Why Are Progressives Afraid....

You would do well to consult both a dictionary and history book.

 

The government is responsible for banking monopolies and the housing crash in the first place because of market manipulation based on political goals and, the party most responsible for that manipulation is the Democrat party.

It has never been done here in the U.S. and most of the countries that have it subject the populace to unwanted wait times and inferior procedures. Government is just to inefficient.

BTW I went to Bernie's site..There is nothing there about how Bernie is actually going to do anything he promises.

 

Bush took a country that was prosperous, with the lowest unemployment rate in decades, a surplus budget, and incomes growing for all income classes. He left with unemployment 4 percentage points higher and skyrocketing, trillions more in debt and record deficits, the nation bogged down in unnecessary wars, the wreckage of a housing bubble collapse and the worst recession in 80 years with 700,000+ losing their job every month.

When Obama took office the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was 7.8% skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets and housing markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The deficit was running at $1.2 trillion, soon projected to hit $1.9 trillion, the housing market was destroyed, and the economy was headed straight for a depression. But now the the private sector has added more jobs every month for a record 72 months in a row, stock markets are up about 175% from their recession lows to record highs, corporate profits have hit all time highs, we've gained back all the jobs lost in the recession and millions more, the housing market is recovered, the deficit has been cut by more two thirds, the unemployment rate has fallen from 10% to 5.0%, and over 14 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

Bad comparison.

 

Although I enjoy a good Obama bashing as much as the next Republican, I think on the health care issue, you are off base. Obama never ran on Medicare for all or any other single payer plan. Although the plan that turned into the ACA was cribbed more from the plan Hillary ran with in 2008 than Obama's, neither was a single payer plan. The plan you got is not that far off from what he promised. Sure he's a progressive and wants a single payer healthcare, "I think that the idea of moving towards a single payer system could very well make sense." But at the time the Democratic Party had a lot of blue dogs with seniority who were not going to go for that. As it was, voting for Obamacare purged the last of the blue dogs out of the Democratic Party. Obama rightly saw his plan as a stepping stone that, by wrecking the current health care system, would open up a political window for a single payer plan down the road.

The lesson is don't be impatient. Democrats generally get what they want, even if it takes a while to get it.

 

The difference is, Obama was never a progressive in the first place. The typical Obama technique was to propose his final fallback position as an opening gambit, and let the GOP strip it down from there. Either he was the worst negotiator in the history of the Republic, or he simply viewed progressive postions as DOA. This is typical of the Clintonocrat wing - they are 1) contemptuous of progressives, 2) do not pursue progressive policies, 3) Use progressive positions as sacrificial pawns.

There is a method to this madness, be assured. The Clintons want to step into the vacuum left by the disintegration of the GOP, and become the primary conduit for corporate oligarchy. The business elites are beginning to perceive the GOP as unreliable - they can't control their radicals and can't be counted on to support global capital's most essential demands, like free trade and free movement of labor/capital.

The Democratic establishment can smell blood in the water, and they are ravenous. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to consolidate a center-right coalition, and establish a one-party reign that could last decades. They will do anything and everything necessary to seize this opportunity. This means progressives will be pushed to the sidelines, and party money will be directed to new candidates of Wasserman-Schultz mold.

 

See, that's what scares me. What is it that today's Democrat's want? I don't think Wasserman-Schultz is protecting payday-loan sharks as some sort of intermediate position, because a better position is not "realistic." She is proposing what she is proposing because that is now the direction of the Democratic Party.

What Democrat loyalists are not getting is that incrementalism works both ways. You can get half a loaf - which is better than no loaf at all, right? But they can also take away half a loaf, and tell you it is the lesser of two evils. That is the present course of the Democrat Party under the Clinton stewardship. They will take away half a loaf here, and half a loaf there. An then, once you have adjusted, they will start to dismantle the bakery.

After all, the Republicans are worse and SCOTUS. They know they can get away with it.

 

There is some truth to that. The Republicans will take the loaf and (*)(*)(*)(*) you while they're doing it.

You're not going to get very progressive policies while so much of the country is very conservative.

 

You have once agains proved that you do not know what socialism is. Orr for that matter what a free market is. Go back and learn something before you post again.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I couldn't care less what you think, and given your posts, certainly see no reason to credit your views.

 

The answer is yes they absolutely do understand that. The problem isn't however with them, it is/was with people who weren't and still aren't smart enough to know when they are being played for a sucker.

 

Spoken like a true totalitarian.

 

What Democrats want is, as Samuel Gompers said of the US labor movement, is more. More of whatever it is. And I have to say, it's an organizing principle that has worked pretty well. Everyone gets a cut. Maybe not right away, but eventually. If incrementalism is working both ways, I've not seen it. Where have Democratic concerns lost ground? I can't think of very many places that's happened.

 

This is just blasphemy! The Messiah is just the best-est ever! How dare you say otherwise?

Now excuse me, I need to go find my safe place...

 

Do most presidents achieve more good things in your view? Do many?

Obamacare has been a big victory in liberal eyes.

 

And you have once again proven you have no legitimate counter.

 

"Spoken like a true Protestant" ...... H. Lecter M.D.
Rare lamb chops ! three servings !
Mind the drawings please.

 

That depends on your perspective. I am a retired union skilled craftsman, and active in labor for 40+ years. The working class has lost big time, and I see no mainstream democrats with any desire, much less a plan, to reverse it.

 

Are you saying that Barack Hussein Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro conned you and others into voting for him?

 

Obama has done a lot of very important things over the last 8 years

 

Your perception is that progressives are democrats and democrats are progressives. That is not always the case. I have been critical of Obama from the beginning for not being willing to actually work toward any progressive ideal. He is as beholding to Wall Street as Hillary or Mitt or anybody else who is a mainstream party nominee.

 

If taking a dump in the oval office's reading room is considered important, then yes, he has done a lot of very important things. Hell, I'm pretty sure he's given the official plunger a good workout, which you might find an important thing for the POTUS to do.

Or did he assign that task to Michelle, like the good lord intended?

 

We'll see. Public option will be next.

 

Well that's simply because labor isn't part of the Democratic coalition any more. Labor unions still are, since they are cash cows, but the actual workers have either moved on their own (starting in the Reagan era) or been pushed out ( the Clinton era's embrace of neo liberalism).

 

There's no proof either way. Yes, we should know more about it. No, that does not mean it's necessarily bad.

 

Then all hospitals will be under government control. This is what the Left wants. Communism pure and simple.