Skip to main content

View Diary: It's Not About Chained CPI (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I understand your argument. (8+ / 0-)

    although I think the brand will survive, it doesn't matter to me if it doesn't.  my Party isn't sacrosanct.  I wouldn't have been a member of it, had I been born even half a century sooner than I was.  Parties change.  that's fine.  

    progressive hero FDR signed off on a SS plan that didn't cover my great-grandmothers. a plan that was deliberately made that way to get DEMOCRATIC votes.  yet you don't hear a lot of older black folks castigating him for that fact.  you don't hear black people of my generation claiming that he didn't care about us, as a result.  you don't see black people making that point, except perhaps to get people to have a little perspective as regards this president, and what he does.

    frankly I find the whole "soul of the party" thing to be completely overwrought, and out of touch with how non-political junkies think.

    again though... I understand this argument, even if I don't emotionally react to it.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 10:54:16 AM PDT

    •  edit: (0+ / 0-)
      you don't see black people making that point
      should read:

      you don't see black people making the point I just did

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 10:55:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  so what party would you have been (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mallyroyal, 3goldens

      part of a half century ago?

      this is a genuine question.

      •  the same as MLK (4+ / 0-)

        Sr. and Jr.

        George Wallace, on the other hand, was a Democrat.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:01:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, Republicans changed when (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mallyroyal, FindingMyVoice

          Dems supported civil rights.  1948 was a big year.  The Dixiecrats.  FDR was pressured by the RR union guy, Randolph, to do an executive order ending discrimination in fed defense jobs, but a lot before that was bad.  Social Security deliverately left out domestic workers, which meant many black workers in the south were outside it.

          Wallace was not a good example because by the early 1960s, Dems outside the south were supporting civil rights.  Goldwater won much of the Deep South in 1964.

          But certainly beofre 1948 and maybe for parts of the 50s, Dems were not very good.  

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:30:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  right, but my point stands. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, lcj98, FindingMyVoice

            all this "soul of the party" and "brand of the party" is BS to my ears.  

            things change, is the only constant.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:34:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree. If there were a more viable left party (4+ / 0-)

              I would join it.  Things do change.  

              I hear you.

              Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

              by TomP on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:40:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  All things do not change. (0+ / 0-)

              The people who supported the King of England in the American revolution were the same people who started the Civil War and who own the corporations (don't mistake corporations for anything other than the very few people who own and profit profusely from them, the same people who steal all productivity for their own personal gain).

              The protesters against the American Revolution have never stopped hating Americans and have profited greatly from all types of slavery. Now they've purchased people like Frank Luntz to distort and confuse our language.

              "I freed a thousand slaves, I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves" Harriet Tubman

              by BrianParker14 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 03:31:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  A lot of blacks were Repubs back then (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens

      Assuming they were even allowed to vote. And FDR's "grand bargain" was arguably necessary back then in the era of Jim Crow and Dixiecrats, which is not true today. What is necessary about cuts to entitlements?

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:23:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (4+ / 0-)
        And FDR's "grand bargain" was arguably necessary back then in the era of Jim Crow and Dixiecrats, which is not true today.
        so... obstruction by dixiecrats must be bargained with

        but not obstruction by tea partiers?

        you MUST explain to me how that works.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:38:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the electorate FDR faced was less diverse (0+ / 0-)

          much whiter, more Protestant, more conservative. He therefore had to be much more wary, because the right was far more powerful back then.

          He could not have won any of his elections without those Southern Democrats supporting him.

          Obama's in the 21st century. The electorate he is facing is much more diverse--not only ethnically, but in religion, gender, and age. The fastest growing demographics in American politics are Hispanic- and Asian-Americans.

          The Southern Strategy of Nixon and Reagan is no longer viable. The Republicans have only won the popular vote in one of the last six presidential elections. Obama is facing an electorate that is much more open to making significant changes. He doesn't need the support of white conservatives to advance his legislative agenda or even to get elected.

          The tea party has no power that Obama doesn't give it. They're a ghost, they represent a shrinking minority. The American electorate overwhelmingly repudiates what they stand for. If Obama stamped his foot, the ghost would vanish and we'd see how powerless they really are.

          The 1% give them funding and free media airtime to make them look more powerful, but it's like a pufferfish taking in water to make it seem bigger and more threatening than it is.

          Obama chooses not to banish the ghost, because the ghost gives him political cover to do what he wants to do--namely, advance the Wall Street agenda of privatizing the government. He can kill the public option and blame it on the teabaggers. He can slash the stimulus and pack it with tax cuts, and blame it on the Republicans. Lather, rinse, repeat.

          Obama is a skillful politician, all right--but you're mistaken about whom he's working for. He's not working for the poor--quite the opposite.

          That is, in a nutshell, how it works.

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:03:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe we have learned? (0+ / 0-)

          NOT to bargain with them?

          Especially when there is no reason too?

          Why is it necessary about cuts to entitlements?

        •  An overwhelming majority of Americans (0+ / 0-)

          across the political and ideological spectrum opposed cuts to any of these programs, something that was not true of making Social Security color-blind in the 30's. The forces of segregation were profoundly more powerful and numerous back then than are the forces calling for austerity.

          And your argument also only makes sense to someone who thinks that a grand bargain--ANY grand bargain--is necessary or wise, as opposed to kicking the can down the road with a series of CRs or status quo budgets until we have the votes to pass something progressive. You support a grand bargain? Why? Why do we have to "go big" when we're at a disadvantage? Unlike the 30's, we're not trying to pass something progressive, which is impossible now, but rather avoid anything regressive passing. All Obama has to do is do nothing to make that happen, or, at most, veto anything regressive.

          You really think the public's going to side with Repubs if he does that?

          There is no political advantage to giving away the New Deal. None. And every disadvantage in doing so. He's not doing this for political gain. He's doing this because he WANTS a grand bargain, and thus these cuts.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 02:19:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I agree that it can be overwrought. (4+ / 0-)

      I doubt most folsk understand what chained cpi is.  And many of the amateur political scientists commenting around here don't  have the best track record, partly because they predict the same thing regardless of what happens (Obama is destroying us!  Bad, etc.)

      I think this is bad policy and wish Obama had not proposed it.  But Boehner rejected it and it is DOA.  

      Good to see you, mally.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:26:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site