Skip to main content

View Diary: Can you work against the social safety net and still call yourself a Democrat? (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Republicans must be roundly defeated (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe shikspack

    and placed into the dustbin of history with the Whig Party. IMO any legitimate complaints about the Democratic Party being too centrist has its roots in the combination of an extreme GOP, a severe lack of campaign finance reform, and the continued precedent of corporations = people (which did not START at Citizen's United, which I think had to be decided that way given the precedent).

    With exceptions for some issues like Obama's defense and terror policies (which are not roundly opposed by the public or the 'median' Democrat), this would go a long way imo.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:58:25 AM PST

    •  these are surely things that need to be done... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bsmechanic, shaharazade, aliasalias

      but, the democratic party is under corporate occupation, just like the republicans.  sure it may be a different set of corporations, but that's kind of a distinction without a difference.

      imo, the democrats can't win that sort of sweeping defeat against the republicans without convincing the average american voter that they represent their interests.  they're not going to be terribly convincing at that if they cut the earned benefits of the majority of americans.

      the fix to this problem is for the average people to get together and create some representation for themselves.  if the democratic party wants to cooperate in that, it would be swell.  these days, i'm not expecting it though.

      i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

      by joe shikspack on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:08:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It would in fact take an en masse populist (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe shikspack, Lady Libertine

        movement to refuse to vote for any candidates that took over X amount of SuperPac money, regardless of what that candidate stands for or where that PAC apparently got their funds from. At least until corporations cannot donate to them.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:22:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Two most important issues have been neglected (8+ / 0-)

        jobs and climate change. At least unemployment is talked about but climate change is barely mentioned. The two items are not separate.

        Two in particular are worth noting. The first is persistent mass unemployment, still affecting tens of millions of families, which translates directly into economic underperformance, a primary root cause of the budget problems, which the "fiscal cliff" drama purports to be about. The second is global warming. It's also worth noting that these two seemingly separate problems are really both just halves of a single solution, as was pointed out by George Soros just weeks after the financial crisis exploded in 2008.
        The social safety net is going to be even more important as unemployment continues and global warming destroys the landscape.

        ❧To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:31:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  too centrist because of too many compromises (5+ / 0-)

      If the Republicans are so bad (and I agree that they are) why compromise with them so much?

      ❧To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:33:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Too centrist because it's always been that way. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe shikspack, Agathena, aliasalias

        The compromises are with people like us.  We are the insurgency, not the norm.

        "Every time you opt in to kindness/ Make one connection, used to divide us/ It echoes all over the world" -- from Dar Williams' "Echoes"

        by Cassiodorus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:12:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Because we're in the US and we have a (0+ / 0-)

        political system that has two houses of Congress and 3 branches of government?

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:44:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  because imo (4+ / 0-)

        both parties support and work for the same agenda, their really is not very much difference other then the severity of the by-partisan dismantling any democratic representation, economic equity or social justice. Neither party even represents our 'national interest' anymore let alone the common good of it's citizens. Balanced sacrifice for what, the oligarchical collectivists who like the trader from Goldman Sach's said rule the world? Both sides here are operating on the common ground of Clinton's 'inevitable' corporate NWO. 'Victories for compromise' are in reality the haggling over the picking of our economy's  bones and the degrees of of the austerity they can impose.              

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site