Where white was right & everyone else could pound sand. This is evident in the repeated posts reminiscing over the days of FDR & constantly shouting down minorities while trying to tell us what's good for us.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:30 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Many just miss the old days.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1550588

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Really? Those who critique the current administration miss the old days where "White was right and everyone else could pound sand?" Come on now

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:37 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: giftedgirl77 is is just being giftedgirl77, and simply wants another hide for bragging rights.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Well, it's true. Leave it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In your alert you left out the qualifying bit of the comment.

"This is evident in the repeated posts reminiscing over the days of FDR

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

This is a first.

I'm nostalgic for the days when we could own dlaves and enjoy our white privilege

who realize what you said is true.

America and for that matter all of the human family is going to miss President Obama regardless of who takes his place.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

They had their flaws too (I hope you're not defending Japanese Internment), but overall they accomplished a lot of good things.

the safety net with ACA. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't like some of what FDR did, but that doesn't mean he wasn't overall a great president.

I believe they're referred to as unicorns and ponies

I don't believe that we can save more money on prescription drugs than the total amount we spend on prescription drugs. Do you?

I don't think that Bernie will deliver a decade of 5.3% GDP growth. Do you?

I believe drug compsnies benefit from public research money, and then gouge us

No President can"deliver" anything economically. They help to set policies to guide and control it, but the economy snd grieth are the sum total of many complex facotrs...

What I care about is making sure that everyone gets covered, and has access to the care they need. No, we're not there yet, but it can certainly be done with a hybrid mandate program like Obamacare, because such systems are in place in, for example, Holland.

You didn't answer the question. Bernie's initial healthcare numbers included savings from drug costs that were greater than the total amount spent on drugs. Does that sound feasible to you?


Here's the problem with that. Bernie's economic forecasts include 5.3% GDP growth. That's the assumption baked into the analysis. The reason the number needs to be so high is that his policies don't come close to affordability unless you make absurd and unrealistic assumptions about the growth rate, and thus the amount of revenue that comes in. The GOP plays the same game, they propose tax cuts, and then they put forward some bogus economic analysis that includes outlandish projections about growth and unemployment, under which their numbers add up.

This used to be the game that only the GOP played -- the Dems were the party of honest economic forecasts. This is why Obamacare is actually doing better and costing less than the forecasts. Because the forecasts weren't fantasy, like what the GOP and Bernie have put forward.


I have to ask, do you even care about the feasibility of anything Bernie is proposing? Do you think that people like me (and a lot of liberal economists) shouldn't even be asking if any if this is going to add up? It almost sounds like it.

And that's exactly what happened with Vermont's single payer. It passed through the legislature and was all ready to go. But then when it came time to be implemented, the pro-single-payer governor finally ran some non-unicorn numbers, and figured out that the taxes required to fund it would be crushing. So no single payer. And I object to Bernie doing the same thing at the national level in his campaign.

Any specific plans politicians of all stripes put out in campaigns are worthless and forgotten the day after an election. The numbers and idealized structures do not ever reflect realitry. Never did, never will.

What I DO care about in campaigns are broad goals and directions, and the values they represent. And whether there is an honest commitment to those goals by the politicians involved.

I have read enough non campaign studies and articles about healthcare to believe that either a single payer or truly mixed system (universal public option) is totally practical and economically viable in some form. And is ultimately more viable than the awful system we currently have. And the problem I have with the ACA is that is uit based on perpetuating this awful system, instead of moving towards something better.

So yes I suppoirt Bernie's "pony" just as I would have supported the "pony" of Medicare in the 60's.

I think that one thing that matters about plans is whether they are feasible at all. I agree that they change a lot after someone is elected, due to political negotiating, but starting out with a pipe dream means ending up with nothing.

Obamacare was actually pretty close to what he campaigned on (actually closer to Clinton's plan), and one reason why it has succeeded is because from the beginning it was clear that this was doable. The fact that Bernie hasn't been able to come up with any remotely feasible plans to pay for any of his proposals, even before they are hashed out in congress, is a pretty good indication that they will fail. You don't like the fact that I call his proposals "unicorns", but that is precisely what they are.

Moreover, in terms of goals and directions, to me the fact that Bernie is willing to stand there and make promises that either he knows are impossible to keep (and not because of politics, because of math), or even worse if he's bought into his own Enron accounting, qualifies as a "value" that he represents. And this value is overpromising and empty rhetoric.

Single payer does exist in a lot of other countries. Then again, there are countries without single payer that have achieved universal coverage using something similar to Obamacare. With a public option, which is something that Hillary currently supports, and Obama supported but didn't make it through congress. Another disservice that Bernie has done is convince a substantial portion of the left that "single payer" and "universal healthcare" are the same thing.

But, in all the countries that Bernie models his democratic socialist policies on, taxes are substantially higher than in the US, much higher than the tax raises Bernie is proposing, and also they are not just on the wealthy. He's promising the goods without the taxes. It doesn't work that way.

People still have to pay too much for too little coverage, many millions of people still fall through the cracks, it's a horridly complex government/corporate bureaucracy...and the insurance companies still call the shots.

In a trade off between that and a more straightforward system that is fairer, and paying taxes that are based on income and far lower than extortionist fees, which is preferable?

people would support that if political leadership would get behind it. But if the Democratic Party continues to kiss the ass of private insurance and the GOP, nothing will ever happen to improve the system on any meaningful basis.

The political will problem is spelled GOP. Remember, Obama was in favor of what you described as a "truly mixed system (universal public option)", but that didn't get through congress. I'm not denying that there are huge gaps in ACA, but the people to blame for that are Republicans (and a couple Joe Lieberman types). Both Obama and Hillary are in favor of universal coverage.

It's a contradiction when you give Bernie credit for policies that will never come to be, not just for political reasons, but also mathematical ones, but then you blame Obama for shortcomings in ACA that were put there by the GOP and the Court. If you give Obama credit for everything that he's advocated, not just what he's gotten through congress, then he's raised the minimum wage, invested heavily in infrastructure, passed enormous controls on greenhouse gasses, community colleges are free, etc. He almost becomes a Bernie campaign speech. And yet, you criticize him for betraying the New Deal tradition simply because the GOP blocked virtually everything he's proposed.

I think single payer is a fine system, but Bernie's not being honest about the costs. If you don't want to go the detailed analyses, fine. Just look at Scandinavia's tax rates. They are far higher than here. Is Bernie proposing Scandinavian level taxes? No. Even you must realize that getting Danish levels of government services without Danish levels of taxes is a fantasy. And selling voters on the idea that you can have the benefits without the taxes might be a good campaign pitch, but it won't get us anywhere.

He also tried and failed for some good things and did some bad things.

As for healthcare -- it is NEVER going to fit into a neat, financially tidy formula, because it deals with illness, health,m aging and accidents. None of those conform to neat little formulas in any system. That doesnlt matter whether it is private insurance or public coverage. Private insurance only survives Bearnaise they have us by the gonads, and their business model is based on denying coverage.

The only answer is to find a system that is as equitable as possible, and as financially manageable as possible.

Green eyeshades is what Republicans emphasize. Sometimes you have to take off the green eyeshades and focus on what is best for the maximum number of people, and it morally decent.

agree that ACA is

Too bad so many dont realize just what an amazing accomplishment this really is.

I think you're reading too much into things. Praise for Obama does not equate to trashing any other Democratic president.

, or the one that launched the only nuclear attack in the history of mankind, or the one that interned Japanese-Americans."

This post wasn't subtle.

Escalation of wars? Nuclear weapons?

I don't, either. Those are pretty nasty stains on otherwise great Presidents. You can't pine for the good while ignoring the bad. I wouldn't want to go back to ANY of that, either.

Your response is a straw man.....I can pine for the good that we received from those Presidents, just as I grieve for the lives limbs and brains lost in the war that Hillary supported in Iraq.

It was nicely written. You're a little paranoid, methinks.

You can't take the good without the bad. I know that. Hillary's Iraq vote is what it is. She regrets it, I think it sucks. I still support her, though.
Internment of Japanese-Americans was a crime against humanity. I still like FDR, though.

say that they want a return to the policies of FDR, that they were thinking of internment camps?

Hillary spin has no limits.

and you say "You can't take the good without the bad" as if it were some immutable law of the policy universe.

Of course you can choose policies from the past that work, and discard those that don't.....you are insulting my intelligence.

That's what gets bandied about here. Policies of LBJ includes escalation of Vietnam.

You can't say you want the policies of a past president and get upset when someone brings up the really bad shit they've done.

I would NOT want to go back to the policies of FDR. YMMV.

His snubbing of Jesse Owens, and appointing Hugo Black to the USSC. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

The OP did give kudos to Obama, maybe that's why your perception is what it is.

Pointing out the greatest mistakes of great Democratic Presidents to attack Bernie and support Hillary is very low.

The post praises Obama.

I don't see how it trashes Sanders, in fact, the posters ends it with saying he/she will support either Sanders of Clinton in the general election.

That's what's gone wrong. It's going to need a cleaning. A MAJOR one at that, to bring it back to the principles that made the party a great representation for the people it is supposed to represent.

in a generation. Obama is not the DLC, which no longer exists. It's not 1950 anymore (which is a good thing), and so there are obviously differences between the Democrats of today and the Democrats of the 50s (which were also different from the Democrats of the 1910s, and so on). But the party of today is something to be proud of, and has a great progressive agenda to tackle the problems of the modern world.

Obama declared himself a "New Democrat" and surrounded himself with DLC members. He appointed one of the biggest DLCers to the head of the DNC. (oh and if you didn't know it the DLC is anything but dead; they just changed their name to the New Democratic Coalition) Please know what you're talking about before you go spouting off... you won't look as bad next time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

greatest achievements of the Democratic Party since WW2, or ever, really.

I truly do not care about your conspiracy theories. I care about outcomes, and the outcome of Obama's presidency has been very good, and would have been even better if not for GOP opposition. Instead of obsessing about Third Way and DLC and all that silliness, you should focus on policy.

is because of the compromises of a conservative wing of the party, aka the DLC/New Democrats.

Transformative to what we had, but far behind in progress compared to the rest of the world.

And I notice how you dismiss greater liberal achievements since WW2... Civil Rights, Voting Rights Act, Peace between Israel and Egypt, the list goes on and on, and these things would not have been achievable had the DLC existed in their time.

Look at Holland and Germany.

Running the shop since before Bill. The country is in such awesome shape I can't stand it.

Wall Street Deregulation

American job cutting trade agreements and outsourcing

Expanded war on drugs and the death penalty

just to name a few and we're all better for it right?



http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-ways-bill-clintons-white-house-failed-america-and-world

Obama has been the most transformationally progressive president in more than a generation. And he did it with the looniest GOP we've seen in a very long time, maybe ever.

out both sides of your mouth.

Exactly how Hillary would handle it.

Woohoo willful ignorance!!!

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/05/hillary-candidate-war-machine

voting for Hillary. Wall street loving fat cats want you to vote for Hillary. Obsessed? Maybe about how people can be so clueless.

As our late and great Isaac Asimov says'

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

Yeay, perpetual wars!!!! All our kids can go to war for the MIC. Gotta blow up bombs so we can spend more making them! That'll fix our economic woes.

Oops, wait, I forget the money always goes to the top for the Thirdway, not unlike the GOP.

We've had Bill, and Obama, now Hillary cause she gonna be different. Yeay baby!!

Aren't ya'll glad no bankers went to jail for the economic collapse, you know, the same one's bank rolling Obama's campaign.

Nice Azimov quote, though if you actually agree with it, I don't see how you are supporting a guy who promises sustained 5.3% GDP growth.

What was their make during their inception?

Please do tell.

Did you even know about that? Do you simply believe it because Bernie says it? Are you aware that that's higher than any 10-year average since WW2, and that's during a time that we didn't face the demographic headwind of an aging population?

Or does "intellectual" to you just mean Hillary bashing and ignoring the glaring Madoff-like flaws in Bernie's math.

Who's running the show now, neo liberals? The TPP means they are alive and well and the push to pass it is all Thirdway.

You have no clue and you still didn't answer my question.

The initial makeup of the Thirdway, Investment bankers and the 1%. I'm guessing they don't support the working man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

and "So how about that 5.3% GDP growth". I'm sure the 1% love it as I havn't felt it since Bill. I lost my job due to outsourcing during Bill' reign and have never recovered, but the filthy rich love are loving that 5.3% GDP growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or Moderate Democrats, is an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are an economically conservative and "Third Way" faction which dominated the party for around 20 years starting in the late 1980s after the US populace turned much further to the political right. They are represented by organizations such as the New Democrat Network and the New Democrat Coalition.

Spin all you want Doc but the facts are the facts.

The far left has an obsession with conspiracy theories about a few think tanks (matched perhaps by their obsession with free trade agreements they don't understand but are convinced are EVIL!). Look at Obama's accomplishments, he's a strong progressive.

When you finally get around to trying to address anything substantive, this is what comes out.

So you don't even understand the question. LOL. Bernie is the one promising 5.3% GDP growth, not Obama, but that number is a fantasy. You don't even know the claims that your candidate is making, much less how absurd they are. It's all conspiracy theories and zero substance.

Frankly I read it so fast I misunderstood, but the end result is till what I expected.



I believe that can happen once the dividends from said growth is passed on the public instead of all profits going to the 1%. Because you're the barometer, the all knowing of how future policies will be played out by a non corporate politician, even though we've seen the effects of Democratic Corporate policy for 30+ fucking years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/19/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/

I felt Bill's Nafta policies, I'm talking from past experience I'm seeing and hearing all the same rhetoric from Hillary, from Obama.

Obama, the president who didn't prosecute one banker, you know, the ones that helped fund his presidential campaign and you're telling me the Thirdway is dead? Ha!

Just like republicans, the wall of impenetrable ignorance has been erected.

And who supported him

Also, I don't really care much about which defunct think tank that people used to belong to. I care about the actual policies that are implemented. For some reason Hillary bashers tend to ignore that subject.

Including the Clintons

The perfect recipe for repeating all the mistakes of the past.

If that's the way all Hillary supporters think then we are truly screwed as a nation.

It's really hard for me to pinpoint the era of Democratic Party purity that Bernie is supposedly taking us back to

Democratic Party purity? How would you know about that? Your voting for a Republican wanna be. What's the make up of the Thirdway, what kind of members started the party?

Your promoting them, tell us who they were and what they're all about, please cause I've done my research.

What's your take? Why should we embrace the same economic model the GOP has had for eons?

You can point out, issue by issue, all of the gop favored policies that HRC and the establishment Democrats now embrace and it will get you nowhere, unfortunately. They simply shrug it off. Fracking? Eh. Citizens United? They'll say they don't like it while at the same time embracing super pacs. Wall Street speeches for hundreds of thousands, with no transparency? Eh. Free college for all? Eh. Expanding ACA so that everyone will be covered? Eh, it's too tough so let's call Bernie a dreamer. Opposition to Glass Steagall? Eh.

All these issues and much more- wasn't there a time that we looked at the gop and shook our heads at their positions on these things? And now they are firmly entrenched within the Democratic party. How did this happen and when did it become ok?

Of course. But I have a little girl and I'll be damned if I don't try and make her future better.

There is no giving up, there is no turning back. How do you think greed works. It never sleeps and never rests. That's the stance we have to make to fight back.

We are in this mess cause everybody was asleep concerning politics and our party. It was contentment, we were all lulled into a false sense that Democrats would stay Democrats and not try to be like the "other guy". Wrong.

They've put their cards down and now we have to deal.

I'm fighting for my family, neighbors and friends whom never recovered from Nafta. Not at the same rate of pay or job security.

I'm looking at the long term. It's not just about Bernie but the movement. There's a whole lot of people behind him and everyday there are a whole bunch more.

The cancer that is the the neo liberal Thirdway model needs to be purged, and I will never give up.

We cannot let a country of mis informed, tricked by neo liberal thirdway policies and conservative policies, vote the rest of us into a miserable future.

If we give up, then we've really lost.

Thank you for your support, sorry I was on my soapbox a little long there. I working for a better life for my daughter and you and the rest of us and I won't give up.

Take care friend.

You know, mass lynchings, AA's with no prospects, pre Civil Rights, women could not work, buy property, get loans, terminate a pregnancy etc....... Those good old days! (sarcasm)

What a load of whalloping horseshit

Just not a time of obscene levels of systemic economic exploitation, concentration of wealth and power and deliberate decimation of the middle/working classes and disregard for the poor. And complete subversion of representative democracy.

Life was NOT perfect when I was younger....But many adpects of "business as usual" today would have been considered unthinkable before 1980 or so...

from Republicans.

Einstein had a definition of something "repeating the same thing and expecting a different result"

So why are you voting Thirdway for the third effing time?

Expecting different results?

Tired of the willful ignorance.