Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RollingRock

DNC Platform Watch

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the update RR! I don't think the compromise on education is even close to progressive enough (I actually prefer Jill Stein's position to Bernie's), but it's a start. Hopefully the TPP and fracking conversations are more productive.

 

Josh Fox is awesome! :)

Aleia, I agree that the education changes aren't progressive enough, but they're definitely a big step forward from Hillary's previous stance. I applaud her for stepping up in this regard. I'm a tough critic when it comes to HRC, but I will give credit where credit is due.

 

With this platform battle, Bernie is helping to pave the way for the reported 20,000 Berniecrats who have voiced interest in running for office at the local, state, and congressional levels. In another decade or so, it is my hope that there will be an overwhelming influx of Bernie-minded politicians that will shape America's political future. I'll be retiring about that time, so my heart and hope is with this movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For some odd reason, President Obama loves the TPP.

 

IMO, It is elitism on display. The TPP will, undoubtedly increase the wealth and prestige of the USA. Of course the increased wealth will all go to a tiny segment of the population. Obama is not overly concerned with that. He is concerned that he will be remembered for having brought national greatness, in his historical legacy.

 

Free trade is a feature of Democratic Socialism because it is economically advantageous for all concerned. But Democratic Socialist nations insure that ALL the people benefit from these trade deals. They do it with generous, cradle-to-grave social safety nets and highly progressive tax codes to pay for it.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMO, It is elitism on display. The TPP will, undoubtedly increase the wealth and prestige of the USA. Of course the increased wealth will all go to a tiny segment of the population. Obama is not overly concerned with that. He is concerned that he will be remembered for having brought national greatness, in his historical legacy.

 

Free trade is a feature of Democratic Socialism because it is economically advantageous for all concerned. But Democratic Socialist nations insure that ALL the people benefit from these trade deals. They do it with generous, cradle-to-grave social safety nets and highly progressive tax codes to pay for it.

 

.

Exactly, Bludog. I am by no means against free trade. But free trade must also be *fair* trade, and it must never impoverish some to benefit only a handful. Though.... to be frank, that's what the so-called Third World has experienced for generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMO, It is elitism on display. The TPP will, undoubtedly increase the wealth and prestige of the USA. Of course the increased wealth will all go to a tiny segment of the population. Obama is not overly concerned with that. He is concerned that he will be remembered for having brought national greatness, in his historical legacy.

 

Free trade is a feature of Democratic Socialism because it is economically advantageous for all concerned. But Democratic Socialist nations insure that ALL the people benefit from these trade deals. They do it with generous, cradle-to-grave social safety nets and highly progressive tax codes to pay for it.

 

.

 

Do we get the worst of both worlds in not having the economic advantages of freer trade (and costs of protectionism) while lacking the advanced safety nets? Honest question, as I don't know.

 

Of all the looming issues pending the trade issues (TTP being the most timely) is the one where I feel least truly informed and least qualified to have an independent position based on reasoning of the costs and benefits alone. I have areas were I have a sense of expertise, this is not one of them.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do we get the worst of both worlds in not having the economic advantages of freer trade (and costs of protectionism) while lacking the advanced safety nets? Honest question, as I don't know.

 

Of all the looming issues pending the trade issues (TTP being the most timely) is the one where I feel least truly informed and least qualified to have an independent position based on reasoning of the costs and benefits alone. I have areas were I have a sense of expertise, this is not one of them.

 

Bill

 

I'm no expert. But there are some things I've observed. When these trade deals are made, including TPP, the largest yet, only high level entrepreneurs and investors profit. Ordinary people benefit only in countries that redistribute the wealth by taxes and regulation, using the funds for extensive, cradle-to-grave, social safety nets.

 

So when a nation like the US makes trade deals on a mostly Laissez-Faire basis only those with the financial resources to take advantage will reap the profits. Actually it's not really Laissez-Faire because language is written in that confers repressive authority to the administrators. For instance: Overriding pollution laws of participating nations.

 

The advantages of trade deals are many: They allow the trade engine of the world to operate cooperatively, at maximum capacity, like a well-lubricated machine; Enabling new wealth to be generated at a faster rate. New inventions and technology circulate more freely. Developing countries experience the rise of middle and upper economic classes. Tariffs and import taxes are eliminated between participating countries on products as disparate as autos and heavy machinery to farm produce and seafood ... This is huge.

 

The disadvantages of trade deals, like TPP, mostly hurt the ordinary people who serve as pawns to be exploited. Developing countries use the masses of their ordinary people as, basically, wage slaves, even as a small elite emerges. As wages creep up, industry relocates ... Heavy pollution, deforestation, and degradation of the environment take place at an accelerated level. As wages creep up, industry tends to relocate again

Developed countries experience transition of industrial to a service economy. Jobs are lost and the remaining jobs pay less ... Unemployment and wage stagnation. Wealth inequality accelerates as a tiny percentage of winners rake in the spoils.

 

Few people really understand the intricacies of these trade deals. But we can observe the important effects of those in the past. The TPP would be the biggest, by far. Even entrepreneurs and investors often merely take advantage of opportunities, which open up, without needing a deeper understanding of the dynamic involved.

 

The people that write these deals tend to put profit before all else. They mostly, couldn't care less about the environment. They are happy with arrangements that increase their own wealth at the expense of the large majority. Their whole focus is on their own economic class and its greatness. They are unconcerned with economic inequality. Many participating countries may try to lay claim to the prestige, but most of the vastly wealthy, New Plutocrats have little national loyalty. The World is their oyster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm no expert. But there are some things I've observed. When these trade deals are made, including TPP, the largest yet, only high level entrepreneurs and investors profit. Ordinary people benefit only in countries that redistribute the wealth by taxes and regulation, using the funds for extensive, cradle-to-grave, social safety nets.

 

So when a nation like the US makes trade deals on a mostly Laissez-Faire basis only those with the financial resources to take advantage will reap the profits. Actually it's not really Laissez-Faire because language is written in that confers repressive authority to the administrators. For instance: Overriding pollution laws of participating nations.

 

The advantages of trade deals are many: They allow the trade engine of the world to operate cooperatively, at maximum capacity, like a well-lubricated machine; Enabling new wealth to be generated at a faster rate. New inventions and technology circulate more freely. Developing countries experience the rise of middle and upper economic classes. Tariffs and import taxes are eliminated between participating countries on products as disparate as autos and heavy machinery to farm produce and seafood ... This is huge.

 

The disadvantages of trade deals, like TPP, mostly hurt the ordinary people who serve as pawns to be exploited. Developing countries use the masses of their ordinary people as, basically, wage slaves, even as a small elite emerges. As wages creep up, industry relocates ... Heavy pollution, deforestation, and degradation of the environment take place at an accelerated level. As wages creep up, industry tends to relocate again

Developed countries experience transition of industrial to a service economy. Jobs are lost and the remaining jobs pay less ... Unemployment and wage stagnation. Wealth inequality accelerates as a tiny percentage of winners rake in the spoils.

 

Few people really understand the intricacies of these trade deals. But we can observe the important effects of those in the past. The TPP would be the biggest, by far. Even entrepreneurs and investors often merely take advantage of opportunities, which open up, without needing a deeper understanding of the dynamic involved.

 

The people that write these deals tend to put profit before all else. They mostly, couldn't care less about the environment. They are happy with arrangements that increase their own wealth at the expense of the large majority. Their whole focus is on their own economic class and its greatness. They are unconcerned with economic inequality. Many participating countries may try to lay claim to the prestige, but most of the vastly wealthy, New Plutocrats have little national loyalty. The World is their oyster.

 

Thanks for this. My countervailing concern (which means I have a question, but no definitive position) is what happens to the environment if protectionism makes everyone poorer? It seems to me that one of the things we see as incomes (and the wealth of nation's rise) is that the importance of environmental protection rises. Not to say we haven't seen gaps in the industrialization process where ecological damage happens, but the pattern seems to persist that as as wealth builds, environment protections go up.

 

And the related situation, that when people are desperate the land, air, and water gets short-shrift.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look like a Public Option and Medicare at 55 are both agreed to as improvements on the ACA in the Democratic Platform (as of today).

 

Yippie!

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look like a Public Option and Medicare at 55 are both agreed to as improvements on the ACA in the Democratic Platform (as of today).

 

Yippie!

 

Bill

Those are good things!

 

Unfortunately, the requested amendment against the TPP fell. The articles I read showed it was pretty contentious. Both Bernie and Hillary have come out against the TPP, but Clinton's delegates voted against Bernie's proposed amendment due to the fact Obama wants the TPP. They didn't want to go against the president. Bernie's delegates are pissed and threatening to take the TPP battle to the convention. Arg.

 

All other issues seem to be going well, though.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-defeated-trade-democratic-platform-fight-n606481

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this. My countervailing concern (which means I have a question, but no definitive position) is what happens to the environment if protectionism makes everyone poorer?

 

It seems to me that one of the things we see as incomes (and the wealth of nation's rise) is that the importance of environmental protection rises. Not to say we haven't seen gaps in the industrialization process where ecological damage happens, but the pattern seems to persist that as as wealth builds, environment protections go up.

 

And the related situation, that when people are desperate the land, air, and water gets short-shrift.

 

Bill

 

 

Yes. It's not just the buildup of wealth and increasing industrialization that causes more toxic pollution, inert substance pollution and concentration of CO2/methane in the atmosphere. It's also the increase in world population.

 

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).

  • During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.
  • In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.
  • Because of declining growth rates, it will now take over 200 years to double again.

World population today has reached 7.4 billion.

 

Each one of these people requires food/water, housing, accoutrements, mining, manufacturing, farming and each one produces waste, to include farm, livestock and industrial waste. The more affluence, the more consumed and the more wasted.

 

The manufacturing, required, and waste generated by worldwide military is vast and incalculable, especially during war. A factoid: The M1 Abrams tank burns about a gallon of diesel every half mile. High performance military vehicles, ships, planes are usually not designed with fuel efficiency in mind.

 

Back on subject:

You are right that economic desperation yields environmental indifference. After inviting in a significant portion of the world's manufacturing, China is now suffering the worst pollution ever seen on Earth. Others like Indonesia and India are also feeling the unintended consequences of relatively sudden industrialization.

 

Here in the US, as economic conditions change, the environmental progress of the 1970s, 80s and 90s is being reversed. Mining and drilling have invaded national parks. Fracking is on the increase with its enormous waste of already scarce ground water and the use of toxic chemicals ... And much other activity, destructive of the environment. Conversion to renewable sources of energy, where possible, has been been entirely too slow.

 

For most Plutocrats, bathing in privilege, power and prestige, it is hard to see how they or those they love could be affected by the wastes that helped make them rich in the first place. Most of the ultra-rich feel insulated from the vulnerabilities of lesser folk.

 

There will always be income inequality. But the power to direct the future of humankind must be taken away from from the 1% and placed in the hands of more responsible wards of civilization. For the survival of humankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poverty is also a well-proven driver of population growth.

 

When incomes in the developing world rise, family size drops. As do the age of reproduction (which is delayed) and the population growth stops or even reverses course. And education rises.

 

There is complexity to the issues involved as I see it (as an admitted non-expert).

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poverty is also a well-proven driver of population growth.

 

When incomes in the developing world rise, family size drops. As do the age of reproduction (which is delayed) and the population growth stops or even reverses course. And education rises.

 

There is complexity to the issues involved as I see it (as an admitted non-expert).

 

Bill

 

I totally agree. The best thing that can be done to drive down population is to reduce poverty and increase education. It's shocking how many people will fight this idea tooth and nail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I totally agree. The best thing that can be done to drive down population is to reduce poverty and increase education. It's shocking how many people will fight this idea tooth and nail.

 

Which is a source of concern for me *if* protectionism lead to increased poverty worldwide and associated decrease in education.

 

I don't know if TTP, in particular, is a good trade deal or a bad (or even disastrous) trade deal. I care, as I'm sure we all care, about the health of the American economy, good jobs for American workers (and having a lot more of them, and not seeing our industrial based dismantled with jobs outsourced.

 

I hope we find ways to maximize prosperity and educational opportunities here and abroad.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are good things!

 

Unfortunately, the requested amendment against the TPP fell. The articles I read showed it was pretty contentious. Both Bernie and Hillary have come out against the TPP, but Clinton's delegates voted against Bernie's proposed amendment due to the fact Obama wants the TPP. They didn't want to go against the president. Bernie's delegates are pissed and threatening to take the TPP battle to the convention. Arg.

 

All other issues seem to be going well, though.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-defeated-trade-democratic-platform-fight-n606481

 

It is notable in this article suggests that when "a string of trade union presidents lined up at the microphone to oppose the Sanders amendments that his forces were outmatched" as the thing that carried the day for those opposed to more specific anti-TTP language.

 

I dunno.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which is a source of concern for me *if* protectionism lead to increased poverty worldwide and associated decrease in education.

 

I don't know if TTP, in particular, is a good trade deal or a bad (or even disastrous) trade deal. I care, as I'm sure we all care, about the health of the American economy, good jobs for American workers (and having a lot more of them, and not seeing our industrial based dismantled with jobs outsourced.

 

I hope we find ways to maximize prosperity and educational opportunities here and abroad.

 

Bill

 

Pitting the workers of the developed world against the working people of the undeveloped world is a race to the bottom. The slave-wage workers of today will be in the same position as American workers when their wages go up enough for industry to move on to more desperate parts of the world. Forcing American workers to compete with Chinese or Bangladesh workers is the Plutocratic dream come true. So far, they are getting their way in the US. Brexit was, in part, a protest against further trade deals for the UK.

 

The only satisfactory solution is to liberate the bulk of the stupendous fortunes hoarded at the top. And tax the incomes of the Plutocracy concomitant with how much they make. That is where the problem lies. The Plutocracy is holding much of the overall wealth in paper and electronic investments that simply withhold more wealth from economies. And they are paying almost nothing in taxes on income.

 

The only way, found so far, to make these trade deals beneficial for all the population is the Democratic Socialist model:-- Free trade with highly progressive taxation, to finance cradle-to-grave benefits for workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is why I supported Bernie. His presidential window is now passed. But the Democratic Socialist movement is bound to grow, although it may not continue to be called that.

 

If we cannot achieve Democratic Socialism in the US, we will deteriorate to total Plutocracy, which, in a generation or so, will transform into an Aristocracy, with hoarded wealth for many generations to come. The people here will become severely impoverished and beaten down.

 

When Democratic Socialism is instituted, we can expect prosperity here in the US, and the improvement for the backward areas of the world, also. The very rich will continue to enjoy the lifestyle they to which they are accustomed, giving up only a portion of their surplus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in South America where they drill for oil never minding the indigenous peoples culture along the Amazon. Climbing up and down in the forests that supply a great deal of the Earth's oxygen. So in China where you can't see all the pretty cities built overnight. People, more and more, the statistical truth is there is going to be more tomorrow even though people are killed by poor air and water and crazy weather that makes the oceans rise, making Pacific island nations have to leave their homes.

 

A rich everlasting rich year after year rich vastness only for some, for the some small percentage to preserve. Embroiled in this democracy this democratic watch thread, we wonder why. So manufacturing is gone gone gone forever, skills leaving never to return. Maybe robots, yes, maybe robots, if it were. If it were, democratic, planned well, with human interest the goal.

 

I just want to eat and live and breath good air. I just want to see the kids have half a chance. A good job, maybe at some advertising firm. Maybe not get shot in a simple traffic stop, or maybe not fear something like that.

 

All electronic, but all electronic how...

 

Water is precious, air is too. Mono crops destroying the soil, mass produced. Hundred years ago, everywhere somebody looked was pure nature, except maybe in Chicago or in NY city. There it was dirty and disease ridden, like China now, in some ways, in certain areas worse.

 

 

Rich people create jobs, they create, they sponsor new ideas, schools, institutions. Not a lot of common sense. The voices of common sense lose out some days, more and more each day, maybe slightly, who takes measure of this?

 

It is tough to corral a large group of highly informed folk, who have real idealistic ideas, and who do not want to tread on anyone's free will, like zombies, nuts, or as they say, them liberals do.

 

It's interesting isn't it.

 

Nope.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich people create jobs,

 

Only because they must, OldBarn. Industry without workers is not possible yet. The rich keep wages as low as possible for their corporate bottom line. And they hire law firms, scabs, goons and cops to break strikes and get rid of collective bargaining. The rich would do a lot better at good job creation if forced by government regulation.

 

they create, they sponsor new ideas, schools, institutions

 

Government does these things much better because government can take the long view. But government is ceding it's responsibility more and more to corporations and the rich. Corporations and the rich are uniquely unsuited to sponsoring public institutions and long term research because they are habituated to thinking in the short term .... The quarterly bottom line.

 

Not a lot of common sense. The voices of common sense lose out some days, more and more each day, maybe slightly

 

 

To put it mildly. Except in rare cases, fixation on profit gives corporations and the rich tunnel vision. Putting public policy in their hands is suicide for the entire human species. We need more responsible caretakers of the Planet than the rich.

 

who takes measure of this?

 

Berniecrats

http://berniecrats.net/

For one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is enough to scare the crap out of anyone. :o Well done, Senator Warren.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...