being high.

Again, I could be wrong, but I don't even see a correlation, let alone causation. It seems to me that the rise in unemployment has little to do with minimum wage, and more to do with the greater economic problems we've faced in this country, namely rising inflation and dirty tricks in the housing and banking industries. I'm not an economist in any sense of the word, though, so take my analysis with a whole salt shaker.

nic34
11-13-2013, 11:12 AM
That's what you get when you start with the desired results and tailor the "study" to make those results fit.
But. reality tells a different story:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/keymanjim/media/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg.html)


Dude, that's a link to your photobucket page. But the graph itself is a representation of teen employment only.
Talk about "tailoring" data to fit your narrative.....

Terminal Lance
11-13-2013, 11:13 AM
I have listened to her. I don't agree with everything she believes, and some of it I find just plain wacky. But unlike most of our politicians, I think she means well and doesn't have the same evil donors.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but he's still one of my intellectual godfathers and I love the man dearly.

I don't think she means well. I think she wants to move us to a centralized bank operated by the only bank currently to have a superior "rating". I think you give her credit for being stupid and she's not.

keymanjim
11-13-2013, 11:15 AM
Dude, that's a link to your photobucket page. But the graph itself is a representation of teen employment only.
Talk about "tailoring" data to fit your narrative.....
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/uetc.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/keymanjim/media/uetc.jpg.html)

You were saying?

nic34
11-13-2013, 11:17 AM
You offer political opinion and myth, nic, not economic facts. That's a nice graph. All it says is someone who supports min wage divided studies into those it felt were methodologically sound and those that it felt were not. Didn't you bother to go to the source of the study, or did it just look like it supported your opinion? All it says if if you bias your judgement of methodology of analysis you end up with no support either way. Here's the source: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/2008_14eco.pdf. In it they cite the following:

“However, even a careful review of the existing published literature will not provide an accurate
overview of the body of research in an area if the literature itself reflects selection bias.”
—De Long and Lang (1992; 1258)

That's all you've found, bias vs bias. Then your source misread and misrepresented the findings.

In other words, you can't dispute anything except to assume there is bias. Welcome to reality.

There were other graphs and data that I posted. Don't suppose you want to tackle all that tho....

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 11:20 AM
I don't think she means well. I think she wants to move us to a centralized bank operated by the only bank currently to have a superior "rating". I think you give her credit for being stupid and she's not.

We already have a central bank, though. That's essentially what the Federal Reserve is.

nic34
11-13-2013, 11:21 AM
keyman, whay can't you post a link? Data outdated? Or is it just bogus?

keymanjim
11-13-2013, 11:24 AM
keyman, whay can't you post a link? Data outdated? Or is it just bogus?
The link is on the picture.

Chris
11-13-2013, 11:30 AM
In other words, you can't dispute anything except to assume there is bias. Welcome to reality.

There were other graphs and data that I posted. Don't suppose you want to tackle all that tho....

Uh, nic, it's you who has not disputed anything.

Go to the source study, I provided you a link, what I said is what the study found. It found one area of methodological bias which if they filtered that out said the effects of min wage on job loss were reduced. It found nothing to support the conclusions of your source.

Here's the other problem, the effect of minimum wages as most economist argue it is not just to kill jobs as you've distorted it, but to make it more difficult fr young people and less skilled people to find jobs.

Again, I cite the Concise Encycloedia of Economics on Minimum Wage (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html):


...Most economists believe that minimum wage laws cause unnecessary hardship for the very people they are supposed to help.

The reason is simple: although minimum wage laws can set wages, they cannot guarantee jobs. In practice they often price low-skilled workers out of the labor market. Employers typically are not willing to pay a worker more than the value of the additional product that he produces. This means that an unskilled youth who produces $4.00 worth of goods in an hour will have a very difficult time finding a job if he must, by law, be paid $5.15 an hour. As Princeton economist David F. Bradford wrote, “The minimum wage law can be described as saying to the potential worker: ‘Unless you can find a job paying at least the minimum wage, you may not accept employment.’”2...

jillian
11-13-2013, 11:46 AM
Hummm I don't know ... maybe VP to Hillary.

I really do like Elizabeth Warren, she's brilliant and direct.

But in the Right-Wing Conservative thinking, especially from their leaders like Rush, Hannity, Cruz and Paul, she'd be called a Bitch.

... and a Bitch is exactly what the Democratic Party needs. Enough of this nice guy shit.

i like elizabeth warren. i still think she'd have been brilliant running the consumer protection agency. and i know she'll be a great senator.

but president? i don't know... firstly, i don't know her views on much of anything besides consumer protection and banks. secondly, not knowing those views, i couldn't say whether she'd be electable.

and i don't foresee a female pres/vp ticket.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 11:50 AM
keymanjim or Chris, forgive me if you guys are preparing to respond and I'm just impatient, but I wanted to make sure you guys didn't miss Post #47 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/18731-President-Elizabeth-Warren-The-Emergence-of-the-Third-Left?p=422337&viewfull=1#post422337). I'm genuinely curious to see if my concerns have any weight.

jillian
11-13-2013, 11:51 AM
That's what you get when you start with the desired results and tailor the "study" to make those results fit.
But. reality tells a different story:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/keymanjim/media/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg.html)

you mean it doesn't say what you want it to.

Chris
11-13-2013, 11:57 AM
Dude, that's a link to your photobucket page. But the graph itself is a representation of teen employment only.
Talk about "tailoring" data to fit your narrative.....



Teen employment is one area most affected.

The Xl
11-13-2013, 12:00 PM
It should. I don't particularly respond well to robbery and having someone like Warren believe she has a right to take a large portion of my check and give it to someone else because I "allegedly" got something.

What is the "something" I got that I'm paying forward? I got shot at. I got a piece of hot metal in my lower back. I got high taxes. I got shitty roads for those high taxes PLUS tolls --FUCK YOU NEW ENGLAND!--I got some of the most disorganized health service providers and they want to grow that across the country.

No thanks. If we get an Elizabeth "privatize banks" Warren into power I will move. If I want to live in a socialist state I'll move somewhere that's more tropical and less surveillance-y.

Haha, Warren said she wants to privatize banks? You don't have to worry, that shit won't happen here. Not in a million years. It's not like our banking system could be more fucked, anyway. At that point, you'd go from being run by bankers to run by government. Neither is more preferable, really.

The Xl
11-13-2013, 12:03 PM
I find a hard time opposing her position on banks. Banks caused our economic problems in the first place, and even as private institutions cause untold damage. She wasn't supported by any banks, and they still oppose her to this day. That's a good mark, imo. It's like if Goldman Sachs or Monsanto refused to support a candidate.

Regardless of whether or not that's true, she's either lying or has a 0% chance of being elected. Take your pick.

Chris
11-13-2013, 12:03 PM
From earlier post:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg



I may be wrong, but your graph doesn't appear to show a correlation. Even when the minimum wage appeared flat from the start of the graph to about '04, the unemployment rate still spiked, and steadily rose until '02, where it went slightly back and forth. The unemployment rate also remained constantly rising from '07 to '09, despite the minimum wage staying flat a few times. Finally, your graph shows unemployment dropping some at the end, despite the minimum wage being high.

Again, I could be wrong, but I don't even see a correlation, let alone causation. It seems to me that the rise in unemployment has little to do with minimum wage, and more to do with the greater economic problems we've faced in this country, namely rising inflation and dirty tricks in the housing and banking industries. I'm not an economist in any sense of the word, though, so take my analysis with a whole salt shaker.

I see what you're seeing but I also see from '03 to '06 a drop in unemployment which suggests leaving the min wage alone, doing nothing there, allows the economy to self-adjust. What we see from that point on is rising min wage and rising unemployment, and, all else being equal, suggests a strong correlation. Of course all else is never equal. Trying to isolate two economic factors is never fruitful.

Inflation alone could be the cause. But who's raising inflation but the same government raising min wage? Both are neoKeynsian pipedreams.

The Wash
11-13-2013, 12:04 PM
I like a lot of what she is saying but the fact that she chose to run under one of the two corrupted parties tells me who she is really working for. We must be as wise as serpents, because that is what these people are.

The Xl
11-13-2013, 12:05 PM
I like a lot of what she is saying but the fact that she chose to run under one of the two corrupted parties tells me who she is really working for. We must be as wise as serpents, because that is what these people are.

The fact that she's running as a Democrat and is on record saying she wants to privatize banks is a giveaway that she's in on it. It's kinda like Obama when he said he'd go after bankers, heavily insinuated that he'd push single player, that he stop the wars, etc.

The Wash
11-13-2013, 12:06 PM
The fact that she's running as a Democrat and is on record saying she wants to privatize banks is a giveaway that she's in on it. It's kinda like Obama when he said he'd go after bankers, heavily insinuated that he'd push single player, that he stop the wars, etc.

Jeffries typo'd himself. She wants to create a national bank. Big mutherfucking difference. A national bank where all of our funds are overseen by the government. Any fool can see where that will lead. Bitcoin and Litecoin ftw.

The Xl
11-13-2013, 12:12 PM
Jeffries typo'd himself. She wants to create a national bank. Big mutherfucking difference. A national bank where all of our funds are overseen by the government. Any fool can see where that will lead. Bitcoin and Litecoin ftw.

I really doubt that will happen. I think the bankers are quite fine with their fraudulent system as it is. If they're going to make any push, it will be for a global currency. And I expect that to be the "solution" after the next collapse.

The Wash
11-13-2013, 12:13 PM
I really doubt that will happen.

You don't? Watch as a manufactured financial crisis of the 2008 variety happens under her or Hillary's watch. There will be pressure on the part of Europe and other nations to stabilize our system.

The Xl
11-13-2013, 12:15 PM
You don't? Watch as a manufactured financial crisis of the 2008 variety happens under her or Hillary's watch. There will be pressure on the part of Europe and other nations to stabilize our system.

I think the "stabilization" will be a one world currency. I think their will still be all the same banks you normally see in the mix.

The Wash
11-13-2013, 12:18 PM
I think the "stabilization" will be a one world currency. I think their will still be all the same banks you normally see in the mix.

Those banks already killed the first group of small to mid sized banks with the last meltdown. The next will take out the rest, and the one world currency will run straight through Rothschild banking apparatus. The fact that "no banks" supported warren doesn't not mean that they oppose her, it means that they are slick.

The Xl
11-13-2013, 12:21 PM
Those banks already killed the first group of small to mid sized banks with the last meltdown. The next will take out the rest, and the one world currency will run straight through Rothschild banking apparatus. The fact that "no banks" supported warren doesn't not mean that they oppose her, it means that they are slick.

I guess it all depends what she meant by privatizing banking. If she meant blowing them up as private institutions and having them run by government, then I doubt that. If it worded slickly and it's something else, then maybe.

Either way, I don't see Warren being anything other than a stooge for bankers, just like Obama.

Green Arrow
11-13-2013, 12:22 PM
From earlier post:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/unemp-vs-min-wage_zps8f4d7f84.jpg




I see what you're seeing but I also see from '03 to '06 a drop in unemployment which suggests leaving the min wage alone, doing nothing there, allows the economy to self-adjust. What we see from that point on is rising min wage and rising unemployment, and, all else being equal, suggests a strong correlation. Of course all else is never equal. Trying to isolate two economic factors is never fruitful.

Inflation alone could be the cause. But who's raising inflation but the same government raising min wage? Both are neoKeynsian pipedreams.
Alyosha said once that if we got rid of the federal reserve, there'd be no need of a minimum wage. I agree with that statement. I think if we got rid of the artificial inflation the Fed creates, wages would be fine.

Chris
11-13-2013, 12:38 PM
Alyosha said once that if we got rid of the federal reserve, there'd be no need of a minimum wage. I agree with that statement. I think if we got rid of the artificial inflation the Fed creates, wages would be fine.

With its quantitative easing and other stimuli all it's doing is printing magic money to increase the money supply and drive its value (purchasing power) down. Who's that going to hurt, well, all of us, it's like a tax, but most of all minimum wage earners who no longer earn enough.

Chris
11-14-2013, 05:15 PM
Warren gets this right.

Elizabeth Warren to Regulators, Congress: End ‘Too Big to Fail’ (http://www.thenation.com/blog/177140/elizabeth-warren-regulators-congress-end-too-big-fail):


It’s been more then five years since the financial sector collapsed, triggering a deep recession that many Americans are still struggling to shake off. Not so the big banks. They’re larger, more powerful and more dangerous than ever before, Senator Elizabeth Warren warned Tuesday at an event examining the state of financial reform since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010.

Warren’s speech was an indictment not only of the financial institutions that “have fought to delay and hamstring the implementation of financial reform,” after “exploiting consumers, larding their books with excessive risk, and making bad bets,” but also of the regulators and lawmakers—many from her own party—who are refusing to hold the financial sector to account....

...According to Warren, Wall Street behemoths still threaten to sink the system because regulators have failed to set the rules. The agencies responsible for implementing the reforms outlined in Dodd-Frank have missed more than 60 percent of their deadlines. Fewer than half of the regulations mandated under the law have been finalized, and more than quarter havenot even been written. While missing deadlines, regulators have been busy meeting with the big banks—2,118 times since Dodd-Frank passed, fourteen times as many meetings as they’ve held with advocates of financial reform.

“Since when does Congress set deadlines, watch regulators miss most of them and then take that failure as a reason not to act?” Warren asked. “I thought that if the regulators failed, it was time for Congress to step in. That’s what oversight means.”

Bush and Obama were wrong to bail them at our expense and to their benefit. The primary failure was government's inability to regulate. Economist Arnold Kling addressed this some time ago in The Political Implications of Ignoring Our Own Ignorance (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/the-political-implications-of-ignoring-our-own-ignorance):


A common post-crisis narrative is that banking was de-regulated in the Reagan-Greenspan era. Some pundits make it sound as if regulators behaved like parents who hand their teenagers the keys to the liquor cabinet, leave for the weekend, and say “Have a good time.” In fact, regulators believed that they had stronger regulations in place in 2005 than they did in the pre-Reagan era.



—Before 1980, mortgage loans held by banks were illiquid assets subject to considerable interest-rate risk. These problems were alleviated by the shift toward securitization.

—Before 1980, insolvent institutions were opaque because of book-value accounting. This problem was addressed with market-value accounting, enabling regulators to take more timely corrective action to address troubled institutions.

—Before 1980, banks had no formal capital requirements and there were no mechanisms in place to steer banks away from risky assets. This problem was addressed with the Basel capital accords (formally adopted in 1988), which incorporated a risk-weighted measure of assets to determine required minimum capital. In the 2000s, these risk weightings were altered to penalize banks that did not invest in highly rated, asset-backed securities.



Thus, it was not the intent of regulators to loosen the reins on banks. On the contrary, from the regulators' point of view, it was the environment prior to 1980 that amounted to leaving the teenagers with the keys to the liquor cabinet. The post-1980 regulatory changes were believed to be in the direction of tighter supervision and more rational controls.

AmazonTania
11-14-2013, 06:23 PM
It's already been shown on these forums that productivity and profitability is at all an time high while all that prosperity has translated to flat workers wages. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/ The higher profits haven't "trickled" down as the Reagan revolution had promised, in fact there has been a loss in labor’s income share.

It has also been shown that most studies show nearly no effect on job loss when the minimum wage is increased.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/Doucouliagos-Chart.png

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss


Most studies based on the minimum wage are based on metrologies and computer simulations, with a slight variance on government data.

You don't really need a study. Just look at real life. Or American Samoa if you really want to be convinced.


Chris, what you always seem to omit is what happens when "government" and "regulation" is weakened or removed. (Glass Steagall, Sherman Act) When corporations are left to their own devices the millionaires and billionaires will be right there to fill the void. And all that matters to them is profits, while workers and society in general are nothing but a means to those riches.

Conservatives never learn...

And you're still using Glass Steagall as an excuse, despite not even understanding it the first time (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/18031-What-we-have-learned?p=403650&viewfull=1#post403650)?

You never learn...

The Sage of Main Street
11-14-2013, 06:41 PM
Here's the difference;

I'm on a political forum
I'm NOT running for any office
I personally couldn't care less what "anyone" thinks of me.

Lastly ... The Tea Party get's exactly the respect they "publicly" give.

So if anyone doesn't like the term TeaBagger ... maybe they should consider how they use rhetoric, lose the negativity, and broad brush negative accusations on other people.


... if the words from the hood; don't start none and there won't be none.

They present us with a cavalcade of clowns tooting kazoos and expect us to respect them out of common courtesy. But respect has to be earned. That goes for the Occupuppies too.

Professor Peabody
11-14-2013, 09:14 PM
Just what we need another liberal egghead Professor who couldn't tell the difference between her own ass and a Cuisinart if she looked at her both at the same time. I'll vote for her in the primary.

IMPress Polly
11-17-2013, 09:26 AM
Green Arrow wrote:
I, personally, am encouraged. The odds seem to be increasingly in our favor.

Automatic rep point for referencing The Hunger Games. :grin:

However, as a fan, I note that the reference might not be in the right kind of context. The expression "May the odds be ever in your favor" alludes to the idea that one is playing the enemy's game (perhaps out of a lack of viable alternatives), whereas I'd contend that a democratic set-up is not necessarily the enemy's game. The more applicable analogy IMO would lie in the question of whether say Afghans have a vote in our elections, given that our military is occupying their country and thus playing a major role in shaping their policies. However, on the other hand, in the context of a bourgeois (i.e. propertied) society, democracy does tend to work against the proletariat (the unpropertied strata), so...in that sense, maybe it's applicable to us after all. Or maybe I'm taking this fandom-based analogy too seriously. :wink:

The prosperous, pompous, tyrannical, superficial Capitol is America, folks, if not rich (read: exploiter) nations in general. The trilogy is clearly intended as mainly a critique of imperialism. The exploited, poor districts that the games aim to both punish and entertain allude to the barbarians at the Roman gates; the barely-contained global poor whose powerful rage simply waits to be unleashed. We First World egalitarians are a minority that take the side of the barbarians at the gates -- and may even become the barbarians at the gates as this century progresses and America becomes a poorer nation. Democracy will work against us until we are the majority.


The Libertarians are growing in power, as are us of the (I prefer this term) True Left. I predict that as the years progress, the Old Guard Republicans and Democrats will become so toxic, that us of the Third Way will only grow in strength. The new generation certainly seems to be mostly split between Libertarians and True Left (or Third Left, as you say).

As many of you know, based on the youth trends, I've predicted that libertarianism will ultimately become the prevailing right wing ideology in this country and democratic socialism the prevailing left wing ideology. Future generations will view economic issues as the main ones. The difference between this consensus and that of the first left/right dynamic is that the first had a virtual consensus favoring right wing cultural positions, whereas this new left/right dynamic features a virtual consensus favoring left wing cultural positions. However, I would caution that that prediction is based simply on what the CURRENT trends are and that, as we've seen of late in Greece for example, social conservatives (in particular of a fascistic variety) can make a big political comeback under conditions of severe national exploitation, as in Weimar Germany. Such conditions tend to eliminate laissez-faire views, so the left/right dynamic then ranges from the radical left, built around opposing the economic exploitation of the nation, and a fascistic right wing that's built around cultural issues, and in particular around opposing immigration (i.e. stuff viewed as cultural exploitation of the nation). The emergence of such an alternative left/right dynamic would become possible in this country as well under conditions of national bankruptcy, which is where we're headed in the long run.


Cigar wrote:
Hummm I don't know ... maybe VP to Hillary.

I really do like Elizabeth Warren, she's brilliant and direct.

But in the Right-Wing Conservative thinking, especially from their leaders like Rush, Hannity, Cruz and Paul, she'd be called a Bitch.

... and a Bitch is exactly what the Democratic Party needs. Enough of this nice guy shit.

Any female major contender for the presidency will be called that by political opponents. Gendered terms like that aim to put "uppity" women "in their place". It's analogous to calling a guy a "dick", save for that "bitch" is a more frequently used term. The implication in each case is that it's in the nature of one's sex to be uppity or angry or a jerk and that one needs to learn to control their impulses better and be more...shall we say quiet and perhaps submissive. Any woman running for high political office (who actually has a chance of winning it) will be viewed as "uppity" by a lot of people. You can bet that the threat of America acquiring its first female president will see the more sexist members of our society up in arms. Every expression of misogyny known to humankind will come out. Hillary is a woman and will therefore be every bit as subject. In fact, she already has been to some degree. For example, who can forget the "IRON MY SHIRT!" guy from that Hillary rally in 2008? (Would anyone have said that to a male candidate?) Or the (fortunately canceled) Freedom Works video where a lady dressed as Hillary receives oral sex from a another woman dressed as a panda representing "panderers"? (Would a sexually-explicit scene have been filmed if the candidate were male?) If the Democrats (or the Republicans for that matter) nominate a woman, you can expect a lot more of that kind of crap. Doesn't matter what her persona, worldview, intelligence level, or qualifications are. Might as well pick the one you really prefer, hence.

As to the suggestion of Hillary getting the vice presidential nod...okay I guess. Morally, I'd prefer the VP nod go to another progressive instead, but, thinking strategically here, I'm for whatever keeps the existing center-left Democratic Party coalition together on election day.


nathanbforrest45 wrote:
How many early front runners have gone on to win the nomination?

I don't think I'd exactly characterize Elizabeth Warren as the "frontrunner". However, I will say this: usually people mentioned early on as candidates (though not necessarily the early frontrunners) do go on to win the nomination. For example, people talked about Hillary and Obama for a long time before the 2008 cycle and they respectively went on to come in first and second place. (Hillary actually won the balance of the Democratic Party's vote (i.e. the base had a slight preference for Hillary, the early-on frontrunner), but Obama won the nomination by marshalling a large minority of Democrats and a broad swath of independents, (i.e. outsiders to the party, who tend to be right of its prevailing politics.))


junie wrote:
she's not yet ready for prime-time, imo.

That's what lots of the Obama detractors said about him too. The simple reality of the 21st century is that you don't necessarily require a lot of experience as a politician to win high public office. This age of downward mobility is marked by public anger. People often like political insurgents these days. That said, I actually do think you're probably right though in the sense that her particular perspective might not necessarily yet be sufficient to overcome a popular rightist like Chris Cristie, who just defeated a Warren-like candidate for the New Jersey governorship in a landslide. However, there are caveats. First off, Warren is a lot bettern known that Buono. Secondly, 2016 America won't be 2013 New Jersey in terms of its demography; the nation at large is poorer than New Jersey and thus perhaps a bit more amenable to the message of a progressive like Warren. Bill de Blasio just won the mayor's seat in New York City in an even bigger landslide with a demography that's not TOO different from that of the nation overall, so who is to say? Then again, de Blasio wasn't going up against someone with Cristie's reputation. Nonetheless, I think it's at least worth a shot. You don't know until you try. Either way, I think it's important that she at least run. Just by being a candidate for the nomination alongside Hillary, she would set an encouraging precedent for women. Globally speaking, only 21% of public offices are held by women and we're being the world average at 19% of our Congress. Hence those kinds of encouraging precedents -- races with multiple female candidates -- badly need to be set in this country if only in order to encourage more women to seek public office. If memory serves, this hypothetical contest including both Hillary and Warren would be the first major party presidential nomination race in U.S. history to feature more than one female contender.

Chris
11-17-2013, 10:13 AM
I've predicted that libertarianism will ultimately become the prevailing right wing ideology in this country and democratic socialism the prevailing left wing ideology.

Except libertarianism is not right wing, polly, it stands against your statist socialism. See Statism: Whether Fascist or Communist, It's The Deadly Opposite of Capitalism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/18803-Statism-Whether-Fascist-or-Communist-It-s-The-Deadly-Opposite-of-Capitalism).

"democratic socialism", social democracy, same old same old. Since the socialist conceded the economic calculation and coordination problems back in the 90s, they've been embracing social democracy.

The Wash
11-17-2013, 10:26 AM
This thread reminds me of something I need to do.

Blackrook
11-17-2013, 11:21 AM
I think it's great that a white politician can claim to be part Indian and take advantage of affirmative action, and still get elected. What a great country we live in!!!

The Wash
11-17-2013, 11:34 AM
Technically she allowed herself to be used for Affirmative Action credits by Harvard. She did not apply for them. Then she allowed herself to be listed over and over as a native American when at best she was 1/36. I am more than that and I tell people I'm black. Why? Cuz I'm black. Native Americans had a struggle that none of us can relate to and she's a giant bitch for robbing a piece of that heritage.