Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2008: Obama was THE most liberal senator in the senate. Don't try to rewrite history.

Not according to some liberals. They felt he wasn't combative enough in terms of gun control, immigration reform, etc . Who's trying to rewrite history here? No matter what Obama clearly had the best interests of the majority of Americans at heart. Not so today. Obama didn't add to dysfunction but he certainly tried to fix it ham handed so be it. The current administration, not so much.

I don't care. You are trying to rewrite history. He was THE most liberal senator in 2008, period.

"No matter what Obama clearly had the best interests of the majority of Americans at heart." No, he had the best interests of his voting block at heart.

He worked to get his constituency freebies (and obamaphones), at the expense of others. He was a community organizer, FFS. He, Axelrod, Jarrett, Holder and the other morons at 1600 played divide and conquer politics. He perfected it. An "us vs. them" proposition. There in NO disputing that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.

How did it not work?

Anonymous wrote:

No, we had the greatest expansion in U.S. history post WWII. That was coming off of Carter's misery index. Did you forget?

No, I didn't forget. But that ended because other countries (namely Japan and now China) recovered from the war and started competing with us. After WWII we were the only game in town for years. That's over.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9455

"As the income of Michigan rises, so does the income of the United States. A rising tide lifts all the boats and as Arkansas becomes more prosperous so does the United States and as this section declines so does the United States."

John F. Kennedy
400 - Remarks in Heber Springs, Arkansas, at the Dedication of Greers Ferry Dam.
October 3, 1963

No, we had the greatest expansion in U.S. history post WWII. That was coming off of Carter's misery index. Did you forget?

Anonymous wrote:
Back in JFK's day it may have had more impact, but now it doesn't. The tax cuts don't mean more employment. There is more automation now and more of the money goes into the global economy and not into the national economy. Reagan showed us that.

Anonymous wrote:

It did not lift all boats as it was advertised that it would do. Instead we had a further divide in incomes.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And were unions truly bad or rendered obsolete due to capitalism run amok?


Good question. There were definitely union corruption stories. But unions also hindered competition in a global economy. I think it was more of the latter than the former in hindsight. Unions had brought significant benefits to workers over the years.

Pensions went away and federal government came up with IRA and 401K accounts as the answer. It now turns out that this was a colossal failure for workers. Many will never retire or will retire in poverty.
So how do protect worker's rights in a global economy? Blue collar has changed from using your hands to pick vegetables or man a cash register to basically collecting data if you are trained to do so. And yet conservatives push back on minimum wage reform, public and further education. Let's take some of the $ out of the military industrial complex (not all just some) and figure out how to train in STEM sciences?


Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.
How do we fund it?

Anonymous wrote:


Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.


How did it not work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And were unions truly bad or rendered obsolete due to capitalism run amok?


Good question. There were definitely union corruption stories. But unions also hindered competition in a global economy. I think it was more of the latter than the former in hindsight. Unions had brought significant benefits to workers over the years.

Pensions went away and federal government came up with IRA and 401K accounts as the answer. It now turns out that this was a colossal failure for workers. Many will never retire or will retire in poverty.
So how do protect worker's rights in a global economy? Blue collar has changed from using your hands to pick vegetables or man a cash register to basically collecting data if you are trained to do so. And yet conservatives push back on minimum wage reform, public and further education. Let's take some of the $ out of the military industrial complex (not all just some) and figure out how to train in STEM sciences?

Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.

Anonymous wrote:

Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.

Anonymous wrote:
And were unions truly bad or rendered obsolete due to capitalism run amok?


Good question. There were definitely union corruption stories. But unions also hindered competition in a global economy. I think it was more of the latter than the former in hindsight. Unions had brought significant benefits to workers over the years.

Pensions went away and federal government came up with IRA and 401K accounts as the answer. It now turns out that this was a colossal failure for workers. Many will never retire or will retire in poverty.
So how do protect worker's rights in a global economy? Blue collar has changed from using your hands to pick vegetables or man a cash register to basically collecting data if you are trained to do so. And yet conservatives push back on minimum wage reform, public and further education. Let's take some of the $ out of the military industrial complex (not all just some) and figure out how to train in STEM sciences?