Skip to main content

View Diary: War on poverty, income inequality and wealth disparity not a winning message (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In that case, it almost sounds like Mitt Romney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkmich

    (or more specifically, his "on the record" rhetoric) is what you're looking for - i.e., the bottom 5% are taken care of adequately by the "safety net" so the key is to take care of the shrinking middle class.

    Unfortunately he was totally clueless how to accomplish that.  Not sure if anybody has any really good solutions (that are remotely workable), unfortunately.

    •  No, not at all... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, Calidrissp, T Maysle

      If you expand the safety net, you make the "welfare" population bigger.  By expanding the middle class, you reduce the number of poor people.  You elevate them out of it by creating good middle class jobs that pay a good middle class wage - 40K w/o ot.  

      Romney didn't give a damn about the middle class.   It was code for the 1%.   If he cared, he wouldn't have advocated letting the autos die and all of their jobs with them.  

      I am not suggesting that we don't take care of the poor.  I am suggesting that welfare is not a platform to run on.  The  safety net needs to be there, but we shouldn't have the demand for it that we do.    

      What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

      by dkmich on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 05:51:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really need to proof what I write. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        I am sorry for all of the grammatical twists and turns.  

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

        by dkmich on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 05:52:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As somebody who is grammatically massively (0+ / 0-)

          challenged, I totally appreciate grammatical twists and turns.

          Except I didn't even notice any in your post.

          Which means that (EGAD!!) we might be on the same page here - were you educated in Kansas, too??

      •  Well sure, Mitt Romney (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dkmich

        first of all totally wasn't sincere about boostering the middle class.

        And secondly, even if he were, his voodoo-economics-on-steroids/crack approach wouldn't have helped them, for sure.

        I guess the key question is "just how do you create the $40K middle class jobs?" in a world where in most cases the job can be done readily by somebody who's willing to do so for 1/2 or 1/3rd of that in some other country?  Especially some other country that doesn't give a fuck about other issues, such as the environment??

        •  tariffs, tax off shoring... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy, Calidrissp

          If they want access to our markets, they'll pay for it.   And we'd better do it while we still have people with money to make a market.  China's middle class is growing leaps and bounds.  It is the new and emerging market place.   If we don't do something soon, we'll be Bangladesh.    I am not opposed to China's growth, but I am opposed to it at our expense.    The corporations need to be forced to make it where they sell it or pay a huge tax for bringing it in.   This is why TPP needs to die and die quickly.   We have to reverse what is going on- not settle for Third Way lies.

          China's burgeoning middle class has been well documented in recent years.
          They're more flush with cash than they were 13 years ago when a scant 4% of China's population was considered middle class.
          Today, two-thirds of the country's population hails from the demographic, according to the Diplomat, an online current affairs magazine that focuses on the Asia-Pacific region.

          Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/...
          Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

          What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

          by dkmich on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 06:42:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This sounds good in practice. . .. (0+ / 0-)
            The corporations need to be forced to make it where they sell it or pay a huge tax for bringing it in.
            but in reality, it's tricky.  For example let's say a corporation wants to sell bananas or pineapples - to make them in the USA they'd probably have to built a gigantic, energy-wasting indoor facility (kinda the reverse of the indoor ski hill in Dubai, perhaps).  And a banana would then cost $10 each (no, not for a bunch, EACH).  Not sure if anybody wants that.

            I guess, to get things started, I'd be satisfied to take a baby step and get out of having the Wall Street Banksters control * everything * and see how things shake out from there.  Kinda like in the Clinton years when off-shoring was in high gear, but the effects of financial deregulation hadn't fully kicked in.

            Another "no-brainer" IMO would be to have worker's representatives simply to sit in on management decisions, such as occurs in Germany.  Then, instead of offshoring decisions being presented as a "done deal" 2 weeks before they happen, everybody would have a heads-up 18 months in advance . .. .  (which is actually a big deal both from the POV of companies having to publically justify moving an already profitable factory offshore simply to make MORE profits and - if there actually are legitimate profitabilty issues - to gain worker input into helping to resolve them to keep production local).

            •  Are we talking raw product or processed? (0+ / 0-)

              I don't know how well it works on raw products like food.  I know that is why the oil companies want to export crude instead of refined.  

              Oil companies and their shills in politics are pressuring the federal government to repeal a 38-year-old ban on exporting crude oil, as Grist’s John Upton noted last week. The industry is working up a lawsuit to try to get it overturned, and the American Petroleum Institute is telling anyone who will listen how bad the ban is. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who’s likely to soon chair the Senate Energy Committee, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the committee’s ranking member, have suggested that we “relook at” the rule and repeal it, respectively. Last month a Washington Post editorial called for removing the ban.  http://grist.org/...
              I think it is complicated, but I think we can figure it out.  Afterall, founding fathers used tariffs to fund the country until lobbyists got personal taxes passed.  It was the first shifting of wealth from the people to business.  

              What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

              by dkmich on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 07:10:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Has there really been a 38 year ban on (0+ / 0-)

                exporting crude oil?

                If so, that opens even more cans of worms about that train explosion in Quebec that was supposedly taking Bakken crude to a refinery in New Brunswick, Canada . .. . (or, horror or horrors, is Canada now part of the USA??).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (159)
  • Community (74)
  • Baltimore (71)
  • Bernie Sanders (51)
  • Freddie Gray (39)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Elections (28)
  • Culture (26)
  • Racism (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Education (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Media (19)
  • 2016 (17)
  • Science (16)
  • Politics (16)
  • Environment (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site