And that, right there, is 83% of the problem.

Most of the rest of the problem is a lack of backbone and integrity among some number of Democrats in office.

The more corrupt our election system has become and the more money has become the instrument of winning, the fewer courageous folks have been elected.

During the same period, the money that bought these positions of power had ended up influencing the courts to the benefit of the corporatocracy, so we've lost much of that balance and any remaining balance that was afforded by the media.

See Citizens United.

They have the leverage, they have more tools to get more power.

It won't be a pretty ending.

I can go back to the very origins of this party and with the sole exception of FDR (and we can argue about LBJ), the Democratic party has always backed Big Money over little people.

Pick any point like, it was a bad republican idea pushed into the debate by Democratic allies.

As long as we keep clinging to the forlorn hope that this party will ever make significant progress for the rest of us until the parasites that lead it and the ideas they advocate are completely rejected, the best we can hope for is to be the slightly less horrible alternative, and nobody votes for that.

If not, it can be found here: http://laelth.blogspot.com/2011/01/turning-american-ship-of-state.html

What seems clear is that the periods when the Democratic Party actually served the people were exceptions to the general rule.

-Laelth

-Laelth

BILL CLINTON!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

To go with the 'cool kids' who believe in the atmosphere media creates, and not think ahead, is unpopular not only at DU, but anywhere. This should be a place where we know better. NYCSKP is media saavy, but it's safer to go with the crowd. Oh well, another day, another RF101 at DU. Thanks, JoePhilly, for keeping to the facts.

I'll try to be more "gruntled" in the future.

That's so very sweet of you.

the Republicans' behavior is the responsibility of Democrats.

-Laelth

through Democratically controlled legislatures, and any changes toward repression can happen overnight with no popular support at all. But somehow when the Democrats are in control, they find themselves incapable of accomplishing anything including tying their shoes without a republican consensus.

"It's the best we could do" will be the Democratic Party's epitaph.

record of what I wish. You might want to start reading a different book if you want to be included in conversations.

It is inherent in their position. They won't use that blackmail.

Go back as far as you like, find any or every bad republican idea that we are saddled with today and there is a list of the Democrats that made it happen. It just never seems to work the other way, now why would that be?

they can manage to get through their own legal reviews. I expect they will move slowly in 2014 on this, but after 2014 midterms will pick up the pace regardless of the results.

Also, Reid just blew away their constant minority chokehold on nominees, so we are going to get our way in ways that will matter far beyond Obama's time in office with judicial appointments.

PW..

But that might get in the way of complaining.

Instead of being judgemental

do you really think the real powers-that-be would let democrats do whatever they wanted?

Today's Democratic Party is all about triangulation - has been for 20 years.

Triangulation is moving as far as possible to your opponents position without going past them, so your opponent no longer appeals to people in the middle. "You want to slash Social Security? How 'bout if we only cut it?"

"You want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place? How 'bout we keep 2/3rds of the Bush tax cuts in place?"

"You want free trade agreements? Well then, OK!, we love free trade agreements too!!!"

So the Republicans own the agenda. However far right they choose to move to the right, the Democrats dutifully follow.

Except for that difficult woman from Massachusetts and a few other members of Congress, of course.

would have been a huge victory.

Obama's starting point was - keep 78% of them.

Then in 2010, he kept 100% of them for two more years, promising - next time I will fight to get rid of them (for the super-rich), and also adding a payroll tax cut that favored the top 20% over the bottom 60% (but hey, who is keeping score on that anyway? Certainly not the M$M).

And in the end about 85% of them were made permanent.

Do you have a source, that's very interesting.

if only people read my OPs
or my journal http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

the relevant link is in my first reply to myself.

The first link compares the Obama proposal to the Republican proposal (to keep all the Bush tax cuts). And it shows 73% of the Bush tax cuts being kept for just 2011, and how the tax cuts that are kept are distributed.

Even in the Obama proposal, the top makes out quite well. With the top 1% getting almost the same percentage in benefits (13.3%) as the bottom 40% gets (13.9%). The richest 5% gets 26.5% and the poorest 60% gets 26.4%. And THAT, mind you, is the OBAMA proposal.

That's just the data for 2011 though. Doubtless if one did a 10 year projection they would find more and more benefits going to the top as the top keeps taking more and more of the economic pie. Even the 78% number only went to 2013, and not for ten years.

Disappointing, but good to know.

Progress is much more difficult to legislate than it is to impede and obstruct.

As long as the Republicans own the House they can stop almost all meaningful progress, and with the structure of our legislative process, little can be done to stop it.

1. Elect good Democratic Governors and state legislators
2. Reverse gerrymandering
3. Elect good Democratic Representatives
4. ???
5. Progress!

They've been doing so since the Reagan era.

The Democrats just shrug and say, "Well, it was going to pass anyway, so we voted for it."

When their own members object, they're marginalized and ridiculed. The last thing the Democratic Establishment wants is REAL fighters.

Lower taxes and end to Social Security and Medicaid, and an end to anything related to spending in this country, while extolling the virtues of spending on the military (but not on Veterans).

Meanwhile, Democrats say, but we can't cut Social Security and Medicaid, we can't fund repairing our infrastructure, and we can't just cut military spending to the Pentagon.

What should Democrats say? Elizabeth Warren takes up the mantle.

Broaden Social Security eligibility. That's one.

Now here is my idea. Lift the FICA cap to include EVERYBODY. Guess who will be included? If you guessed the 535 members of Congress and them having to vote themselves for a pay cut, you guessed correctly!

We could fund Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and EXPAND it. But the 535 and many others at the very top will take a pay cut.

Next one. Audit the Pentagon. We need a torchbearer for this one, because no one is screaming for it even though we know via Darth Evader of discussing military spending cuts, Dick Cheney, that at least 1.2 Trillion went missing. Ten years later, still no audits. No audits, ever.

Do you need another? Here is an offering after one and two get even a passing sentence, but perhaps the most important, ... yet may be the most irrelevant after all. Break up the stranglehold that six corporations have on our US media. We have six avenues for information, and it is so incestuous that all of them float from board of director of X corporation to Y media channel to Z board membership and back again.

who say exactly what they believe in and want, but as long as the GOP retains majority of the House, they can play the role of obstructionist and stop anything meaningful from happening.

and welcome to DU.

Somehow I seriously doubt that was due to Republican obstructionism.

The Republicans are the ones who vote not to extend it.

I see. So there was nothing the Senate or Exec could do, they had no choice but to let the Republicans put some more people out in the street.
What exactly did we get in return for this "compromise"?

It simply could not be raised. The Senate and Executive can't vote on something the House does not bring up.

but that doesn't explain the President coming to LA recently, visiting Dreamworks and congratulating the entertainment industry's economic success calling it a model he hopes is duplicated elsewhere in our nation. Now maybe he is unaware of the thousands of VFX and animation workers who lost their work to offshoring last year? 300 who used to work at the very studio he visited. All who have been forced to accept new insecure positions, leave LA or still remain on unemployment...except that unemployment was cut today. I certainly hope he is just unaware. Because I voted to keep jobs in country fearing the likes of Romney and his association with Bain. Does the president not know that the entertainment industries business model is no different? Cause that whole event was pretty disappointing and I'm having a difficult time convincing myself I should ever bother to vote or listen to any politician ever again.

and NEVER act "obstructionist" when the Republicans want to push harmful legislation?

which was signed into law under a Democratic Senate and Pres. Obama.

The fact remains that the Republicans really can't ram through their stuff without control of both houses and the Presidency. A simple Nay vote by enough Democratic Senators, or even the simple threat thereof, does the job.

Now under the Bush administration, I am very disgusted at how the Democrats acted particularly in response to the Patriot Act and Iraq War, but that was 10 years ago. Even during that same time period, there were a whopping two Democratic Yeas for the two Bush tax cut bills (EGTRRA and JGTRRA).

I'm all for electing more progressive Democrats all over the country, but for the most part they don't let the Republican House actually control policy.

r has gone along with this until very recently. appeasing republicans has been the game, and implementing their policies the outcome in far too many cases. Did you know the biggest problem facing the USA is the deficit by the way...according to democrats

Meanwhile, I predict they vote another 50 times to overturn Obamacare. Yeah, they're in control alright.

Heritage Foundation.

At this point the differences between them (on social, wedge issues that the One Percent could not care less about in economic terms) are deliberately stoked and maintained so that they can be used as tools for keeping the people divided, hating each other, deluded that they actually still have a choice or power in this government, and utterly unable/unwilling to unite against what is being done to ALL of them.

stop it from functioning.

The GOP wants "less" government. That's easy to get when you can stop all legislation. And it only takes control of one branch to stop almost all government functions.

Its much harder to govern.

and some fucking crazies on the right.

"Why does it seem that in spite of Democrats controlling the White House and the Senate, the Republicans control the entire country?"

...of situations like this:

Bernie Sanders: Supporting the Unemployed (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024240453

When Democrats fail to get Republicans in line, Republicans are rewarded by the electorate.

and they don't mind shutdowns. It's inherent in their position.

And they don't control the country, or the ACA would not have started up. We would still be in Iraq.

Foundation and first put forth as a Republican response to "Hillarycare" and proposed by Bob Dole. (he is also a Republican)

The Republicans are willing to shut down the government to stop it, so now, it's not a Republican idea.