Jump to content
zkyllonen8

Could this strategy of worked for Bernie?

Recommended Posts

 

During this Video Harvey Kaye the author of the Book "FDR on Democracy", breaks down what Bernie could have done during the primary. 

 

Could have bringing up FDR helped Bernie in the long run? 

 

Quote from the Video "The failure of Democrats is why we do not have a national health care system. Even Nixon had plans for a national healthcare system." 

 

I have to agree with the author in this case, this is the Democrats fault for not delivering Americans a National Health Care system. They are suppose to be the party of FDR but have fallen short of what he wanted for the future of america. 

 

It has been almost 80 years since the passing of the original Social Security Bill, why is it so hard for Democrats to realize that if they take a piece of the FDR playbook they would be more successful.  

 

I hope the Democrats in the future, realize their shortcomings and truly become the party of FDR once again, and not the party of Insurance Companies and Corporations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2020 at 11:40 AM, zkyllonen8 said:

 

During this Video Harvey Kaye the author of the Book "FDR on Democracy", breaks down what Bernie could have done during the primary. 

 

Could have bringing up FDR helped Bernie in the long run? 

 

Quote from the Video "The failure of Democrats is why we do not have a national health care system. Even Nixon had plans for a national healthcare system." 

 

I have to agree with the author in this case, this is the Democrats fault for not delivering Americans a National Health Care system. They are suppose to be the party of FDR but have fallen short of what he wanted for the future of america. 

 

It has been almost 80 years since the passing of the original Social Security Bill, why is it so hard for Democrats to realize that if they take a piece of the FDR playbook they would be more successful.  

 

I hope the Democrats in the future, realize their shortcomings and truly become the party of FDR once again, and not the party of Insurance Companies and Corporations. 

I think he did fail in talking about costs for single payer. He needed to have the facts,  what many economist had offered him in open letters, on exactly how to pay for it, what we already pay if we fail not to do so. 

Yes, FDR is a great starting point. Bernie had that. But sadly little else. I mean we all know that inequality did not start with this pandemic. Just last week I'm watching the news and they have this thirty year old woman who cannot afford to pay for her insulin. For weeks now she has been taking half a dose even though her blood sugar level is at 400 mg/dL. She did not know where her next purchase of insulin would come from. She's been laid off because of the pandemic and she's got  to pay the rent and for food first. 

 

How do we pay for single payer? Well where is the comparison of cost if we continue on as we are? That would be the first question I would ask Biden. Yes, it was an absurd question that Biden asked and he should not have been able to get away with it in the first place. Elizabeth Warren should have nailed that question as well!!!

 

You've got the system as it now operates, you have many of the people who vote, a lot of them older citizens, and they are afraid of single payer due to what they think is high cost, and 

capacity of our healthcare system. 

 

I understand where the professor is coming from too. It always comes down to the narrative. The narrative sells, even when it's full of nonsense.

Peace!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

I think he did fail in talking about costs for single payer. He needed to have the facts,  what many economist had offered him in open letters, on exactly how to pay for it, what we already pay if we fail not to do so. 

Yes, FDR is a great starting point. Bernie had that. But sadly little else. I mean we all know that inequality did not start with this pandemic. Just last week I'm watching the news and they have this thirty year old woman who cannot afford to pay for her insulin. For weeks now she has been taking half a dose even though her blood sugar level is at 400 mg/dL. She did not know where her next purchase of insulin would come from. She's been laid off because of the pandemic and she's got  to pay the rent and for food first. 

 

How do we pay for single payer? Well where is the comparison of cost if we continue on as we are? That would be the first question I would ask Biden. Yes, it was an absurd question that Biden asked and he should not have been able to get away with it in the first place. Elizabeth Warren should have nailed that question as well!!!

 

You've got the system as it now operates, you have many of the people who vote, a lot of them older citizens, and they are afraid of single payer due to what they think is high cost, and 

capacity of our healthcare system. 

 

I understand where the professor is coming from too. It always comes down to the narrative. The narrative sells, even when it's full of nonsense.

Peace!

 

I completely agree with all that you said. 

 

The older generations in this country is being brainwashed, by the MSM. They know no better. 

 

I hope soon people will start to realize that Single Payer would be the best option.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

 

I completely agree with all that you said. 

 

The older generations in this country is being brainwashed, by the MSM. They know no better. 

 

I hope soon people will start to realize that Single Payer would be the best option.

you know, it's fascinating that Biden has just proposed allowing the medicare age to drop down to sixty years instead of sixty five. A lot of liberals would say, hey, the young people are the ones who are fighting for single payer. Now, if we drop it down to sixty, that is a boon to the private insurance corporations. 

 

Again, here we are definitely speaking of cost. You and I both know that if we were lucky most of our lives to have our health insurance subsidized by our employer, even though we never needed any healthcare because, heck, we were healthy as heck and completely unbreakable, that means someone's getting profit. 

If we look at healthcare cost, we see medicare is costly because once you reach sixty five, the chances are you got health problems (no , that's not necessarily true, if you exercise and eat well you can still remain healthy past sixty five, and many people do) and then those health problems are being paid for by the government and tax payers, or what the right calls entitlements.

 

But, I feel, the issue here is the narrative that sells. The folks who are challenging single payer are mostly the old. If dropping the age incrementally for medicare pans out, that sells the narrative and therefore makes it doable in most peoples minds. 

 

And of course, there's a whole lot of recoverable issues, regarding folks who work for private insurer's, they are people who depend on their jobs. It's not black and white.

 

But we see that. 

What we want in the end is Universal Coverage. It has to be.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders could not be more unlike FDR if he tried.

 

FDR was a pro-capitalist, anti-populist. internationalist-interventionist, pro-trade, anti-protectionist who wanted the US in WWII as soon as possible.

 

BS is an anti-capitalist (socialist), populist, isolationist, anti-trade, protectionist, who is already against the next war (no matter how despicable the tyrant).

 

Not to mention that FDR was a proud liberal Democrat, where BS said "I am not, and I have never been, a liberal Democrat.

 

God knows Sander tried to (falsely) link himself with FDR. He failed. Democrats saw though his con job. Just like we saw though his attempts to link himself with JFK, a man who BS said made him want to vomit because JFK criticized BS's hero, Fidel Castro.

 

Time for BS to go away. He's done enough damage for several lifetimes. He swung the country to the far-right.

 

I will never forgive him.

 

FDR would be rolling in his grave.

 

Bill

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SpyCar said:

Bernie Sanders could not be more unlike FDR if he tried.

 

FDR was a pro-capitalist, anti-populist. internationalist-interventionist, pro-trade, anti-protectionist who wanted the US in WWII as soon as possible.

 

BS is an anti-capitalist (socialist), populist, isolationist, anti-trade, protectionist, who is already against the next war (no matter how despicable the tyrant).

 

Not to mention that FDR was a proud liberal Democrat, where BS said "I am not, and I have never been, a liberal Democrat.

 

God knows Sander tried to (falsely) link himself with FDR. He failed. Democrats saw though his con job. Just like we saw though his attempts to link himself with JFK, a man who BS said made him want to vomit because JFK criticized BS's hero, Fidel Castro.

 

Time for BS to go away. He's done enough damage for several lifetimes. He swung the country to the far-right.

 

I will never forgive him.

 

FDR would be rolling in his grave.

 

Bill

 

FDR came about during the World Wide Depression, my parents were around back then. Some adored him, and he did in fact carry a workers, if you will, populist sentiment. 

There's all this nonsense about capitalism, we don't have capitalism when we subsidize Corporate Giants who control all the power!!!

The markets my friend are all rigged. FDR suffered from Polio, he came out of his shell, he was filled with empathy towards all the people, not filled with apathy.

What came before FDR, did you ever hear about Andrew Melon? If you were born back then, whether or not you were one of the few rich, or the many who were poor at the time, 

his was a household name you'd never forget. 

We climbed out of that mess once, and we can do it again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SpyCar said:

FDR was a pro-capitalist

Yea, right...

 

"For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor — other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness."

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, speech at Democratic National Convention, Jun. 27, 1936

 

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred."

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, Address at Madison Square Garden, New York City, Oct. 31, 1936

 

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it
becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an
individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

 

And one quote from FDR's 5th cousin:

"To permit every lawless capitalist, every law-defying corporation, to take any action, no matter how iniquitous, in the effort to secure an improper profit and to build up privilege, would be ruinous to the Republic and would mark the abandonment of the effort to secure in the industrial world the spirit of democratic fair dealing."

 

6 hours ago, SpyCar said:

FDR was a anti-populist.

Wrong again.

Exactly what do you have against ordinay people?

Why do you admire elite neoliberals, who embrace trickle down economics, and declared "the era of big government is over"?

 

Populism: pop·u·lism /ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/

 
noun
noun:
  1. a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

 

Elitism e·lit·ism /əˈlēdˌizəm/

 
noun
noun:
  1. the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society.
    • * see also neoliberalism

 

"We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington."

"The era of big government is over."

"I believe our new, smaller government must work in an old-fashioned American way, together with all of our citizens through state and local governments, in the workplace, in religious, charitable and civic associations. There is now broad bipartisan agreement that permanent deficit spending must come to an end.

I compliment the Republican leadership and the membership for the energy and determination you have brought to this task of balancing the budget."

PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS JANUARY 23, 1996

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Yea, right...

 

"For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor — other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness."

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, speech at Democratic National Convention, Jun. 27, 1936

 

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred."

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, Address at Madison Square Garden, New York City, Oct. 31, 1936

 

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it
becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an
individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

 

And one quote from FDR's 5th cousin:

"To permit every lawless capitalist, every law-defying corporation, to take any action, no matter how iniquitous, in the effort to secure an improper profit and to build up privilege, would be ruinous to the Republic and would mark the abandonment of the effort to secure in the industrial world the spirit of democratic fair dealing."

 

Wrong again.

Exactly what do you have against ordinay people?

Why do you admire elite neoliberals, who embrace trickle down economics, and declared "the era of big government is over"?

 

Populism: pop·u·lism /ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/

 
noun
noun:
  1. a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

 

Elitism e·lit·ism /əˈlēdˌizəm/

 
noun
noun:
  1. the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society.
    • * see also neoliberalism

 

"We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington."

"The era of big government is over."

"I believe our new, smaller government must work in an old-fashioned American way, together with all of our citizens through state and local governments, in the workplace, in religious, charitable and civic associations. There is now broad bipartisan agreement that permanent deficit spending must come to an end.

I compliment the Republican leadership and the membership for the energy and determination you have brought to this task of balancing the budget."

PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS JANUARY 23, 1996

 

You appear to be laboring under some very false assumptions here.

 

FDR was most certainly a capitalist. Embracing capitalism DOES NOT equate to embracing extreme wealth inequality. Pro-capitalists can--and do--criticise inequality when it gets out of hand. FDR's quote bolsters my truth assertion and undermines yours.

 

In this quote FDR points to the negative impact inequality has on liberty. That's because FDR (unlike Sanders) was a liberal. We never hear Sanders speak of liberty, as liberty and liberalism are not the important values of socialists like Sanders.

 

As I said, the two could not be more unalike. Attempts to conflate the two--whose political values are diametrically opposed to one another--are doomed to failure, as it is pure deception

 

In the second quote FDR again shows his pro-capitalist stripes by attacking monopolies. No economic factor undermines the logic of capitalism (which is centered on competition) than having monopolies and near-monopolies. As a good capitalist he also abhorred and criticised reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, and war profiteering.

 

In contrast, BS is all about class antagonism. It is the central feature of his entire movement. And not just "class antagonism," but class warfare. Antithetical to FDR.

 

As a liberal FDR did believe that the "liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself." No doubt.

 

As a liberal, he'd have been no less concerned about the liberty of democracy being threatened by illiberal socialist forces who were (and are) just as much a threat to liberalism as the the fascists were. FDR embraced neither extreme. The Socialists of his day were no fans of FDR and the feelings were mutual.

 

The quote from FDR's 5th cousin hurts your argument further. It speaks harshly about people who are "lawless" and "law-defying." These types of criminality are not compatible with capitalism (or with human freedom) but are aberrations that need to be corrected. FDR, being a good capitalist, moved to reform and restore the lawful order upon which a capitalist economic system is based. Lawlessness and capitalism are not compatible. FDR knew that. BS does not.

 

Your question: "Exactly what do you have against ordinay people?" is a personal insult and disrespectful and is thus a violation of LO board rule #2.

 

I would suggest not trying to define complex political concepts like populism with one liners from the dictionary. which are wholly inadequate. Saying that populism is a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups is like saying that communism is a political approach where everyone shares stuff.

 

Such definital untruths make reasoned discussions impossible. Populism has a long and bloody history. It is the most disgraced political concept in all of humankind. Populism is built on creating animosity, rage, ander, hate, and resentment towards some segment of a society who is blamed for all of society's problems (as scapegoats) and which puts the power of rage into the hands of a demagogic dictator. Hitler was a populist.

 

It is an anti-liberal political response and one that is profoundly anti-reason. FDR abhorred populism. BS is a classic populist, much to his shame.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

FDR came about during the World Wide Depression, my parents were around back then. Some adored him, and he did in fact carry a workers, if you will, populist sentiment. 

There's all this nonsense about capitalism, we don't have capitalism when we subsidize Corporate Giants who control all the power!!!

The markets my friend are all rigged. FDR suffered from Polio, he came out of his shell, he was filled with empathy towards all the people, not filled with apathy.

What came before FDR, did you ever hear about Andrew Melon? If you were born back then, whether or not you were one of the few rich, or the many who were poor at the time, 

his was a household name you'd never forget. 

We climbed out of that mess once, and we can do it again. 

 

My parents also grew up under FDR. My dad served as a fighter-pilot in the war against fascism under FDR.

 

FDR was a hero in my liberal Democratic household.

 

Neither my parents, nor I, would have stood for anyone gaslighting the idea that FDR was anything but a liberal Democrat who sought to save capitalism from the twin threats of fascism and communism/socialism.

 

FDR stood against both of these extremist ideologies, which are threats to liberty and liberalism. He never would have embraced a populist-socialist like Bernie Sanders. Never. Ever. 

 

Some on the socialist-left (like BS) seem very confused about the nature of capitalism, and believe it supports growing monopolization. That's false. Better to check in with the "capitalist-in-my-bones" Elizabeth Warren, who understands the truth of the situation.

 

Capitalism is not an "evil" system--as Sanders and the anti-liberal socialist left would have people believe--but is rather the economic system that best protects human freedom and also the one that best generates the wealth that can pay for generous social safety nets.

 

Just look at the examples that BS disingenuously turns to he's forced to defend his failed socialist ideology. First World Social Democracies with advanced capitalist societies with not a socialist economy in the bunch. If you want to see what so-called "democratic socialism" does to a nation, look at Venezuela (the role model for the New American Dream).

 

I trust that we can climb out of this mess. But we can do so by embracing the democratic liberalism of FDR and rejection the authoritarian anti-liberal populist-socialism of Bernard Sanders. Sanders offers a path to tyranny, not to freedom. FDR would not have been fooled on this point. Not for a second.

 

Bill

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2020 at 11:51 AM, SpyCar said:

Embracing capitalism DOES NOT equate to embracing extreme wealth inequality.

In this day and age, it most certainly does.  Otherwise, those embracing capitalism would be (loudly) calling for a change in the laws that would increase opportunity for the lowest paid workers while limiting the extreme wealth at the top of the scale.   

 

Quote

Pro-capitalists can--and do--criticise inequality when it gets out of hand.

Wage inequality has been "out of hand" for decades now.  Where are these so-called angry "pro capitalists?"  :huh:  I'm not seeing them.  In fact, I'm seeing the "pro capitalists" tossing millions upon millions at politicians whom they pay to protect their riches (while strangling the poor who are drowning in multi-decade stagnation).  Shouldn't our representatives be representing ALL their constituents?

 

Quote

In this quote FDR points to the negative impact inequality has on liberty. That's because FDR (unlike Sanders) was a liberal. We never hear Sanders speak of liberty, as liberty and liberalism are not the important values of socialists like Sanders.

 

As I said, the two could not be more unalike. Attempts to conflate the two--whose political values are diametrically opposed to one another--are doomed to failure, as it is pure deception

FDR and Sanders have many similarities.  FDR was Bernie's "hero," not Fidel Castro as you claim.  Bernie only praised Castro's literacy program, not other aspects of his regime.  I don't see literacy as "bad," do you?      

 

Quote

In contrast, Bernie is all about class antagonism. It is the central feature of his entire movement. And not just "class antagonism," but class warfare. Antithetical to FDR.

That's not true at all.  The wage gap is a very real thing and Bernie regularly calls it out (as he should).  Our current economic policies have put us on the fast track to corporate oligarchy.  Bernie's working to try and reverse this trend.  I commend and respect him for this.   

 

Quote

As a liberal FDR did believe that the "liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself." No doubt.

I totally agree with this, but......Pssst!  :o   We ARE at that point (have been for a couple decades) now.   Big business and the wealthy has, and are still, purchasing power and influence in our elections on a regular basis.  My vote isn't equal to some billionaire's vote.   However it should be.

 

Quote

As a liberal, he'd have been no less concerned about the liberty of democracy being threatened by illiberal socialist forces who were (and are) just as much a threat to liberalism as the the fascists were. FDR embraced neither extreme. The Socialists of his day were no fans of FDR and the feelings were mutual.

I know of no "socialists."  I tend to feel that word gets bandied about recklessly and inaccurately these days. What Bernie has been fighting for for years is single payer healthcare, free/low-cost college, and a realistic solution to wealth inequality. He believes in a few carefully placed socialistic policies in an otherwise capitalistic system that will help the working poor finally be able to rise up and get ahead.  Otherwise, they have no realistic way of ever moving beyond a paycheck-to-paycheck financial status. 

 

Quote

Lawlessness and capitalism are not compatible. FDR knew that. Bernie does not.

Can you show me a source where Bernie advocates lawlessness as a means to "combat" out-of-control capitalism?   I've never heard him say (or even allude to) such a thing.  I'd be interested in reading such a source.  

 

Quote

Your question: "Exactly what do you have against ordinay people?" is a personal insult and disrespectful and is thus a violation of LO board rule #2.

Not at all.  Had he said, "Exactly what do you have against ordinary people, you raving plutocrat?" then THAT would have violated LO board rule #2.  Without the "you raving plutocrat" portion, it is simply a question.  :)   In that vein, I ask.....do you support policies and programs that will beef up social safety nets in this country and provide more to those who have very little?   Because people are hurting out there (even before this pandemic).       

 

Quote

Such definital untruths make reasoned discussions impossible. Populism has a long and bloody history. It is the most disgraced political concept in all of humankind. Populism is built on creating animosity, rage, ander, hate, and resentment towards some segment of a society who is blamed for all of society's problems (as scapegoats) and which puts the power of rage into the hands of a demagogic dictator. Hitler was a populist.

 

It is an anti-liberal political response and one that is profoundly anti-reason. FDR abhorred populism. Bernie is a classic populist, much to his shame.

 

Bill

Your interpretation of the word 'populism' and "democratic socialism' is far different than other peoples' interpretation these days.  Since we're all coming together with the common goal of getting Joe Biden elected (and I certainly AM), then I submit that it's also time listen to listen to others with different beliefs.....and work to gauge their intent, discuss their beliefs (with a goal of coming together) rather than critiquing their specific word usage (which creates more division).  We're not all political science majors, but we definitely know what we believe in.....IF people take the time to listen.      

 

I have no "rage, anger, hate, and/or resentment" towards the wealthy.   Hell, one of my closest friends is absolutely loaded and he's a great person.  I have "rage, anger, hate, and resentment" for the actual policies that cater to the rich to get richer while, in turn, strangling the poor.   

 

I'm for a more egalitarianism society over corporate oligarchy.   Are you?   If so, let's discuss how to get there rather than quibbling about labels.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the four years just past, Roosevelt had transformed the purpose of the United States government, making it a constant companion in the lives of Americans. The Social Security Act of the previous year was merely the crowning achievement. Roosevelt’s initiatives, meant to curb the misery brought on by the Great Depression, directly funded millions of government jobs, employing everyone from photographers to brush-clearing conservation workers. To pay for this, he raised the income tax—which hadn’t even existed two decades earlier—to 75 percent on the highest incomes. The rich were subsidizing the poor, and that was A-OK with FDR.

 

 

The president’s message was clear: His efforts to protect the ordinary American businessman and worker were solidly grounded in the core principles of “the American system of initiative and profit.”

 

Some Quotes from this article: 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/democrats-socialism-fdr-roosevelt-227622

 

Yes FDR was a self proclaimed Liberal Democrat, but he ran on some of the same policies that Democrats are now running on Today. 

 

It was at the fault of Sanders for using the Democratic-Socialist tag to coin some of his key policies. 

 

If he would have not used the Term Democratic Socialist, people would not have been so Turned off by him. 

 

But at the core of both Bernie and FDR's platforms they are virtually the same. 

 

Helping the American worker first. 

 

FDR without saying it was Socialist passed some of the most far-left wing policies in our countries history. 

 

Even almost 80 years later after the passing of Social Security, Republicans are still fighting tooth and nail to cut funding and privatize the system. 

 

FDR and Bernie are very alike they just used different terms to explain there policy proposals. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1932

ElectoralCollege1932.svg

1936

ElectoralCollege1936.svg

1940

ElectoralCollege1940.svg

1944

ElectoralCollege1944.svg

 

For People saying that Bernie's Policies and his overall chance of winning was slim, dead wrong. 

 

If you look at the Electoral Maps above it shows what happens when you put the American Worker first, and not the Rich and Corporations. This is what Bernie was trying to Accomplish*

 

I wish the DNC did some Homework before burying Bernie for two straight campaign cycles. 

 

But again the Democratic Party in it's current state is not the party of FDR and the workers, it has transformed into the party of the rich and powerful. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In the words of Barack Obama:

 

Quote

Obama said that although he and Sanders, who served together in the Senate, “haven’t always agreed on everything,” they share a desire to make America a “fairer, more just, more equitable country.”

 

“Bernie’s an American original — a man who has devoted his life to giving voice to working people’s hopes, dreams, and frustrations,” he said. “He and I haven’t always agreed on everything, but we’ve always shared a conviction that we have to make America a fairer, more just, more equitable society.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/492708-obama-praises-sanders-in-biden-endorsement

 

 

More (from the same article)......

Quote

Obama said Sanders’s movement “will be critical in moving America in a direction of progress and hope.”

 

“We both know that nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change. And the ideas he’s championed, the energy and enthusiasm he inspired, especially in young people, will be critical in moving America in a direction of progress and hope,” he said.

 

 

I agree with President Obama.  :)  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fair to say that FDR used socialistic programs (like the ,TVA, CCC, CWA) to save capitalism from itself.

He also enacted laws and regulations (like Glass-Steagall Act and Fair Labor Standards Act), reign-in the excess of the greedy barons of industry.

 

On 4/25/2020 at 11:51 AM, SpyCar said:

Embracing capitalism DOES NOT equate to embracing extreme wealth inequality.

 

Embracing pure capitalism will absolutely  lead to extreme wealth inequality.

Capitalism and socialism lie on opposite ends of a continuum.

Almost every country mixes elements of capitalism and socialism but do so in varying degrees.

Some societies lean toward the capitalist end of the continuum, while other societies lean toward the socialist end. The United States is a capitalist nation, but the government still regulates many industries to varying degrees. But the free market is not helping our citizens very much at all during our current crisis. The free market has responded to the crisis by immediately laying off millions of workers, then asking taxpayers to bail them out, because no one can afford their products without paychecks.

China has embraced capitalism, with many American corporations doing business there, but capitalism has not saved their citizens from being suppressed, or run over by tanks for speaking out in favor of democracy.

 

On 4/25/2020 at 11:51 AM, SpyCar said:

In the second quote FDR again shows his pro-capitalist stripes by attacking monopolies. No economic factor undermines the logic of capitalism (which is centered on competition) than having monopolies and near-monopolies. As a good capitalist he also abhorred and criticised reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, and war profiteering.

 

Raw capitalism encourages selfish and greedy behavior: if individuals try to maximize their profit, they do so at the expense of others, ...someone has to lose.

A company’s ultimate aim, and one that is generally lauded, is to maximize its profits by driving another company out of the market altogether. That company succeeds even if some other party is hurting. The small Mom-and-Pop grocery stores, drugstores, and hardware stores are almost a thing of the past, as big-box stores open their doors and drive their competition out of business. Raw capitalism encourages harmful behavior. Yet it is precisely this type of behavior that is taught in business schools.

 

On 4/25/2020 at 11:51 AM, SpyCar said:

The Socialists of his day were no fans of FDR and the feelings were mutual.

The pro-capitalists, and robber barons (like JP Morgan) were no fans of FDR.

 

 

On 4/25/2020 at 12:12 PM, SpyCar said:

 

FDR stood against both of these extremist ideologies, which are threats to liberty and liberalism.

 

As I mentioned, the two extremes are pure capitalism, and pure socialism....

 

Most nations, (including the US) combine elements of both capitalism and socialism. Denmark, Sweden and several other Western European nations combine the best features of capitalism and socialism while avoiding their faults. The government in these nations has extensive programs to help the poor and other people in need.

 

Social democracies like the Scandinavian nations are often called controlled capitalist market economies. The word controlled refers to the idea that their governments either own industries or heavily regulate industries. A key feature of these social democracies’ economies is that inequality in wealth and income is not generally tolerated. Employers, employees, and political officials are accustomed to working closely to ensure that poverty and its related problems are addressed as much as possible and in as cooperative a manner as possible.

 

All citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status or family situation, receive various services, such as child care and universal health care, that are free or heavily subsidized. To support this massive provision of benefits, these nations have  high taxes that their citizens generally accept as normal and necessary.

 

This mixture of captialism and socialism has been very successful, as the Scandinavian nations rank at or near the top in international comparisons of health, education, economic well-being, and other measures of quality of life. It is very possible to have a political and economic model that combines the best features of capitalism and socialism while retaining the political freedom that citizens expect in a democracy.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

It is fair to say that FDR used socialistic programs (like the ,TVA, CCC, CWA) to save capitalism from itself.

He also enacted laws and regulations (like Glass-Steagall Act and Fair Labor Standards Act), reign-in the excess of the greedy barons of industry.

 

 

Embracing pure capitalism will absolutely  lead to extreme wealth inequality.

Capitalism and socialism lie on opposite ends of a continuum.

Almost every country mixes elements of capitalism and socialism but do so in varying degrees.

Some societies lean toward the capitalist end of the continuum, while other societies lean toward the socialist end. The United States is a capitalist nation, but the government still regulates many industries to varying degrees. But the free market is not helping our citizens very much at all during our current crisis. The free market has responded to the crisis by immediately laying off millions of workers, then asking taxpayers to bail them out, because no one can afford their products without paychecks.

China has embraced capitalism, with many American corporations doing business there, but capitalism has not saved their citizens from being suppressed, or run over by tanks for speaking out in favor of democracy.

 

 

Raw capitalism encourages selfish and greedy behavior: if individuals try to maximize their profit, they do so at the expense of others, ...someone has to lose.

A company’s ultimate aim, and one that is generally lauded, is to maximize its profits by driving another company out of the market altogether. That company succeeds even if some other party is hurting. The small Mom-and-Pop grocery stores, drugstores, and hardware stores are almost a thing of the past, as big-box stores open their doors and drive their competition out of business. Raw capitalism encourages harmful behavior. Yet it is precisely this type of behavior that is taught in business schools.

 

The pro-capitalists, and robber barons (like JP Morgan) were no fans of FDR.

 

 

 

As I mentioned, the two extremes are pure capitalism, and pure socialism....

 

Most nations, (including the US) combine elements of both capitalism and socialism. Denmark, Sweden and several other Western European nations combine the best features of capitalism and socialism while avoiding their faults. The government in these nations has extensive programs to help the poor and other people in need.

 

Social democracies like the Scandinavian nations are often called controlled capitalist market economies. The word controlled refers to the idea that their governments either own industries or heavily regulate industries. A key feature of these social democracies’ economies is that inequality in wealth and income is not generally tolerated. Employers, employees, and political officials are accustomed to working closely to ensure that poverty and its related problems are addressed as much as possible and in as cooperative a manner as possible.

 

All citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status or family situation, receive various services, such as child care and universal health care, that are free or heavily subsidized. To support this massive provision of benefits, these nations have  high taxes that their citizens generally accept as normal and necessary.

 

This mixture of captialism and socialism has been very successful, as the Scandinavian nations rank at or near the top in international comparisons of health, education, economic well-being, and other measures of quality of life. It is very possible to have a political and economic model that combines the best features of capitalism and socialism while retaining the political freedom that citizens expect in a democracy.

 

 

It seems like the latest strategy of those who favor the failed political ideology of socialism is to call the social programs that are delivered and paid for by capitalist economies "socialistic," when that simply isn't the case.

 

FDR didn't act to "save capitalism from itself," but to save from the twin threats of populist fascism and populist communism/socialism.

 

Let us deal in historical reality not with sophistry.

 

Neither the reforms nor the social programs put in place by capitalist liberals in the United States or in the Nordic-style social democracies are "socialistic." Claiming otherwise is a type of sophistry that attempt to cover up the utter failure of socialism as a viable ideological position (one that has never been able to protect human freedom while avoiding economic misery) and to tarnish the victories of liberal capitalism by aping the false charges of "socialism" that are made by the far-right.

 

It is a right-wing talking point. Tsk, tsk.

 

The discussion of "pure capitalism" is a pure straw-man argument that allows you attack something that doesn't exist. 

 

Most countries--the Nords included--do not practice socialism. The governments do not (except in rare cases like Norway's national oil company) own the means of production.

 

Having public school. police, fire, road build, etc are not examples of "socialism" at work. Sorry. This is a shibboleth. Every Nordic-style social democracy has an advanced capitalist economy without exception. There leaders keep telling BS to stop his false characterizations of these countries, but he and his followers carry on regardless. Why? Because every "democratic socialist" country on earth has turned into a human right and economic nightmare, so the fallback tactic is to claim advanced capitalist economies are "socialist." Sorry, that's a huge fail.

 

Capitalism build wealth and human freedom better than any other economic system--and by a huge margin. Socialism, in contrast, guarantees human misery.

 

Liberals recognize that there are excesses possible with capitalism and that why we support tempering those problems though such things as regulation, social programs, and infrastructure developments that we can pay for with the wealth generated by an advanced capitalist economy. This is one of the central features of modern liberalism. Seeking to replace the virtues of capitalism with a socialist economic system is not a liberal response, rather it is a most illiberal response.

 

If we wish to speak of "greed," in the Our Revolutionary movement we have people who are seeming uninterested in working (following Sanders' personal history of non-work) or making any positive contribution to society who have convinced themselves that expropriating the fruits of other people's labors is righteous. It is not. Expecting others to float the boats of of able-bodied Americans who simply refuse to work, so they can live off the state (read: fellow citizens) is the definition of "Greed."

 

The major industrialists, banker, and financiers signed on the FDR's New Deal reforms. Check your history.

 

All the Scandinavian nations (et al) have capitalist economies. None are socialist states. Having well-regulated capitalism is not an embrace of socialism (as BS would try to make some people believe). Liberal social programs are not socialism (needing to make this de-bunked point ad infinitum gets really old).

 

Social democracies are not a mix of capitalism and socialism. This is an utterly false premise. These are liberal capitalist democracies, None are socialist states. Sigh.

 

Because BS can't point to a non-failed "Democratic Socialist" state, he and his legions attempt to conflate liberal capitalist democracies with socialism. Few things could be more mendacious.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

In the four years just past, Roosevelt had transformed the purpose of the United States government, making it a constant companion in the lives of Americans. The Social Security Act of the previous year was merely the crowning achievement. Roosevelt’s initiatives, meant to curb the misery brought on by the Great Depression, directly funded millions of government jobs, employing everyone from photographers to brush-clearing conservation workers. To pay for this, he raised the income tax—which hadn’t even existed two decades earlier—to 75 percent on the highest incomes. The rich were subsidizing the poor, and that was A-OK with FDR.

 

 

The president’s message was clear: His efforts to protect the ordinary American businessman and worker were solidly grounded in the core principles of “the American system of initiative and profit.”

 

Some Quotes from this article: 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/democrats-socialism-fdr-roosevelt-227622

 

Yes FDR was a self proclaimed Liberal Democrat, but he ran on some of the same policies that Democrats are now running on Today. 

 

It was at the fault of Sanders for using the Democratic-Socialist tag to coin some of his key policies. 

 

If he would have not used the Term Democratic Socialist, people would not have been so Turned off by him. 

 

But at the core of both Bernie and FDR's platforms they are virtually the same. 

 

Helping the American worker first. 

 

FDR without saying it was Socialist passed some of the most far-left wing policies in our countries history. 

 

Even almost 80 years later after the passing of Social Security, Republicans are still fighting tooth and nail to cut funding and privatize the system. 

 

FDR and Bernie are very alike they just used different terms to explain there policy proposals. 

 

BS used the term "Democratic Socialist" because it accurately reflects his political ideology--which is socalist and is NOT LIBERAL.

 

Believe the man when he tells you who he is and what he believes. This is not an example of "bad marketing or "bad branding." The ideology of Sanders can't simply be "re-framed" into something it is not.

 

Unlike FDR, Bernie Sanders in not a liberal. Sanders, unlike FDR, thinks capitalism is an inherently evil system that is beyond redemption and incapable of being reformed. His position is diametrically opposed to that of FDR. The two could not be more different.

 

And Sanders is wrong. Every successful democracy has embraced advanced capitalism, including the Euro-style social democracies. Sanders offers a failed path. It isn't a branding problem, but an ideological one.

 

FDR's programs were nothing like what Bernie Sanders envisions under his socialist agenda for America. Sorry, but suggesting otherwise is false. FDR consciously aimed at preserving American capitalism from the populist socialists (and populist fascists) of his time. FDR understood thes twin populist movements as a grave threat to American liberal democracy, and he was quite correct.

 

The twin threats are still threats to a liberal society. 

 

I'm sticking with the tradition of America's liberal Democratic party and of FDR in standing fast against both the populist far-right and the populist far-left. Both would destroy American liberalism and replace it with demagoguery and despotism.

 

Resist!

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

 

It seems like the latest strategy of those who favor the failed political ideology of socialism is to call the social programs that are delivered and paid for by capitalist economies "socialistic," when that simply isn't the case.

 

FDR didn't act to "save capitalism from itself," but to save from the twin threats of populist fascism and populist communism/socialism.

 

Let us deal in historical reality not with sophistry.

 

Neither the reforms nor the social programs put in place by capitalist liberals in the United States or in the Nordic-style social democracies are "socialistic." Claiming otherwise is a type of sophistry that attempt to cover up the utter failure of socialism as a viable ideological position (one that has never been able to protect human freedom while avoiding economic misery) and to tarnish the victories of liberal capitalism by aping the false charges of "socialism" that are made by the far-right.

 

It is a right-wing talking point. Tsk, tsk.

 

The discussion of "pure capitalism" is a pure straw-man argument that allows you attack something that doesn't exist. 

 

Most countries--the Nords included--do not practice socialism. The governments do not (except in rare cases like Norway's national oil company) own the means of production.

 

Having public school. police, fire, road build, etc are not examples of "socialism" at work. Sorry. This is a shibboleth. Every Nordic-style social democracy has an advanced capitalist economy without exception. There leaders keep telling BS to stop his false characterizations of these countries, but he and his followers carry on regardless. Why? Because every "democratic socialist" country on earth has turned into a human right and economic nightmare, so the fallback tactic is to claim advanced capitalist economies are "socialist." Sorry, that's a huge fail.

 

Capitalism build wealth and human freedom better than any other economic system--and by a huge margin. Socialism, in contrast, guarantees human misery.

 

Liberals recognize that there are excesses possible with capitalism and that why we support tempering those problems though such things as regulation, social programs, and infrastructure developments that we can pay for with the wealth generated by an advanced capitalist economy. This is one of the central features of modern liberalism. Seeking to replace the virtues of capitalism with a socialist economic system is not a liberal response, rather it is a most illiberal response.

 

If we wish to speak of "greed," in the Our Revolution movement we have people who are seeming uninterested in working (following Sanders' personal history of non-work) or making any positive contribution to society who have convinced themselves that expropriating the fruits of other people's labors is righteous. It is not. Expecting others to float the boats of of able-bodied Americans who simply refuse to work, so they can live off the state (read: fellow citizens) is the definition of "Greed."

 

The major industrialists, banker, and financiers signed on the FDR's New Deal reforms. Check your history.

 

All the Scandinavian nations (et al) have capitalist economies. None are socialist states. Having well-regulated capitalism is not an embrace of socialism (as Bernie would try to make some people believe). Liberal social programs are not socialism (needing to make this de-bunked point ad infinitum gets really old).

 

Social democracies are not a mix of capitalism and socialism. This is an utterly false premise. These are liberal capitalist democracies, None are socialist states. Sigh.

 

Because Bernie can't point to a non-failed "Democratic Socialist" state, he and his legions attempt to conflate liberal capitalist democracies with socialism. Few things could be more mendacious.

 

Bill

 

Bill, no one wants this country to be like Venezuela.  No one here has any interest in Hugo Chavez-style socialism.  We want single payer healthcare, free/low-cost college education, a solution to the growing wage inequality, and   We want our country to be more like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark in regard to healthcare, higher education, and wage inequality.  Whatever label you'd like to affix to all that is your choice.   Let's come together and get it done.  People are hurting out there. 

 

  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

 

Bill, no one wants this country to be like Venezuela.  No one here has any interest in Hugo Chavez-style socialism.  We want single payer healthcare, free/low-cost college education, a solution to the growing wage inequality, and   We want our country to be more like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark in regard to healthcare, higher education, and wage inequality.  Whatever label you'd like to affix to all that is your choice.  

 

  

 

BS posted a paper on his website that praised the Venezuela of Chavez/Maduro and that of the former democratic socialist dictator Evo Morales of Bolivia as role models for the "New American Dream" and suggested that America--in contrast--was a banana republic.

 

Further the Democratic Socialists of America have fully backed both the democratic socialist dictatorships in Venezuela and the now failed regime in Bolivia. They have shouted "Long live the Bolivarian Revolution" on their website.

 

So I'd suggest your premise that "no one wants this country to be like Venezuela" is utterly false. Venezuela has been a role model for both Sanders and the DSA. Venezuela is the true face of democratic socialism--and both Chavez and Maduro embraced "democratic socialism" as the term which accurately describes their ideology (which is true).

 

The Nordic-style countries are not examples of democratic socialism (as it becomes exhausting to point out over and over again).

 

Bernie Sanders understands the difference between being a liberal and embracing liberal capitalist social democracy vs being a populist-socialist democratic socialist who believes that capitalism is a disease that requires being stuffed out.

 

He has taken the nation off track by offering up a false and failed model and defending it by engaging in deceit.

 

The result of Sanders mendacity is that he helped move the country to the right as he undermined liberalism with false narratives.

 

FDR could spin in his grave if he knew an anti-liberal populist-socialist was attempting to steal his mantle.

 

BS leaves a shameful legacy build on a foundation of lies and the deliberate "re-framing" of reality.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

Bernie posted a paper on his website that praised the Venezuela of Chavez/Maduro and that of the former democratic socialist dictator Evo Morales of Bolivia as role models for the "New American Dream" and suggested that America--in contrast--was a banana republic.

In many ways America IS currently a banana republic.  Show me this post where Bernie said that Chavez and Maduro's way of governing was the "New American Dream" and that we should adopt ALL their policies.  I think you may have misconstrued what Bernie was trying to say.  

 

Quote

Further the Democratic Socialists of America have fully backed both the democratic socialist dictatorships in Venezuela and the now failed regime in Bolivia. They have shouted "Long live the Bolivarian Revolution" on their website.

Bernie's not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.  He's a registered Independent who is trying to improve our country.  Bernie is a peacemonger who does not support armed revolutions.

 

Quote

So I'd suggest your premise that "no one wants this country to be like Venezuela" is utterly false. Venezuela has been a role model for both Sanders and the DSA. Venezuela is the true face of democratic socialism--and both Chavez and Maduro embraced "democratic socialism" at the term which accurately describes their ideology (which is true).

No, Bernie wants single payer healthcare.  He wants free/low-cost college.  He wants an answer to wage inequality.  He doesn't want the government controlling all means of production.  That is flat-out inaccurate.

 

Quote

The Nordic-style countries are not examples of democratic socialism (as it becomes exhausting to point out over and over again).

Nordic countries practice a far different form of "capitlism" than we do here.  I say we ditch the kind we practice here and adopt whatever they're doing instead.  Like I said, feel free to affix whatever label to that you choose.     

 

Quote

Bernie Sanders understands the difference between being a liberal and embracing liberal capitalist social democracy vs being a populist-socialist democratic socialist who believes that capitalism is a disease that requires being stuffed out.

 

He has taken the nation off track by offering up a false and failed model and defending it by engaging in deceit and the results of his mendacity are that he moved the country to the right as he undermined liberalism with false narratives.

 

FDR could spin in his grave if he knew an anti-liberal populist-socialist was attempting to steal his mantle.

 

Bernie leaves a shameful legacy build on a foundation of lies and the deliberate "re-framing" of reality.

 

Bill

I believe FDR and Bernie would have got along very well.  :)  Like Bernie, FDR understood that (per my signature line) "the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much.....rather, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."  With that base of common ground, the rest could be worked out.  The labels are irrelevant.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

BS posted a paper on his website that praised the Venezuela of Chavez/Maduro and that of the former democratic socialist dictator Evo Morales of Bolivia as role models for the "New American Dream" and suggested that America--in contrast--was a banana republic.

 

Further the Democratic Socialists of America have fully backed both the democratic socialist dictatorships in Venezuela and the now failed regime in Bolivia. They have shouted "Long live the Bolivarian Revolution" on their website.

 

So I'd suggest your premise that "no one wants this country to be like Venezuela" is utterly false. Venezuela has been a role model for both Sanders and the DSA. Venezuela is the true face of democratic socialism--and both Chavez and Maduro embraced "democratic socialism" as the term which accurately describes their ideology (which is true).

 

The Nordic-style countries are not examples of democratic socialism (as it becomes exhausting to point out over and over again).

 

Bernie Sanders understands the difference between being a liberal and embracing liberal capitalist social democracy vs being a populist-socialist democratic socialist who believes that capitalism is a disease that requires being stuffed out.

 

He has taken the nation off track by offering up a false and failed model and defending it by engaging in deceit.

 

The result of Sanders mendacity is that he helped move the country to the right as he undermined liberalism with false narratives.

 

FDR could spin in his grave if he knew an anti-liberal populist-socialist was attempting to steal his mantle.

 

BS leaves a shameful legacy build on a foundation of lies and the deliberate "re-framing" of reality.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is apart of the reason why progressives are so upset with the current state of the Democratic Party.

 

No wonder why Hillary lost in 2016, is she the "Liberal Democrat" you were looking for? Emails? Benghazi? 

 

Joe Biden? Mental Decline and Rape Allegations? 

 

Bernie Sanders: Nothing Wrong other than age. 

 

You might Disagree with Bernie on policy but that is the Future of the Democratic Party. 

 

His policies resonate with the younger voters in America. 

 

Bernie is a populist, and so was FDR I know you will fight me tooth and nail on this but it was true, you cannot seriously tell me that Social Security was not a populist idea. 

 

He won 4 election in a row by running a very aggressively progressive campaign and even wanted a Economic Bill of Rights. 

 

Among these are:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

These above sound very familar with what Sanders was trying to accomplish, we had a chance for the Second-Coming of FDR but of course the DNC did not want any part of it because of one simple thing.....They do not want to lose there power, if anything the DNC and the party leadership all they care about is there Power and Money... Sanders Threatened this.

 

He wasn't going to cozy up to the Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, Oil and gas Industries not to mention the Big Corporations. Again and Again the DNC and leadership cozy up to them and take Millions upon Millions of dollars in campaign contributions. 

 

Instead of actually putting the working american first. Like Bernie would have. 

 

But according to the DNC, putting someone up that has rape allegations, showing signs of mental decline and has some of the most conservative view points in the Democratic Party is the best candidate????? 

 

Riddle me this...

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

In many ways America IS currently a banana republic.  Show me this post where Bernie said that Chavez and Maduro's way of governing was the "New American Dream" and that we should adopt ALL their policies.  I think you may have misconstrued what Bernie was trying to say.  

 

Bernie's not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.  He's a registered Independent who is trying to improve our country.  Bernie is a peacemonger who does not support armed revolutions.

 

No, Bernie wants single payer healthcare.  He wants free/low-cost college.  He wants an answer to wage inequality.  He doesn't want the government controlling all means of production.  That is flat-out inaccurate.

 

Yeah, you believe the Nordic countries practice vulture "give it all to the CEO's"-style capitalism, just like the billionaires here in the US.   I don't see it, nor do I agree.   

 

I believe FDR and Bernie would have got along very well.  :)  Like Bernie, FDR understood that (per my signature line) "the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much.....rather, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."  With that base of common ground, the rest could be worked out.  The labels are irrelevant.

 

Completely agree, I look up to FDR as one of the Best presidents of all time... 

 

I didn't know this but my Great Grandpa who was born during the Depression was a lifelong Democrat because of FDR and fought tooth and nail in the State of Arizona to stop the cuts in Social Security Republicans were trying to push through. 

 

I agree Bernie and FDR would agree on a lot of things and the current state of the Democratic Party is one of them. 

 

He wouldn't sell out to the Industries the DNC is currently, just like Bernie. 

 

And just like FDR Bernie will continue fighting for American Workers until the Day he dies. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

It seems like the latest strategy of those who favor the failed political ideology of socialism is to call the social programs that are delivered and paid for by capitalist economies "socialistic," when that simply isn't the case.

 Okay. I am totally in favor of  social programs that are delivered and paid for by capitalist economies .

 

If it makes you happy, I'll refer to Social Security as Capital Preservation program.

Whatever you want to call it, is a worthwhile social program.

So is Medicare. So is Medicare for All, So is Unemployment Insuance.

 

1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

FDR didn't act to "save capitalism from itself," but to save from the twin threats of populist fascism and populist communism/socialism.

Let us deal in historical reality not with sophistry.

 

Interesting. Do you really believe that Mussolini, and Eugene Debbs somehow engineered the Wall St crash of 1929?

Capitalism cannot escape responsibility for 1929, or 2008, or the current wealth inequality issue right in front of us.

 

To be clear, the social programs (*eventually, and reluctantly paid for by capitalism), were created in response to the massive unemployment, which was caused by rampant overspeculation on Wall St.

 

 

1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

Having public school. police, fire, road build, etc are not examples of "socialism" at work.

I agree.

Yes, these are all good examples of social programs paid for by capitalism. Some things are better off being run by the government, whoever pays for it.

Like public school, Post Office, Police, Interstate highways, and healthcare. Not sure where you are drawing the line.

 

 

1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

Because every "democratic socialist" country on earth has turned into a human right and economic nightmare, so the fallback tactic is to claim advanced capitalist economies are "socialist."

That's quite suprising. Sweden is going to turn into an human rights, and economic nightmare?

Will that be before, or after America's economic nightmare?

 

Have it your way,

Sweden is an advanced capitalist economy, which has an government funded universal healthcare system paid through taxes.

Or,

Sweden is an advanced capitalist country with a unversal heaalthcare system (*paid for by capitalism),

if you like that better.

The fact remains.

Sweden has a universal healthcare system for all it citizens.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ExPDXer said:

 Like public school, Post Office, Police, Interstate highways, and healthcare. Not sure where you are drawing the line.

Healthcare should ABSOLUTELY be grouped in with police, fire/rescue, port office, highways, and public schools.  I don't see that as "socialism" either.  It's a social safety net......one that, I believe, is crucial (especially in the midst of this pandemic) to ensure the ongoing health of our nation.  

 

"For profit" healthcare has profiteered itself into the "unaffordable" category for a majority of Americans.   And who's idea was it to make your healthcare attached to your employment anyway?  This pandemic has already put 9 million more into the uninsured ranks unexpectedly.   A single payer healthcare system, at least for those making under $50k, is essential to the health of this nation going forward.  State universities and community colleges should be tuition-free as well.  This would give the working poor at least a shot at improving their situation and rising up.  Considering we've been funding corporation socialism for decades now, it's not asking a lot.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Healthcare should ABSOLUTELY be grouped in with police, fire/rescue, port office, highways, and public schools.  I don't see that as "socialism" either.  It's a social safety net......one that, I believe, is crucial (especially in the midst of this pandemic) to ensure the ongoing health of our nation.  

 

"For profit" healthcare has profiteered itself into the "unaffordable" category for a majority of Americans.  Additionally, this pandemic has already put 9 million more into the uninsured ranks.   A single payer healthcare system, at least for those making under $50k, is essential to the health of this nation going forward.  State universities and community colleges should be tuition-free as well.  This would give the working poor at least a shot at improving their situation and rising up.  Considering we've been funding corporation socialism for decades now, it's not asking a lot.

 

That is the funny thing when you mention socialism or even some sort of help for the working man it is gawked at, but it is okay to give millions in subsidies to huge profitable corporations????

 

I guess it makes sense to the DNC and RNC.... because Democrats and Republicans are at fault for this issue. 

 

The same people that are fighting tooth and nail to stop the progression of Medicare for All are the people that have been supporting Corporate and Wall Street socialism for years..

 

It's Sad but True.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

 Okay. I am totally in favor of  social programs that are delivered and paid for by capitalist economies .

 

If it makes you happy, I'll refer to Social Security as Capital Preservation program.

Whatever you want to call it, is a worthwhile social program.

So is Medicare. So is Medicare for All, So is Unemployment Insuance.

 

I'll accept your concession that none of these liberal reforms is a form of socialism. 

 

Do you really believe that Mussolini, and Eugene Debbs somehow engineered the Wall St crash of 1929?



Capitalism cannot escape responsibility for 1929, or 2008, or the current wealth inequality issue right in front of us. 

 

The role of far-right/far-left populists who embraced protectionism over free trade can not be underestimated in bring on the stock market crash. This was not the only factor--unleveraged financial speculation had a major part in the crash as well--but populist nativism and protectionism hur the world economy very badly in the run up to the Great Depression. As did the populists embrace and acquiescence the rise of fascism in Europe. Big mistake by the populists.

 

To be clear, the social programs (*eventually, and reluctantly paid for by capitalism), were created in response to the massive unemployment, which was caused by rampant overspeculation on Wall St. 

 

Business leaders in the main supported the New Deal. They understood the need to put funds into the economy and that the Federal government alone had that ability. FDR did offer a liberal response in a time of crisis. He did not embrace socialism, as some would falsely suggest.

 

Yes, these are all good examples of social programs paid for by capitalism. Some things are better off being run by the government, whoever pays for it.



Like public school, Post Office, Police, Interstate highways, and healthcare. Not sure where you are drawing the line. 

 

It is easy to draw a line. The government should not get involved in owning the means of production and distribution. There are some public infrastructure needs where monopolies make sense to avoid duplication or when a civic needs are being met where state control make economic sense. Otherwise, no.

 

That's quite suprising. Sweden is going to turn into an human rights, and economic nightmare?



Will that be before, or after America's economic nightmare? 

 

LOL. Sweden is not a socialist state. You are proving my points for me.

 

[quoteHave it your way,

Sweden is an advanced capitalist economy, which has an government funded universal healthcare system paid through taxes.

Or,

Sweden is an advanced capitalist country with a unversal heaalthcare system (*paid for by capitalism),

if you like that better.

The fact remains.

Sweden has a universal healthcare system for all it citizens.[/quote]

 

True. And the US could chose a similar system without embracing socialism. Believing otherwise a mistake on the part of Bernie Sanders and his "revolution." He would destroy the economic basis that can pay for such social goals were he given the opportunity to re-mold the nation to his socialist vision. 

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...