How the Poor and Working Class Can Finally Break the Democratic Party.

[Jayhawker Soule]

And I have little tolerance for those who refuse to see the struggles the working class go through. Welcome to ignore. Hint: you are ignored. Question to people reading this. Why do you put up with people like this?

Though our newly acquired member won't read this (assuming of course that he's good to his word) it's still worth noting the absurdity of his post, especially given that I was an active member of the USWA and, as a steelworker, raising four kids back when he was reaching puberty. And yet, with typical petite bourgeois haughtiness, he deigns to instruct complete strangers on "the struggles the working class go through."

 

[The Hammer]

I guess it's why so many western states are so sparsely populated too.

No that's just the dispersal patterns of how we settled from east to west. It's also why there is still a larger indigenous population in the PNW corner (the last settled), as opposed to in the east. And coasts regardless of location are always the most populous worldwide compared to country interiors.

 

[Kathryn]

No that's just the dispersal patterns of how we settled from east to west. It's also why there is still a larger indigenous population in the PNW corner (the last settled), as opposed to in the east. And coasts regardless of location are always the most populous worldwide compared to country interiors.

You and I agree on something!

 

[The Hammer]

You and I agree on something!

We probably agree on a lot honestly. Biggest difference seems to be social issues/environment. Afaict

 

[Kathryn]

We probably agree on a lot honestly. Biggest difference seems to be social issues/environment. Afaict

And we probably agree on more social issues than we disagree on.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree the American electorate is pretty clueless about politics and history, but between the two parties, I'd bet it's the Democrats who are the more historically 'woke' and seem, in my experience, more likely to be conversant with political history. Their ineffectualness in introducing new bills or bringing them to a vote is, in large part, due to the Corporate funded GOP blocking them.

Well, again, if all you're saying here is that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils, then I agree with this, and I've said it over and over. But what is that really saying?

If you're saying that corporations are calling the shots and preventing the government from addressing the needs of the people, then I would agree with that, too. But it's not just the GOP being funded by these corporations.

Republicans often tend to see things as black or white, ignore secondary and tertiary causes and effects, and follow their guts or leaders.
Some even discourage their kids from going to college because they're seen as hotbeds of liberalism, which has become a bad word lately, for some reason.

Yeah, although this is a rather broad claim. Not much I can address here.

Q: What are some of these failed policies and bad decisions you mentioned?

Oh, well, let's see. Where should I begin?

In 1984, they nominated Mondale instead of Jesse Jackson.

In 1988, they nominated Dukakis instead of Gary Hart.

In 1992, they nominated Clinton instead of Jerry Brown.

Clinton, an admitted pot smoker (although he claimed he didn't inhale) refused to even consider legalizing marijuana, which was also the same stance for the Obama Administration as well. And even Biden only just pardoned marijuana offenders; he didn't push for legalization. (On the other hand, conservatives like William F. Buckley favored legalization.)

And of course, NAFTA would never have been ratified if not for Democratic cooperation. The Republicans were completely unanimous on it, but the Democrats had to have their arms twisted and cajoled a bit before they would go along with it. So, the Democrats tried to fight NAFTA but failed, but only because other Democrats betrayed party principles (which once included supporting the working classes). Now, it's the Democrats who have been the big cheerleaders for free trade, while it's Trump and his crowd who are coming out against it. It's a rather ironic reversal, don't you think?

Another issue where they dropped the ball was in foreign policy and America's general philosophy on military interventionism - something that many Democrats sharply challenged, particularly during the Vietnam War era. When Clinton ran for office, he made a big thing about he and Hillary marching in anti-war protests during those years, but once he got into office, all those supposed principles and ideals vanished into thin air. I guess he never inhaled that, either.

Other bad decisions might revolve around many of the things they didn't even bother proposing, such as price controls and rent controls to give the poor and working classes a break. FDR went along with policies like that, because it was the right thing to do. Democrats of today can't think out of a certain corporate box they operate within. They would never even think of doing something like that now, since the corporations and banksters would balk if they did.

Obamacare was hardly any great shakes, as it was basically just a rehashing of the same flawed healthcare system we've always had. It still sucks even today. They should have implemented socialized medicine, and if the Republicans ever tried to block it, that's when the Democrats could have utilized their own political capital.

You mentioned "Corporate funded GOP" blocking the Democrats, but that would suggest that the Democrats are powerless. I don't think the Democrats are powerless.
They've demonstrated that they do have some fire in their belly and the wherewithal to fight Trump tooth and nail, but can't they utilize the same zeal and resources to fight the corporations? Or is it that they just don't want to? Would you not consider a conscious choice on the part of the Democrats to not fight against the corporations to be a bad decision?

 

[Magic Man]

As I said, you are confusing GDP with what we are actually giving dollar wise (or Euro wise).

As I said, no, I'm not. You brought up GDP. I pointed out that Europe has given more money to aid Ukraine. Since you want them to increase their spending, the important part is how much they're spending.

If you can't see how each country in Europe increasing their military spending would help US servicemembers and their families, there's nothing else I can say to you.

In other words, you can't give any reasons. It just sounds good because it's anti-Europe.

OMG, there are some big, big countries in Europe. France, Spain, Germany for starters. You can't lump them all together.

I mean, you already did. We're talking about this because you brought up "Europe's 'defense spending'". Here's your quote:

"I wish they'd pay for more of their own defense out of their tax dollars."

If you can't lump them all together, then maybe you shouldn't have done that. Also, that quote really shows the issue here. "Their own defense". How have we had to use our military spending to defend Europe since WWII? This gets back to the question I've posed several times, and you've refused to answer. In what specific way would Europe spending more on their militaries affect America's spending on its military? When has Europe been attacked where America had to spend money to bail them out?

The quote here implies that because Europe spends so little on their "defense", it forces America to spend so much. So, explain why that is.

 

[Magic Man]

Keep telling yourself that.

It's kind of true. We're more united than the EU states because they were individual countries first before forming the EU. But the U.S. is still a collection of states with an overall governing body. It's more a difference of degrees than a difference of systemic configuration.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, well, let's see. Where should I begin?

In 1984, they nominated Mondale instead of Jesse Jackson.

In 1988, they nominated Dukakis instead of Gary Hart.

In 1992, they nominated Clinton instead of Jerry Brown.

Who nominated them? The voters. This isn't an example of democrats' bad decision. Also, Jesse Jackson? You think that would have been a good decision? He would have lost worse than Mondale. And Clinton? I mean, he got elected twice and was generally regarded as at least a decent president.

Clinton, an admitted pot smoker (although he claimed he didn't inhale) refused to even consider legalizing marijuana, which was also the same stance for the Obama Administration as well. And even Biden only just pardoned marijuana offenders; he didn't push for legalization. (On the other hand, conservatives like William F. Buckley favored legalization.)

You're really stretching for "bad decisions" here. Legalizing marijuana had very little support until very recently. Of course presidents weren't going to support it, especially our first Black president.

And of course, NAFTA would never have been ratified if not for Democratic cooperation. The Republicans were completely unanimous on it, but the Democrats had to have their arms twisted and cajoled a bit before they would go along with it. So, the Democrats tried to fight NAFTA but failed, but only because other Democrats betrayed party principles (which once included supporting the working classes). Now, it's the Democrats who have been the big cheerleaders for free trade, while it's Trump and his crowd who are coming out against it. It's a rather ironic reversal, don't you think?

Another issue where they dropped the ball was in foreign policy and America's general philosophy on military interventionism - something that many Democrats sharply challenged, particularly during the Vietnam War era. When Clinton ran for office, he made a big thing about he and Hillary marching in anti-war protests during those years, but once he got into office, all those supposed principles and ideals vanished into thin air. I guess he never inhaled that, either.

Other bad decisions might revolve around many of the things they didn't even bother proposing, such as price controls and rent controls to give the poor and working classes a break. FDR went along with policies like that, because it was the right thing to do. Democrats of today can't think out of a certain corporate box they operate within. They would never even think of doing something like that now, since the corporations and banksters would balk if they did.

This is less "bad decisions and failed policies" and more "not left enough for me". Also, I have to do it, but *about him and Hillary (or about Hillary and him).

Obamacare was hardly any great shakes, as it was basically just a rehashing of the same flawed healthcare system we've always had. It still sucks even today. They should have implemented socialized medicine, and if the Republicans ever tried to block it, that's when the Democrats could have utilized their own political capital.

Again, this is more "insufficiently left for me", rather than failed policy or bad decisions. But this is a perfect example. They had to work within the system to get something done. There was no way universal healthcare was going to pass. Even without needing republicans, all democrats were not (and still are not) on board with a real universal healthcare system.

You mentioned "Corporate funded GOP" blocking the Democrats, but that would suggest that the Democrats are powerless. I don't think the Democrats are powerless.
They've demonstrated that they do have some fire in their belly and the wherewithal to fight Trump tooth and nail, but can't they utilize the same zeal and resources to fight the corporations? Or is it that they just don't want to? Would you not consider a conscious choice on the part of the Democrats to not fight against the corporations to be a bad decision?

Democrats are not the monolith you present here. Democrats do fight corporations and work toward better regulations on big businesses. They just aren't fully united under one course of action.

 

[Kathryn]

It's kind of true. We're more united than the EU states because they were individual countries first before forming the EU. But the U.S. is still a collection of states with an overall governing body. It's more a difference of degrees than a difference of systemic configuration.

And I hope the EU maintains the diversity it offers. Which is quite a bit more than we offer currently.

 

[Kathryn]

As I said, no, I'm not. You brought up GDP. I pointed out that Europe has given more money to aid Ukraine. Since you want them to increase their spending, the important part is how much they're spending.

In other words, you can't give any reasons. It just sounds good because it's anti-Europe.

I mean, you already did. We're talking about this because you brought up "Europe's 'defense spending'". Here's your quote:

"I wish they'd pay for more of their own defense out of their tax dollars."

If you can't lump them all together, then maybe you shouldn't have done that. Also, that quote really shows the issue here. "Their own defense". How have we had to use our military spending to defend Europe since WWII? This gets back to the question I've posed several times, and you've refused to answer. In what specific way would Europe spending more on their militaries affect America's spending on its military? When has Europe been attacked where America had to spend money to bail them out?

The quote here implies that because Europe spends so little on their "defense", it forces America to spend so much. So, explain why that is.

Ummmmmmm, both world wars?

You're lumping all of Europe together, and I am looking at individual countries, since there is such disparity between countries.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think you have it backward. The U.S. spends way too much on our military. Vastly more than is necessary for "defense".

And then the question is why you think what they spend affects America. Do you think we're using our "defense" spending to protect Europe? In what way? For instance, take Ukraine. Europe has given them more money in aid than America has. But that's a separate thing from how much each country spends on their military.

 

[Magic Man]

Ummmmmmm, both world wars?

Ummmmmmm, AFTER that? As I said. That was 80 years ago and has no bearing on how much each has to spend right now for "defense". Plus, Russia was even more important than the U.S. in WWII.

You're lumping all of Europe together, and I am looking at individual countries, since there is such disparity between countries.

YOU LUMPED ALL OF EUROPE TOGETHER.

You only stopped in that previous post because you were trying to find a different way to argue, since your original avenue wasn't working out. You want Europe to spend more on "defense" because you think their supposed lack of spending in that area is forcing the U.S. to spend more. You still have yet to address that.

Give examples of Europe being attacked after WWII and needing aid from America because they didn't spend enough on "defense". While you're at it, address the fact that America spends so much on military mostly because of the military industrial complex and cronyism/lobbying, not because we really need much of what we spend on.

 

[Magic Man]

View attachment 95227

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. So over the past 70 years, our spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down. What does that have to do with how much we spend vs. how much Europe spends and why their military spending would affect ours?

 

[Wandering Monk]

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. So over the past 70 years, our spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down. What does that have to do with how much we spend vs. how much Europe spends and why their military spending would affect ours?

You said the United States spends way too much on defense. As a percentage of GDP it spends four times less on defense than on entitlements. Not complaining, just offering perspective. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has caused Western Europe to raise their defense spending. I think the target for NATO nations has been about 3% of GDP, but most still hovered around 2% until recently.

 

[Kathryn]

What does that have to do with how much we spend vs. how much Europe spends and why their military spending would affect ours?

The US has committed to protecting NATO allies and countries within Europe from attack by Russia (which spends more percentage wise of GDP than the US does on it's military). We can't just up and get over there, so we do maintain forces and oftentimes their families throughout Europe. This is at our own cost, not Europe's. The fewer troops and equipment we have over there, the more the different European countries have to shell out.

 

[Magic Man]

You said the United States spends way too much on defense. As a percentage of GDP it spends four times less on defense than on entitlements. Not complaining, just offering perspective.

Whether it has gone down as a percentage of GDP doesn't really matter. We spend much, much more than anyone else on the military (not defense, the military). It's unnecessary. It also doesn't address Kathryn's point.

Also, "entitlements" is too loaded a word. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should make up a huge chunk of the budget. There's good reason to spend so much on them. There isn't good reason to spend as much as we do on the military.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has caused Western Europe to raise their defense spending. I think the target for NATO nations has been about 3% of GDP, but most still hovered around 2% until recently.

That's cool, although it doesn't affect America's spending.

 

[Magic Man]

The US has committed to protecting NATO allies and countries within Europe from attack by Russia (which spends more percentage wise of GDP than the US does on it's military). We can't just up and get over there, so we do maintain forces and oftentimes their families throughout Europe. This is at our own cost, not Europe's. The fewer troops and equipment we have over there, the more the different European countries have to shell out.

1) Russia's GDP is much lower than the U.S.'s.

U.S. GDP - $25.4 trillion
Russia GDP - $2.44 trillion

Percentage of GDP is one helpful data point, but it's not the most useful here. We could spend half as much as them as percentage of GDP and still outspend them in raw dollars by 5 times.

2) Now, all you have to do is show that Europe spending more on their militaries would result in us not maintaining as large a presence there. Then, if you show that, you'd have to show that that would make a significant difference, like reduce our military spending by $100 billion or something.

 

[Kathryn]

1) Russia's GDP is much lower than the U.S.'s.

U.S. GDP - $25.4 trillion
Russia GDP - $2.44 trillion

Percentage of GDP is one helpful data point, but it's not the most useful here. We could spend half as much as them as percentage of GDP and still outspend them in raw dollars by 5 times.

2) Now, all you have to do is show that Europe spending more on their militaries would result in us not maintaining as large a presence there. Then, if you show that, you'd have to show that that would make a significant difference, like reduce our military spending by $100 billion or something.

Well, it cost me around $25k to have packers and movers come to my house and move me just across the country. This is not across an ocean!

And I didn't say anything about Russia's GDP - I said Russia spends more of a percentage of it on the military than we do. But if you don't want to go by GDP, that's fine too. Tell me want you want to go by. Just dollars or dollar equivalents? If that's the case, we REALLY spend more than each European country does. I was going by GDP because that's what most of the charts go by.

You know what - never mind. You're being disingenuous.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, it cost me around $25k to have packers and movers come to my house and move me just across the country. This is not across an ocean!

Ah, good, another personal anecdote that has nothing to do with the topic at hand!

And I didn't say anything about Russia's GDP - I said Russia spends more of a percentage of it on the military than we do.

Uh, you do realize you just completely and directly contradicted yourself, right? "I didn't say anything about Russia's GDP. I said Russia's GDP."

Yes, they spend a higher percentage of their GDP. I pointed out that our GDP is 12 times higher than theirs. So, if we spend 4% of our GDP, they'd have to spend 48% of theirs to match our raw spending.

But if you don't want to go by GDP, that's fine too. Tell me want you want to go by. Just dollars or dollar equivalents? If that's the case, we REALLY spend more than each European country does. I was going by GDP because that's what most of the charts go by.

You mentioned Russia's spending, as if it was relevant, as if them spending a higher percentage of GDP means something. I was pointing out that "percentage of GDP" is useful to a point. Think of it like this. An ant can lift 10+ times its body weight. An average human can lift (let's say bench press) at best 1x their body weight (even that is stretching it). Yet, even though that ant can lift so much more relative to its size, the human can still crush it.

You know what - never mind. You're being disingenuous.

I guess that's easier than actually engaging when you've made a claim. Nothing I've said is disingenuous. You claimed that you want Europe to spend more on "defense", so the U.S. can stop spending so much to protect them. All I've done is ask for your reasoning for that, since the U.S. doesn't really protect Europe, and Europe's military spending doesn't affect America's. You did finally address it to a point in talking about American military members and bases stationed in Europe. But you failed to address the follow-up questions about it, instead focusing on the point about Russia's GDP, despite that being a tangent, rather than a really important point.