Discussion for article #236590
Too bad the Democrats have lost the moral high ground on this issue.
Once upon a time, when Democrats largely stood with and for working people, this would have been easy to refute. Today, the ones who do just that are considered freakish spoilers by the party intelligentsia, and hollow rhetoric aside, there’ll be no putting on comfortable shoes and walking the picket line among the insider elites.
4 Likes
Over the past 30 years I have very rarely voted for any GOP candidate, local, state or national. With that caveat in mind I’ll say that the GOP with a pragmatic, middle roader could walk away with a win this Presidential election.
Do I believe they will even come close to doing that, not in a heartbeat.
Instead I’ll hold my nose and vote Hill, wish I did not have to do so but what choice will be available. It will be an election between a corporation tool or a religious nut looking to make the country into a theocracy, in that case I’ll take my chances with the corporation.
1 Like
“new found economic populism?” Sound suspiciously like a strategy to fool some of the people all of the time.
3 Likes
Makes me think of an old blues song I once heard Michael Bloomfield sing: “I Keep Laughing and A Cryin’ (when I hear Wingtards like Hannity and Mark Levin grock this line) Just To Keep From Cryin” ( when it shoulda coulda been the centerpiece of Dem/progressive politics since the time my parents were born). Scheesh! We know what works, we know how to build a strong nation with a thriving middleclass, we’ve done this before. We know what it looks like. And if that sounds vaguely conservative- well OK then!
FIFY – The GOP’s Economic Populism Lie
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
And so I hope the Republican Party can become the champion of the working class because I think our policy proposals of limited government and free enterprise are better for the people who are trying to make it than big government is. The fact is that big government helps the people who have made it. If you can afford to hire an army of lawyers, lobbyists and others to help you navigate and sometimes influence the law, you’ll benefit. And so that’s why you see big banks, big companies, keep winning. And everybody else is stuck and being left behind.
Is this any better than a Palin Word Salad with lipstick? If that’s all it takes we truly are f*kt. All of us.
I agree. Americans are stupid. When they hear that the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer under Pres. Obama, they will believe it is his fault just like they blame everything on him. It is all about how the Dems communicate that the system is rigged and the financial collapse was meant to fall on the backs of the poor/working/middle class, and shield the rich. Sure some at the top took a hit, but almost 100% of the wealth went to the top, and over 90% of the wage gains.
There have still been no criminal prosecutions in the financial sector. I wonder why? Because when it costs 2.5 billion dollars to run for president, you have to take money from whoever is giving. And Wallstreet gives to both sides (not equally, but still). Until we get money out of politics, nothing will change.
The only bright side in all of this is HRC’s support of a constitutional amendment, and vow to fill the US SC with justices that will overturn Citizens United (even though that’s not enough, and you really need to look back to Buckley v. Valeo).
I think our policy proposals of limited government and free enterprise are better for the people who are trying to make it than big government is. The fact is that big government helps the people who have made it. If you can afford to hire an army of lawyers, lobbyists and others to help you navigate and sometimes influence the law, you’ll benefit.
Lobbying influence has almost nothing to do with the size of government. It has almost everything to do with the amount of money allowed into politics. Newsflash: it’s not the democrats that have been fighting tooth-and-nail to keep money in politics at every level (legislative, judicial and executive).
Rubio is a gigantic moron if he thinks the logic holds that the larger the government, the better for those who have made it. It’s the more money in politics, the better for those who have made it. Larger government is better for those who haven’t made it. Government protections are generally for those without the money and influence to protect themselves (hence, a democratic republic).
Look at a lot of our regulatory agencies. They protect consumers, citizens, etc, but often are influenced by big money to not be able to enforce those laws or create additional laws that may hurt the big corporations further. So the next time these liars start on their economic populism side-show, call them on their bullshit.
It would be laughable if not sickening if the Republican succeed in stealing economic populism from the Democrats. The Dems better be on top of this, and not let the GOP use Orwellian logic about inequality. The Republicans have been marching to the tune of big corporate profits over all else for decades, they better be called out on it at every turn.
I couldn’t agree more about getting the money out, and we all know which party will fight harder to keep it. That’s why I’m even more flabbergasted that the equivalent GOP talking points (to this article) about Clinton’s earnings and foundation are not laughed out of the room by everyone they try to use them on. I’m even more stunned to read liberal op-eds that side with them, as though they think it will work for democrats to unilaterally disarm. I still remember when Russ Feingold did just that in a race with a terrible candidate (Marc Neumann) who proceeded to take 20 million in corporate donations on the way to coming a tick’s eyelash from beating him.
The correct approach is to crush the GOP with an avalanche of donations followed by the introduction of legislation (or an amendment) to eliminate the money train once and for all. Now, I have serious doubts about the democrats having the guts to do this, but the odds are better with them than with their opponents.