Safety Nets

[merrily]

This is another reply I've posted in GD that I am making into an OP for this Group.

Krugman had done a thing on Rand Paul and the rightist mentality of cutting safety nets. Fine if he wants to pretend it's only the right cutting safety nets.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026485072#post2

President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation yesterday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.

"Today, we are ending welfare as we know it," Clinton said at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by three former welfare recipients.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm


Obama Pledges Reform of Social Security, Medicare
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html


Obama creates National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-establishes-bipartisan-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-an


Conyers: It was Obama who put cuts to Social Security on the table, not the Republicans.
http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/


Bill Clinton tells Ryan to call him if he (Ryan) needs help with Democrats re: "reforming" Medicare
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/on-medicare-bill-clinton-tells-rep-paul-ryan-give-me-a-call/ (note: the link to abc now says the page is missing, but I've seen it many times and wanted to link to it.)


Obama creates Super "Grand Bargain" Committee
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/11/news/economy/debt_committee_members/


Proposal for Sequester originated with Obama White House, not with Republicans
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/03/03/white-house-admits-third-time-president-obama-fibbed-on-sequester/

This above is only a partial list of New Democrats cutting, or seeking to cut, some of the last vestiges of the New Deal. For one thing, it does not include the cuts to SNAP.

If anyone wants to remind me of more omissions, I would appreciate it.

[GeorgeGist]

1. Safety nets for the rich won't be cut anytime soon.

[merrily]

6. Welfare for rich people, in one form of another, is by far, the most expensive "welfare as we

know it" this country has ever provided.

It's been providing it since the days of the East India Company, before we were even a nation. It never stops. The sums are beyond comprehension.

[RiverLover]

2. Great post & thanks merrily for shining a light on the hypocrisy of "New Democrats"

Just to put this out there, just in case it isn't known by some who might venture to this group~

The Democratic Party became a liberal party largely through the "New Deal" policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Before FDR, "laissez-faire" or "free-market" policies were the only policies acceptable to America's ruling elites. FDR's New Deal policies used government spending power to create jobs for the masses of unemployed, and used payroll taxes to provide retirement security through Social Security. FDR also created regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to avoid another financial crisis.

FDR's liberal policies were supported by Democratic and Republican administrations until Ronald Reagan began a conservative counterattack against FDR's policies in 1981.

After 8 years of Reaganism, conservative Democrats began embracing the Reaganite assault on liberalism, and called themselves "New Democrats" to distinguish themselves from traditional FDR-inspired liberals.

These "New Democrats" drew support from large corporations that wanted a return to "laissez-faire" policies to get out from under regulations.

http://www.democrats.com/new-democrats

[merrily]

4. Thanks so much, RiverLover.

I don't know that I agree with that excerpt from democrats. com at all. Not sure why Democrats would want to promote that idea,

I was just typing an explanation of why I don't agree with it when I hit something on the keyboard (not delete) and it all went bye bye. I don't have the heart to start it over. Maybe one day I will make an OP of it instead and pm you so you don't miss it.

[RiverLover]

5. They aren't promoting it, but explaining how "New Dems" are actually Reagan Dems,

when that came to be, & why it ain't a good thing.

They're for Progressive Dems not New Dems.

Ie, from democrats.com

Social Security must be expanded, not cut
Bob Fertik April 09, 2015
http://www.democrats.com/social-security-must-be-expanded-not-cut

RUN WARREN RUN
Bob Fertik December 11, 2014
http://www.democrats.com/run-warren-run

[merrily]

7. It's not an accurate explanation, though.

[RiverLover]

8. What is inaccurate about it?

[merrily]

9. Please see the end of my Reply 4.

[RiverLover]

10. A summation maybe?

[merrily]

11. Not today.

[RiverLover]

12. OK

I respect your opinions quite a bit, so if you say something is inaccurate, especially something I feel is demonstrably true, I really want to know what you know that I don't. lol

So I'll try to patiently wait for when you have time.

[Dragonfli]

14. I am interested as well, and for the same reason, respect for a very astute poster

I have a slightly different explanation for it, having to do largely with Reagan envy (both on fiscal policy and donations). Our party adopted Reagan's vision and only kept the social issues (that largely appeared after FDR). this began in earnest in the mid eighties. The view only differs really in motivation, I don't think they wanted a return to "laissez-faire" so much as just to ride the Reagan wave of cash and votes.

I did write a rare OP (I write very few) about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832

[merrily]

17. Thank you. I'll pm you as well when I do an Op with my

thoughts. I've written a lot on tU he subject, including one of my own very rare Ops in GD. However, for some reason, when I attempt a search on DU, the system's responses are often cuckoo and when I attempt an advanced search, the connection times out. No clue why. I don't have similar problems when I search the internet. My memory is not bad, so I usually have a lot of info about what I am searching for and the connection never times out. It must be some burp between my computer and DU.

[daleanime]

3. K&R.....

[newfie11]

13. What the hell

We baby boomers have been paying into SS for ourselves and those coming after us.
Now the party I thought was the good guys wants to screw with SS.
Give me a fu*king break!
I don't know this country anymore. A Dem pres pushing TPP....

[merrily]

15. Democrats used to keep stuff like that in check. Now, they put it on the table.

That's what happened after the Clintons helped found the Democratic Leadership council.

That's why we have to elect more Democrats like Warren, to help tilt the Party back to where it used to be.

Otherwise, the country will just further and further right, because the Republicans sure aren't going to check themselves.

[sabrina 1]

16. There is very little difference between the New Democrats/Third Way and Republicans.

Many of them are not even interested in political parties, they go either way. But to keep up the illusion of democracy they must adjust to the two party system.

Having successfully taken over the Republican Party, the Oligarchs realized it wasn't enough to get EVERYTHING they wanted, so they had to infiltrate the Dem Party. All they needed was about half of our party to get things speeded up.

And it worked.

Now begins the process of reversing what they have done.

It won't be easy.

[merrily]

18. Yep. "Limousine liberals," my ass.

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:11 AM - Edit history (1)

One Party that courts the haters on the religious right (and vice versa).

Another Party that courts those who are for equal rights for everyone, including gays and women (at least in cases of rape and incest).

After that, everything, and I do mean everything, is up for grabs--and that's what we know about.

And, guess what, Republicans have been dropping some of their uglier stances. They can only go so far though, or they might lose the religious right to Democrats and they cannot afford to do that just yet.

Hence, the stands that we must put Party loyalty above all else, no matter what and vow to vote for Party's nominee, no matter what. Hence the cult of personality. Hence, the mockery of consistent principles (no double standards) at DU, on Colbert and elsewhere. I don't think DU is copying Colbert and I certainly don't think Colbert copied from DU. Party messaging to all is a much more likely explanation. Hence the ugly claims, accusations and insinuations about anyone who does not fall in line unconditionally.

If you don't like New Democrat's policies, you're racist and probably Republican and lying about policies If you don't like New Democrat Hillary's policies, either you're sexist and racist and probably Republican. if you don't like New Democrat bubba's policies, you've proved beyond all doubt that you are Republican, racist and sexist and lying about policies. Can't possibly be that you don't like New Democrat policies. Occam's razor.

I guess if anyone has a problem with a Hispanic candidate, they'll be another

Both sides have to be a little scared at this point, although both parties have also been planning for this and moving toward it.

Republicans can't steal to many voters from the left unless they give up their homophobia and unyielding stand on reproduction. However, if they do that, they may lose the religious right to Sermon on the Mount Democrats. (Tim Russert alluded briefly to Sermon on the Mount Democrats.) So, you have things like gay Republicans starting to come out, including Melman--but only after he stopped heading the RNC, and Log Cabin Republicans suing for equal rights for gays--a suit the Obama administration actually suspended until they could act. Their stand on immigration has come a long way--though not really as Reagan declared amnesty. But, now we have Jeb running for President saying the same, which he can get away with better than most because his wife is Hispanic.

Democrats can't steal too many voters from the right, unless they give up their stand on reproduction, equal rights for gays and helping the poor and working classes. After the Rick warren backslide, they went forward on gays big time just before Obama ran for re-election. A lot of the Democratic Party donors and bundlers are gay and lobbied hard during Obama's first term. Other than that they've been dialing back.

And, it's far easier to get one person elected and then control that one person than it is to do the same with 535. Although both parties sure do a hell of a job with their caucuses, even the mavericky ones. And there's always DC kabuki on closer votes. But, still one person is easier. Hence, what we descried as Bush's Imperial Presidency, we not only defend and cheeer as Obama's Unifed Executive, except, or course, when we need to claim he can't control Congress.

So much messaging, so little time.

[sabrina 1]

19. It's like a game. They give each team a few 'plays'. As you point out, for the Right it's Fundie

support (and I doubt many of them even care about the issues, we saw the truth of that with Abramoff when he was recorded calling the Fundies the 'crazies'. But publicly, he was all for them.

For the Left, it is as you say 'minorities'. The powerful puppeteers probably don't care one way or the other, but they want the parties to fight over these things, it creates an illusion, it divides the country.

Who wins or loses on these issues, doesn't matter. In fact losing keeps the battle going.

Which is why you may have noticed, some of the most right leaning people on the 'left' constantly tell you how they support 'women and gays and civil rights'. The reason they keep telling us is because that is their COVER.

Real Dems don't have to keep reminding us what they stand for. It goes without saying when they are among other Dems.

But infiltrators have to put on a real show because without those 'issues' their stand on all the issues would out them for what they are.

[merrily]

20. Sorry Sabrina. I edited, forgot I was editing instead of drafting and made some big changes to that

post. But, nothing that affects your response. We are on the same page.

David Koch could care less what the law says about contraception and abortion. If someone near and dear to him needs either, he can always make sure that happens. He does care a lot about the TPP, repeal of Glass Steagall, etc. That's why he helped set up the Democratic Leadership Council and the Tea Party. He might care about immigration, but you can't deport 12 million people, either. However, it's a good issue for ginning up the Republican base. If Republicans need votes, he'll let it go. Or maybe not. As you said, the illusion of democracy may still be important to present, even with Homeland Security and militarized police and all the cameras and spying by everyone.