Because they don't have the spine to attack the rich the way Bernie Sanders did for 8+ hours last night. When the Democrats decide to start waging class warfare, and provide a substantive alternative to the elitist Republican party of the rich, then they would never lose another election. But they're afraid to tap the full potential of that populist groundswell for fear that they'd be unable to control the outcome sufficiently to suit their very limited ends. Better to play second fiddle to the Republicans in a rigged system than risk letting "the people" have their way.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Yes, I'm sure Dems would win landslide elections using phrases like "class warfare".
If properly articulated they would. If they relentlessly hammered away on the points that Bernie Sanders made last night, instead of pathetically dithering around edges, then they could begin to imbue the American working class with a renewed sense of class consciousness. They could begin to undermine the elitist propaganda that the Republicans have been relentlessly hammering away at for the past 30 years. The Democrats have all the ammunition they could possibly want, if only they'd make use of it. But no, they have neither the integrity nor the fortitude that Bernie Sanders does.
Originally posted by rwingett Because they don't have the spine to attack the rich the way Bernie Sanders did for 8+ hours last night. When the Democrats decide to start waging class warfare, and provide a substantive alternative to the elitist Republican party of the rich, then they would never lose another election. But they're afraid to tap the full potential of that populist grounds ...[text shortened]... fiddle to the Republicans in a rigged system than risk letting "the people" have their way.
Maybe the attendant question would ask why Republicans don't appeal to those who hold their original core values. The charter previously touted as the Republican road map is one for which most Americans are currently searching.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Maybe the attendant question would ask why Republicans don't appeal to those who hold their original core values. The charter previously touted as the Republican road map is one for which most Americans are currently searching.
What original core values? From the day after Lincoln was shot, the Republicans have been the party of the rich.
Originally posted by rwingett If properly articulated they would. If they relentlessly hammered away on the points that Bernie Sanders made last night, instead of pathetically dithering around edges, then they could begin to imbue the American working class with a renewed sense of class consciousness. They could begin to undermine the elitist propaganda that the Republicans have been re ...[text shortened]... use of it. But no, they have neither the integrity nor the fortitude that Bernie Sanders does.
Some do...it's called the Progressive conspiracy by some.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Some do...it's called the Progressive conspiracy by some.
Some, yes, but far too many are content to keep feeding from the corporate trough while paying mere lip service to progressive values. I certainly see nothing that could be labeled a progressive "conspiracy" however.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Ben Bernanke said he was very concerned about the growing gap between the rich and the poor but he offered no solution to the problem.
Funny how this fact has eluded all discussion on the corporate news media when talking about the tax cuts.
I guess the gap will keep on growing.
Yes, many profess agonizing "concern" over the growing wealth gap, but few are prepared to do what it would take to reverse it. They would prefer to blindly cling to the illusion that America is a classless society, and that capital and labor have a common interest. Both, however, are egregious lies.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Ben Bernanke said he was very concerned about the growing gap between the rich and the poor but he offered no solution to the problem.
Funny how this fact has eluded all discussion on the corporate news media when talking about the tax cuts.
I guess the gap will keep on growing.
Bernanke is a dyed in the wool Friedmanite and sees no solution to any economic problem but the market and market-friendly monetary policy. I doubt he's actually "seriously concerned" about growing income inequality, but it's a politically correct thing to say while you're endorsing policies which continue to favor the rich (he, of course, supports extension of the Bust tax cuts for the highest 2% income earners).
Originally posted by rwingett Because they don't have the spine to attack the rich the way Bernie Sanders did for 8+ hours last night. When the Democrats decide to start waging class warfare, and provide a substantive alternative to the elitist Republican party of the rich, then they would never lose another election. But they're afraid to tap the full potential of that populist grounds ...[text shortened]... fiddle to the Republicans in a rigged system than risk letting "the people" have their way.
Originally posted by whodey Er...um....but they are rich as well.
Finally something from you that makes sense.
Asking that a political party funded by the wealthy and with a leadership consisting of the wealthy wage "class warfare" on behalf of the working class is a pipe dream.
There are 237 millionaires serving in Congress, according to 2008 figures.
While about one percent of Americans are millionaires, 44 percent of those serving in Congress can claim as much.
The richest member of Congress is Republican California Rep. Darrell Issa, whose net worth is estimated to be in excess of $250 million. He's followed by four Democrats: California's Jane Harman (approx. $245 million), Wisconsin's Herb Kohl (approx. $215 million), Virginia's Mark Warner (approx. $210 million) and Massachusetts' John Kerry (approx. $209 million).
Among the top 25 wealthiest legislators – which includes boldface names Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Olympia Snowe – there are 14 Democrats and 11 Republicans, suggesting no clear wealth divisions between party.
In the executive branch, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the second wealthiest, with a net worth of about $21 million; she trails only Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro. The least wealthy administration figure is Vice President Joe Biden, whose net worth is estimated at just $27,012. (President Obama comes in at $3,670,505.)
Originally posted by no1marauder Finally something from you that makes sense.
Asking that a political party funded by the wealthy and with a leadership consisting of the wealthy wage "class warfare" on behalf of the working class is a pipe dream.
Of course they won't do it. Both parties have tacitly agreed to leave class warfare off the table. But if they wanted to form a more credible opposition to the Republicans other than being "the lesser of two evils", then it would be a powerful weapon for them to wield. Until then the Democrats find themselves in the unenviable position of being the "progressive" party that has agreed to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
Originally posted by utherpendragon . The least wealthy administration figure is Vice President Joe Biden, whose net worth is estimated at just $27,012. (President Obama comes in at $3,670,505.)
Now see this just boggles my mind. On paper Biden is only worth a buck 50. However, when he was appointed VP the press flew out to his "estate" and we beheld about 5 or so mansions. One was for his grandma and the other for his uncle Jethro etc etc. How can someone spend a life time in the Senate making his kind of jack and only be worth a buck 50 yet live like a king? If you ask me, Biden gets the smoke and mirrors award for being a "poor" man. In fact, if you ask me the vast majority have thier wealth hidden in some form or the other.
Of course, we always fail to mention their retirement packages worth millions. I guess when they retire they no longer have the need to hide their wealth.
Why Democrats suck
11 Dec '10 13:09
Back to Top