Why are you just using the 50's?

Which were in some ways more economically devastating than even the 1950s.

Isn't there a free trade or pro TPP thread somewhere that requires your attention?

And that's the only example I've ever seen anyone talk about where it even sorta worked for the little guy.

I say scrap it- Malcolm X rightly pointed out that Capitalism requires racism and victim groups in order to function. If we go back, like we did during FDR's time, we'll will just end up in the same place in 40-70 years.

white people. Blacks and Mexicans were left behind but the blacks did get welfare, which means they weren't homeless. The Mexicans not so much because, like today, they had this somewhat illegal status although there was the Bracero program for them, so it was a bit better because they weren't being hunted down in the fields while they picked our vegetables and were being exploited for poor wages. Today they can be and we know what our govt. does in certain states and how they treat them. Both demographics were very poor and poorly educated. I never saw people begging in the streets though and sleeping in the streets like I have for the last thirty years in this country. Back in the fifties, not even the poorest of the poor did because there was a place for them to go at last resort even when they were destitute.

All changed when St. Ronnie arrived on the scene or maybe Tricky Dick before him paved the way, however, even Nixon didn't mind throwing bones to the lesser among us.

To answer your question, we can go back to the fifties, but this time make it happen for everyone, if we don't let the 1% steal everything from us. This is Bernie's message.

In the 50's & 60's, African - American's didn't get Welfare = cash assistance, they received surplus government food stuffs - flour, corn meal, sugar, canned meats, powdered milk, lard and peanut butter. Caucasians received cash assistance.

state along with other poor people.

and of what is actually being said today.

No one, and I fucking repeat, no one is suggesting we return to the extreme racism of the 1950's through the 1970's. Nor do we want to return to treating women as 2nd class citizens. Nor do we want to get rid of LGBT rights that have been won recently.

But we do need to return to then as far as New Deal economic policies go. We need a strong social safety net. We need better employment. We need American jobs. We need banks to be regulated again. We need excessive corporatism stopped before it gets too big to ever be stopped again.

And at the same time, we can keep all of the progress we have made in social liberalism since the 1960's. We expand education for ALL. We expand civil rights and economic protections for ALL. We get money out of our political process so that ALL are able to be truly represented by our elected officials.

Only those who willfully want to separate economic and social issues keep pushing this meme. It is straight out of the New Dem handbook. Neo-liberal economic policies get ignored by focusing on straw man arguments about race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. that distract us from the devisiveness being pushed. Sanders spoke to that tonight but only called out the GOP on their use of this political tactic. Well, I am calling out the New Dems on their use of this here on these boards for the last several months.

If you think it is working, you are wrong. I was in the real world tonight with latino's, blacks, whites, old, young, working class, professioinals, gays, straights, etc. All of us cheered for a return to traditional Democratic progressivism that does not separate economic rights and social justice.

Your claim is the racism and sexism were incidental; I submit (equally bluntly) that that shows an ignorance of history.

What would your New New Deal look like if it isn't taking money from blacks and women?

Of communities of color is touching.

What the hell do you think you even know about me just because of my ****ing views on trade? Get off your high horse.

"New found" my ass.

Certain people's rightward leaning views on almost everything on this site stand out. Your attempts to push the wedge in farther over racial issues at this time is both transparent and laughable.

sick of right views anywhere.

Look at Sanders 12 points on his website. That is what he speaks to.

I hardly said they were incidentals. But they were a part of the context of that time in history. Too many, including yourself, are projecting your values from today on the world as it was yesterday. As a student of history, I know that never gives us an honest view of history so that we can learn from it.

Millenials protesting black lives matter have no sense of what it was like for my parents to march with King in the 1960's or me to suffer the racism I did growing up bi-racial in western North Carolina. So many of them are just internet activists. They are angry that a black man is shot but how many have experienced the incredible racism of the 50's through 70's?

Context matters.

My and Sanders New Deal takes money from the corporations that don't pay their fair share of taxes. It takes it from the MIC. It takes it from us all with taxes that support all of us. Not just my kids would get free education tomorrow but so would yours, his, hers, and theirs.

O'Malley is saying much the same thing. In fact I would argue he is parroting much of Sanders rhetoric. How is what he is saying any different? Clinton gives a nice speech but her economic policies are not just. Neoliberalism is not a just economic model. He destroys all of us no matter our race or gender.

The "New Deal", didn't apply to African -Americans until we fought to be included in the WPA. Social Security left out, exempted many of the occupations reserved for African - Americans until the early 1970's.

Now read my post again.

Hit the nail right on its flat little head.

Repeating for emphasis:

"Only those who willfully want to separate economic and social issues keep pushing this meme. It is straight out of the New Dem handbook. Neo-liberal economic policies get ignored by focusing on straw man arguments about race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. that distract us from the divisiveness being pushed."

and

"a return to traditional Democratic progressivism that does not separate economic rights and social justice."

...that took power away from the oligarchy and led to the civil and voting rights acts of the early 60s?

Yeah, why would anyone want that??

The appearance is a crowd of "Archie Bunkers". Mostly white and looking for an economic edge, but with a narrow view of social justice. Some parts of the movement include going to college, making sure Wall Street doesn't steal your money, and keeping jobs from going overseas. It's accompanied by a dose of American exceptionalism. A growing slice of America (40%?) cannot identify with any of that view.

To blacks with no chance or desire to go to college, immigrant farm workers who want ANY job, new immigrants from other countries where Americans created havoc in their home countries, poor service workers who are not citizens; Bernie's message is consistent and it is NOT appreciated.

His state of origin (Vermont) does not have tuition equity for non-citizens, but he's calling for free college. Does free college include undocumented immigrants brought here as children? Bernie equivocates on gun control. In black and minority neighborhoods gun violence is a daily horror. People want more than a minimum wage, they want to be equally valued.

Opposing the TPP, to the ears of an immigrant who witnessed American corporations and government intervention in their home country is a way for the US to continue abusing the world. Some of those immigrants see the TPP as leveling the playing field so that the US must live up to the same rules - not just American corporations get the money and the jobs but can't be touched. That's why other countries are willing to negotiate with the 800 lb. gorilla.

Economic justice for a crowd of white Americans is NOT social justice for minorities in the US, nor social justice for the world. Bernie's message seems disingenuous to the ears of many others.

A pretty weak rationalization to justify the exploitation of labor in the US and the world.

Try again.

you simply don't see it I suppose.

I've picked tobacco along side immigrants and worked in a textile mill. I work with undocumented people every day. I grew up in the segregated SC you see on TV today. I think I see exploitation and discrimination first hand.

I can assure you that it's NOT nonsense - I'm describing exactly what many minorities see when they watch one of Bernie's rallies with crowds of middle aged white people.

They don't identify with Bernie's free tuition or care about Wall Street or even want a "$15 minimum wage". They want citizenship and social recognition. They don't want to be looked down on because they are minority or steered into minority neighborhoods or given second class status. They want respect and legal status, not another program that benefits white Americans.

If the US can afford free tuition, why not day care for all working mothers???? That's what they need NOW. Why not free English language lessons, and bilingual teachers required in all schools? What good is protecting SS when 20+(?) million are not even in the system and have no hope to get in (through no fault of their own)? Even if you are a college grad, you are stopped by police, not considered for the leadership jobs, can't get real estate agents to show you the good housing, and send money home to a country exploited by the US Government and US corporations.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/release-sanders-proposes-early-child-care-program

You can look up the others, gotta run.

It was not passed, but it called for TRACKING kids:

&quot 4)Demonstration of a functioning P20 data system that will include data on children from birth through kindergarten, who are participating in the State Early Care and Education System, for the purpose of creating a longitudinal data system for individual participant tracking."

Undocumented immigrants saw this as a way to DEPORT them, even if the child was born in the US and was a citizen, or else find and deport kids!

Bernie's heart may (or may not) be in the right place, but there is good reason to think he does not understand the minority thinking!

Thanks for proving my point.

Last edited Sun Jul 19, 2015, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

given that Bernie also wants to fix immigration, this all seems very reasonable to me.

It already tracts kids from pre-K though high school. P20 strips personal identifiers so any one kid cannot be tracked.

I am not 100% on board with it but don't pretend that the P20 data system that already exists wasn't massively expanded by Arne and the Obama admin.

You really don't know who stands the most to benefit, do you?

All will get more than $15. One is from Italy, but joined the US military and gained US Residency. He is now documented. His wife from Germany has two college degrees, cannot find a legal job (and still works underground) and has not been able to negotiate the citizenship gauntlet yet.

I have employee who is "subcontracted" and gets paid cash. She is from Brazil - been here for decades and came as a child. She has a US Citizen child who was born here who is grown, but she still works in the service industry and won't do anything that might cause attention and get her deported.

I've had two employees in the last 20 years who were deported even though they had preschool age children born in the US. I've had another employee from Poland who came in illegally, and after 10 years he gained citizenship. He finally brought his wife and son legally to the US, and the son is now entering medical school. For a long time, the child attended a sympathetic church school so that his undocumented status was kept quiet. The wife worked cleaning, but she's an artist by profession. She is trying to learn English. She is not legal yet.

None of these people, and I can name many more, care if wages are $15. They want legal status so they can vote, own property, get a DL, send kids to school, and they are perfectly willing to pay taxes and SS. In Florida, 25% were born outside of the US.

In my home state of SC, it's a different but parallel story for African Americans. I went to HS in SC at the "white school" while Jesse Jackson was in the "black school" across town. Integration was hard then, and there are still segregated schools. St. Petersburg FL is STILL under court order to integrate from decades ago. Blacks are marginalized. I gave a black student (ball player) a ride home (I was teaching) and was stopped. The cop (Officer Hodges) said, "Why do you have that boy in the car?" after he recognized me. No violation, just a "black stop".

Minorities are quickly becoming the majority. They want social justice! Discussions of minimum wages, Wall Street, and TPP are either lost on them or they are suspicious - and rightly so. A legal right to organize would be looked on favorably, especially in service and agriculture industries, but a given minimum wage is not an issue.

I still think that clips of Bernie's rallies don't resonate with these people. If you want to make a difference to them, it's going to have to include much more than a simple economic protest, a minimum wage, and breaking up banks. They get paid in cash, or cash their check at AMSCOT. They don't have bank accounts.

If those in the forefront of the fight for $15 are white hourly workers; maybe second or third generation whose towns lost local manufacturing jobs to overseas companies, and they are scraping by...then I do understand, but I still disagree.

A number of my family were rural farmers or worked in textile and chemical factories or for the railroad. One of my first jobs was in a mill. I picked tobacco in the 60's. Some lost jobs and struggled. They were never marginalized like immigrants and minorities! They had support structures - like the local white protestant church - and they obtained skills or worked their way out. The GI Bill was great for my parents, but none of them faced deportation, breaking up families, or discrimination for being white.

Economic theories are lost on people who want citizenship, a right to vote, and are proud to pay taxes; if they can't have those rights.

That there is a difference between economic policies and social policies?

And that the 3rd way, neo-libs, argue that we can have true social equity while maintaining the economic policies of the last 40 years?

And that because Bernie disagrees with that he is out of touch?

So this is how they will marginalize the populist movement?

That you can't be a populist unless you go along with their economics?

That is a total, absolute crock. You cannot separate social and economic policies. The economic policies of the last 40 years are destroying the social gains we made over the last 80 years. They are pitting people against people to fight for table scraps.

F'that.

Our poverty in this country is what is driving the social unrest. The jobs that used to be the mainstay of a healthy middle class were destroyed by profit-obsessed corporations which forced those more capable people to take the jobs of those slightly below them on the economic ladder, which then dominoed to the next level, and so on.

Leaving the ghettos we see today. You think Detroit was a result of social policies? Are you nuts?

And now this fake comparison that if we adopt the New Deal techniques today it'll hurt minorities? Who the hel would believe that because it would be the reverse of the domino I mentioned above.

My god, these rationalizations are absurd.

work beside those people and maybe hire some.

It's not a crock. Economic justice is simply a subset of social justice. If you haven't seen it, then maybe you need to learn something new.

It has nothing to do with "3rd way" or "neoliberal". I've been emerged in it all my (so far) lengthy life.

If you fix social justice, economic justice will follow. With social justice, economic justice will never really happen.

I'd emphasise more what you hint at in your last parenthetical: the prosperity of the 50's was enabled by creating an artificial labor shortage by excluding everyone who wasn't a white male from most jobs. Once that went out of fashion (and the Baby Boom cut in), management was suddenly sitting on top of a buyer's market, and has been ever since.

I'd also mention the fact that, even with the 90+% tax on the rich folks, economic prosperity was unevenly shared among the people, with quite a few cut out of the American Dream and quite a few only allowed to participate as unpaid homemakers/caregivers. (And domestics, of course, but that's another can of worms) Since nobody in their wildest dreams advocates taxing at that rate any more, how proseperity is supposed to be spread among all people with less to spread is a question I haven't seen an answer to.

And of course, there is the situation that the old economy was driven by a culture of conspicuous waste, a consumer-driven buying spree that sucked up natural resources and polluted the environment at an unprecedented rate. How we are to have prosperity without consumption is also an issue dodged: jobs, the candidates promise, but doing what, making what, and at what cost? And that doesn't even consider the issue of how many of our products are made by slaves, and lubricated with the blood of resource wars.

But hey, as we have learned in this thread, these points are all ridiculous an ahistorical.

-- Mal

Nobody's a reincarnated temple prostitute or common field slave, some poor beggar's kid who died at age 4 from starvation after being kicked so his ribs were broken. Everybody's the reincarnation of somebody that lends them dignity and prestige, or at least some importance. If a slave, then the personal assistant of somebody important.

In the '50s a lot of white males were also not in one of those high-paid union jobs. It's easiest to view it as "all white males were well off, all females and people of color were poor." That's not how it was, to be honest, but it suits today's Zeitgeist. (Great, now I'll be called a Nazi. Heil gimlet.)

Nor was it as exclusionary as some say, although the exception proves the rule. My mother had one of those white-male union jobs. She, incidentally, was female. The salary was less and the men didn't want her there, but there she was anyway.

... I was born in '56 myself, and my family was certainly no Cleavers.

So not completely exclusionary, but not completely random, either. But the additional complexity of class distinction tends to be seen as a deflection these days.

-- Mal

And that is something today's republicans find distasteful

with actual supporting quotes/links.

As is mentioned in the article you link to, Bernie is calling for a return to the 90% top tax rate like what existed under Eisenhower. That's it. He is not calling for a return to the "economic policies of the 1950s". You can like him or not, but at least be honest in your arguments.