Skip to main content

If you are, like me, somewhat of a history geek, then you will love the resources of USCB's American Presidency Project, particularly the database of past party platforms. You can learn a lot about the evolution of our political parties by reading their platforms--seeing which issues rise and fall, seeing how frames and principles change.

A study of the relationship between the Democratic Party platform and the goal of full employment, for example, is quite revealing.

The term "full employment" refers to the economic state in which everyone who is eligible and willing to work is gainfully employed.  Unemployment would only be "frictional," i.e. that resulting from transitions between jobs. The term "full employment" is most commonly known as the goal of Keynesian economic policy, and as a goal, it was a defining feature of the post-war economic consensus. Unsurprisingly, mentions of "full employment" began in 1944.

For the next four decades, full employment was featured as a prominent part of the economic agenda presented by the Democratic Party platform. The first year that the Democrats abandoned discussion of full employment was 1992. The term "full employment" has never been mentioned in a Democratic Party platform since.

The abandonment of "full employment," perhaps unsurprisingly, aligns with the ascent of the Clintonites of the Democratic Leadership Council and the so-called "New Democrat" or "Third Way" wing of the Democratic Party, who sought to move away from the New Deal liberalism of the past and embrace the fundraising potential of an affinity with Wall Street.

1944 Platform
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

To speed victory, establish and maintain peace, guarantee full employment and provide prosperity —this is its platform.
1948 Platform
Harry S. Truman
To serve the interests of all and not the few; to assure a world in which peace and justice can prevail; to achieve security, full production, and full employment—this is our platform.
1952 Platform
Adlai Stevenson
Full Employment

The Democratic Administration prudently passed the Employment Act of 1946 declaring it to be national policy never again to permit large-scale unemployment to stalk the land. We will assure the transition from defense production to peace-time production without the ravages of unemployment. We pledge ourselves at all times to the maintenance of maximum employment, production, and purchasing power in the American economy.

1956 Platform
Adlai Stevenson

In the section "The Republican Brand of Prosperity"

Substituting deceptive slogans and dismal deeds for the Democratic program, the Republicans have been telling the American people that "we are now more prosperous than ever before in peacetime." For the American farmer, the small businessman and the low-income worker, the old people living on a pittance, the young people seeking an American standard of education, and the minority groups seeking full employment opportunity at adequate wages, this tall tale of Republican prosperity has been an illusion.

In the section "Democratic Principles for Full Prosperity for All"
(1) We repudiate the Republican stunting of our economic growth, and we reassert the principles of the Full Employment Act of 1946;
1960 Platform
John F. Kennedy
Full Employment

The Democratic Party reaffirms its support of full employment as a paramount objective of national policy.

For nearly 30 months the rate of unemployment has been between 5 and 7.5% of the labor force. A pool of three to four million citizens, able and willing to work but unable to find jobs, has been written off by the Republican Administration as a "normal" readjustment of the economic system.

The policies of a Democratic Administration to restore economic growth will reduce current unemployment to a minimum.

Thereafter, if recessionary trends appear, we will act promptly with counter-measures, such as public works or temporary tax cuts. We will not stand idly by and permit recessions to run their course as the Republican Administration has done.

1964 Platform
Lyndon B. Johnson

In "The Economy"

Full employment is an end in itself and must be insisted upon as a priority objective.
In "Full Employment"
In 1960, we reaffirmed our—

"support of full employment as a paramount objective of national policy."

In July 1964, total employment in the United States rose to the historic peak of 72,400,000 jobs. This represents an increase of 3,900,000 jobs in 42 months.

In the past twelve months, total civilian employment has increased by 1,600,000 jobs, and nonfarm employment by 1,700,000. Most of this job expansion has occurred in the past eight months.

In July 1964, the jobless total was one-half million below a year ago, and was at its lowest July level since 1959.

In July, 1964, the overall unemployment rate was 4.9%—compared with 6.5% in January 1961; and the jobless rate for men who are heads of families was down to 2.7%.

There have been more than a million full-time jobs added to the private profit sector of the economy in the past 12 months. This is the largest increase in any one-year period in the past decade.

We have brought ourselves now within reach of the full employment objective.

1968 Platform
Hubert Humphrey

In "Price Stability with Growth"

The answer to rising prices will never be sought, under Democratic administrations, in unemployment and idle plant facilities. We are firmly committed to the twin objectives of full employment and price stability...
In "Jobs and Training"
To the maximum possible extent, our national goal of full employment should be realized through creation of jobs in the private economy, where six of every seven Americans now work. We will continue the Job Opportunities in the Business Sector (JOBS) program, which for the first time has mobilized the energies of business and industry on a nationwide scale to provide training and employment to the hard-core unemployed. We will develop whatever additional incentives may be necessary to maximize the opportunities in the private sector for hard-core unemployed.
1972 Platform
George McGovern

In "Jobs, Prices, and Taxes"

These losses [in income] were unnecessary. They are the price of a Republican Administration which has no consistent economic philosophy, no adequate regard for the human costs of its economic decisions and no vision of what a full employment economy could mean for all Americans.
In "Jobs, Income, and Dignity"
Full employment—a guaranteed job for all—is the primary economic objective of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is committed to a job for every American who seeks work. Only through full employment can we reduce the burden on working people. We are determined to make economic security a matter of right. This means a job with decent pay and good working conditions for everyone willing and able to work and an adequate income for those unable to work. It means abolition of the present welfare system.

To assure jobs and economic security for all, the next Democratic Administration should support:

A full employment economy, making full use of fiscal and monetary policy to stimulate employment;

The system of income protection which replaces welfare must be a part of the full employment policy which assures every American a job at a fair wage under conditions which make use of his ability and provide an opportunity for advancement. H.R. 1, and its various amendments, is not humane and does not meet the social and economic objectives that we believe in, and it should be defeated. It perpetuates the coercion of forced work requirements.
In "International Economic Policy"
End the high-unemployment policy of the Nixon Administration. When a job is available for everyone who wants to work, imports will no longer be a threat. Full employment is a realistic goal, it is a goal which has been attained under Democratic Administrations, and it is a goal we intend to achieve again;
Support reform of the international monetary system. Increased international reserves, provision for large margins in foreign exchange fluctuations and strengthened institutions for the coordination of national economic policies can free our government and others to achieve full employment;
1976 Platform
Jimmy Carter

I. Full Employment, Price Stability and Balanced Growth

The Democratic Party's concern for human dignity and freedom has been directed at increasing the economic opportunities for all our citizens and reducing the economic deprivation and inequities that have stained the record of American democracy.

Today, millions of people are unemployed. Unemployment represents mental anxiety, fear of harassment over unpaid bills, idle hours, loss of self-esteem, strained family relationships, deprivation of children and youth, alcoholism, drug abuse and crime. A job is a key measure of a person's place in society—whether as a full-fledged participant or on the outside. Jobs are the solution to poverty, hunger and other basic needs of workers and their families. Jobs enable a person to translate legal rights of equality into reality.

Our industrial capacity is also wastefully under-utilized. There are houses to build, urban centers to rebuild, roads and railroads to construct and repair, rivers to clean, and new sources of energy to develop. Something is wrong when there is work to be done, and the people who are willing to do it are without jobs. What we have lacked is leadership.

In the subsection "Republican Mismanagement"
A return to full employment will eliminate such deficits. With prudent management of existing programs, full employment revenues will permit the financing of national Democratic initiatives.
In the subsection "What Democrats Can Achieve"
We have met the goals of full employment with stable prices in the past and can do it again. The Democratic Party is committed to the right of all adult Americans willing, able and seeking work to have opportunities for useful jobs at living wages. To make that commitment meaningful, we pledge ourselves to the support of legislation that will make every responsible effort to reduce adult unemployment to 3 per cent within 4 years.
In the subsection "Full Employment Policies"
Institutional reforms and the use of conventional tax, spending and credit policies must be accompanied by a broad range of carefully-targeted employment programs that will reduce unemployment in the private sector, and in regions, states and groups that have special employment problems.

The lack of formal coordination among federal, state and local governments is a major obstacle to full employment. The absence of economic policy coordination is particularly visible during times of high unemployment. Recessions reduce tax revenues, and increase unemployment-related expenditures for state and local governments. To maintain balanced budgets or reduce budget deficits these governments are forced to increase taxes and cut services—actions that directly undermine federal efforts to stimulate the economy.

Consistent and coherent economic policy requires federal anti-recession grant programs to state and local government, accompanied by public employment, public works projects and direct stimulus to the private sector. In each case, the programs should be phased in automatically when unemployment rises and phased out as it declines.

Even during periods of normal economic growth there are communities and regions of the country—particularly central cities and rural areas —that do not fully participate in national economic prosperity. The Democratic Party has supported national economic policies which have consciously sought to aid regions in the nation which have been afflicted with poverty, or newer regions which have needed resources for development. These policies were soundly conceived and have been successful. Today, we have different areas and regions in economic decline and once again face a problem of balanced economic growth. To restore balance, national economic policy should be designed to target federal resources in areas of greatest need. To make low interest loans to businesses and state and local governments for the purpose of encouraging private sector investment in chronically depressed areas, we endorse consideration of programs such as a domestic development bank or federally insured taxable state and local bonds with adequate funding, proper management and public disclosure.

Special problems faced by young people, especially minorities, entering the labor force persist regardless of the state of the economy. To meet the needs of youth, we should consolidate existing youth employment programs; improve training, apprenticeship, internship and job-counseling programs at the high school and college levels; and permit youth participation in public employment projects.

There are people who will be especially difficult to employ. Special means for training and locating jobs for these people in the private sector, and, to the extent required, in public employment, should be established. Every effort should be made to create jobs in the private sector. Clearly, useful public jobs are far superior to welfare and unemployment payments. The federal government has the responsibility to ensure that all Americans able, willing and seeking work are provided opportunities for useful jobs.

In the section "Economic Justice"
Our commitment to full employment and sustained purchasing power will also provide a strong incentive for capital formation.
In the section "Health Care"
A return to full employment and the maintenance thereafter of stable economic growth will permit the orderly and progressive development of a comprehensive national health insurance program which is federally financed.
In the section "Environmental Quality"
Protecting the worker from workplace hazards is a key element of our full employment program.
In the section "International Relations"
Our country can—and under a Democratic administration it will—work vigorously for the adoption of policies of full employment and economic growth which will enable us to meet both the justified domestic needs of our citizens and our needs for an adequate national defense.
In the section "The Challenge of Interdependence"
We are committed to trade policies that can benefit a full employment economy—through creation of new jobs for American workers, new markets for American farmers and businesses, and lower prices and a wider choice of goods for American consumers.
We pledge constant efforts to keep world monetary systems functioning properly in order to provide a reasonably stable economic environment for business and to prevent the importation of inflation. We will support reform of the international monetary system to strengthen institutional means of coordinating national economic policies, especially with our European and Japanese allies, thus facilitating efforts by our government and others to achieve full employment.
1980 Platform
Jimmy Carter

In the section "Solving Economic Problems"

Full Employment—We specifically reaffirm our commitment to achieve all the goals of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act within the currently prescribed dates in the Act, especially those relating to a joint reduction in unemployment and inflation. Full employment is important to the achievement of a rising standard of living, to the pursuit of sound justice, and to the strength and vitality of America.
In the section "Women and the Economy"
We will adopt a full employment policy, with increased possibilities for part-time work.
In the section on "Welfare Reform"
As state and local governments modify other benefit programs on which low-income people depend, the Food Stamp Program becomes increasingly important. We will continue to work toward full employment in recognition of the importance of self-support. Until that goal can be attained, and for those who cannot be self-supporting, we remain committed to our current policy of full funding for the Food Stamp Program.
1984 Platform
Walter Mondale

In the section "Investing in Our Cities"

Toward that end, the Democratic Party pledges:

—a commitment to full employment. We believe the federal government must develop a major, comprehensive national job skills development policy targeted on the chronically unemployed and underemployed. We must launch special training programs for women who receive public assistance. We need to increase government procurement opportunities for small and minority firms and to encourage deposits of federal funds in minority-owned financial institutions. And to build for the future, the Democratic Party calls for a new national commitment to education, which must include raising standards, insisting on excellence, and giving all children a chance to learn, regardless of race, income or sex.

In the section "Meeting the Challenge of Economic Competition"
—We need a vigorous, open and fair trade policy 'that builds America's competitive strength, and that allows our nation to remain an advanced, diversified economy while promoting full employment and raising living standards in the United States and other countries of the world; opens overseas markets for American products; strengthens the international economic system; assists adjustment to foreign competition; and recognizes the legitimate interests of American workers, farmers and businesses.
1988 Platform
Michael Dukakis
We believe that, as a first-rate world power moving into the 21st century, we can have a first-rate full employment economy, with an indexed minimum wage that can help lift and keep families out of poverty, with training and employment programs—including child care and health care—that can help people move from welfare to work, with portable pensions and an adequate Social Security System, safeguarded against emasculation and privatization, that can help assure a comfortable and fulfilling old age, with opportunities for voluntary national public service, above and beyond current services, that can enrich our communities, and with all workers assured the protection of an effective law that guarantees their rights to organize, join the union of their choice, and bargain collectively with their employer, free from anti-union tactics.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Pretty clear who put an end to a long tradition (24+ / 0-)

    Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 03:45:46 PM PDT

  •  The Dems gave up the goal of full employment (17+ / 0-)

    when they saw republicans swing so far to the right, they decided to become moderate republicans.

    Think I'm wrong? what else would explain NAFTA, or the gutting
    of Glass/Stegial.

    •  Lessons for modern Democrats. 1963; Moynihan. (12+ / 0-)

      The GOP shifted the Overton Window to the right patiently, steadfastly, over a number of years. They used think tanks, magazines, and party intellectuals or pseudo-intellectuals like Newt Gingrich to shift the terms of public discourse to where it is and has been since 1980.

      Where are our comparable resources, pushing the Overton Window back to the left? You're reading one--DKos. I hope you're also reading Krugman, and regularly linking to him on your Facebook page or Tumblr.  

      Let us remember that the 1963 march, whose 50th anniversary we celebrate, was officially the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom." http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Let us remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan--a liberal intellectual whose influence on the mainstream we sorely miss--warned in his1965 report that the black family was in danger of disintegrating without a jobs program to ensure black men could earn a reasonable living. When Moynihan wrote that, he was an Assistant Secretary of Labor in the LBJ administration.

      Where is Moynihan's like in the Obama administration? As Ta-Nehisi Coates has observed, in discussing why something like the Moynihan report would not be written today:

      There's no real political cost to telling people to get married. (Everyone loves a wedding.) Telling them that there should be a jobs program that makes more men marriage-material is different.

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 05:12:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  'Jobs Now!' should be Dem rallying cry. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Mostel26, 3goldens

        We need to beat the R's over the head for their obstructionism and make sure the public connects this current recession and the ensuing slow recovery on the GOP, a political party so tied to the vested interests of the nation that their only concern is to their base contributors.
        Dems need to come up with necessary infrastructure projects around the country and if the House and Senate won't move on the plan, the President needs to take it upon himself to start funding in every state for needed projects, while giving consumer oversight and documentation teeth to fight fraud.
        Let's get this country united and back to work.

        •  Yes & no & instead. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens
          We need to beat the R's over the head for their obstructionism and make sure the public connects this current recession and the ensuing slow recovery on the GOP, a political party so tied to the vested interests of the nation that their only concern is to their base contributors. Dems need to come up with necessary infrastructure projects around the country
          Yes, but--been there, done that, didn't work. See American Jobs Act (2010) leading to disastrous 2010 elections.
          and if the House and Senate won't move on the plan, the President needs to take it upon himself to start funding in every state for needed projects
          Can't do it. Just can't do it. Might as well suggest the President grow wings and fly to the Andromeda Galaxy.

          Instead: Obama could crack down on greenhouse emissions with the EPA, which would get the vast troves of corporate cash off the sidelines and into the real economy, creating clean energy jobs. Details: http://www.dailykos.com/...

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 06:55:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  How to get Republicans to support jobs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey, elwior, NoMoreLies

    Until Republicans stop sabotaging the economy just to hurt Obama, job creation remains a moot point.

    How to get The GOP to change?

     Just point out that by slowing the economy, they are inadvertently helping he environment. Fewer jobs means less consumption, means fewer births and more abortions for people who just can't afford a baby, etc.

    Republicans hate the environment so much, they so desire the poison and filth of pollution, it just may turn them around.

    And lest you think I am joking...here's an example: Republicans will actually pay more for the privilege of fowling their own nest.

    Freedumb!

    "I wonder why Congress again in a new poll out today--11% approval rating. (It's) because they don't work for us. They work for the sons-of-bitches who pay them." Cenk Uygur

    by Dave in Columbus on Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 03:58:24 PM PDT

  •  about when they realized that the post-war (5+ / 0-)

    economic boom was gone, never to return.

    The rise of manufacturing centers in Europe and Asia as those regions recovered from the devastation of WWII, combined with the US hitting peak oil in the 1970s--these ended the postwar American manufacturing economy. It took a while for the Dems to acknowledge this fact, but they did.

    Full employment is a promise that simply can't be kept, unless the government is willing to take the much more radical step of completely decoupling the issue of employment from the vicissitudes of the business cycle.

    If a company has a bad year, they lay people off. And then those people don't have purchasing power to buy things, which leads to other companies having bad years, and then they lay more people off in turn, and then you have high unemployment. So if you rely on private companies to provide full employment, then you are necessarily hostage to the ups and downs of business hiring. (Of course, these days companies lay people off regardless of whether they're having a bad year or not).

    In order to decouple full employment from the business cycle, the government must systematically create jobs for those who can't find them in private employment, in a countercyclical fashion (i.e. increasing the number of government jobs when private companies aren't hiring, and decreasing the number when they are), and do so permanently.

    This goes beyond even what Roosevelt did at the height of the New Deal. Government employment programs like the WPA were only temporary, begun in response to an immediate emergency and wound down when the emergency was over.

    But to run such a program on a permanent basis, in such a way as to absorb all the workers that the private sector can't--that's more radical than anything done in American politics, probably ever.

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

    by limpidglass on Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 04:29:37 PM PDT

    •  Good points. More. (3+ / 0-)

      (1) You're right--we won't have full employment without significant government intervention. This Stiglitz (Nobel economics winner) piece explains why (spoiler alert: offshoring & automation): http://www.vanityfair.com/...

      (2) Bigger than the New Deal--I doubt it. But let's not forget that the Great Depression wasn't really ended till WWII, which was an even bigger Keynesian stimulus program. What we need now may or may not be bigger than WWII; but we could certainly spend well short of that level and see what happens.

      (3) Permanent government jobs program? Maybe not. The alternative government intervention would be to raise the minimum wage to something like $25 or $30 an hour, and have mandatory overtime kick in at 20 hours a week, even for most people on salary. This would push employers to hire most people part-time--which would spread the same amount of work around among more people. Working part-time would become the norm, but people could actually live on part-time work. (Of course we'd need truly universal healthcare.) That would require us to embrace the vision of Keynes [PDF]:

      Thus for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem — how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.

      The strenuous purposeful money-makers may carry all of us along with them into the lap of economic abundance. But it will be those peoples, who can keep alive, and cultivate into a fuller perfection, the art of life itself and do not sell themselves for the means of life, who will be able to enjoy the abundance when it comes.

      Yet there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and of abundance without a dread. For we have been trained too long to strive and not to enjoy. It is a fearful problem for the ordinary person, with no special talents, to occupy himself, especially if he no longer has roots in the soil or in custom or in the beloved conventions of a traditional society. To judge from the behaviour and the achievements of the wealthy classes to-day in any quarter of the world, the outlook is very depressing! For these are, so to speak, our advance guard — those who are spying out the promised land for the rest of us and pitching their camp there. For they have most of them failed disastrously, so it seems to me — those who have an independent income but no associations or duties or ties — to solve the problem which has been set them.

      --John Maynard Keynes
      Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren (1930)

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 05:44:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We can't have full employment... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey

      ...because of technology.

      In the Economy of the Future:

      1) The unemployment rate will be 99.999999%. Only one guy will have a job.

      2) This job will be a part-time job. Once a week, this guy will press a button that tells the robots & computers to make all the stuff.

      3) The job will pay $10,000,000,000,000.

      4) The income tax rate will be 99.99999999999%

      5) The rest of us will be on Food Stamps and Medicaid.

      I'm snarking, but also serious. We need to address the fact that we really don't need 100% of the labor force working.  Technology has ended those days.  What we need are:

        - Part-time jobs so people can raise their kids and take care of the elderly.

        - Higher income tax rates to force income equality.

      We need to focus less on "jobs" and more on "how can we get stuff without doing so much damn work all the time". The goal is not "jobs". The goal is "food, shelter, clothing, education, and medical care".

      •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

        Have you read that Stiglitz article I linked? You're on the same page as the Nobel economics winner, so you're in good company.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:55:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The neoliberals. (8+ / 0-)

    As Lefty Coaster pointed out above, the Democrats stopped endorsing full employment when Dem neoliberalism came to power.

    "Exxon’s CEO was recently quoted as saying, ‘What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?’, as if the future of humanity could be separated from the ecosystems on which we depend." -- Charlotte Wilson

    by Cassiodorus on Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 05:20:02 PM PDT

  •  Only Socialists favor full employeement (5+ / 0-)

    Democrats might say so, but socialism means it.

    The symbol for the Republican party shouldn't be an elephant -- it should be a unicorn.

    by Deadicated Marxist on Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 05:50:56 PM PDT

  •  We need to run far back to the left (2+ / 0-)

    If every demographic trend I'm reading about our newest Americans holds true, the best way to keep increasing Democratic Party gains would be via a continuous shift left on economic policies. People aren't flocking to America to see it run by Robber Barons in the manner of the places they are choosing to leave. Class warfare wasn't started by Democrats, but it's a war we can win with ease.

  •  There is no real difference between the 2 parties. (0+ / 0-)

    Both piss on our heads and tell us it's raining. Both only care about continuing their power. Both would sell every American down the river as long as they were able to continue doing what they do.

    I see no difference between progressives or conservatives. both are minorities who want to push THEIR agenda/belief systems down the throats of the majority (most of who just want to live their lives in peace).

    Take a look at all the laws, regulations and other things that come out of DC by BOTH parties. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they simply change whose in charge by rigging the elections.

    Has anyone ever wondered why the BIG questions are never settled? Why they're not put up to a vote by the people?  Why isn't our tax code fixed. Because as long as these differences exist they can continue to control us and make us fight against each other rather then looking at what's wrong with THEM!!!

    I believe we need to take a look at all the legislation and regulations we have and get rid of 98% of them.

    Most could be replaced by one main law that says you can live your life as you wish as long as you don't infringe on the rights of other citizens and another that requires that ALL products have truthful labels that allow you to make a decision on if you should use the product.

    Soldiers and veterans are the reason we are able to argue about issues and to live in a free country. Let's not let their blood be wasted. Remember all gave some and some gave all. Honor their sacrifices.

    by Somegaveall on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:52:08 AM PDT

    •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

      We have the political system we have, bottom line, because in even the most important elections, 40+% of Americans don't bother to educate themselves with readily available information, and vote.

      And about half those who do vote have allowed themselves to remain ignorant.

      You complain about the tax code. Bad as it is, it was significantly better under Clinton. How did it go downhill from there? Because an unholy amalgam of Bush 43, the Supreme Court, and Ralph Nader (claiming "there's no difference between the 2 major parties") put Bush 43 in office, and--just as importantly--elected the Congressional reps who fucked up the tax code even worse, instead of fixing it.

      The problem with a democracy is that, on average, we get what we deserve. "We have met the enemy and he is us."

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:04:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site