Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Joshua Zeitz: Many on both sides are worried about the party's leftward swing. They say it's a deviation from the mainstream. It's not ... If Democrats are marching to the left, that road leads directly back to platforms and politicians who, in their day, commanded wide support and existed firmly in the mainstream of political thought.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Dems Aren't Moving Left. They're Returning to Their Roots.

They are commies? Who knew?

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-03-12 01:12 PM | Reply

Excellent article, Lee.

Most Dems never actually left their roots, they just had to adjust their tactics to get to those goals as the country became more conservative politically. Clinton announced her candidacy at Roosevelt Island, and it was only her tactics that were different than Bernie's, not most of her goals.

www.vox.com

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-12 01:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Most Dems never actually left their roots, they just had to adjust their tactics to get to those goals as the country became more conservative politically.

Agreed. This country has never been liberal. It's always been center right and always will be.

And the democratic party I was raised in was not liberal. The democrats used to be dixicrats and those southern democrats were more moderate than Kudzu claims to be.

A true Conservative Democrat would win in 2020 if the current party can find one.

#3 | Posted by boaz at 2019-03-12 01:54 PM | Reply

"This country has never been liberal." - #3 | Posted by boaz at 2019-03-12 01:54 PM

Apparently, the entire 16 years of FDR/Truman administrations have been erased from boaz' memory.

G.I. Bill of Rights

#4 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-12 02:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

- This country has never been liberal.

Well, that must be why FDR was Pres for 3 terms and elected for a 4th. Thanks for 'splaining that!

www.history.com

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-12 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Articles like this always get written as we approach a presidential primary.

I hate that both parties have to appease and reach out to the extreme faction of their base But that's the way it is.

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-12 02:15 PM | Reply

FDR was a hell of alot more conservative than any liberal is today..

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2019-03-12 02:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 5

"FDR was a hell of alot more conservative than any liberal is today.." - #7 | Posted by boaz at 2019-03-12 02:29 PM

So?

You claimed that America has never been liberal.

The liberal legislation FDR proposed and implemented is no one's idea of conservative, yesterday or today.

#8 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-12 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

And we arent in a depression. If we were not in a depression, FDR wouldnt have put forth the programs he did.

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2019-03-12 02:33 PM | Reply

"If we were not in a depression, FDR wouldnt have put forth the programs he did." - #9 | Posted by boaz at 2019-03-12 02:33 PM

That's sniper-level stupidity right there.

#10 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-12 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What does it mean to be a moderate Democrat these days? According to AOC it means being "meh" and "cynical". She feels moderates are naïve and lacking in vision unlike ambitious, progressive visionaries such as herself and her fellow justice democrats:

Waleed Shahid @_waleedshahid

.@AOC's critique of "moderates" is spot on.

Moderates are more naive than the visionaries if they think tinkering around the edges will solve systemic problems in our democracy and economy.

It's time to rewrite the social contract, not manage decline.

Here's the video:

twitter.com

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-03-12 02:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Moderates are more naive than the visionaries if they think tinkering around the edges will solve systemic problems in our democracy and economy.
And visionaries are more than naive if they think their take-it-or-leave-it solutions to the systemic problems in our democracy and economy will be embraced by the majority of people simply because they believe themselves to be visionaries.

Negotiation, compromise and consensus are not four-letter words.

See also: The Overton Window of Political Possibilities

#12 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-12 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"Negotiation, compromise and consensus are not four-letter words."

One of the things I thought when I listened to that AOC video was Mario Cuomo's saying, "We campaign in poetry. We govern in prose." AOC's GND proposal is poetry. How that proposal gets turned into policy and enacted is prose.

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-03-12 03:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

"One of the things I thought when I listened to that AOC video was Mario Cuomo's saying, "We campaign in poetry. We govern in prose." AOC's GND proposal is poetry. How that proposal gets turned into policy and enacted is prose." - #13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-03-12 03:00 PM

Excellent, Gal.

Thank you so much for sharing that quote.

Spot on.

#14 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-12 03:13 PM | Reply

I would challenge AOC's contention that moderates are cynical. I think if you asked moderates they would probably say they see themselves as realists. Realists vs dreamers. I think of JFK saying, "Some men see things as they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" Which seems to be a takeoff on something George Bernard Shaw said, "You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?"

Shaw also said, "Both optimists and pessimists contribute to society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute."

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-03-12 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And visionaries are more than naive if they think their take-it-or-leave-it solutions to the systemic problems in our democracy and economy will be embraced by the majority of people simply because they believe themselves to be visionaries.

Negotiation, compromise and consensus are not four-letter words.

See also: The Overton Window of Political Possibilities

#12 | POSTED BY HANS

Bears repeating. I like it when people deal in political reality in lieu of political fantasy. Very NW.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-12 03:29 PM | Reply

The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute."

#15 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

The optimist invents the boat, the pessimist the life jacket.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-12 03:30 PM | Reply

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute."

nice.......

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-12 03:30 PM | Reply

I like it when people deal in political reality in lieu of political fantasy.
#16 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yet you choose to vote for republicans, pretending they make America better.

How sad.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-03-12 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

According to AOC, "Fear is designed to get you to run away from something and it's not a plan, but courage is a plan." She says this towards the end after the part with Bill Nye:

twitter.com

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-03-12 03:47 PM | Reply

"We campaign in poetry. We govern in prose."

The real world likes electricity and food.

#21 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-03-12 04:10 PM | Reply

Hans,

"The liberal legislation FDR proposed and implemented is no one's idea of conservative, yesterday or today."

A "liberal" policy does not a society make.

From what I've read a lot of people took help out of necessity. And some refused at all.

It's only been over time that so many people have become accustomed and even expect the government to take care of them.

#22 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-03-12 07:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

FDR's big thing was putting people to work.

Road building, WPA, etc.

Could you imagine people today being expected to actually lift a finger, much less a shovel?

#23 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-03-12 07:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

A true Conservative Democrat would win in 2020 if the current party can find one.

So True...

We want Elmer Fudd but keep getting Daffy Duck...

#24 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-03-12 08:50 PM | Reply

#23

Agreed. When the Civilian Conservation Corps came online, it paid the equivalent of ~$581 (2018$). Like you, I can't envision a situation where anyone in the US today would ever put in 40 hours for that amount, to live in a bunkhouse...eat from a chow line...wear prison clothes...

It's a different time. During the great depression, people were trying to stay alive. Today it's more about the newest iPhone or $6 cup of coffee.

I would FULLY support the government becoming the employer of last resort, but the fact is that even at minimum wage, you're probably going to do better than in a modern-day CCC-type program.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-12 08:54 PM | Reply

the Dems aren't moving left, they have only leaped in the air while the world continued to turn right underneath them...

#26 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-03-12 09:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Eisenhower was more liberal than nearly and Democrat today. There is even a quote from Richard Nixon where he stated "WE are all Keyneisan today".

Keynes was a proponent of government intervention in the marketplace.

Oh, and when inflation got really bad, guess who used wage and price controls to attenuate it? Richard Nixon.

Wage and price controls is like the ultimate in government intrusion in the market place.

Again, people in this thread who don't see the liberalism rampant in US government from circa 1933 to circa 1980 either don't know history or don't want to know history because of their ideological bent.

Of course the 3rd possibility is that their comments deserve credit on how well their comments were translated from the original Russian.

#27 | Posted by prius04 at 2019-03-12 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When your strategy for decades has been to follow repubs to the right in fruitless hopes of winning over some of their moron voters and corrupt donors, ending that stupid cowardly strategy seems like radical leftism.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-12 09:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Today it's more about the newest iPhone or $6 cup of coffee.

I would FULLY support the government becoming the employer of last resort, but the fact is that even at minimum wage, you're probably going to do better than in a modern-day CCC-type program.

#25 | Posted by madbomber

Smartphones are a prerequisite to participate in modern society. Whining that poor people have iphones makes repubs look stupid and out of touch. So please, continue...

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-12 10:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Everyone on the right, left and center is unhappy with the current economic trends. What few people understand is that both parties and the most powerful Federal Reserve have been implementing right wing policies for the last fifty years. This truth is revealed in a comprehensive study of the last 2000 pieces of legislation which answers only to the interests of the 1%. So doing more of the same is not going to improve anything.

This situation became an opportunity for Trump who lied his way to the Presidency only to double cross his followers by doubling down on more of the same. One of his campaign promises was he was supposedly the only Republican candidate who would not cut social security and medicare. A promise he is breaking now.

So there are no solutions on the right or the middle, only the left. Which is exactly how FDR finally pulled the country out of the Great Depression, a condition which depressed the entire world, caused by selfish, dishonest, right wing ideologues.

#30 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-12 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So there are no solutions on the right or the middle, only the left. Which is exactly how FDR finally pulled the country out of the Great Depression, a condition which depressed the entire world, caused by selfish, dishonest, right wing ideologues.

#30 | Posted by bayviking

Which is why dems were morons to nominate hillary in 2016.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 12:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Only thing in the middle of the road is a dead armadillo.

We have tried electing so called moderate Dems and conservatives and the rich gotten richer and the poor and the middle class gotten poorer I am sure if we do it again results will be the same.

Its time for real change

#32 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-03-13 12:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We need to realize that no matter what Democrats propose, Republicans will label it "socialism". We have to stop allowing them to define the terms of the conversation. You can only negotiate a compromise with a partner who is negotiating in good faith. That is not today's Republican party. No point in negotiating with yourself to move closer to them, it will never be enough until you capitulate.

Ever notice, they don't give a crap what we say about them or their policies. They just double down. It bought them the entire government, at least until 11/6/18. They still own 2/3 of it.

Branding is all they have, and they are masters of it. It is why Trump is in the WH. We need to learn.

#33 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-03-13 01:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Agreed. This country has never been liberal. It's always been center right and always will be. "

You are completely full of crap as usual. By 70% margins America supports a progressive agenda. America reelected FDR 4 times. America is a liberal nation, hasn't always been so though, it took lots of blood, sweat and tears to bring us back to Progressive ideas. We are here now and we will march forward while you and the rest of the conservatives whine about the the deficit after passing a 2 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich. Simply amazing how much hubris the right can display. Oh and Trump proposing an increase in defense spending.....slush fund he thinks he can use as his own piggy bank and everyone knows it.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-13 05:23 AM | Reply

"Which is why dems were morons to nominate hillary in 2016."

We're the morons when the Republicans nominated Trump? Ridiculous. The morons were the Jill Stein voters who thought that puritopian ideas were more important than preventing a Trump Presidency.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-13 05:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

danni,

For heavens sake, you are confusing the population at large, almost half who never vote who overwhelmingly support liberal policies and the Democrat leadership, Republican Party and Deep State that all consistently support Corporatism and the projection of power through dollar banking and military force.In issue after issue the general population supports progressive policies by 55-85%. Yet they rarely materialize. Right now Trump is taking a shredder to them.

Our Democracy is broken because our government does not respond to the 99%, only the 1%. While the campaign strategies between Democrats and Republicans differ considerably, as they vie for power, once in office the agendas of the Democrat leadership and entire Republican Party is about the same. Democrats have undone more of the New Deal than the Republicans.

#36 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-13 07:35 AM | Reply

We have to stop allowing them to define the terms of the conversation.

You liberal idiots have been redefining terms, history, nature since the 60's. If anything has to STOP, it's THAT.

You can only negotiate a compromise with a partner who is negotiating in good faith.

Yea right. Like you would every negotiate anything that gives a conservative a win. Negotiating in good faith doesnt mean always giving in to the liberal side. You would have to accept something YOU dont like, dont you know?

#37 | Posted by boaz at 2019-03-13 08:02 AM | Reply

"Smartphones are a prerequisite to participate in modern society."

Yeah. As are $6 lattes

In any case, you can get a smartphone for virtually nothing. It's the getting the new $1k iphone each time a new one is released. That's not necessary, but it is a widespread expectation you seem to share.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 10:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Its time for real change"

The change you are suggesting will be achieved only at the end of the barrel of a gun, just like so many other socialist regimes.

And you won't be representing the people...you have nothing to offer most of them that they couldn't get on their own. You would be representing yourself and your beliefs as being paramount to their individual rights, freedoms, or beliefs.

There is one way to limit income inequality, and that is to limit the individual freedom that causes it.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"While the campaign strategies between Democrats and Republicans differ considerably, as they vie for power, once in office the agendas of the Democrat leadership and entire Republican Party is about the same. Democrats have undone more of the New Deal than the Republicans."

Uh oh...Bay, you're going to endure the wrath of Corky, who insists that we all recognize a much greater distinction between the parties than you mentioned.

I'm not picking on anybody and in fact, I've moved a little on this issue. I used to recognize almost no distinction...not so much anymore.

The faux fiscal conservatism of the GOP is the best example. When not in power.....they stand firm on spending. When they are in power, the restraint is gone. complete and total hypocrisy the voting base of the GOP falls for every time.

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-13 10:27 AM | Reply

Both optimists and pessimists contribute to society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute."

nice.......

#18 | POSTED BY EBERLY

To the Optimist the glass is half full ...
To the Pessimist the glass is half empty...
To the Engineer you just need a smaller glass...
The Buddhist took a sip and savored the water marveling at its coolness, pondering its Origin and its long incredible journey to the glass.

#41 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-03-13 11:04 AM | Reply

Nearly 80% think CEOs make too much money.

Nearly 80% support increasing funding for quality, affordable child care or other early childhood education programs.

70% support Medicare for All.

Meanwhile, 38% of voters approve of Donald Trump, and 64% think he is a criminal.

But tell me more about what "the people want."

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-13 11:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Meant to quote Madbomber's "And you won't be representing the people..."

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-13 11:11 AM | Reply

"Like you would every negotiate anything that gives a conservative a win." - #37 | Posted by boaz at 2019-03-13 08:02 AM

Obviously, boaz hasn't a clue what "negotiate" means.

"You're unhappy. I'm unhappy too. Have you heard of Henry Clay? He was the Great Compromiser. A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, and I think that's what we have here." - Larry David

#44 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-13 11:15 AM | Reply

We're the morons when the Republicans nominated Trump? Ridiculous. The morons were the Jill Stein voters who thought that puritopian ideas were more important than preventing a Trump Presidency.

#35 | Posted by danni

Yes. We were the morons because we ignored the populist anti establishment sentiment in the country. Trump didn't. And he won. The evidence could not be more obvious. Repeat that strategy, repeat the result.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 11:15 AM | Reply

The faux fiscal conservatism of the GOP is the best example. When not in power.....they stand firm on spending. When they are in power, the restraint is gone. complete and total hypocrisy the voting base of the GOP falls for every time.

#40 | Posted by eberly

It's not just fiscal. When not in power, they claim to be christians and care about morality. Then they completely sell out to the anti christ in exchange for tax cuts for the rich.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-It's not just fiscal

agreed

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-13 11:34 AM | Reply

The dem roots are pretty much seen in action in the early 60s - such as Selma, KKK, school segregation, sit at the back of the bus, separate water fountains ..... those roots???

#48 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-03-13 12:54 PM | Reply

The dem roots are pretty much seen in action in the early 60s - such as Selma, KKK, school segregation, sit at the back of the bus, separate water fountains ..... those roots???

#48 | Posted by MSgt

Hey your party stole all those racists from the dems 50 years ago and youre in no hurry to kick them out.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 02:07 PM | Reply

But tell me more about what "the people want."

#42 | Posted by JOE

To not pay for all the things they want themselves.

#50 | Posted by boaz at 2019-03-13 02:11 PM | Reply

To not pay for all the things they want themselves.

#50 | Posted by boaz

You chump. The billionaires tricked you into resenting the poor instead of the billionaires who actually make your life suck.

#51 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 02:20 PM | Reply

"Nearly 80% think CEOs make too much money."

Then don't do business with companies you feel pay their executives too much income. I personally could care less how much the CEO (or any other employee) at Amazon makes, so long as I get my package within two days.

"Nearly 80% support increasing funding for quality, affordable child care or other early childhood education programs."

Then that 80% should have no problem pooling their money and donating it the local school, no?

"70% support Medicare for All."

If 70% of the population wants to pool their resources in favor of some flavor of communal healthcare, they should be able to do so with little resistance from those of us who want nothing to do with Medicare for All. How about we make it Medicare for the 70%? Maybe medicare for those who want it.

I think your underlying stats are flawed. If 80% of voters wanted something, you've got to be very close to the point where you could invoke a constitutional convention and make them the law of the land. Or that vast majority could simply walk the walk, and put up money for childcare or Medicare.

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 03:34 PM | Reply

"It's not just fiscal. When not in power, they claim to be christians and care about morality."

Evangelicalism is to Republicans what Socialism is to Democrats. It's something you can lay claim to in order to shut up the chattering classes.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 03:36 PM | Reply

"You chump. The billionaires tricked you into resenting the poor instead of the billionaires who actually make your life suck."

How does the existence of a billionaire make my life worse? They can pay for themselves. They can buy a lot, they pay theirs (and your) "fair share" of taxes. And let's not forget that they did something to arrive at that amount of wealth.

The poor (US Poor, meaning less rich, but not global poor) come in two class. Those who are temporarily poor, like almost all of us are at one point in life, and those who are terminally poor. The former includes virtually all of us. The latter is a group we don't need to elevate to a position of importance, especially given the little that they have to offer society.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 03:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How does the existence of a billionaire make my life worse? They can pay for themselves. They can buy a lot, they pay theirs (and your) "fair share" of taxes. And let's not forget that they did something to arrive at that amount of wealth.

#54 | Posted by madbomber

You've got stockholm syndrome

Who do you think pays more taxes when billionaires bribe the government to cut their taxes?
Who do you think suffers when billionaires bribe government to start a war?
Who do you think suffers when billionaires bribe the government to let them pollute your air, food, and water?
Who do you think suffers when billionaires raise the prices on their drugs 9000 percent overnight?

These things are so obvious that you look stupid for not seeing them.

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 03:46 PM | Reply

The poor (US Poor, meaning less rich, but not global poor) come in two class. Those who are temporarily poor, like almost all of us are at one point in life, and those who are terminally poor. The former includes virtually all of us. The latter is a group we don't need to elevate to a position of importance, especially given the little that they have to offer society.

#54 | Posted by madbomber

It requires a developed brain to be able to imagine being born into circumstances much worse than your own.

#56 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 03:47 PM | Reply

#52 You claimed that leftism isn't what the people want. I provided studies to the contrary. Your entire post ignores that because you apparently can't follow your own discussion.

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-13 03:53 PM | Reply

"Who do you think pays more taxes when billionaires bribe the government to cut their taxes?"

They do. The rich will awalys pay their fair share and yours.

"Who do you think suffers when billionaires bribe government to start a war?"

Which rich ------- had me sitting in Doha for the last year

"Who do you think suffers when billionaires bribe the government to let them pollute your air, food, and water?

That's more the fault of government than billionaires, isn't it?

"Who do you think suffers when billionaires raise the prices on their drugs 9000 percent overnight?"

The operative work here is "their" drugs. To the best of my knowledge, they have no legal obligation to provide you with those drugs at any price? And if they did, wouldn't they kinda be more like slaves?

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 03:54 PM | Reply

#55

The Drama is strong with this one...

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-03-13 03:56 PM | Reply

The optimist: two parties
The pessimist: two parties

The optimist: choice between two evils and hoping for the better of two evils.
The pessimist: getting evil no matter what.

The optimist: we want change
The pessimist: still the same

#60 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-03-13 03:59 PM | Reply

That's more the fault of government than billionaires, isn't it?

#58 | Posted by madbomber

You don't get it. The government does what the billionaires want. They install their puppets, or run for office themselves, then get the policies they want.

When you whine about the government, you are whining about what billionaires make the government do.

And this:
"Who do you think pays more taxes when billionaires bribe the government to cut their taxes?"
They do. The rich will awalys pay their fair share and yours.

...is just baffling. You're somehow saying When the billionaires get tax cuts, taxes are raised ON BILLIONAIRES? I dont even know how to debate against that kind of retarded logic.

PS - No amount of billionaire bootlicking is every going to make them let you into the club or stop screwing your family. You're arguing to defend your oppressors.

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:02 PM | Reply

#61 How are billionares oppressing people?

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-13 04:04 PM | Reply

--The government does what the billionaires want.

Which billionaires? Leftist billionaires like Bloomberg? Or conservative billionaires like the Koch brothers?

#63 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-13 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It requires a developed brain to be able to imagine being born into circumstances much worse than your own."

I lived in Honduras Champ. It takes an undeveloped (or unexperienced) brain to assume that anyone in the US is poor like that.

"#52 You claimed that leftism isn't what the people want. I provided studies to the contrary. Your entire post ignores that because you apparently can't follow your own discussion."

You didn't provide anything of substance. 80% of workers at a specific company thought that their CEO made too much money. That's very different than claiming Americans in General think that that CEOs make too much money, or maybe more importantly, think that the government should intervene to stop CEOs from being able to make so much. The claim on child care was based on targeted sampling...in this case Hispanic and African American Women. It's better that the first poll, but the question that should always be asked is if you're willing to fund it yourself, or is it your expectation that someone else will.

The numbers on MFA are misleading as well. The number actually sits at between 42-54% when aggregated. That number increases to 70% when it guarantees health insurance as a right and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs.

But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively.

And that's before you get into how this monster would actually get funded, which is what likely makes it impossible.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 04:14 PM | Reply

#61 How are billionares oppressing people?

#62 | Posted by JeffJ

By thwarting democracy and purchasing policies which stack the economy in their favor. Why do you need something this obvious explained to you? Faux stupidity or legitimate stupidity?

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:22 PM | Reply

"You don't get it. The government does what the billionaires want. They install their puppets, or run for office themselves, then get the policies they want."

Why should I care? They're not placing any unfair burden on me by existing.

"You're somehow saying When the billionaires get tax cuts, taxes are raised ON BILLIONAIRES? I dont even know how to debate against that kind of retarded logic."

Technically, that's actually happened. Twice. Once under Kennedy and again under Reagan. Although it happened as a result of tax cuts for high income earners...not just billionaires.

But that wasn't my point, exactly. My point is that high income earners (top 5%) pay more than 60% of Federal Income Taxes. That's quite a bit for a relatively small segment of the population, with an entry household income of less than $190k. My point is that they pay enough. I think your point is they don't. So how much should they pay? All of it? If you're looking to lay that on billionaires, you should first understand that there are less than 600 billionaire households in the US. And while they may have a lot of money, it's not likely enough to cover the tax burden of the 126.4 million households that aren't billionaires.

"PS - No amount of billionaire bootlicking is every going to make them let you into the club or stop screwing your family. You're arguing to defend your oppressors."

I don't feel oppressed. But I'm quite certain that with people like you in charge, I would be.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 04:24 PM | Reply

I lived in Honduras Champ. It takes an undeveloped (or unexperienced) brain to assume that anyone in the US is poor like that.

#64 | Posted by madbomber

So what?

You were never born into an oppressed class under a racist legal system.

You can alway point to some -------- where things are worse. That doesn't mean it's ok for billionaires to control government policy here in this country.

#67 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:25 PM | Reply

I don't feel oppressed. But I'm quite certain that with people like you in charge, I would be.

#66 | Posted by madbomber

Exactly. You've got stockholm syndrome. And the inability to imagine being born into circumstances worse than your own.

#68 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:26 PM | Reply

"By thwarting democracy and purchasing policies which stack the economy in their favor. Why do you need something this obvious explained to you? Faux stupidity or legitimate stupidity?"

A free, completely unregulated market wouldn't look much different than what we see today. Although I think that inequality between rich and poor would be higher, as individuals would have greater freedom to allocate their resources in the manner that fit them best, without having that freedom tempered by the ideological drive to satisfy an emotional need.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 04:26 PM | Reply

Which billionaires? Leftist billionaires like Bloomberg? Or conservative billionaires like the Koch brothers?

#63 | Posted by nullifidian

Well which side do you think installed all the puppets that just passed tax cuts for billionaires?

#70 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:27 PM | Reply

I feel like you should take an economics class. It would help you. A lot

"And the inability to imagine being born into circumstances worse than your own."

Like I said, I've seen those circumstances. The impression I get from you is that poverty is tcharacterized by the lack of things you want, not the lack of things you need. Becuase by the virtue of having been born in this country, the things you need are already available to you.

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By thwarting democracy and purchasing policies which stack the economy in their favor...

#65 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

What's hilarious to me is you fail to see the irony of the fact that big government goes hand-in-hand with this and you seek to drastically increase the size and scope of the federal government.

De-fang the federal government mostly back down to its enumerated powers and the things you complain about mostly go away.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-13 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Becuase by the virtue of having been born in this country, the things you need are already available to you.

#71 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

As evidenced by the fact that the biggest health problem plaguing the poor in this country is obesity.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-13 04:33 PM | Reply

Like I said, I've seen those circumstances. The impression I get from you is that poverty is tcharacterized by the lack of things you want, not the lack of things you need. Becuase by the virtue of having been born in this country, the things you need are already available to you.

#71 | Posted by madbomber

You think SEEING poverty means you know what it would be like to be born into it.

More proof of your lack of brainpower.

#74 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:33 PM | Reply

As evidenced by the fact that the biggest health problem plaguing the poor in this country is obesity.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ

Trace the problem to the source: Poverty - bad food is cheap. Bad education doesn't teach nutrition. Billionaires bribe government to subsidize unhealthy foods like corn and sugar.

But blame the victims. Because you can't blame the cause when they run your party.

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:35 PM | Reply

#75 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

None of what you said refutes this:

Becuase by the virtue of having been born in this country, the things you need are already available to you.

In fact, what you said affirms what I just reproduced. We have such an abundance of cheap food in this country that the poor have an obesity problem.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-13 04:40 PM | Reply

"Trace the problem to the source: Poverty - bad food is cheap."

Do you think the poor in Venezuela, Kenya, or Burma are struggling with obesity as well?

And there is no such thing as bad food. There's nothing inherently unhealthy about a burger or fried chicken. You're not going to get fat eating either. You're going to get fat eating an abundance of either.

The cheapest food at the grocery store is likely to be your healthies. Fresh veggies, chicken, things like that. You have to put in effort to make them unhealthy.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 04:42 PM | Reply

"You think SEEING poverty means you know what it would be like to be born into it."

Does it matter?

Does it take being born poor in Honduras to recognize poverty in that country? Is there some point you're trying to make?

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 04:43 PM | Reply

In fact, what you said affirms what I just reproduced. We have such an abundance of cheap food in this country that the poor have an obesity problem.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes we have an abundance of TOXIC food in this country, which is all the poor can afford. Winning?

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:44 PM | Reply

Does it take being born poor in Honduras to recognize poverty in that country? Is there some point you're trying to make?

#78 | Posted by madbomber

Not if you have a brain good enough to have empathy. But if you're stupid, then you wont see whats so hard about being born into poverty in america.

#80 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:44 PM | Reply

The cheapest food at the grocery store is likely to be your healthies. Fresh veggies, chicken, things like that. You have to put in effort to make them unhealthy.

#77 | Posted by madbomber

Good thing everyone is born with access to a grocery store and the means to prepare food.

Any other examples of your privileged ignorance you'd like to share today?

#81 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 04:46 PM | Reply

"But if you're stupid, then you wont see whats so hard about being born into poverty in america."

I'm sure that the vast majority of the world's poor fantasize about achieving the standard of living that comes from being impoverished in America.

But I'll bite. What's hard. You don't get to vacay like the rest of your peers? You have to settle with a ------ iPhone six instead of an iPhone X? You only have one car in your family?

What's your background? Were you born poor? I mean, you're American, so the answer is clearly no, but were you born at or below the poverty line in the US?

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 04:49 PM | Reply

"Good thing everyone is born with access to a grocery store and the means to prepare food."

Uh, yeah.

It's not like broccoli takes a lot of preparation.

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 04:50 PM | Reply

I'll help you Speak. The "poor" in this country find themselves in a position where they have enough that they could survive easily and comfortably, but have not had to do so because, unlike the poor elsewhere, they're not in a struggle for survival. So the result is they remain ignorant on how to make good decisions. And it has absolutely ---- all to do with billionaires. The obese "poor" in this country are going to remain obese (and likely "poor") regardless of how much money might be handed to them. The difference is that they're going to be getting obese on a more expensive type of food.

Of course pointing this out would be viewed by many as an attack on the poor. You would likely be leading that charge.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 05:07 PM | Reply

What's your background? Were you born poor? I mean, you're American, so the answer is clearly no, but were you born at or below the poverty line in the US?

#82 | Posted by madbomber

My background is I was went to good schools and I was taught empathy for my fellow man. But my mother grew up in abject poverty, not because she was a bad person, but because of where and to whom she was born. She wasn't lazy. She was simply not invested in by society like you were.

BLAME THE POOR is simply more propaganda from the rich, so that they can get tax cuts instead of helping solve the problems in society that create poverty. You accept that brainwashing because the only alternative is to admit you've been wrong.

#85 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 06:06 PM | Reply

It's not like broccoli takes a lot of preparation.

#83 | Posted by madbomber

Your privilege blinds you to the number of incorrect assumptions behind your flawed conclusions.

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 06:07 PM | Reply

"My background is I was went to good schools and I was taught empathy for my fellow man."

Born rich. Love it!

"But my mother grew up in abject poverty, not because she was a bad person, but because of where and to whom she was born."

Honduras?

Is your mother still poor?

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 06:30 PM | Reply

"Your privilege blinds you to the number of incorrect assumptions behind your flawed conclusions."

About the preparation of broccoli? I don't think so.

Although...a rich kid such as yourself might view broccoli as being inedible without having first been lightly sauteed with saffron butter and truffles.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 06:32 PM | Reply

When do you graduate from school?

Any time soon?

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 06:32 PM | Reply

"My background is I was went to good schools and I was taught empathy for my fellow man."

Born rich. Love it!

"But my mother grew up in abject poverty, not because she was a bad person, but because of where and to whom she was born."

Honduras?

Is your mother still poor?

#87 | Posted by madbomber

You seem much more interested in trying to explore my personal story than address the disadvantages faced by the poor. I can understand why.

#90 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 06:46 PM | Reply

"You seem much more interested in trying to explore my personal story than address the disadvantages faced by the poor. I can understand why."

It's because I don't think you have the first ------- clue about what poverty is.

In fact I think that your derision for billionaires might just be due to the fact that you grew up around millionaires...maybe progressive millionaires...and there's no way they could be considered the bad guy.

Are you familiar with White Savior Complex. I think you show symptoms of something similar...only instead of rescuing poor hopeless colored folk, you're rescuing the poor.

You're not alone. Mant prominent socialists were born rich.

#91 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 07:24 PM | Reply

"You seem much more interested in trying to explore my personal story than address the disadvantages faced by the poor. I can understand why."

It's because I don't think you have the first ------- clue about what poverty is.

In fact I think that your derision for billionaires might just be due to the fact that you grew up around millionaires...maybe progressive millionaires...and there's no way they could be considered the bad guy.

Are you familiar with White Savior Complex. I think you show symptoms of something similar...only instead of rescuing poor hopeless colored folk, you're rescuing the poor.

You're not alone. Mant prominent socialists were born rich.

#91 | Posted by madbomber

You're switching from defending billionaires to trying to dissect your debate opponent's personal life. Not a good sign that you're winning a debate.

You know nothing about me. You're just spewing in stereotypes and fantasies. But this is fun too. A whole new way to destroy your credibility.

So tell me more about me...

#92 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 07:28 PM | Reply

"You're switching from defending billionaires to trying to dissect your debate opponent's personal life. Not a good sign that you're winning a debate."

Fair enough?

So what should we do with the millionaires? I think it's clear that they're not paying their fair share, and they deserve no more of a pass than the billionaires when it comes to supporting legislation that favors them. And, of course, there are millions of millionaire households, versus less than 600 billionaire households.

And an opponent's personal life...it matters when the opponents argument is based on a reality that they themselves never experienced. It would be like me claiming to have knowledge of what concentration camps were like even though I was born years later, and never had a tattoo on my forearm.

#93 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 08:15 PM | Reply

So what should we do with the millionaires? I think it's clear that they're not paying their fair share, and they deserve no more of a pass than the billionaires when it comes to supporting legislation that favors them. And, of course, there are millions of millionaire households, versus less than 600 billionaire households.

And an opponent's personal life...it matters when the opponents argument is based on a reality that they themselves never experienced. It would be like me claiming to have knowledge of what concentration camps were like even though I was born years later, and never had a tattoo on my forearm.

#93 | Posted by madbomber

Millionaires aren't as destructive to larger society as billionaires are. Millionaires are the sign of a healthy economy. Billionaires are the sign of an unjust economy and unwise government. We're talking semantics and grey areas though. The definition I would use is - economic systems that allow the rich to accumulate so much wealth that they can control the government and are bad.

"it matters when the opponents argument is based on a reality that they themselves never experienced" that's what you've been doing all day on this thread and others - claiming to know why poor people are poor, without having ever experienced it.

#94 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 08:42 PM | Reply

-Millionaires aren't as destructive to larger society as billionaires are.

But millionaires are destructive, right?

Tell us how, exactly how a millionaire is destructive?

#95 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-13 08:54 PM | Reply

If they are not to openly combating socialism while creating Public Works programs I see little to describe as returning to their roots.

#96 | Posted by Tor at 2019-03-13 08:57 PM | Reply

"Millionaires aren't as destructive to larger society as billionaires are. Millionaires are the sign of a healthy economy."

There is no literally no difference between the two when it comes to tax rates.

Here's what I think. I think you're a solid millionaire.

I've met people like you. People who think that you don't owe more, it's the people who make more than you who owe more. Even if you're in the 1%...which you are, right? Or your parents who support you are.

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 08:58 PM | Reply

Here's what I think. I think you're a solid millionaire.

I've met people like you. People who think that you don't owe more, it's the people who make more than you who owe more. Even if you're in the 1%...which you are, right? Or your parents who support you are.

#97 | Posted by madbomber

Oh my god. We're back to your insane psychic predictions again? Why are you embarrassing yourself like this?

#98 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 09:08 PM | Reply

Tell us how, exactly how a millionaire is destructive?

#95 | Posted by eberly

Depends on the millionaire.

Surely you can imagine some ways, cant you?

#99 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 09:08 PM | Reply

-Surely you can imagine some ways, cant you?

You need to make your argument. It's your assertion

#100 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-13 09:16 PM | Reply

You need to make your argument. It's your assertion

#100 | Posted by eberly

I also assert water is wet. Do you need proof?

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 09:22 PM | Reply

Speak, make the argument that millionaires are destructive to society.

You can't do it. It's just a popular thing to say around your friends, right?

#102 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-13 09:26 PM | Reply

Speak, make the argument that millionaires are destructive to society.

You can't do it. It's just a popular thing to say around your friends, right?

#102 | Posted by eberly

That wasn't my argument. Try again.

#103 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 09:30 PM | Reply

103

So, you don't like having a position being assigned to you?

It's annoying, isn't it?

#104 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-13 09:33 PM | Reply

So, you don't like having a position being assigned to you?

It's annoying, isn't it?

#104 | Posted by eberly

Translation - oops i messed up

#105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 09:48 PM | Reply

HaHa

Yeah, if I messed up then you're admitting to how jacked up your posts are.

#106 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-13 09:52 PM | Reply

"Speak, make the argument that millionaires are destructive to society."

I don't think you were following the convo pal. Speak was telling us how millionaires were the sign of a healthy economy. It's billionaires who were the enemy.

#107 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 09:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yeah, if I messed up then you're admitting to how jacked up your posts are.

#106 | Posted by eberly

Yes I'm sorry you can't read. My fault.

#108 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 09:56 PM | Reply

Protect the millionaires, eviscerate the billionaires!

#109 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-13 10:02 PM | Reply

Speaks,

Tom Steyer is a billionaire. Is he proof of a failed economy?

Bottom line is you have yet to articulate why the existence of billionaires is bad for an economy.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-13 10:33 PM | Reply

There is no literally no difference between the two when it comes to tax rates.

There's a huge difference between millionaires and billionaires. In the amount of wealth they've stolen from the labor of others.

#111 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-03-13 11:00 PM | Reply

There's a huge difference between millionaires and billionaires. In the amount of wealth they've stolen from the labor of others.

#111 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

So, our economy is zero-sum? ALL wealth in a market economy is stolen from someone else?

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-13 11:13 PM | Reply

That's more the fault of government than billionaires, isn't it?

Mad is the kind of guy who screams "see how munch I love you" after decking his wife.

#113 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-13 11:26 PM | Reply

The stick market is zero sum, not the economy. But paper shufflers never create new wealth, unlike those who grow, mine or manufacture. The stock market is a poor indicator of economic health, especially now, because it has been pumped up with cheap money that is not available to everyone.

#114 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-14 04:03 PM | Reply

"In the amount of wealth they've stolen from the labor of others."

If you want to be labelled a socialist, keep up the comments like that. Karl Marx would have been proud.

#115 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-14 04:07 PM | Reply

Tom Steyer is a billionaire. Is he proof of a failed economy?

Bottom line is you have yet to articulate why the existence of billionaires is bad for an economy.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ

The fact that he has the money to buy impeachment commercials and buy senators is proof of a corrupt economic and political structure.

Nothing wrong with being rich. But a system that allows a few people to suck up all the wealth in society is a bad system.

#116 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-14 06:16 PM | Reply

Nothing wrong with being rich. But a system that allows a few people to suck up all the wealth in society is a bad system.

#116 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That isn't happening.

We have more millionaires than population of Sweden.

#117 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-03-14 07:30 PM | Reply

We have more millionaires than population of Sweden.

#117 | Posted by AndreaMackris

That is a random statistic that proves nothing.

#118 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-14 08:20 PM | Reply

Here's a better one:
www.commondreams.org
The 400 richest Americans have tripled their share of the nation's wealth since the early 1980s and now own more of the country's riches than the 150 million adults in the bottom 60% of the wealth distribution.

#119 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-14 08:24 PM | Reply

"That isn't happening."

Of course it is. You'd have to ignore the tax code and history to draw any other conclusion.

#120 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-14 08:35 PM | Reply

A democrat has been introducing legislation to bring back the CCC for over a decade now.

Soon as I see it gather any steam I'll believe they're returning to their roots.

Till then this is just a pathetic attempt at rebranding.

#121 | Posted by Tor at 2019-03-15 08:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort