General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders to unveil plan to guarantee every American a job
By Jeff Stein April 23 at 1:27 PM
Excerpts:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will unveil a plan for the federal government to guarantee a job paying $15 an hour and health-care benefits to every American worker “who wants or needs one,” embracing the kind of large-scale government works project that Democrats have shied away from in recent decades.
Sanders's jobs guarantee would fund hundreds of projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, caregiving, the environment, education and other goals. Under the job guarantee, every American would be entitled to a job under one of these projects or receive job training to be able to do so, according to an early draft of the proposal.
Under the early draft of Sanders's job guarantee, local, state, and American Indian tribe governments in every section of the country would send proposals for public works projects for their areas to 12 regional offices that encompass the country. These 12 regional offices would act as a clearinghouse for these projects, tasked with sending recommended projects to a new national office within the Labor Department office for final approval.
Once approved, the projects would hire workers at a minimum salary of $15 an hour and paid family and medical leave, and offer the same retirement, health, and sick and annual leave benefits as other federal employees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/23/bernie-sanders-to-unveil-plan-to-guarantee-every-american-a-job/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
awesomerwb1
(4,268 posts)
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2018, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)
another welfare program. If someone wants a job that pays well, then they should get the necessary training that job requires, and after they have the required training, they apply for openings in that field. It works for the vast majority of us, why does Bernie want to reinvent the wheel. I come from a family of nine children, and am African American. No one gave us anything, everyone worked to put themselves through college. When I mentioned this before in a post that my oldest sister went to medical school under the Armed Forces Health Professional Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) and came away from Medical School and having served a two year Residency, with no debt (the Government paid her college debt off in exchange for her serving 4 years as a Medical Doctor in the Armed Forces). She chose the Air Force to serve her post-education commitment. She enjoyed it so much, that she went on active duty each summer while in medical school to earn extra spending money for when she returned to school each fall, and the opportunity to visit and work in different Air Force facilities around the country and around the world.
When I posted about her experience during the last election to counter Bernie supporters claims that one could not go to college without accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of student loan debt, I was told: "Well what if you don't want to serve in the military?" My response to that was:"we all make our own choices". But if you don't have wealthy parents, and if you make a choice that results in you incurring thousands of dollars of student loan debt, you shouldn't expect the Federal Government and the taxpayers to bail you out of your debt. Why should I, or anyone else, have to pay someone else's Student Loan Debt? And please don't tell me that other countries do it. I know what other countries do because I was stationed in Europe and surrounded by European countries when I was in the US Army because my parents didn't have the money to send me to college. I got the opportunity to visit many of these European countries because most were less than a days ride on a bus, or an overnight train ride. I served in the US Army for 4 years and 8 months to be able to afford to go to college without incurring massive student load debt and I came out of college owing just $5,000 which I paid off in two years after graduating from college in 1984. Also, I managed to complete my 4 year degree in 3 years because I was older, wiser, and more mature than the average college freshman I entered college with.
CarlitosMMT
(53 posts)Dear politicaljunkie41910 ,
One of Bernie's chief econ advisers is Dr Stephanie Kelton and you can find a video with her talking about the JG with Jane Sanders in the comments here.
She is one of the chief advocates of the Job Guarantee and a school of thought known as Modern Monetary Theory.
As MMT explains, the federal government is not a household that has to earn income or even borrow to spend.
It's a currency issuer, and akin to a scorekeeper. The US is not Portugal, Italy, Greece, or Spain, or like a US state or city/local government. It's a monetarily sovereign currency issuer. It has no financial solvency constraint like you or I, or the above states do.
All federal government spending is done by marking up accounts in the banking system, and there is literally no other way to do it. All government spending is literally done this way. Taxation marks down accounts in the banking system and the main purpose of taxation is to regulate inflation, or other public policy objectives such as to influence certain behaviors, but not to raise revenue for government to spend. The funds we have to pay to taxes or purchase government securities comes from government spending or government lending.
You have a lot of questions about a JG and I'm not going to address them all. But the "how is it going to be paid for" line of questioning is very simple to answer.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)
whathehell
(29,090 posts)Just a guess. 
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)In it's simplest of terms, if the government were to just print money without anything to back it up, it leads to inflation and makes each dollar worth less. If you can write a check for a $100 it's because you have $100 cash on deposit at that bank and while even my explanation is very simplistic, I don't have the time to teach a full course on Money and Banking. We can't just print money at our leisure to give away to I don't care how many rabbits you think Bernie the Magician can pull out of a hat, you can't just print money to give away without devaluing the currency. The fact that the government can print money in the first place is because that dollar has a perceived value backed by the full faith and honor of the U.S. Government.
We don't want to become the next Brazil and that's just what will happen if we start practicing 'Voodoo Economics' which is what your "Modern Monetary Theory" sounds like. Brazil is still deep into a self-inflicted recession; the longest downturn for the country since the 1930s. Brazil's problems began with a corrupt government robbing and stealing from the country's coffers and its assets, ultimately plunging the nation into a recession. With a growing joblessness, Brazil thought they could just continue to print money to work their way out of their financial problems and what it did was just make their currency worth less and less, and they have more and more joblessness, because their 'money' is worth less and less within their country and to their trading partners.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)you should watch the video that's posted up currently. Instead of just stating that the idea is folly - at least listen to what someone of more stature has to say.
CarlitosMMT
(53 posts)The real limits are real resources, i.e. natural resource stocks, available labor, technology, etc.
They are not financial for a currency issuing government which you implicitly recognize the government is.
Recessions cause budget deficits. You can literally trace the downturn in Brazil to the budget deficits they have today.
No nation can just print money to prosperity. They have to real resources that those funds deploy in some productive capacity.
Meanwhile, US government debt-to-GDP ratio dwarfs Brazil's, and Japan's dwarfs ours. Throughout the Obama era conservatives were screaming about budget deficits and making the very argument you are making. The US dollar actually appreciated thru those deficits and the inflation boogeyman never hit, nor did interest rates spike, nor did any bond vigilantes discipline a profligate US government. So if you are relying on the empirical evidence, you have to question the mainstream conventional wisdom.
I'm a Masters of Science graduate in Applied Econ from the University of Texas at Dallas. I chose to take most of my electives in the business school, which is in the top 10. I took many courses on Finance and Accounting.
If you think back to your Accounting training for any amount in savings in an economy, there is an equal amount of debt.
So if the government is in deficit, then somebody else is in surplus.
The accounting identity is government deficit=non-government surplus.
The non-government is an aggregation of all the agents in an economy that excludes the government, this includes the domestic household and business sector and the foreign sector.
You can break it down further by dis-aggregating the government sector into federal and state/local.
So now federal deficit=non-government + state/local surplus
You can't force people to save income per se. Its always a choice. So the government deficit is not determined per se by government but the decision to save by currency users. Should the government decide that it wants to pull back and raise taxes and decrease government spending, while attempts at saving are strong, you will get the paradox of thrift, where total savings actually declines.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Such bullshit. If we had enough to hand out to rich folks, why not students? WE pay the taxes. It's not 'free stuff' , if you already paid for it.
George II
(67,782 posts)....bashing the Democratic Party and get out and vote. Without control of the House and the Senate things like tax cuts will continue to happen.
There is a fundamental flaw in the thinking of many, we can't do anything if we're not in control.
Pointing out the perceived shortcomings of the Democratic Party day in and day out is not going to do it.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2018, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)
May have the wrong guy there George. I try to be as upbeat as possible. I agree w the sentiment though re. the circular firing squad.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)For the record, I didn't support the GOP's tax cuts either because with my Finance and Accounting background, I knew that it was not going to do what the GOP claimed it was going to do. Paul Ryan and the GOP's goal has always been to do with Tax Cuts, what they couldn't do by legislation; eliminate our social safety net by driving the nation into massive debt through massive tax cuts, was their vehicle of choice.
I support our social safety nets i.e. social security, medicare and medical, and unemployment insurance. These vehicles were designed to keep our nation afloat and support us when we can't support ourselves through no fault of our own. I support a living wage. I don't support government creating welfare jobs at $15/hr for people who are jobless. That is what the private sector does in our economy. The government should not be in the business of competing with the private sector as a job creator just for the sake of creating jobs. The government already is a job creator for the goods and services needed to provide the services that the government is tasked with providing.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Not here to debate really. Just a comment. Couldn't tell.
Stargazer99
(2,599 posts)which is more costly than government programs
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Yeah, and theres been no corporate profits since 911 eh? Go away .
Caliman73
(11,744 posts)I am not understanding why you responded that way.
There have been record corporate profits, but those profits have not turned into jobs. Jobs only happen when there is demand for products over what a company can create with their existing infrastructure. If I have 10 employees that I pay to produce a certain quantity of product and my demand goes up 5%, the first thing, as a responsible business owner, will be to see if I can increase productivity 5% with my existing workforce. I will look for ways to automate, to increase efficiency, etc... The LAST thing I want to do is just hire another employee and incur another expense to meet a small increase in demand that may go away after a financial season or two.
Profits do not mean jobs. Profits mean more money for the owners of capital and stakeholders.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Hire more robots then.
You know what I mean. If you don't get it in one sentance...3 more paragraphs aren't going to do it either.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)
Doremus
(7,261 posts)And they speak volumes, believe me.
By the way, repukes called the New Deal a welfare program too, just in case you forgot.
Stargazer99
(2,599 posts)the same. People like you make me sick...the rich do not serve in the front lines because the "the better than you" crowd doesn't want their kids coming home in caskets. You went into the service apparently not close enough to war to become disabled. Why should there even be student loan debt? Period!! For a country to be strong they need a educated people. Take a look at this post, people....this is the attitude of the well to do.
MichMan
(11,971 posts)I have asked this question multiple times and never get an answer. Around the Ann Arbor Michigan area there are three colleges. University of Michigan (14k tuition) Eastern Michigan (10k tuition) and Washtenaw Community College (3-4 k tuition)
Since the cost for the student is zero, why wouldn't Eastern raise their tuition 4k a year to match UM? Seems like tuition would skyrocket
What student would attend Washtenaw if they could go to a more prestigious college with a high profile sports program for the same cost of zero?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I have asked this question multiple times and never get an answer..."
You're unable to read the primary sources, and are forced to rely only on secondary sources when researching?
"...states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs..."
There's actually much, much more. A little investment of time, a little investment of reading, and voila... even you can answer your own questions.
If they're in fact, sincere.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)bernie called...he wants his soapbox back. The student loan thing has sailed. It'll be with us until we die. The anger should be on colleges who tell you your'e going to get a good job and make money. The jobs are in china. Wake up and smell the roses. We've been had. the ONLY debt you can't get rid of in bankruptcy? How'd that happen?
whathehell
(29,090 posts)What we "couldn't afford" was The Republicans' Trillion Dollars Tax Giveaway to their doners -- Where have you been?
Donkees
(31,453 posts)Published on Mar 20, 2018
The Sanders Institute Talks: A National Job Guarantee Program
Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders (Founder, Fellow of The Sanders Institute) talks with Dr. Stephanie Kelton (Founding Fellow of The Sanders Institute, Professor at Stonybrook University) about the results of a new report on creating a national jobs guarantee program. Dr. Kelton co-authored the report with L. Randall Wray, Flavia Dantas, Scott Fullwiler, and Pavlina R. Tcherneva. The full report will be released through the Levy Institute in April, 2018.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie and Jane are a real treasure!! Along with the Sanders Institute.
George II
(67,782 posts)
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)exciting plans for turning the challenges of the future into national wellbeing. All living, btw, I don't mean mainstream Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. 
Not everyone will be suited for employment, however, nor will all, or even most, of these jobs be permanent. Has Sanders finally given some thought the plans being developed by representatives in the Democratic Party for a universal basic income?
This would of course be in addition to nationwide new skills training and jobs development, very much replacing the nearly 2 million federal government-funded jobs destroyed by the Republicans along with creation of many others as we tend to much needed remedial work and new development.
From BasicIncome.org:
Clinton goes even further, however, saying that she would additionally view “the nation’s financial system as a shared resource” and implement a “financial transactions tax”. She suggests there could be a capitalized fund financed by these resources which would not only provide a “modest Basic Income” every year – which appealed to Clinton as a way to increase incomes – but also “make every American feel more connected to our country and to one another-part of something bigger than ourselves.”
Hillary now thinks perhaps she should have run on it in 2016, instead of pushing it ahead, although she and others felt then that other issues needed tending to even more urgently, including rebuilding jobs and job training. They expected to have one or both houses of congress and a second term to work with.
An anxious nation wondering what's ahead needed and needs answers they can visualize and hold onto, though, not that something this huge wouldn't have come under immediate, severe, unrelenting attacks that made those on the ACA look fairly mild. Bernie would unfortunately have also had had to be among those denouncing it, as he did everything we intended to do to make what he offered seem more. Politicians have to differentiate themselves somehow, no getting around that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)to loud and not so effective.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)The important thing is that some of these ideas actually come to fruition!
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)The bill into the House months ago.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1000
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Zoonart
(11,878 posts)If you read her book, What Happened, you will find that Hillary worked with an economist group for two years to try and lay out a plan for full employment/ guaranteed wage to incorporate into her platform, but ultimately decided to drop the idea because she could not figure out how to fully fund the program.
Beware of politicians selling magic beans.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)I give Sen. Booker plaudits for making wise decisions.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)to the back of the bus, and stealing all the glory from their hard work. I wonder why that seems so familiar - there's something I just can't put my finger on about this claiming the results of the work of people like Booker and Lewis without actually doing anything yourself. If only I could remember...
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)the way some people treat Kamala Harris . . . or maybe it's that other thing with her . . . or both.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)
BannonsLiver
(16,448 posts)
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Taking nothing away from Senator Booker who I like a lot (he is one of our best), but it is dumb to make everything seem like it is a race with one winner and everyone else essentially plagiarists. This dynamic only seems to spring up on Democratic Underground whenever Bernie Sanders is somehow involved. This is from an informative article on this subject. I think the last paragraph has an interesting look at it:
"But the most interesting policy here is a federal job guarantee. This would be a public option for work, offering employment with a living wage and benefits to anyone who wants it. The idea goes back at least as far as the Civil Rights movement. Stephanie Kelton, one of Sanders' key economic advisers, has been working on the idea for years with economists associated with the University of Kansas City-Missouri and the Levy Institute, and pushing it up through Sanders' network of political outfits. Meanwhile, another group of economists, including William Darity and Darrick Hamilton, has also been building out the idea. And Sanders himself organized a townhall with Hamilton to talk about it.
CAP suggested a watered-down but still admirable version of a job guarantee a few months ago. Then Gillibrand publicly endorsed a job guarantee in mid-March. And she's kept up the drumbeat since. This past Friday, Booker released legislation for a pilot program version of the job guarantee, built off Darity and Hamilton's work. Then on Monday, Sanders pushed his chips in, announcing legislation for a full-bore national version of the policy.
This actually looks somewhat similar to how Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all egged each other on towards health reform in the 2008 campaign. Parts of the Democratic Party are now taking the basic building blocks of Sanders' political philosophy and running with them."
http://theweek.com/articles/769073/bernie-sanders-conquered-democratic-party
I do admit the title to this piece was written to gain eyeballs, but it is pretty substantive.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)to make everything seem like a race, I am responding to a person who said Bernie was "leading the way." Did you correct that person, too?
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)I tend to be more reactive to posts that are critical of members of our coalition who are advancing positive initiatives in whatever way they can than I am of those that try to give credit to them for that. I tend not to quibble over specifics when someone is praising someone on our side for standing up for something for our side. It's not just Sanders, I am fine when anyone expresses on DU that this or that politician is showing leadership around something good. On some level everyone is walking in someone else's footsteps, usually a giant like FDR or Martin Luther King Jr.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)after making his national name in the primary. I have little confidence that if he runs again it will be as a Democrat -- and that dividing the "coalition" will guarantee a win for Trump or Pence.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)I thought about that some after the 2016 election. Honestly I can see a case for both sides of that decision. Where I strongly agree with you is on the need to not divide our "coalition". Clearly if Bernie (or any other political figure with a large following among people who are left of center or usually vote Democratic) were to run for President in the 2020 General Election as an Independent, opposing both the Democratic and Republican candidates, that would divide our coalition, and I would be angered by such a move and would harshly condemn it.
But I don't feel that Bernie running in the Democratic primaries at essence is any more divisive than having multiple Democrats campaigning against each other in the primaries would be, that is democracy at work. Obviously that assumes that Bernie, were he to run again, would pledge to support the Democratic nominee were it not him who won the nomination.
There are countess things that can be said about the 2016 general election. Unfortunately one of those true things is that very few people (as a percentage anyway) thought Trump would win. The NY Times didn't even have a mock up story ready on election night in the event that Trump won. Trump himself didn't even have a victory speech prepared. There is plenty of blame to go around, even among many who did make efforts to help Hillary win (I'll put myself in this category) for not doing more to assure her victory. With the pain of a Trump presidency burning daily, it will be difficult to make that kind of error again. I expect our entire Democratic coalition, Sanders included, to unite STRONGLY behind the Democratic nominee in 2020.
Here is a piece I wrote back in April 2017 (link at bottom) that explains why I don't have a problem with Sanders being an Independent within our overall Democratic coalition. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, but there are arguments for it. Sanders IS an Independent, and Independents should not be disenfranchised at the highest levels of politics which is what our two party political system tends to do in General Elections when a vote for someone other than a major party candidate risks throwing your vote away. I had big problems with Ralph Nader not being more responsible regarding how his candidacy could help Bush win. Same with Stein and Johnson/Weld in 2016. I think Bernie took the responsible path as opposed to those figures. He bound himself to loyalty to the Democratic nominee and kept his own name off the 2016 November ballot. That's the only way to thread the needle for people who do not identify as Democrats but who choose to work in coalition with us. Personally i support it.
Here is that Journal entry: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028949746
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)and he actually left the party since then, so I have no reason to believe he'll be different this time. He might not even bother joining the party since it would be simpler for him to simply mount an independent campaign.
What do I mean when I say he didn't unite strongly? For one, he delayed conceding till long after the point at which he couldn't win mathematically -- almost till the convention -- which disappointed many voters who'd been hoping somehow he could change minds at the convention. After that, he set to work writing his book. He didn't campaign in August and only had a couple events in September. He could have been much more active than he was if he'd delayed writing his book for a few months. But he wanted it published the day after the election.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Bernie didn't do as much for Hillary as she did for Obama. On the other hand he did a lot more for Hillary than Ted Kennedy did for Jimmy Carter when he lost to Reagan, for one example. Hillary excelled in that regard, I have no problem saying that. Again, Trump's victory caught many of us, in retrospect, with our pants down to to speak. Many of us would do some things different in hindsight knowing now what we didn't know then: Made greater efforts of one sort or another above and beyond what we did do. My guess is Sanders is in that group along with a host of others, but this is all speculation. He is showing every sign of the grave necessity of resisting and replacing Trump now. The political world as we know it changed in November 2016.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Can you brief me?
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)"Stephanie Kelton, one of Sanders' key economic advisers, has been working on the idea for years with economists associated with the University of Kansas City-Missouri and the Levy Institute, and pushing it up through Sanders' network of political outfits. Meanwhile, another group of economists, including William Darity and Darrick Hamilton, has also been building out the idea. And Sanders himself organized a townhall with Hamilton to talk about it."
Sanders has been in the mix on this for awhile, that's my point. Not whether he beat someone to the punch on a specific piece of legislation. Sanders is the one person in the U.S. Senate who has never shied away from the label "Democratic Socialist". That is who he is. This is the type of role for government that Democratic Socialist have always envisioned.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I'm not clear on what "in the mix" means.
Can you clarify?
George II
(67,782 posts)Did you see the part about this being an "early draft"?
"...the early draft of Sanders's job guarantee..."
JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)Note that Gillibrand & Booker have already announced similar plans. A real leader would be getting everyone together on the same page instead of grandstanding on other people's ideas.
George II
(67,782 posts)
Cha
(297,655 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Great idea as yet lacking in Congressional support. We'll see how well he and any co-sponsors lead.
haele
(12,676 posts)Two/Four years community/government/charitable service at some form of minimum living wage in exchange for a Bachelor's degree in a critical field, or Six for Medical/Law school was being seriously discussed when I was getting ready to graduate High School - during the Carter era. Guaranteed infrastructure jobs with housing and a minimum wage for those who are on the lower level of the skill or ambition scale is pure CCC.
Unfortunately, the anti-Socialist hysteria of the GOP under Nixon resulted in the House pushing several laws that pretty much hobbled the ability of the government to use government work projects to employ people who can't otherwise find jobs - except on a small scale or via block grants to states or targeted agencies.
Because, "free market" and all that - the government is not supposed to compete with private businesses that need to make profits.
There have been all sorts of models how government works projects can be done to improve the "commons" and maintain citizen morale; but pretty much all of them run smack against restrictions to limit as soon as large scale projects start being discussed. The Interstate network can't be done again because of regulations on the government to build something that big anymore.
Not to sound cynical, but in reality, Bernie's just beating the drum again. Whether or not politicians want to address the limits put on the government because of the fear of a new "New Deal" taking profits from private corporations and raising taxes on the wealthy - or leveling income inequality - it will never go as far as it should.
Haele
snowybirdie
(5,234 posts)Trying to stay relevant in our troubling times. How will he do this?
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)It's a publicity move.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)proposal is good for Americans. These sorts of posts are just sad.
That said, I'm not sure about this idea. I think he's too rooted in some antiquated ideas that makes embracing UBI a bridge too far, but I think a program like this would be better than nothing.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)One of my problems with his fans is that so many seem to think he's proposing original ideas. He's not. This is classic socialist approach. It is, in fact, a really OLD idea.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)don't like it?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)doesn’t mean Bernie invented it.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)any of these ideas as originating in his own mind. Maybe a couple have, although you'd have to show me evidence. I know most don't. Who gives a fuck whether he's the progenitor? I see no reason to insist that he get credit for them at that level. What I care about is that he's the one in the Senate proposing them. If you don't like them then say so. Don't avoid that issue by talking instead about "those aren't even his ideas." Most ideas have been around for decades...some for longer. How is that a surprise and how is that relevant? Is anything Clinton proposed entirely her own? No? Well shit, " I'm not supporting those trite unoriginal policies she didn't come up with on her lonesome..."
mcar
(42,372 posts)That is the point being made.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)so, the only response is to put words in your mouth and to make "straw man" arguments.
Cha
(297,655 posts)
JCanete
(5,272 posts)a beef with her here. I'm trying to make a point about how silly such a beef would be. I'm using Clinton because she's somebody I'm relatively certain people on this board are fond of, so it kind of makes sense to appeal to reason by using her as an example. Maybe you missed it.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)what I've said to maintain that balance in your head...on every subject under the sun? Its pretty obvious I'm not attacking Clinton in that post to anybody reading it using an ounce of circumspection. If I'm wrong why don't you, in your own words, tell me what I'm saying that is a knock on Clinton. This should be fascinating.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sanders latest proppsal is dead on arrival in the real world. Sanders keeps promising a magical voter revolution to justify his unrealistic proposals. Your belief in magic amuses me a great deal. You really needmagic to work
I and a number of posters are enjoying your franctic attempts to defend this unrealistic proposal. It has been amusing. I am glad to see so many DU posters laughing at your efforts. No one in the real world takes sanders propsals seriously because there is no way to adopt sanders' proposals in the real world. Magic does not work in the real world which is why sanders had no real accomplishments in the real world. There will be no magical voter revolution in the real world.
Thank you for the amusement. Keep on believing in magic.
George II
(67,782 posts)sammythecat
(3,568 posts)Your argument was completely reasonable. Doesn't matter. They hate Bernie Sanders. His very existence insults them.
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Michelle! Pure awesome. 
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)DU should be completely free of all crows.
True Blue American
(17,988 posts)Did that in the 1930’s.
There are many Infrastucture jobs that could be created, but it would require funding by Congress.
True Blue American
(17,988 posts)Worked then. People were starving. Young men desperate.
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)What they care about is that is sounds like a good idea to them, it'll make their lives better in some way, and no one else is saying it.
Response to Adrahil (Reply #47)
BannonsLiver This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)....he didn't announce it while it was still in draft form.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)better let's adopt it. If this is old news, why is nobody posting about booker's plan before? Why are these not the things we give a shit about here? Was this actually a GE discussion at one point that I missed, or is this just not the kind of thing that rates. Apparently, for whatever reasons, probably more for the hate than for the appreciation, when Sanders brings something like this up we see it.
George II
(67,782 posts)Whether anyone here posted about Booker's plan or not, wouldn't you think that a United States Senator would know about it and embrace a fellow Senator's firm proposal instead of introducing his own "draft" proposal. Why? The legislative world doesn't revolve around what's posted on the internet. Perhaps it wasn't posted before because some look for results in lieu of glory?
So, instead of applauding Senator Booker's revolutionary proposal, the focus is on some mythical, perceived "hate" because Booker did it first?
Sorry, I can't understand that, I thought we were united and all in this together.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I don't see why these efforts are split or have to be. Are we in favor of this? Yes? Cool lets get on board Booker's proposal...I'm fine with saying..."okay Bernie...valiant effort...I'm already on board with Booker...."
I have no idea what the differences between the legislative focuses of their respective bills are or will be because they are both new to me, but I can't comment on why Sanders is proposing one now after booker already proposed one. I have no reason to see this as a matter of trying to steal his thunder or his lime-light. He just signed onto Bookers marijuana legislation, like yesterday or the day before? You on the other hand, seem to have gone straight to the conclusion that this is divisive. I'm not sure why.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Congressional majorities in 2018 and taking the White House in 2020 to get these progressive agenda items passed. More and more Democrats are coming on board to Bernie's way of thinking and whoever has the best plan, that's the one we should ALL rally around.
MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)He keeps re-introducing their ideas.
But I can see how cognitive dissonance might make that hard to decipher.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)But, criticism of those ideas around here when Bernie espouses them would be funny if this wasn't so serious... our future is at stake!!
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Just look at the first response. Right out of the starting gate it's giving credit where it, frankly isn't due.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)He "unveils" all sorts of such things, and none of them even get to committee. It's nice of him, but futile.
I'd prefer he work harder on things that can become law. Becoming a Democrat would be a good start.
Doodley
(9,124 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Senator Sanders understands full well that there is zero chance of this happening. While I like the idea, it is currently not one that has any chance. In the meantime, there's an asshole President to block. I wish he'd work on that, instead of working on dividing the Democratic opposition to Trump.
Our Revolution is not happening. Our victory in 2018, however, is certainly possible. Sanders could work on that, perhaps, instead of pipe dreams.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
JCanete
(5,272 posts)paving the way with possibility. Sicko helped to pave the way with possibility for the ACA. Clinton's call for Universal Health Care got over the hump of the gut reaction. And Michael Moore was NOT advocating for an ACA. He was advocating for Single Payer. But tell me that didn't help us get what we got.
And if you think that running to the middle with proposals will EVER get republicans to sign on to anything, I've got a bridge to sell you. That is the worst possible negotiating strategy. Put up big ideas, fight for them. Get the public behind them. Get the GOP to sue for compromise. Don't give them the compromise...then the worst case is they vote no and get the compromise. How insane is that? That is not the way Republicans do it...and that's why we have to hear from our democratic leaders over and over "we had to compromise because you should have seen what they wanted to do to us..."
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)That's why we're working to regain control of Congress in 2018. Anyone who works to prevent that goal is not my friend. And the Our Revolution folks are doing just that.
Step one: Get back control of Congress.
All other steps require that one.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)to take this conversation anyway. How is this proposal in contravention to getting back congress?
Showing the American people what we stand for seems like the right way to do this, don't you think?
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)They're simply noise, really.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Bye.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I am having the same issue. I live in the real world
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)We need to take back control of the House in November. Hopefully we can win a small majority in the Senate. This is what matters in the real world
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Fail to grasp is that getting things done is a lot harder than the obstruction which is all the GOP has done. I’m sad we can’t have an honest conversation about the implementation of these policies- because to be honest, we know they have no chance in the current climate.
To ever be achievable, we have to be honest about the trade offs and costs. Taxation is a third rail, and it’s also why this issue is dead in the water right now.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Trump galvanized his base around a ridiculous idea. a ridiculous and horrible idea, and democrats, proof of that rush to compromise for fear of worse, literally just voted to fund it in part.
That's where we are, with us living in the political realities that the GOP makes. How is that working out for us?
Now, yes, we should have a truthful discussion about the implementation of policies. And what you said upfront is absolutely on the nose. Republicans are heralded for their obstructionism. By who? The corporate media. By their base, which has been shaped by that GOP corporate media over the last 30 years. The playing field isn't fair...it isn't even close...but instead of claling the game rigged we play on it and pretend to trust the refs(our media) as they distort everything we do and cover for everything republicans do. And why do we do this? Because we think we can't win without their money. We rarely if ever use the bully pulpit do get the public excited. We rarely promise big, fine, with the caveat that we need the people to help us deliver. Because promising big means we are pissing some big lobby off and we're simply terrified that either the money will dry up, or the money will manifest as the primal forces of nature in righteous fury.
Instead we try to make "realistic" changes within the framework the corporate medias manufactured reality allows.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Equation that few are honest about and making concrete plans for- and it’s why those plans are doomed. Like it or not, incremental change is what our government is built for- perhaps many wouldn’t get disgusted and go third party if leaders were realistic about that.
And i got to say, I’ve heard plenty about the media’s distortions from Dems- and lots to piss off big corporate lobbyists. I don’t know where you’ve been, but if you’re relying on the media to trumpet those sentiments, you might as well hold your breath. They get as much coverage as the Dem platform.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)from the other side that way. You can if you actually excite the voter base and put their seats in jeopardy. They can't work for their big daddy corporations if they don't still have a job. But you need to take that message to the people. You need to put a target on the very institutions that Americans don't trust and for good reason, and quit letting them think that we are the ones protecting them.
Anyway, who is talking about lying? Where is the lie? A proposal is not a lie. A proposal is an ideal. There's a lot of daylight between a technical reality and a political reality. You want to talk about the former? Lets have at it. You want to talk about the latter? Lets fucking make that line up to the former.
If you have heard our democrats talking about media bias , that's awesome. who is out there saying that? Who is actually saying that those distortions by corporately owned entities have an agenda attached to them beyond ratings? That there's nothing truly independent about their journalism?
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sanders proposals are not realistic. Sanders sold his proposals in 2016 on the basis of a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters would rise up and force the GOP to adopt sanders unrealistic proposals. There was no voter revolution in 2016 and there will not be one in 2020.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)already laid out that you have continuously ignored.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)The real world is nice place. I like working in the real world
I did enjoy proving that your feelings about sanders are not arguments or facts
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)It is you who is unable to make an argument that is not based on your "feelings". Have you considered reading up on the issues and attempting to use facts? Facts are things that are not feelings.
Again, thank you for the amusement.
The real world is a nice place. Magic does not work in the real world which is why Sanders has never been able to pass any meaningful legislation. You are welcome to continue to rely on magic.
Real Democrats are focused on retaking the House and trying for a majority in the Senate.
True Blue American
(17,988 posts)All the big plans are null and void.
But what about this?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-08/grand-jury-empaneled-10-million-fraud-probe-involving-jane-and-bernie-sanders
JCanete
(5,272 posts)is why people keep dredging this back up from January. How did you feel about the Comey Clinton email statement? maybe you could enlighten me?
True Blue American
(17,988 posts)Both have hired Attorneys. No matter what, the College was forced to close because of Jane borrowing.
KTM
(1,823 posts)Hmm, whats their agenda ??
http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)You have not disproved the premise of my positions. Your claims are not based on facts but on your feelings about Sanders. You have done nothing to disprove the premise of my arguments with facts (your feelings about sanders really do not matter). None of your claims or feelings undercuts the premise of my positions which are based on the facts that exist in the real world.
Sanders has never accomplished anything in his long career for a reason. His proposals will not work in the real world. It is easy to make unrealistic and silly proposals when one knows that these proposals have zero chance of passing. This thread is a great example of an unrealistic sanders proposal that can not be adopted in the real world. In what universe do you think that this plan has any chance of being adopted in the real world. There are of course no specifics to this plan and the only way for such a plan to be adopted would be if the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a veto proof majority in the House. That is how the real world works. Again, I note that Sanders failed utterly to get single payer adopted in Vermont. Again magic does not work in the real world.
You may like to see unrealistic proposals and you may believe in magic. Sanders proposals are not popular with voters who actually vote in the real world which is why the magical voter revolution failed. https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote
In the real world the conditions are simply not right for a voter revolution https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie-sanders/
The destruction of the Southern slave economy following the Civil War
The New Deal
The first of these was 50+ years in the making and, in the end, required a bloody, four-year war to bring to a conclusion. The second happened only after an utter collapse of the economy, with banks closing, businesses failing, wages plummeting, and unemployment at 25 percent. That’s what it takes to bring about a revolution, or even something close to it.
We’re light years away from that right now. Unemployment? Yes, 2 or 3 percent of the working-age population has dropped out of the labor force, but the headline unemployment rate is 5 percent. Wages? They’ve been stagnant since the turn of the century, but the average family still makes close to $70,000, more than nearly any other country in the world. Health care? Our system is a mess, but 90 percent of the country has insurance coverage. Dissatisfaction with the system? According to Gallup, even among those with incomes under $30,000, only 27 percent are dissatisfied with their personal lives.
Like it or not, you don’t build a revolution on top of an economy like this. Period. If you want to get anything done, you’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through the slow boring of hard wood.
Without some external event as described above, there will be no voter revolution. Millions or billions or trillions of new voters are not going to rise up and help sanders pass these unrealistic proposals in the real world.
In my opinion, Sanders is not likely to run in 2020 and if Sanders does run, he will not be the nominee. Sanders will have to release his tax returns to get onto the ballot in a number of blue states due to proposed and pending ballot access laws. Sanders would also face backlash due to stunts like the attack on Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention (the video of this stunt and the fact that Sanders refused to stop this stunt will not play well with the base of the party). The Our Revolution idiots and Nina Turner are generating a great deal of anger on the part of real Democrats towards Sanders and his proposals. There are a large number of Democrats who blame sanders for Trump's victory. You can count me in that group who blame sanders for trump's victory. In addition, a large majority of Democrats live in the real world and will not accept sanders unrealistic proposals. I seriously doubt that sanders runs and I am sure that he will not get the nomination. Again, there will be no magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters rise up to support Sanders. Without a magical revolution in the real world, this proposal is not going to go anywhere
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Brilliant negotiation, and yet building coalitions is wrong and somehow corrupt. Honestly, I see a lot of people conflate obstruction with getting things done, and it’s a lie designed to attract voters- the same voters who get deeply disappointed in two years and disappear.
Response to bettyellen (Reply #93)
Post removed
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Haven’t been getting quite the gains others have lately. Obama did redirect our economy off a cliff though- and I’m sure you’d criticize that too- despite being a “ma paycheck” voter. Surely you know lots of your paycheck aficionados won’t vote to raise taxes or cut the military- I’ve never heard the grand work around for that reality.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)mention the economic realities of people of color. Shall I mention to you the banking deregulation that allows banks to continue to give unfair terms to black Americans with impunity because now they no longer have to disclose their loan records for oversight regarding potential racial discrimination?
Oh yeah, and 15 dems signed onto that piece of shit.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Politics again and again by those who want to attack banks again and again. The vast majority of Dems favor regulation of the banks. You’d never know it by listening to you. I literally only hear that “Dems do nothing” from middle to upper class white men. I call them low info voters because I think it’s kinder than accusing them of naked self interest. And because none of them could tell you three things that were in the Dem platform on 16- yet they believed they knew it all.
And btw, Hillary has called out the media hundreds of times for their irresponsible behavior. And they punished her for it, as do you, by claiming it never happened.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)industries in our cross-hairs is not a dismissal. I listened to what Clinton said on the campaign trail pre GE. That is what she was campaigning on. It was damn modest and depressing to me. I was hopeful as fuck going into the election though. I was happy with the result...I was happy with the official DNC platform and what Clinton had decided to campaign on. I was also devastated when she lost.
But you certainly didn't' extend to me your "courtesy" of calling me a low information voter here. Instead you went right in with accusations of selfishness.
First, how am I punishing her for it...second, yes, sometimes we say "you shouldn't have paid so much attention to that non-story." we never say why they do it. For that matter, Sanders only dips his toe into that conversation.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Believe so deeply that this issue supersedes all others for everyone, but that’s a huge and incorrect assumption. The general public doesn’t hate them as you do, instead you’ve helped them along the road to hating politicians and the government itself by smearing them all. Which is exactly what those coroporations wanted from you.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2018, 01:06 AM - Edit history (1)
I'm talking about how corporations have bought this country and stand as much in the way of social justice(because its an effective wedge issue) as they do in the way of economic justice.
I don't hate any of these people. They are simply using the tools available to them and getting the best deal for themselves possible. We shouldn't be helping them to do that. We should be counterbalancing it.
Every thought and statement you seem to attribute to me is way off the mark. You've constructed a version of me that doesn't exist. Why?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)“A wedge” it’s because too many people have put their bank accounts before basic human rights. They lecture those with much more to lose about being used by the oligarchy when it’s really those who are blinded by their own needs for money and power - their fears of losing it- are the ones being manipulated into asking women and POC to continue to lag behind. We know them by their chants of how the Dems have done nothing (for them).
We see it.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)achieve what I want at all if we don't fight against social injustice at the very same time. You may have found a cadre of Sanders supporters who fit the bill of independent who are far less liberal but were still swayed by his economic message to join onto a platform that is anything but exclusive in its focus to white voters, and which has no single plan included that would put people of color second( yet you persist), but that is evidence that we could win some voters to our cause, not evidence that we could be coopted by them.
Well it is how power drives a wedge. You can side-eye it all you want. That doesn't mean I'm saying racism doesn't exist or that it isn't systemic and pervasive by any stretch, nor did Sanders, and when he made that comment about identity politics that is so oft cited and mischaracterized here, he was literally saying you can't simply say "vote for me because I'm like you ..." you have to say "vote for me because these are the issues I'm going to fight for you on..." You are well within your right to be critical of his language, or I daresay, his argument, but at least be honest about what he actually said.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the ill conceived notion of people who imagine there’s no such thing as systemic racism. I could go on, but I can’t be bothered educating the blind.
And I heard what Sanders said just fine, he couldn’t imagine he wasn’t being inclusive enough, becasue so many issues never occurred to him, they’re not on his radar. He never focused on the poorest- single moms and their babies- yet claimed to have the economic answer for everyone.
He had to believe others judgement to be based on superficial attributes becasue he knows better. Like Mike Brown would be alive if only he was going to college in September, and city guns are so bad, country guns are just fine.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)needs going into a high skill oriented future. I'm a firm believer in quotas and grants and scholarships do not go to enough people of color now. Of course our public education system should be doing a better job. Of course even the distribution of resources within school districts has incredibly racist implications and this needs to change. Of course public schools need more funding and charter schools need to not be promoted as the answer, as a means of funneling money away from public schools. Why is this either or?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It’s great for lots of suburban white kids, but those in cities, nope. If you have to ask, you don’t know enough about how things actually are.
Why is it either/ or? Someone made it that way by accidentally skipping over policies that help young moms and inner city youth and hoping no one would notice. We know a lot of so called “tax payers” prefer it that way. They like their guns and pork to stay in white states where they think they’ve earned it.
And becasue a decent and safe education as well as seriously subsidized child care will lift more people out of serious poverty- and they are sorely overdue. And none of us should be paying for upper middle class and wealthy kids college until our younger children are taken care of. No one will support giving rich kids a full ride w this rtax money. It always was a non-starter, a nice fantasy for a lot of newly minted voters to dream about and nothing more. LOL, I knew people who thought POTUs could just sign an executive order and make it so, within a year. And sadly those were people with good grades! That’s how bad our public system sucks.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)was going to tax the rich, and maybe that should have always been excluded from the plan,(to fund the education of those over a certain level of income), but I figured that they can go ahead and have that if it was a token of what was being taxed from them to pay for this program. I think Sanders and Clinton came to a reasonable intersection on this and I certainly wont shed any tears, but to pretend that this was a giveaway to the rich while not accounting for who we were going to need to pay for this plan, is not exactly accurate. Did it take too little and give too much of that back to them? I don't know the numbers. I could probably easily be persuaded that that's the case, since I agree they don't need any damn charity.
As to early education, well Sanders had a platform talking about these things. He also has a record opposing No Child Left Behind...how has that one turned out? Who has that sucked most for? Is it any surprise at all that that's what happened?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)shape a piece of legislation that was going to pass, and mitigate the harm to come from it.
Rather than simply yelling about it.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/
George II
(67,782 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)They know that shit is actually rigged for them and prefer it that way. We will not pander to their bigotry and greed.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)cent court voters who want 2/3 of the Dem party base to be second class citizens. Even if white guys 1/3 didn’t understand what was behind their thinking then, they know now. Enough of courting those that hate us. We’re not standing in the shadows to allow bigots to be appeased.
TexasTowelie
(112,417 posts)are directly responsible for numerous small community banks having to either close or merge into larger banks because of the one size fits all regulation that treats those small community banks the same as the large corporate banks that you rail against. You are also willing to ignore that those regulations cost money for banks to comply with and those costs are passed on to you as a customer. The closed and merged banks means less competition among banks as reflected by the larger banks gaining market share since Dodd-Franks passed. The closed and merged banks also means that fewer borrowers are able to obtain loans which sends those borrowers to alternative sources like payday loan and auto title loan companies.
Meanwhile, there are millions of customers at those banks that are free to move their business elsewhere and that are satisfied with the services they receive.
How dare those senators address the concerns of their constituents? And how easy it is to (repeatedly) attack the 15 Democrats that voted to change those regulations?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)regulations were crafted in such a way that the result you speak of happened. Why did it look that way? What's your point here? That the banks get a seat at the table when legislation is written? So now that those banks got harmed and merged away they are going to do away with those bank regulations, and not just the bad but the good? This deregulation rolls back regulations for almost all banks.
I'm going to go out on a limb here though, because I can't remember the last time a Republican has done something good, and certainly not the party as a whole, that this roll-back probably sucks for us...probably helps the wrong people AGAIN. And when it comes to this subject, I'm inclined to trust Warren's judgement in lieu of my own deep understanding. This is going to take me some time to do my own research to address your claim that these Senators were helping their constituents, because I'm doubtful that these are the real winners, but I'll give that argument its due, and I'll get back to this thread at that point.
Yes, to an extent more regulation might pass costs onto consumers...to an extent. Its silly to assume all costs get passed on because the price-point banks look for is the price-point people will do business with them on. These institutions may choose not to impact their profit margin if that's feasible. If its not they will cut into their profit margin to keep their customers.
TexasTowelie
(112,417 posts)that didn't vote as you desired. And yes, with the enactment of any legislation the entities that are subject to new regulation do deserve a seat at the table because otherwise the complete story does not come forward--namely, what are the adverse effects that arise as a consequence of so-called "good legislation".
It also isn't silly to assume all costs get passed on. For the banks that were barely able to keep open the doors prior to Dodd-Franks, then they had no alternative except to pass on all of the costs to their customers. When those costs were passed onto their customers it provided the incentive for those customers to abandon their prior banks and move to banks that had the financial reserves and economy of scale that could provide those services at lower cost. In other words, business migrated from the mom-and-pop banks that you prefer to the large institutions that you despise because the smaller banks could not compete.
This would be more apparent to you if you lived in smaller, rural communities that don't have as much competition. It wasn't a matter of driving a few blocks away to the next bank down the road as it is in the city. My home town only had one bank and the nearest competitor was an even smaller bank in the next town 10 miles away. The nearest of the big banks was 25 miles away. When those small banks close it impacts the entire community from the businesses that have to seek out new banks to the clubs at the high school that received discounts and charitable donations.
As for your statement that bank regulation "probably helps the wrong people AGAIN," I think that is a matter of opinion. If you are one of the people that work at one of the smaller banks or if you are a customer at one of those banks then it certainly seems like you are helping that bank to survive which helps the right people.
Just because a business or a bank is big, does not necessarily mean that it's bad. It weakens the Democratic Party to have such an anti-business stance because people work for those businesses and people aren't going to vote for politicians that may put them into the unemployment line.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2018, 01:05 AM - Edit history (2)
things when they need to be done...an excuse for not regulating, an excuse for not rducing..hell, cigarettes...guns, making sure companies don't pollute the air, etc.
I'm all for making sure we mitigate that pain. I'm all for the government stepping in and making sure the safety net is robust when people lose their jobs....why by the way is this never an issue when technology distrupts labor markets...but it isn't an excuse for doing nothing.
TexasTowelie
(112,417 posts)Maybe you would feel differently if it was your job on the line? Would you welcome over-regulation in your business sector all for a "robust safety net" that will never be robust enough?
Regulation and availability of jobs go hand in hand. Regulation can create jobs for both the regulated entities and for regulators (usually at considerable cost)--they also have the ability to eliminate jobs when the cost of complying with those regulations is greater than the benefits of staying in business (is it worth taking the risk of getting a 10% ROI versus a 5% ROI with no risks)?
Returning to the OP, Bernie says that he will guarantee a job for everyone with the development of government job programs. Are those government jobs going to compete with the private sector? One way that government is able to lower its costs is that government has the ability to exempt itself from the regulations that they impose on private businesses. Those exemptions can actually lead to the employees being placed in danger. That is not a hypothetical situation either--I worked in the same office building as where the State Fire Marshall's Office is located and the building was exempt from complying from local fire code regulations. What compromises will these new employees have to accept to get their guaranteed jobs? What guarantees do taxpayers have that the right person is connected to a reasonably suited job? I'm great with math and computers, but I have no practical use on a construction site.
It seems like Bernie believes that there is this huge pit of money to satisfy every item on his wish list, but that simply is not true. Whom is he going to take from to obtain the proposals that he wants? Since we are still in a capitalistic society, I believe that caveat emptor applies and it is reasonable to get specific details from Bernie rather than vague statements about the wealthy and corporations.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...to be centrists, leftists, and far leftists continue to bicker and criticize each other, allowing the republicans to continue to win elections.
Those who are opposed to the republicans have got to stop bashing the Democratic Party and it's policies.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)mountain grammy
(26,648 posts)Thank you
George II
(67,782 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)two decades ago, when the idea was so not popular, but, thankfully, same-sex marriage is now recognized as a fundamental right. Good thing Bernie wasn't afraid to lead on that progressive issue and so many that came after that.
There's a reason Bernie is considered a hero to so many of his loyal base and his popularity as the #1 presidential prospect for 2020 reflects that.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Who has majorities in both houses of Congress again?
How's that all working out for you?
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)to support. This must be the newly minted pro Bernie retort because I’ve seen it trotted out here just recently. What a complete distraction.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)It didn't cost 400 billion and yet it took decades. wtf?
As to costing money..costing money to whom? America is a rich fucking country. Unfortunately certain people have most of that wealth because of a very out of balance legal system. We can afford these things. Don't pretend we can't. Don't try to scare people with a dollar figure, especially when that is often distorted by not taking into account of things, such as in the case of Sanders single payer plan, citizens paying a LOT less directly out of pocket for insurance. That government spending is higher is such a small aspect of the whole picture.
How much did we just raise the military budget?
That said, of course the plan should be feasible. All serious analysis should be looked at and weighed based upon its merits and deficits.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)$400 billion was in reference to because Sanders doesn’t talk about how much his proposals cost. That was the point — bigotry doesn’t cost anything. Single payer costs billions. The two are not the same comparisons.
Your comments about scaring people reveal a lot. It seems very scammish to not be accountable for proposal costs and let others do the dirty work. Trump is a scammer and we see where that goes. 
JCanete
(5,272 posts)on the subject, I should not be able to so easily point to the hole in their process and yet, in the case of the single payer study, it was pretty glaring.
I said right in my post that of course proposals should get scrutiny. So should the scrutiny. And it very well may be that in the case of that legislation, there were problems. It would be nice if the methodology and framing weren't suspect(not nefarious mind you, I don't suggest that people were attempting to lie, but that they have a point of view and blind spots), then maybe we could get to the heart of what those problems are if or where they exist.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)that is close to the point here.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)AND savings should be included in the figures. You can't leave out what people will be saving on individual health care, for instance, and just point to what it will cost the government and call it a day.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Therefore, people must attack Bernie personally, even comparing him to Nazi tRump!! It's outrageous... talk about "jumping the shark"!!
Keep up the good fight though... I enjoy reading your posts on the MERITS of ideas. That's how progressives make PROGRESS!!
LisaM
(27,830 posts)Like many of us (me included, I'm ashamed to say), he thought civil unions were the way to go at first. He evolved on the issue.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)yes, he voted against DOMA but that was on states rights grounds...nor did he take a position in his 2006 Senate race other than the fact that the state of Massachusetts was within its rights to have SSM if they wanted to.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)rights as recently as 2006 -- letting the states decide whether to have same sex marriage or not -- just as he argued for states rights on gun issues.
He opposed DOMA, which many supported as a way to short-circuit a Republican push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But he did not publicly support Federal same sex marriage till 2009.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/as-gay-rights-ally-bernie-sanders-wasnt-always-in-vanguard.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=B301DC94E276AFC1093D963A2EA24EA9&gwt=pay
"As Gay Rights Ally, Bernie Sanders wasn't always in the vanguard."
But on his home turf in Vermont, the first state to recognize civil unions and a trailblazer in same-sex marriage rights, gay rights advocates say Mr. Sanders was less than a leader, and not entirely present, on the issue.
Mr. Sanders, who first publicly endorsed gay marriage in 2009, expressed varying levels of support for gay rights as he rose from the mayor of liberal Burlington to a congressman and then a senator with statewide support among more socially conservative constituencies such as hunters, blue-collar workers and older voters.
SNIP
The following years were something of a wilderness period for gay activists in Vermont, as many politicians wanted a break after the fight over civil unions. In 2006, Mr. Sanders, trying to make the leap into the Senate, seemed to shy away from the issue. Asked in a debate against his Republican opponent whether the federal government should overturn laws on same-sex marriage, he argued that it was a states’ rights issue. When asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, he said, “Not right now, not after what we went through.”
In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode a governor’s veto and passed legislation that explicitly recognized same-sex marriages and extended more rights to same-sex couples. That year Mr. Sanders articulated his support for gay marriage. . . .
But as Mr. Sanders tells it, he was a champion on the issue for decades.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Politifact confirms Bernie's support of same-sex marriage dating back two decades:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/
Don't always agree with Politifact... but, most of the time, they at least try to get it right - had tRump pegged as a liar and Hillary the truth-teller - as in this case.
To summarize:
Our ruling
(Chuck)Todd said that Sanders was "there" 20 years ago on the issue of same-sex marriage. What we found specific to same-sex marriage is that Sanders opposed defining marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman. He expressed that opinion through his votes, and in conversations with activists in his state.
Todd’s claim is accurate. We rate it True.
BannonsLiver
(16,448 posts)You'll find a strong correlation between the time Barack Obama came out in favor of it, and increased public approval on the issue. Bernie may have said it first, but nobody cared until Obama came out in favor of it. That's because he was the president.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)And we can afford it, given the vast wealth held by the 1% and especially the very top of the ladder.
With automation and trade issues there is no way to employ everyone unless you do what we used to call "make work", one guy digs a hole and the other one fills it back up.
NOTHING wrong with that, but not likely the route we will go.
NONE of this of course is doable anytime soon and in fact what you need to do first is REMOVE the Nazi's from power before even having this discussion.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)More money in consumers' hands means more demand for goods, which means higher prices, which means less buying power for the basic income.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Edit...seems not quite yet proven, i withdraw that accusation
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/31/finland-universal-basic-income
My question to YOU is why dont you want to even try? Not now, but anytime?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I appreciate that you are in favor of UBI and it definitely does seem the way to go. I'm not an economist and inflation does concern me a little, but I imagine that necessities would still be kept to a rate that people are willing to pay, and that this would stabilize after a short time, and everything else would continue to be priced based upon spending cash on hand. I'm more concerned about how big institutions might eventually exploit this certain income influx...how they might take a piece of it...although I think this would greatly mitigate the ways in which institutions do this now, with payday loans, credit cards etc. Anybody living above their means may need to make use of these but UBI should support people's basic needs(or close) so the desperation that might lead you to borrowing money for a really bad deal may be lessened.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)is the reality that this cant happen until many changes are made NONE of which can happen until the Nazi's are removed from office and I dont mean just rump, I mean rightwing democracy hating republicans in the house and senate, to do what YOU and I want to do we have to have veto proof majorities in both.
We are SO FAR away from that now so wasting time on what we cant do works against us.
If our system was the way I wanted it, most essentials would be nationalized and the tax structure would be such that there is NOBODY with over a few hundred million dollars, if that.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Getting such a proposal out of any committee would be impossible so long as the GOP controls Congress. The best that I see the mid terms doing is getting some sort of majority in the House and perhaps a slight majority in the Senate (this is a long shot). There is no way that the Democrats will have the votes to over come a filibuster or veto after the 2018 mid terms.
Making a proposal that has no chance of passing is not productive
Response to Donkees (Original post)
Post removed
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,431 posts)Similar to some of the issues with the CCC, back in the day.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)FDR used the NIRA (plus the Wagner Act) to counteract the overlap between the WPA/CCC and unions, resulting in the greatest increase in union membership both prior to and after his presidency.
(American-Made: The Enduring Legacy of the WPA by Nick Taylor)
JCanete
(5,272 posts)higher wages because people can work anywhere for the same amount of money.
What exactly was the downside? Maybe I'm not following the historic problem here.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)your constant shoving Bernie down everyone's throat, is turning even more people off than Bernie has been able to do.
Most are pretty sick and tired of the grifting, the made up unicorns for every pot, and the unrealistic promises never to be fulfilled, but sure to infuriate those who were counting on it.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Yes, he's done that.
Response to MineralMan (Reply #21)
Post removed
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Is he cribbing from all the countries who have already been discussing this for a while?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
comradebillyboy
(10,175 posts)that we as a country are going to have to deal with. Unfortunately, this is just another piece of theater that Bernie will use to try and get in front of TV cameras. Bernie's got no legislative achievements for a reason.
RandySF
(59,224 posts)as Trump promising to bring everyone’s factory jobs back.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)who has proven that over about 30 years now) come together and rewrite everything which results in guaranteed incomes.
But...WAY too soon to talk about that given the entire country is on fire from rampaging Nazi's.
House is on fire and one group wants to worry about what color to paint the kitchen (demanding purity in candidates) and one group wants to discuss building an entirely new house but have forgotten the people who started the first house on fire are still out in the streets with their tiki torches.
*Not cant do "anything" but can do very little compared to working with a group.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)LisaM
(27,830 posts)Just sayin'....I've worked hard my whole life and I've never been able to afford a house or even a condo, so can he please make sure I get that?
Great!
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)running around setting everything on fire.
And if Bernie insists on doing this alone he will get the same results as before.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)has a viable plan that is not a pipe-dream.
There's no question we need programs to deal with the impact of technology, etc., but don't give us a bunch of empty marketing BS that sounds too much like trump.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Simply amazing... comments like these do nothing to unite our party for the battle that lies ahead.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)They both exaggerated the trade situation.
This is the same thing, I fear.
We don't need empty promises, we need someone with ideas and a willingness to tell voters the truth about what can be done about important issues, even if there is no 100% cure.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)You can take issue with his policies all you want... however, to compare Bernie to Dolt 45, the biggest POS asshole prick to ever run for office is a bit much and only serves to divide people. 2018 will be here before you know it... we need to unite against a common enemy. Is that really asking too much??
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)can count on less than one hand the accomplishments of said speaking truth to power.
More effective would be to JOIN with others and work on things incrementally, but you wont get the same level and type of PR doing it that way, that way is more boring and less headlines.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)the border, cant promise black people they can vote, cant promise people the Medicare and SS they paid for will exist.
UNTIL we deal with the nazis.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)he talks about, be it $15/hour in Podunk Mississippi, Medicare for all, the hell with trade agreements we'll make it trading among ourselves, a job for everyone, etc.
These are all laudable things, but without a chance in heck of working anytime soon. He just makes practical candidates like Clinton look undesirable to just enough voters to elect a trump or the next GOPer who runs for office.
Sorry, just my opinion and there is nothing against Sanders' dreams or marketing ploy. Heck if he pulls it off, I'll eat crow dung with a smile. Just don't think he can/will; and as 2016 shows, he helped put us farther away from achieving any of his and our dreams.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)advocate for things that cant happen for 30 years and to date still not form a coalition so they can happen.
I am further left than Bernie, so you dont have to convince me on the ideas.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)I agree completely with what you are saying. Democrats don't want just a plan, they want to know how it will be paid for and implemented. But some will fall for his bull without any questions.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I expect legislators to actually accomplish something legislatively to fix it, or move towards a solution.
That's not asking too much of a legislator, is it?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)backed up with legislation. Which takes teamwork skills.
That's what they're elected to do.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #43)
Eliot Rosewater This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)
InAbLuEsTaTe This message was self-deleted by its author.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Is he going to get the 1% to give back their tax cuts which they want made permanent or help them finish taking SS from us?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Presidential hopeful Andrew Yang is going to give someone $12,000 in an effort to make it to the White House.
Yang, 43, is running for President in 2020 as a Democrat and his platform is centered on the idea of universal basic income (UBI), or cash handouts distributed irrespective of employment status.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of a universal basic income, Yang announced Thursday will select one New Hampshire resident to give $1,000 a month for a year starting in 2019, according to a written statement from the campaign.
Yang is paying the $12,000 for the demonstration personally, he tells CNBC Make It.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/20/andrew-yang-to-give-away-cash-show-benefit-of-universal-basic-income.html
JCanete
(5,272 posts)his proposal over nothing, but UBI is a way better idea.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It does not have the $15 requirement Sanders has here, which I think is important. People need a livable wage.
Carter signed this into law and it has been mentioned every now and again. It does include a federal work option.
Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has proposed a new bill: the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act, which could pave the way for implementation of a federal job guarantee.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/how-to-guarantee-a-job-for-every-american
MichMan
(11,971 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
honest.abe
(8,685 posts)While this would be wonderful and help lots of people.. its a bit like winning the lottery. It would be great but the odds of this happening are astronomically low. Bernie is wasting time on pipe dreams when there are huge massive issues staring him in the face.. like a maniac in the WH who aspires to be a dictator and a party on the other side who wants to tear down all the things he (Bernie) supposedly cares about.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)When FDR was elected about a third of workers were without a job.
Today unemployment is under 5%. What America needs is to force employers to pay a decent wage.
Few Americans will go for this dingbat program since they are already employed. But Bernie needs to keep his base happy and stay in the news.
If we run on return a larger share of corporate profits to their workers, we can and will win.
Docreed2003
(16,875 posts)Where was this proposal in 07 or 08? Guess it wasnt politically expedient then.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Then he is trying for that same base and the proposal is just as ridiculous.
Raising the MW to $15 an hour is a good policy that can be achieved and will make a real difference in people’s lives. And win us votes.
Pushing to create some kind of new age WPA when unemployment rates are at historic lows will not help win votes in a general election.
I think this is a crazy idea not because of who proposed it but because it is a bad proposal.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)ameliorates this to an extent, but it doesn't address people who ARE out of the workforce and want to be in it, and who, frankly, are worse and worse served as time goes on for not being employed, but for a languishing skill-set and for a resume that puts them out of work for this time.
Again, what's ridiculous. What's unnecessary?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And support anyone, Sanders included that support raising them significantly and tie the wage to inflation.
But to create an entire new bureaucracy to deal with perhaps 3-4 percent of the population is nuts. And notice not a hint at its cost.
Why do you think the people out of the workforce now but wanting to work will suddenly decide to work with programn?
Response to JCanete (Reply #113)
mcar This message was self-deleted by its author.
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)His base gets all excited. Then they get angry when other Dems don't support it. Then they start talking shit about other Dems, saying they're all the same as Republicans. Then turnout goes down, and the Republicans win.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)the end from here. Already. Very gimmicky and manipulative.
Donkees
(31,453 posts)Yavin4
(35,445 posts)He knows full well that this has no chance of ever passing, but Booker is trying to win support from Bernie bros as a hedge against other Dems.
comradebillyboy
(10,175 posts)the bros.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,175 posts)I just don't think it will be an effective tactic for him. And personally, I don't hold it against him.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)would likely take a closer look at Sen. Booker for doing this. He took another page out of the Bernie playbook, as did Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, and other 2020 presidential hopefuls, swearing off corporate PAC money... smart, smart, smart!!
Nice to see others following Bernie's lead, especially after he was ridiculed by many Democrats for "unilaterally disarming" - by many here too btw - for simply showing them the way... but, in adopting his vision, they validated Bernie's approach to speaking truth to power.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)democrat so we can remove ACTUAL NAZIS from the White House, then maybe we could help him with that, maybe he could find some Democratic party support.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)You okay with that?
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Damn, life is good!
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Response to R B Garr (Reply #52)
Eliot Rosewater This message was self-deleted by its author.
katmondoo
(6,457 posts)Everyone had a job and everyone had to work.
comradebillyboy
(10,175 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)greatauntoftriplets
(175,749 posts)That's from my time spent in East Berlin in 1971. The system wasn't working.
Hamlette
(15,412 posts)The part that bugs me the most is that Bernie doesn't seem to consult those of us who work with the chronically unemployed, or underemployed.
During the election, Bernie was asked how he would deal with the "too big to fail" problem with banks. He said, I'd just break them up into smaller banks. When the interviewer pointed out that the President doesn't have that power, he said "I'll have my treasury secretary do it". The interviewer said the treasury sec'y doesn't have the power and Bernie just didn't answer.
It was one of his big issues during the election. He hadn't thought through how to do it.
That interview, which was in the NY Post, was the end of my love affair with Bernie.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)a US Senator, doesn't understand the role of the Senate and Congress.
I'm more interested in you actually getting into your claim that this is impossible. You didn't speak to why at all.
betsuni
(25,618 posts)Civic Justice
(870 posts)and try and roll back regulations, that she would do all she can to break up the "too big to fail banking" and force them back to the levels of division which was in Glass–Steagalll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_legislation
The Glass-Steagall Act's primary objectives were twofold: to stop the unprecedented run on banks and restore public confidence in the U.S. banking system; and to sever the linkages between commercial and investment banking that were believed to have been responsible for the 1929 market crash. The rationale for seeking the separation was the conflict of interest that arose when banks were engaged in both commercial and investment banking (e.g. the tendency of such banks to engage in excessively speculative activity).
Hamlette
(15,412 posts)I understand there are anti-trust laws that can prevent monopolies but as that is currently defined by law, it does not include banks because there are several of them. It is not a monopoly by definition.
Congress could pass a law that banks can't be bigger than X but the bankers will not be happy. And it wouldn't want to be the government lawyer tasked with proving breaking up the banks is the appropriate remedy. It is VERY high bar to clear in court, in large part because other remedies are available. Remember, there are many community owned or run financial institutions where you can get the same services as a bank. What is easier is to provide that banks have certain ratios governing how much assets a bank has to have at hand. Those ratios were increased in Dodd Frank in and effort to protect against big banks.
I would also point out that depository banks, the kind you and I use, didn't go belly up during the 2007 financial crisis. Investment banks did. So not all financial institutions were involved or at fault. Make is so depository institutions can't do the same shit investment banks do and you're done. Aren't you?
I would add that while I worked with the poor, my husband was the state commissioner of financial institutions and now represents banks. He's done banking law for about 35 years. Although he's a liberal democrat I would never take him on his word so did some research myself.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)And thank you Bernie for jumping onboard giving it more visibility!
Representative John Conyers proposed the bill to the House months ago:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1000
Senator Booker announced his own bill for this several days ago:
https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=778
It would be nice if articles like this gave at least SOME credit where it’s due.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)(as in someone latching on to someone, not meant to be targeted at the person I am responding to - edit)
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I believe this is the first thread I’ve ever chimed in on this particular topic, and the only other place in this thread that I mention the link to Conyers was to someone who’d mentioned Booker. Mistaking me for another poster by chance?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Not you at all, sorry
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)The bane of typed communication is the lack of inflection and non-verbal communication.
My misunderstanding.
SunSeeker
(51,697 posts)
zentrum
(9,865 posts)……broad country popularity (outside of DU) that can get this word out. Love the guy.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)until adopted by other Democrats with presidential aspirations. Look at all the 2020 hopefuls swearing off corporate cash like Bernie did in 2016... yet, we were told how Bernie was a loser for "unilaterally disarming." But, when Gillibrand, Harris, Booker, Warren, and others express those same sentiments, following in Bernie's footsteps, it's pure genius, a master stroke!!
Bernie is a born leader, always taking the higher path to do the RIGHT thing, not always the most POPULAR thing. Which, ironically, makes Bernie even MORE popular with Main Street America, and less so with Wall Street ... just one of the reasons I love him too.
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)Let’s try to be fact based here.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)People really appreciate that in a politician.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)is an understatement.. I am seeing right wing talking points, right here on DU.. interesting times
zentrum
(9,865 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)is undeniable at this point.. when FDR type of policies are branded as "alt-left" you know we have a problem..
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It is essential to change the dialogue, to change the boundaries of what is acceptable speech, to reframe the debate.
PubliusEnigma
(1,583 posts)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Where he tends to fail is bringing enough lawmakers together to make things happen. He doesn't seem to ever make it past the point of the idea.
Which is why, to this day, he has so few actual accomplishments to his name. Unless there is a shit ton of legislation he's sponsored I am unaware of...
romanic
(2,841 posts)He's an outlier, he's not "one of them" so his great ideas fail before they're given a chance. I wish Bernie bashers would realize this.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)That lesson never seems to sink in. Better to go my way and achieve nothing than to bend, work with others and achieve something. Got it.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Is he not "one of them" because they don't want him to be, or is it because he doesn't want to be one of them? If I recall correctly, they welcomed him with open arms when he wanted to become a member of the party. Was he thrown out or did he leave?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)What "chances" are his peers denying him?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)he's so INCREDIBLY popular, indeed, THE most popular of the 2020 democratic presidential hopefuls... yet, here, the Bernie bashers criticize him incessantly for the very reasons he's loved and adored. I don't get it... never will.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)we’re going to get!
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts)Remember when marriage was a “sacred bond between a man and a woman”?
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)
FSogol
(45,526 posts) Civic Justice
(870 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Senator Booker already DID unveil a plan several days ago.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/20/17260578/cory-booker-job-guarantee-bill-full-employment-darity-hamilton
Cory Booker’s new big idea: guaranteeing jobs for everyone who wants one
His bill would guarantee jobs in 15 urban and rural areas to test if it works.
By Dylan Matthews@dylanmattdylan@vox.com Apr 20, 2018, 12:00pm EDT
Booker, leading the way... as usual!!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Booker is a strong Democratic leader. I really like him.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Just throw it out there and see if they can figure it out later.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I mean, ANYONE can offer these types of pie-in-the-sky (never-gonna-happen-in-a-million-years) proposals, right? I suppose it's great for fundraising purposes, but if we really want to consider ourselves to be "progressives" then actual PROGRESS must be part of the agenda.
It's not enough to just SHOUT about things that we wished were true... but what we need to do is taking a REALISTIC look at what's possible (under the current political and financial conditions at the time) and actually DOING THAT! It may not be the idealistic utopian final result that we all hope for, but if it gets us CLOSER, then we're definitely better off than we were before.
I'll never understand why it is that there are so many people who take such pride in failure to accomplish the unrealistic... while at the same time being so opposed to taking many small steps that always move us closer and closer to our ultimate goals. Sadly, they appear to want to boast about their own purity and idealism, rather than by measuring how much the lives of others have actually improved.
I'll say it again: It's just plain lazy. Showboating.
Hi, Cha! Hope you're well!
Cha
(297,655 posts)I'm doing well, Jackie.. Up late..
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2018, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)
But it will not happen in my opinion...maybe raise the minimum wage. I would prefer to hear ideas that are possible . It makes me nervous to run on these issues...we could end up losing mcGovern style.
VOX
(22,976 posts)I'll settle for absolutely nothing less. My vote is *** P U R E ***.
George II
(67,782 posts)Free college
Free healthcare
Free sex
Free weed
Free loans
Free kittens
Free everything.
VOX
(22,976 posts)It’ll be beautiful, and the vet expenses are covered as well. Paradise is within reach!
TexasTowelie
(112,417 posts)
Oops, you already mentioned that but I was high.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Let it be so!
LAS14
(13,783 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)I'm sure they're getting right on that.
Mahalo, mcar
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2018, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)
Along with financial disclosure.
However, if any think tank or other nuetral org crunches the actual numbers, and it doesn't please the Junior Senator from Vermont, an angry detailed rebuttal will be released at lightning speed.
See also: the Urban Institute on his "Medicare for All" proposal.
Not sure what reaction the back of an envelope estimate will bring.
QC
(26,371 posts)
mvd
(65,180 posts)Need to start out with high goals. Can't get everything passed immediately, but you do have to support the goals.
DFW
(54,436 posts)One more time:
"Under the early draft of Sanders's job guarantee, local, state, and American Indian tribe governments in every section of the country would send proposals for public works projects for their areas to 12 regional offices that encompass the country. These 12 regional offices would act as a clearinghouse for these projects, tasked with sending recommended projects to a new national office within the Labor Department office for final approval."
Let me repeat that: "a new national office within the Labor Department office for final approval."
OK, what do we think about a TRUMP Secretary of Labor deciding who makes that "final approval?" Or how about Cheneybush's Labor Secretary, who just happened to be the wife of Mitch McTurtle?
Why not just turn over a few hundred million a year in no-bid contracts to your buddies and be done with it? Hell, it worked for Cheney's Halliburton. They walked away with so much government money, they moved their world HQ from Texas to the United Arab Emirates just so that no one from the Justice Department could walk in one day with a search warrant. And not one peep from Republicans about our patriotic former Vice-President and the fortune he walked with.
If this proposal were coming from Ted Cruz or Orrin Hatch or Charles Koch, I could believe it. But Bernie Sanders? "You can propose whatever you want, but my people in the Labor department decide which projects get approved and which do not." Let me guess: while Republicans hold the Cabinet, oil pipelines, casinos and contracts to mob-connected slo-mo road construction and bridge repair outfits are APPROVED, yay! JOBS, whooppee! New schools, child care, medical clinics in rural areas, environmental clean-up projects? Oooh, SO sorry, we JUST don't have the resources in this economy, especially with a $15 hourly wage we must respect. Nope, can't approve anything of that nature, gotta set priorities, y'all understand............
TexasTowelie
(112,417 posts)which were woefully lacking in the proposal.
Guaranteeing $15/hour sounds great if you are healthy enough to work full time. However, it is also inflationary which hurts those with little or no money much harder than those in the middle and upper classes.
Then there are the questions about how the guaranteed jobs intertwine with the rest of the social safety net. Do I have to work 40 hours a week or can I only work 6 hours a week because more than that would make me ineligible for other government programs?
I also had a contagious disease a few months ago and wasn't supposed to have much contact with the public for about three weeks. Are they going to keep my job open for me? Then I was off my feet for over two weeks recently so I doubt that I would have been useful at work during that period.
Those and similar types of questions come from someone who is willing to work. Imagine what would occur with the segment of the population that is looking only for discretionary funds?
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Unlike the naysayers on this thread. Why shouldn't the Democrats and others show some actual leadership on issues that matter? Sure, maybe UBI is a better way to go, but we have certainly done something similar with the CCC and various other work programs during the Depression. And actually this country would benefit from the sort of massive public works projects that occurred then. There are major infrastructure problems that need fixing and people who need jobs.
Of course the CCC and other programs were government programs and in this area of a pro-corporation Democratic Party, this will not fly, unless it is some sort of bullshit "public-private partnerships' which is a guaranteed corporate giveaway. Or possibly it gets watered down to some sort of "internship" only the children of the rich can afford to take.
The trick is in the implementation. With any Republican administration and certainly this one, it would only be a way for their friends to benefit. With any Democratic administration, it would end up being so water-down as to be useless, so as not to offend their corporate donors.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) alarimer
(16,245 posts)There is no point in NOT holding their feet to the fire.
Take, for example, all the vaunted "job retraining" programs espoused by various Democrats (and others) over the years. These programs have been established under various administrations of both parties and not one has shown to be effecting, in part because they are simply not big enough. And now, with even more jobs being lost to automation and other factors. No one, not in either party, has been bold enough to propose REAL programs that will help people. Now, of course, Sen. Sanders says nothing about what kind of jobs those would be. Or where. Because a lot of those jobs will likely be in fields like health care, as home health care aids. There is a lot of stigma for men in some communities to take those jobs. Plus they pay crap wages. And most people are unwilling to move where the jobs are.
Criticism is not bashing, for the millionth time. The Democrats have for years been far too cautious. Some of that is changing, but not enough. And "public-private partnerships" are usually useless, no matter who proposes them. Take, for example, all the vaunted "job retraining" programs espoused by various Democrats (and others) over the years. These programs have been established under various administrations of both parties and not one has shown to be effecting, in part because they are simply not big enough.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/the-false-promises-of-worker-retraining/549398/
But even as members of the administration pay lip service to job training, it has joined other politicians in making cuts to the programs. Dollars delivered to the states through the federal government’s primary workforce-retraining program have been slashed by 22 percent since 2009, and in his first budget earlier this year, President Trump proposed further cuts. Despite decades of investments by the federal government in a patchwork of job-retraining efforts, most have been found to be ineffective according to numerous studies over the years, and it remains unclear to experts whether the programs are even up to the task of preparing workers for the new economy.
Take the program aimed at workers whose jobs have moved overseas: the Labor Department’s Trade Adjustment Assistance fund. It has been around since the early 1960s, and in recent years has paid upwards of $11,500 per eligible person for training. But a 2012 assessment of the program found that, four years after completing training, only 37 percent of its employed participants were working in their targeted industries. Women and younger workers were more likely than other workers to undertake training through the fund, and the incomes of older participants, in particular, never caught back up to their earlier wages.
The trade-assistance program is just one of 47 federal job-training programs across nine agencies that the Government Accountability Office identified in a 2011 report. Most were tiny and mainly served the unemployed struggling to find work. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act signed by President Obama in 2014 was a bipartisan attempt aimed at consolidating the hodgepodge of programs.
Still, federal retraining programs remain rooted in the industrial era in which they were created and have largely failed to evolve with the global information-based economy in which technical know-how trumps muscle.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Gillibrand and Booker are ahead of him in this...can we give credit to those who are leading this and not just bernie?
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Sticking to the issues that affect everyday people, good stuff..
Faux pas
(14,690 posts)hero!
S.E. TN Liberal
(508 posts)The Fed raises interest rates to slow the economy when unemployment reaches around 5%.
This means the government is trying to keep about 1 out of every 20 Americans jobless.
Unemployed people help keep inflation down and provide a desperate workforce which businesses can use to threaten workers who try to unionize. In an economy where so many are unable to find decent jobs, many workers become forced to join the military so their basic needs are met.
Working-class people need to start demanding an income be provided. Either by insisting businesses create jobs or by demanding the government at least provide a basic income to make sure workers have shelter, food, medical care, and clean water.
So why is this a job for the taxpayers/government? Because it is obvious businesses are never going to get the job done. The government/taxpayers always have to fill in when business prove to be failures.
Donkees
(31,453 posts)demosincebirth
(12,543 posts)
0rganism
(23,970 posts)we need to prepare for how to handle extremely low employment levels brought on by automation, but instead we're ramping for full employment. seems like the wrong approach to me.
i expect human employment numbers for the next century to tank hard in response to advances in robotics and AI. in 20 years, we'll maybe need half the current workforce to meet demands and it will only go down from there. we need to prepare for this situation: buying/survival power and healthcare cannot continue to be linked directly to employment and employment history. we need to look beyond employment.
the fight for a livable minimum wage, on the other hand, is very important and very real, as it will help establish the post-employment baseline wage.
NNadir
(33,544 posts)...100 million dollars in the lottery!
gay texan
(2,471 posts)I'm good with this. The WPA kept my family from starving during the dust bowl and the great depression.
katmondoo
(6,457 posts)snowybirdie
(5,234 posts)Where will this go? In the dustbin of his other proposals
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Every time I see a Sanders thread with the usual unrelenting venom from the anti-Sanders squad I smile contentedly knowing he must be doing something right.
Sanders 2020!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)And it is in league with John Conyers
http://observer.com/2018/04/cory-booker-bill-would-guarantee-jobs-in-15-local-areas/
A report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimated that a nationwide federal jobs guarantee program would cost $543 billion per year and employ 10.7 million workers.
New Jersey Republican State Chairman Doug Steinhardt denounced Booker’s proposal, saying it would “perpetuate the misconception that bigger government is a solution.”
“If Cory Booker was really interested in creating jobs for his constituents, he would work on a plan to make New Jersey more attractive to job creators,” Steinhardt said in a statement. “Instead of spending millions more in government subsidies to increase government’s payroll, we need to be using our already scarce, economic resources to spur private sector investment and create private sector jobs.”
brer cat
(24,605 posts)And thanks to Cory Booker for coming up with a feasible way to move forward. It has the potential to be a major effort and careful planning is required.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....jump on this and co-sponsor it.
