Frank's big titted GF, BB, asks How Can We Lose Better?

[dutch508]

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts) http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10028719428

What does making the party more progressive mean?

What values, issues, and policies do you want to see promoted?

I have for months now seen proclamations that the party should be more progressive with no discussion of what that actually means. So what issues do you want to see championed? What goals?

 

Star Member Wounded Bear (14,115 posts)
1. It means we're distracted from the organizing we need to do while arguing about ideological bullshit.

Carry on.

We win by winning! Next question!

Star Member marylandblue (183 posts)
3. economic policy

Medicare for all, raise minimum wage, direct investment in job-producing projects, shore up social security. Raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.

That always works so well, doesn't it!?

Star Member guillaumeb (11,512 posts)
5. I would start with raising taxes.

Raise the top marginal rate to 90% for all income, earned and unearned, over a set amount. Perhaps 5 million dollars per family.

That would only affect the top one hundredth of a percent of all income earners.

Second, cut the war budget by 50%.

Use that money to finance free education from K through college and other things.

Raise Taxes. Cut the Military. Two normal leftist moves.

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
8. and if that results in a large-scale capital flight and a resulting spike in unemployment?

I agree with the rest of your list, but I think a 90% tax rate would be counterproductive.

Ya think?

Star Member guillaumeb (11,512 posts)
11. Some economists estimate that trillions are already hidden overseas. Thus the perceived need for a repatriation tax holiday.

Trump is saying to all those businesses, "Come Home. We will stop gouging you!" and they are. Your plan would make even more companies flee the country.

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
18. $20 trillion, I believe

That doesn't mean that more can't follow. Growth in consumer markets are overseas. Why would businesses stay in that situation, with a 90% tax rate? Why wouldnt' private capital flee at even greater rates?

   Frank? Did you hack your gf's account?

Star Member guillaumeb (11,512 posts)
45. Showing the need for a harmonizing of tax rates. Perhaps something for the UN to consider.

But your argument could also be made to argue against any form of taxation anywhere.

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
58. No, we aren't talking about any kind of taxation

You're talking about taxation in which the person is allowed to keep only 10% of their wealth. An appeal to a global tax rate is not going to work, and you must know that.

The question is what is the goal? Is it to raise revenue to fund state programs, or is it to punish the wealthy? If it's the former, policy has to be based on evidence of what works. If it's the latter, you need to be prepared for a very different kind of economy and govt that will have to cope with declining revenues.

 

Star Member guillaumeb (11,512 posts)
64. Rhetoric aside, trade deals are focused on protecting the rights of the wealthy.

Trade deals could easily focus on harmonizing tax codes and rules about transfer of wealth.

The goal should be raising revenue to fund government. Instead, the GOP has successfully framed the argument to be that any taxation is a taking of wealth that the 1% have supposedly earned.

If the Koch brothers were only worth 1 billion each rather than 40 billion, their lifestyles would not change, but their ability to subvert democratic governance and dialogue would be significantly impaired.

 

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
6. But what happens when environmental concerns conflict with jobs--such as with pipelines and fracking?

Star Member progressoid (40,190 posts)
62. A progressive job plan wouldn't support fracking and pipelines.

It would look for greener alternatives.

zipplewrath (11,075 posts)
10. Middle class support

Especially the lower middle class. Furthermore it needs to get back to the labor union movement. Financial reform will be important too in order to help close the gap between the richest and poorest. That's also going to be a focus on raising the minimum wage. Ultimately it has to get north of $20. We need some immigration reform alright, in the form of rational immigration law.

Then there is climate change and renewable energy.

And we need some work done on the militarization of the police.

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
16. You do realize

there is some conflict between cultivating support among union members and some of the environmental policies commonly championed by progressives.

Clinton was denounced for failing to proclaim a ban to fracking, but people didn't think of much of what was involved in that: jobs; the resulting greater dependence on coal and foreign oil (at least in the interim), and dependence on Middle East oil means for US military entanglements. She had a comprehensive energy policy designed to wean the US off fossil fuels, but that was deemed insufficiently progressive because people found it easier to focus entirely on a ban on fracking, without any discussion about a comprehensive policy to replace it.

She got hammered in the coal regions because she was honest in saying coal wasn't coming back. She proposed an economic development plan to revitalize those areas with other jobs, but her comments on coal were taken out of context and used against her, both in the primary and GE. So the so-called progressive position was. in effect, pro-coal, probably the dirtiest form of energy that exists.

The problem is the issues are far more complicated and nuanced than people like to think about.

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
20. Some good points

I like this:

The solution isn't to adopt environmentally unfriendly policies, it is to establish the working relationship with that voting block so you can communicate the realities of the decisions that need to be made. Trust me, about now, people in Flint would be very friendly towards protecting the nations water supply.

I think the whole Clinton wing argument reveals the sexism that permeates our society and influenced the GE. Hillary Clinton is not her husband, but people were unable and unwilling to see her as a separate person. Ironically, many who professed support for Bill Clinton refused to support her and used aspects of his policies they didn't like to attack her. I don't think a man from the "Clinton wing" would have faced that same situation. Al Gore didn't, not by self-proclaimed progressives.

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
24. Even Warren said Glass-Steagall was largely symbolic

And Bernie abandoned it in his interview with the NY Daily News. It spoke to a public that likes politics simple rather than effective.

I think you're right about how she failed to distance herself from B Clinton's policies we known she privately opposed at the time. That included NAFTA, and her position on trade deals as a senator was deliberately mischarcterized.

The problem with so many critiques of the Clinton administration is that they are made from a presentist perspective rather than in light of the political context of the time. DADT is a key example. It replaced an outright ban on LGBT troops. Do critics really think that was better?

That's also true for the argument the Clinton's turned the party to the right. The country was conservative at the time. The DLC, Third Way thing emerged as a strategy for Dems to try to regain the presidency after being shut out for 20 of 24 yrs. It seems some would have preferred another decade of Reaganism.

I was no fan of Bill Clinton at the time, but I do understand the importance of historical context. I wish others would think about that a bit.

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
36. There was a 1992 primary

And Bill Clinton won. People had the opportunity to support other candidates. They voted for Clinton. To look back decades and blame Hillary for the economic climate of Reaganism makes no sense.

Clinton voted for Iraq, as did Kerry and Biden, neither of which are maligned as Hillary has been. I didn't support Clinton in o8 because of the war, and I protested the war before and after it broke out. But this country and party is full of people who supported the war under Bush but then chose To use it against Clinton 14 years later. I went to many Iraq protests that were scarcely attended. Where the **** were those people then?

Do you really think the right was outraged by DADT because it was more punitive toward LGBT? How does that compute? The law did include legal protections. You can look these things up rather than relying on what someone who wasn't walking at the time says about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

It is also a fact that Hillary tried to implement universal healthcare, something she got no credit for among 21st century critics, despite the fact it was that which led to her being targeted for decades by the right. Only it wasn't single payer, and that was worth turning the government over to billionaires and Russian oligarchs who would overturn ACA. The country has moved to the right but not because Democrats have gotten more conservative. The 2016 platform was more progressive than those in the 80s or 90s. The difference is there was a complacent public who took for granted a great deal that is now being stripped away, and the GOP was aided by a nihilistic contingent who decided they preferred to see the system destroyed than work for the very policies they claimed to support but didn't.

Maybe the lesson should be this. Fight like hell for the issues and candidates you want, but do so without working to promote the GOP and dramatically worsen the lies of everyone but the privileged? Fight FOR something rather than against the Democratic Party and it's nominee? Would it be possible to actually stand for something other than the destruction of the Democratic Party and its candidate? Yes, the party is worse off, in part because people who pretended to be on the left worked to promote Republican power, some of them on the Kremlin's payroll.

Even now when I ask where people want the party to go, and few if any point to values or issues that Clinton didn't champion. Instead, you are repeatedly falling back on views about Clinton personally, that you didn't trust her. Maybe next time people shouldn't be quite so eager to spread the GOP's propaganda? Maybe people who claim to want the country to move left shouldn't do the right's job for them? Maybe they should think about issues rather than how they don't like the Democrat who gets the most votes in the primary? Politics based on personal animus or reverence is not more progressive or leftist. Far from it. In fact, I can think of little more conservative than vesting so much in personality over policy. We see the results of that with Trump supporters, but that tendency extends beyond the GOP. Democracy--not just the Dem party or progressivism but democracy itself--requires better.

 

zipplewrath (11,075 posts)
47. Calm down

I was more than walking at the time, I was working, and I was engaged with the community when it started. They were not thrilled. The more accurate history was that Clinton claimed that the congress was getting ready to enact into law, what the military had already been doing, which was expelling members. He'll even tell you that Powell mislead him on how the law would be used (it remains to the reader to decide if that is accurate). Others saw the law for exactly what it was.

It is true that she tried to enact health care. It's also true she failed. I do wonder how much she was consulted. I do know her failure caused the Obama team to decide they had to pacify the insurance industry.

My entire point in this thread that her primary problem was a complete breakdown in trust with very specific elements of the democratic party. This break down was because of specific positions that she, and her husband, took over the decades. Trust is the important coin of the realm when one is trying to lead. One cannot lead without occasionally having to make "hard' decisions that won't be obvious on the surface. It will take explanation, but also require that the community "trust" that explanation. The Clintons, and much of their larger support system, lost much of that, which is where Bernie came from (and to some extent Obama although I don't think most people understood how much of that community he actually belonged). It's easy to point to a dozen or so statements and policies in which she was involved which eroded this trust. Once lost, that's hard to get back.

Looking forward the real point isn't to re-argue Hillary, the point is that going forward, to advance the democratic agenda, we have to remember to "bring everyone along" as we go. That means building, and maintaining trust as you go with elements that aren't going to understand, and may perceive that they are on the loosing end. It means listening to them, responding TO them, and regularly accommodating and representing them, even when it slows you down on other issues. Triangulating them out of the issue isn't a way to build trust.

 

Star Member Dyedinthewoolliberal (9,390 posts)
38. Take the lead

on single payer healthcare, environmental issues (clean up the air, water and such), vigorously support workers rights and workers rights to unionize and in the words of Bernie Sanders "make the government work for all the citizens, not just the 1%" (or words to that effect). On edit- spend money on infrastructure repairs/upgrades and work to end global warming...

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
41. Are you talking about rhetoric or policy?

Hillary ran on a program to wean the US off fossil fuels. Does that not count as cleaning up the environment?

How do you deal with conflicts between environmental policy and workers concerns about jobs?

How do you create a situation in which the government works for all the citizens? Or is it the messaging that matters more than implementation?

TransitJohn (6,863 posts)
44. End the wars, the illegal spying on Americans, extrajudicial killings, torture, introduce a sane renewable energy policy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, tax the ultrarich and corporations at historic progressive rates, institute a huge inheritance tax, cessation of privatization in our prisons, schools, transit and water supply systems, removal of all lead water pipes in the country, free tuition at public colleges and universities, etc.

 

[Mr Mannn]

all of these idiots fail to understand one important thing: mobility.
if the rich and corporations face a punitive tax...they will LEAVE. who will you tax now?

[Carl]

Libs have always had one campaign playbook...How best to lie to the public about what they intend to do.

[thundley4]

Star Member guillaumeb (11,512 posts)
45. Showing the need for a harmonizing of tax rates. Perhaps something for the UN to consider.

Dear DUmmie,

   The US has some of the highest taxes on businesses in the world. I don't think other countries will agree to raising their corporate tax rates. That leaves the US lowering theirs to the same as most other countries.

As for personal income taxes, those vaunted European countries that you are wont to place in high regard have high tax rates on everyone. Even those on welfare don't escape the VAT.

[freedumb2003b]

44. End the wars, the illegal spying on Americans, extrajudicial killings, torture, introduce a sane renewable energy policy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, tax the ultrarich and corporations at historic progressive rates, institute a huge inheritance tax, cessation of privatization in our prisons, schools, transit and water supply systems, removal of all lead water pipes in the country, free tuition at public colleges and universities, etc.

[freedumb2003b]

Dear DUmmie,

   The US has some of the highest taxes on businesses in the world. I don't think other countries will agree to raising their corporate tax rates. That leaves the US lowering theirs to the same as most other countries.

As for personal income taxes, those vaunted European countries that you are wont to place in high regard have high tax rates on everyone. Even those on welfare don't escape the VAT.

Gotta love the VAT -- the most regressive tax there is.  Talk about womyn and minorities hardest hit...

[Karin]

I think Frank was messing around on her laptop while she napped.   

sorry.

[SVPete]

A few minor adjustments, much more accurate:

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
8. and WHEN that results in a YUGE capital flight and a resulting horrific long-term unemployment?

I like your list, but I know a 90% tax rate would be destructive.

[98ZJUSMC]

Star Member Wounded Bear (14,115 posts)
1. It means we're distracted from the organizing we need to do while arguing about ideological bullshit.

Carry on.

Just what are you going to organize about?  Your crap has been soundly rejected by the heart of this country.  You think you're going to win more of your blue hell holes?

Keep it up.  You have NOWHERE to go, but further left.

[FlippyDoo]

I have an economic plan. I only have a short time so I'll try to be brief and just hit the highlights.

1) Do away with income tax completely. Go with a sliding scale sales tax. For instance, fruits and vegetables would be taxed at 3%(except kale which would be taxed at 40%). Cuts of meat at 5%. Processed meat at 10%. Cheetos at 75%. Luxury items like bongs, rolling papers, pot pipes, yachts, and foreign sports cars would be taxed at 100%.

2) Let anyone who wants to be on welfare get on it. If they are completely disabled they get the minimum wage x 1.5 x 40. If they are not disabled they get minimum wage and must spent 8 hours per day, 5 days per week picking up trash from the roadways and cleaning storm drains and ditches. If they are only partially disabled they get minimum wage and must act as baby sitters for those picking up trash and cleaning storm drains and ditches. If they are discovered not working or lying about their disability their welfare is cut completely off and they can live in the street or with the democrat of their choosing.

3) We allow companies to hire and fire whoever they wish regardless of skin pigmentation or what organ they place into places said organ was not designed to be.

The above just touches on some quick points.

[Big Dog]

I think Frank was messing around on her laptop while she napped.   

sorry.

He sang her to sleep after the lovin', then logged onto the DU and uber-moled the DUmmies.

[Adam Wood]

I got maybe a third of the way through that silly screed before I was picturing BB saying "Ooohh!  Dennis!  There's some lovely filth over here!"

[franksolich]

I got maybe a third of the way through that silly screed before I was picturing BB saying "Ooohh!  Dennis!  There's some lovely filth over here!"

It's too bad you weren't here when Jugs was an active member here.

Myself--as, uh, compared with others--was all nice and polite and cordial and that, until she finally made it clear she thought we were a bunch of retards here, after which I slammed down the rude hammer.

<<<has never presumed to judge the intelligence of anyone.

<<<has never presumed intelligence to be a measure of moral or social virtue.

[BlueStateSaint]

It's too bad you weren't here when Jugs was an active member here.

Myself--as, uh, compared with others--was all nice and polite and cordial and that, until she finally made it clear she thought we were a bunch of retards here, after which I slammed down the rude hammer.

<<<has never presumed to judge the intelligence of anyone.

<<<has never presumed intelligence to be a measure of moral or social virtue.

'Fess up, Frank--it was a lover's quarrel, wasn't it?

[DumbAss Tanker]

It is amusing how she starts off saying some halfway reasonable things about the Prog extremism making them unappealing - and therefore sounds like she is trolling them, which itself is an illustration of how far over the edge they are - and then transitions into a revival of 'What a great gal that Hillary is' after suckering them into the discussion.

[SVPete]

It is amusing how she starts off saying some halfway reasonable things about the Prog extremism making them unappealing - and therefore sounds like she is trolling them, which itself is an illustration of how far over the edge they are - and then transitions into a revival of 'What a great gal that Hillary is' after suckering them into the discussion.

True. She said some things that made amazing sense, given the DU context.

There's this exchange:

Star Member guillaumeb (11,512 posts)
11. Some economists estimate that trillions are already hidden overseas. Thus the perceived need for a repatriation tax holiday.

"Hidden? The $$ was earned outside of the US and mostly kept in the country or region where it was earned, you moron. It's a consequence of US tax law lunacy, with a potential for even worse consequences (e.g., if CA or the US gets all hostile with Apple Computers, they have 10s of billions of $$ outside of the US with which they could rebuild the company outside of the US; once the company has spent the $$ to move out, they aren't going to spend even more $$ to move back!).

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
18. $20 trillion, I believe

That doesn't mean that more can't follow. Growth in consumer markets are overseas. Why would businesses stay in that situation, with a 90% tax rate? Why wouldnt' private capital flee at even greater rates?

BB gets it, almost. The $$ parked outside of the US is largely $$ earned outside of the US. But she is correct that confiscatory tax policies could drive domestic capital out of the US.

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
58. No, we aren't talking about any kind of taxation

You're talking about taxation in which the person is allowed to keep only 10% of their wealth. An appeal to a global tax rate is not going to work, and you must know that.

The question is what is the goal? Is it to raise revenue to fund state programs, or is it to punish the wealthy? ...

Daring to ask that question forthrightly might have gotten a low-post-count noob banned! Of course looting the wealthy is the prime goal of confiscatory tax rates! But that is seldom discussed quite so honestly.

Similarly, these posts might be bannable "offenses" were they from a low-post-count noob:

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
6. But what happens when environmental concerns conflict with jobs--such as with pipelines and fracking?

Star Member BainsBane (39,858 posts)
16. You do realize

there is some conflict between cultivating support among union members and some of the environmental policies commonly championed by progressives. ...

It's no secret that, in the Ds' coalition of causes the Enviros and non-government-worker unions are in direct conflict. The Enviros want to kill steel workers', coal miners', truckers', oilfield workers', etc. jobs; the various industrial unions "represent" those very workers (misrepresent, IMO, but that's another topic altogether) and those union dues are the unions' revenue. But again, acknowledging this fact and discussing compromises and other ways to work through that conflict is rank heresy!

But, yeah, then she wanders off into a La-La-Land of Clinton paeans.