Skip to main content

We had a Democratic President, majorities in the House and Senate, and a mandate to do something about the worst economy since the Great Depression. What went so wrong that millions of independents ran straight into the arms of the Republicans?

The answer is that there was nothing done while Democrats had control of all three branches of government that voters believe was effective in improving the economy. Why would they give Dems more time?

And I blame us, the progressives. The sad truth is that after helping elect Obama and winning big Democratic gains in Congress in ’06 and ’08, progressives didn’t have an economic philosophy and program to hand to them, to demand they make it happen.

Sure, progressives argued for a bigger stimulus and for a public option. But even if we won those and passed cap and trade and the Employee Free Choice Act, there still wouldn’t be enough of a change in the economy to stop the Republicans from winning big on Nov. 2nd.

There was nothing proposed by us that voters could have seen, touched, or felt to believe that we were turning the economy around. There was nothing that would have made a real dent in unemployment.

And we still don’t have an answer to the 8 million jobs that were lost in this Great Recession or to the millions of good middle class jobs that have been lost to globalization over the past thirty years or to the decline in income over the past decade.  

It’s time for progressives to take a long, deep look at our lack of an economic philosophy and come up with a new vision and solutions that will really make a difference in people’s lives.

The biggest problem we face in our economy is the fact that the vast majority of Americans are completely reliant on big corporations (and to a lesser extent non-profits and government) to provide us with the jobs that are our only source of income and health insurance.

Ours is a job-based economy, but the creation and maintenance of jobs is totally random, unplanned, and left to the vagaries of the market.

If there ever was a time for a massive jobs program, this was it. If ever there was a chance to convince the American public that the business community has proven totally incapable of providing good middle class jobs and that the federal government has to step in to play that role, this economic crisis was it.

But we, the progressive community, were not ready. We hadn’t come together around a massive government jobs program; it wasn’t anywhere near the top of our to-do lists. We organized for and blogged about our usual array of single-issue concerns, and we were totally unprepared for the economic collapse and had no answers because we don’t share a common economic vision.

We now need to go forward with a new progressive economic vision, and pound away with a message that we need to directly create 10 million new good middle class jobs. We need to tax the Wall St. bankers, hedge fund managers, and CEOs and use the money to create good middle class jobs, permanent jobs, not temporary construction gigs.

Who cares if we can’t get that passed in the new Congress? We need to be for something that inspires voters, and then campaign like hell against the Republicans that are against it. No more nuance, no more shades of gray. We push a massive job creation program in events all around the nation, and build our own Tea Party around it.

It seems like the voting public is swinging in a new, different direction every 2 or 4 years. With the right message and the promise of real jobs, we could be back in power in November 2012. You know that the economy won’t have created enough jobs on its own by then.

If we’re going to have a jobs-based economy, government needs to step in and create jobs, because big business is going in the opposite direction. Technology, mergers and globalization have allowed big business to significantly lower its labor costs while increasing productivity. We need jobs, but they don’t need us.

Sometimes I think we have no vision on jobs because most progressives actually have pretty decent jobs. We do interesting things, get paid pretty well, and our minds are engaged, whether we’re teachers, social workers, or part of the "professional left."

Most of us have no idea how bad the rest of the country’s workers have it. The vast majority of workers in America are fucked; they have shitty jobs that they hate and have to do on an or-else basis in order to get enough money to live. And that’s not even considering the hell of being one of the almost 10% who are unemployed.

As the main character in Office Space said, "human beings were not meant to sit in little cubicles staring at computer screens all day, filling out useless forms and listening to eight different bosses drone on about mission statements."

Right now jobs are everything: they determine how much money we have, what kind of health care, what we spend the majority of our hours doing. Jobs dominate every facet of American life. Sometimes it just doesn’t seem right, and it certainly doesn’t seem logical.

A truly alternative progressive economic vision would be to accept the fact that there will be less and less good jobs created, and just reduce our reliance on jobs, and prepare to move away from a totally job-centered economy.

If we need to tax the hell out of the rich to fund a massive jobs program, it would actually be more efficient to give the money directly to working people. A basic income of about $1,000 a month for everyone making less than $100,000 a year would provide enough to at least cover our most basic needs and give us the ability to work a lot less if we want to. Or work smarter, work better. Take classes to get better jobs. Spend more time with friends and family. Have a better life.

The right wing crazies in the Tea Party movement propose stuff that’s batshit crazy all the time. But it moves the entire national conversation to the right. Isn’t it about time that we on the left have something as simple and clear and truly left wing as Robin Hood economics, taxing the rich and giving it to everyone else? They call us socialists anyway and accuse us of trying to redistribute wealth; why not be out there for something that may be a little socialist but would clearly be in the economic self interest of most people?

After thirty years of trickle down economics from the right, how about some Rise Up Economics from the left? Whether it’s a massive government jobs program or just giving a basic income to all working people, we desperately need a new progressive economic vision.

Originally posted to RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 07:35 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (8+ / 0-)

    "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

    by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 07:35:46 AM PST

  •  $1000 a month? (0+ / 0-)

    Why stop there? Just take the total net worth of the country, confiscate it, and have the Bureau or Equal Outcomes decide who gets what. We don' need jobs, just a guv debit card.

  •  might happen in ten years (0+ / 0-)

    Plenty of progressives have been saying we need a jobs program, Obama and dems, even supposed progressive pelosi, ignore it.

    Maybe not enough votes? How about having a vote on that to prove it? Maybe use the vote tally against repubs in the election?

    But first we will have to let repubs back in charge, mess up the economy more, then in maybe 10 years we can have a majority of real dems in the three branches.

    Economy in the 1920s were pretty much a depression for most americans too, still the guilded age, took decades to get rid of enough conservatives in DC to allow for the new deal.

    •  With the 2 year swings (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hoplite9, strangedemocracy

      that voters are taking, I'm hopeful that we could turn this around quickly. Progressives need to speak with one voice and repeat over and over that we need a massive jobs program. And say nothing else. Make the next two elections a referendum on whether we need a massive jobs program.

      "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

      by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 07:48:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  reason it won't turn around quick (0+ / 0-)

        First we need a real senate majority, that will take years, house really doesn't matter. We also need a real progressive in the white house Obama isn't it. A repub will win in 2012 and be there at least 4 years.

  •  Was Obama too busy dissing FDR? (0+ / 0-)

    This was an interesting piece I came across today.  I'm not sure I agree with the point.  Obama could have meant that his Administration came into office at a different point in the economic crisis, and they would have had to wait 6 months for things to get as bad as they were in 1932.  In fact, I think that's the more likely explanation.

    In any case, the history is interesting.

    Story Behind Obama's Remarks on FDR

    •  Some insight into Obama's views (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiseUpEconomics, m4gill4

      about FDR and economic policy:

      For those on the left ... too many of us have been interested in defending programs the way they were written in 1938.

      In the speech, he also indicates that we owe a debt of gratitude to the likes of Robert Rubin.

      Barack Obama's speech on April 5, 2006 at the launch of The Brookings Institute's Hamilton Project where Obama says that "most of us are strong free traders" and praises the goals of the Hamilton Project. Read more about the Hamilton Project here:

      Stop the Internet Website Blacklist!

      by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:21:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Remember McGovern? (4+ / 0-)

    Ahead of his times.

    Unfortunately, he's still ahead of his time because the Democratic Party abandoned he ideals he was attempting to fulfill.

  •  This is a capitalist society (0+ / 0-)

    It's not going to change.  Trying to do that is a losing, and frustrating, endeavor.

    A more fair tax policy is the way to go.  Businesses would rather upgrade facilities than give money to Uncle Sam.

    We can hire a boatload of forensic accountants to go through Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms, not to mention PACS and other political organizations to see who's colluding with whom....that would be great jobs stimulus and catch the thieves that put us where we are now.

    However, the bottom line, across all of this country's ills, is a lack of accountability. Accountability for shitty business practices, outright illegal activity, war crimes.  It goes on and on and on.  We dont' hold our media responsible for the shit they peddle.  The list just goes on forever.

    •  Doesn't have to be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tam in CA, RiseUpEconomics

      There is nothing in our Constitution that mandates our economic system.  Yes, we have built an incredible economic behemoth here but it is crumbling.

      What we have now is CRONY Capitalism.  It is doomed to failure and its corrupting nature will tear the fabric of our country apart.  It already is.

      We can make choices about our economic future.  We don't have to be a slave to this current system.  We can make choices to say that the purpose of economic activity is the betterment of our society.  We can allow the best parts of market capitalism and combine it with decisions that promote the general welfare of our society (which by the way IS mentioned in our Constitution).

      We can choose to limit corporate power, we can choose a tax policy that is fair, we can choose a more egalitarian path without extinguishing the entrepreneurial spirit.  We can require truth in both government and business dealings.  

      We can choose not to be trapped by our past.

      --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

      by chipoliwog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:08:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Anyone can do that now. there is no (0+ / 0-)

        law against dropping out of the system.  Lots of people do, but choice or necessity.  the underground economy is huge.

        To consistently bash heads against a wall, as I have done for over 40 years, gets you nowhere.  You will not convince enough people.  So you do what you can and hope others find their way.

        This country was founded on crony capitalism.  the laws have always been written by and for the rich.  That is nothing new.  The stuggle to change it has gone on since the dawn of time.

        •  I have a quibble (0+ / 0-)

          I don't agree that this country was founded on crony capitalism.  In deed, while there existed a definite distinction in class, it is my belief that our revolutionary forefathers founded this country as a strong reaction to the conditions that existed in Europe with its entrenched aristocracy.  

          Even subtle things like their approach to intellectual property by limiting it to a short time period for copyright spoke to their egalitarian spirit.  They did not want this nation to become like the Europe whose yoke they had just thrown off.  

          --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

          by chipoliwog on Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 07:50:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The unemployment numbers are probably higher (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BaritoneWoman, RiseUpEconomics

    Once someone is no longer eligible for unemployment compensation, they're taken off the unemployment rolls.  They are basically considered to have "given up."  So the real unemployment number is undoubtedly higher, maybe closer to 15%.

    It's a nitpicky point, I suppose, but I was thinking about this the other day:  Everyone always talks about people wanting jobs, but I'm not sure that's correct.  They don't want jobs, they want money.  The job is simply the means to get that money.  If they could have money without having jobs, my guess is the vast majority of people would take it.  I know I would!  I hate working -- it really gets in the way of all the other things I could be doing!

    Stupid capitalism...


    "We must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom." - Kodos

    by Jon Stafford on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 07:47:32 AM PST

    •  Yes! (0+ / 0-)

      The political pragmatist in me wants a massive government jobs program, but the dreamer in me wants to declare our job-based economy obsolete and just focus on getting money to the lower 90% of income earners.

      "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

      by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:35:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, unemployment is calculated from a monthly (0+ / 0-)

      phone survey of 60,000 people who are asked various questions about their employment status.  Whether they are counted or not has nothing to do with whether they are actually receiving UE benefits.

  •  I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chipoliwog, BaritoneWoman, laker

    progressives have been calling for a stronger labor movement, an increased export economy and an end to support for corporate outsourcing.

    I don't see direct government subsidies for working people as a political reality, however.

    •  The GOP won because they have convinced voters (0+ / 0-)

      to sacrifice their own self interest in support of the "cause".  Democrats are trying to advance everyone's self interests; unfortunately each group has a different self interest, so it's difficult to bring them together into a powerful voting force.

      Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Laurence J. Peter

      by ahumbleopinion on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:18:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Progressives? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I saw plenty of ideas put forth by progressives on jobs.  Including a much larger stimulus and a direct public works job program, along the lines of the WPA and the CCC.

    You should substitute Democrats for Progressives.

    "We have to deal with the world as we find it." The rallying cry of Vichy Dems.

    by Paleo on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 07:48:50 AM PST

    •  I guess the problem is (0+ / 0-)

      that just some progressives were calling for those things, and there were no big, well-financed campaigns for those things.

      "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

      by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 07:51:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh please... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, BaritoneWoman are blaming the wrong party.  Republicans don't have asolution to the jobs problem either but at least they have the media outlets to blare thier BS from.

        I call shenanigans on you.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 07:56:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course the Republicans (0+ / 0-)

          aren't without blame. But we've got to look at what's within our control. And when the biggest economic disaster since the Depression came our way, we as the progressive movement weren't ready. Our job is to provide a set of ideas, a vision, that voters will want to choose over the crap that the Right is feeding them on Fox. And the truth is that we had nothing that voters believed would help them. We need something short, simple, repeatable, and basic, so that when it comes time to go into the voting booth, voters know what they are voting for or against.

          "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

          by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:18:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The problem is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that the me generation lawmakers in office benefit from the trickle down economic philosophy so they have no vested interest in fixing it for the rest of us.  

  •  Incorrect. (0+ / 0-)

    We do need to continue building our movement, and I believe there is lack of consensus as to why we need to do that, but your premise assumes that Progressives have some power to be held to account for.

    We don't.  That's the hard truth.  That's why we need to seriously invest in the movement.

    You see, before we can be blamed for lack of progress on jobs, you have to demonstrate how we would have had the power to deal with jobs.

    Ideas within the movement are plentiful, and many of them are perfectly workable on a lot of levels.

    I would look really hard at the Coin Operated Democrats way before I would tag Progressives with this issue.

    They are the ones that hold solidarity with Republicans when needed to check reform that favors the people.  


    by potatohead on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:00:40 AM PST

    •  What we have power over (0+ / 0-)

      is having some solidarity around a solution to the biggest economic collapse since 1929. There's no one group that is committed to a big jobs program, no organization or campaign, no version of Health Care for America Now. When we won in '06 and '08, it wasn't on the strength of a big campaign and commitments from candidates to support a big jobs program. Hindsight is 20/20, but we didn't set the table for this. Hopefully the Dems will also be looking for some answers to the jobs problem, and we will get our act together and speak with one voice and demand action on a massive job creation plan.

      "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

      by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:14:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Failure to organize well is something I agree (0+ / 0-)

        with.  That's necessary.

        Having done that organization, we can then get some real power, or exert real leverage, neither of which is on the table right now.

        We don't have power, and it consistently costs less to deny us than it does other interests, which is why we always get denied.

        Deffo some accountability there as a movement and as individuals.  

        However, the idea that we are somehow at fault for not having answers to the jobs issue is a non-starter.


        by potatohead on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:18:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you think we have the answer to 10% unemplymnt (0+ / 0-)

          then I'd love to hear it.

          "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

          by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:22:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've heard lots of great things. (0+ / 0-)

            What I've not seen is any power or leverage to realize them.

            Our party is not unified in the desire to realize those things, and that's the problem.

            Progressives are not powerful enough to check corporate politics.  Fact.


            by potatohead on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:24:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think the health care reform campaign (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              is a good example of what we are capable of when the unions and the bloggers and the think tanks and other progressive orgs get together and unite around an issue. It's true that the votes weren't there in the Senate, and we don't have enough power. And so the question is how do we build power. It seems like health care is such a complicated issue and we are all about the nuance; the HCR campaign was a wonk's dream. But if we are to build power, we need a simple message and simple solution to the jobs crisis and a big campaign around it. People care most right now about jobs and are mad that health care came first and that even after health care, there was no jobs program. And for that I blame us for not having a campaign and a vision to push the Dems on.

              "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

              by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:29:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What I see as most troubling (0+ / 0-)

                (and I don't disagree with you on your core idea, just the scope of the problem)

                is the fact that many of us don't differentiate Progressives from Democrats and what that really means.

                Again, coming together on Health Care is very instructive because it showed us where we stand.  Republicans stood their ground and let us squabble over that issue, and we passed corporate welfare.

                It is reform for the people, but it's on their dime too.

                If we are to organize around something like jobs, and I think we should, we also need to realize one product of that organization needs to be more power or leverage or both, or the end product of it will look like reform, but will not actually be material reform.

                To get there, we need to realize WHY we have that problem, and I do not see general acceptance on that, and I believe that is what inhibits the growth efforts you describe.

                A whole lot of people are asking "why?" HCR went the way it did, and they have trouble with the answer, meaning we can't really build around that until that's resolved.


                by potatohead on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:34:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  You have "the dems" and "progressives" (0+ / 0-)

        conflated in your post.

        Here's the trouble with that.

        Dems won on Progressive language and ideas, and they've taken losses for failure to execute on those things.

        It's obvious that "the Dems" does not equate to "the Progressives", or there would have been some material reform on the issues they ran on.

        That reform did not occur.

        It's very instructive to look at HCR and what happened in the House compared to the Senate.

        In the House, where Progressives had some real leverage, because of how the Republicans behaved, we got progressive legislative elements passed.

        In the Senate, where Progressives DO NOT have that same kind of leverage, and where the leadership is not favorable to progressive legislation like the house leadership was, we got squat.

        That's the issue.  We need to build, unify with common interest groups, recruit challengers, take seats, and or build real leverage, or we are going to continue to get squat.

        There is a difference between "the Democrats" and "the Progressives", even though we share a party.  


        by potatohead on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:23:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see your point (0+ / 0-)

          I guess with health care there was some real infrastructure; the progressive community has been organizing around it for years, and came together and fought like hell for a public option. I guess I just don't see anything like that for the jobs crisis.

          "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

          by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:25:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep. (0+ / 0-)

            And most importantly, we went to the mat on Health Care Reform, and essentially lost as Progressives.

            We got the legislation, but we also got corporate welfare.

            That's the difference between "the Democrats" and "the Progressives" right there.

            We need power, or leverage, and to realize either, we need to organize.  That's where "the fault" is, IMHO.

            Your point on "no answers" is kind of moot, until that building occurs, because the most likely outcome of such a effort right now, would be something like HCR, where the spirit of the effort is realized, but the material of it would be more corporate welfare.

            ie:  If we want it, we can pay them to make a profit doing it.


            by potatohead on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:28:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The "answers" and the "building" are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              intimately connected, methinks. I think we have a real chance to build something strong around the answer of facing the facts that businesses aren't going to create enough good middle class jobs to get us the economy we need.

              "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

              by RiseUpEconomics on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:32:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah they are! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                No question on that.

                There are good economic ideas out there, and our own history demonstrates many of them nicely enough.

                IMHO, our general state of confusion over the party vs the movement is causing us a lot of trouble, again in the post above, people ask "why", and without that answer, have trouble investing in "the party", because it really isn't aligned with "the progressives".

                This is on us, you, me, progressives in general to realize.

                We don't yet.

                If we can get there, calls like yours will result in the building needed, IMHO.


                by potatohead on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:36:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And there is another issue... (0+ / 0-)


                There are small to mid-sized businesses, and big corporations, multi-nationals, etc...

                These are very different things, yet we message to all of them as if they are the same.

                They are not.

                Small business has the exact same needs as ordinary people do, and Progressives are very well aligned with that, but "the Democrats" are not.

                That's hurting us too, because that lack of messaging and differentiation means the Republicans can speak to all of "business", being the party of business, keeping many of the smaller businesses aligned against their own interests, which hurts our ability to organize, for their community influence is generally aligned against us.


                by potatohead on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:38:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Keyneseian economics works (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potatohead, hoplite9, RiseUpEconomics

    The US became the powerhouse it was on the strength of a strong labor movement and Keynesian economics.

    --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

    by chipoliwog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:09:48 AM PST

  •  The scope of the diaster is, apparently, way... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...beyond many peoples' ability to comprehend.

    What leads me to say that?  Any notion that somehow ANY person or institution in this nation at this moment in time has any kind of "fix" for the current state of the economy is just poppycock.  

    There is going to be 10% unemployment and a national economy-on-the-rim-of-the-shitter for AT LEAST another 2-3 years.  We will be LUCKY if things don't start going south again over the mortgage paperwork clusterfuck.

    There is NO policy ANYONE can come up with that will
    a. get anywhere near passing through the Senate - this congressional sessionOR the next
    b. have any impact that all the "little people" are pining for until 2012, maybe, IF we keep our fingers crossed.

    The BEST we can hope for is that the White House comes up with some really cosmic Kabuki to hide the shit-pile until the dung beetles have done their work.

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; in the land of the braindead, the intelligent person is cast as the village idiot.

    by dendron gnostic on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:31:01 AM PST

  •  Even better than (0+ / 0-)

    "$1,000 a month for everyone making less than $100,000" would be no one having to send money to health insurance co's every month.

    Which is good news for John McCain.

    by AppleP on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:47:03 AM PST

  •  We'll win nothing without an economic platform. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Without a set of policies we are willing to go the wall for defending we will lose on each on item to the Republicans who go to the wall tearing them apart. If you pass a stimulus bill it automatically becomes part of your platform and must be defended as such. The Democrats seemed emarrassed they passed it and it showed.

    If the Democratic Party had a cohesive platform the onus wouldn't fall so much on the progressives. The progrssives should adopt an agenda and maybe it will be adopted one day by the Democrats like alot of the Populist Party's agenda was adopted by the Democrats during the New Deal.

    The same thing that's wrong with this site is what's wrong with the Rachel Maddow show. Instead of pointing the hypocrises of the Republicans we should be building our own frames and educating voters on the economic realities. Like the fact that capitalism needs customers and markets. When efforts were made to actually get money into the hands of the middle-class during the 50's and 60's, via strong unions and the GI Bill, we grew at a 4.6% clip as compared to 2.8% clip during the Reagan years.

    "...on the (catch a) human network. Cisco."

    by hoplite9 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:54:29 AM PST

  •  A Civilian Reserve Corps (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Jealousy over the thought that a peer has to eat less doo-doo would derail the chances for any real change in our economic system. But, if a program that pays people to go on standby were established, it might be sell-able.

    Maybe pointing out that a glum, resentful fast food worker is the one more likely to spit on the food than a worker that actually likes the job might turn a few heads (or stomachs). Probably needs a diary to flesh-out the idea.



    I support socialized water

    by jabney on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 09:05:54 AM PST

  •  "We need to..." (0+ / 0-)

    Just a dream without power. Learn to win elections and keep winning them first.

    Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

    by billmosby on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 09:51:00 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site