Originally Posted by radind

My concern is that we continue to have a military strong enough to ward off most attacks. The weak Carter approach including letting Iran hold our hostages for over a year, was counterproductive in warding off attacks.

Well, his rescue attempt failed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nevertheless, the behavior of the officer was reprehensible, and so was her treatment in prison.

Not prison, jail.
What did they do to her in jail? I'd agree that they were negligent in not doing more to prevent the suicide after they found out she had a history of depression and prior attempts.
As for the officer being a dick, yeah that happens. That's why when a cop asks you to put your cigarette out you put it out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

.....Maybe later. Gotta go now.

This shows the data I saw earlier.

The share of wealth owned by the top 0.1% is almost the same as the bottom 90%


http://www.theguardian.com/business/...-the-bottom-90

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't see any basis for claiming that the Democrats have "abandoned" the white working class.

The Democrats did abandon the working class of all races. Minorities have stuck with them because what choice do they have? Whites have increasingly left.

The abandonment was under Carter. The core problem of the time was high inflation. There are two ways to deal with that, austerity or interest rate control by the Fed. Interest rate control is what the Democrats chose (Carter appointed Volcker). This policy controls inflation my suppressing worker's wages through interest rate hikes that slow economic growth. There have been no real wage gains over the last 40 years because that is the objective of official government policy. inflation control is achieved at worker expense.

Austerity (properly done) is more worker-friendly. Austerity means fiscal control of inflation through high taxes and budget surpluses. It achieves inflation control with the cost shared by everybody. It is what Keynesians recommend during expansions. Note: Republican-style austerity means lower income taxes and greater spending reductions targeted on the lower classes--it takes the cost away from the upper classes.

Could Carter have done this? Well, he had a Democratic congress. Johnson had pushed through a surtax in 1968, that Nixon discontinued when recession hit in 1970. The surtax should have been reintroduced. The Democrats could have raised Social Security taxes (like in 1986), but without income tax reduction on top incomes. Finally they needed to hold the line on new programs and spending increases so as to generate a large surplus like Clinton did (but with the 77% 1968 top rate intact).

They did not do this and so created conditions in which labor operated at a disadvantage to management. The result, unions were destroyed and two generations of working class Americans have made little or no progress. When Reagan shellacked them, what was the Democratic response? To move to the right on economics, while continuing to hew a liberal path on social issues. When Clinton became president after talking about "its the economy stupid", what did he do? Gays in the military, NAFTA, assault gun ban, 100000 cops. The only economic thing was free trade, a pro-management, anti-labor policy. And it continues, Obama working with Republicans to ram TPP down worker's throats.

Part of the problem of intensifying inequality is the rise of the MBA. In earlier times, the smartest (but not particularly moral) kids went into science and engineering. The MBA programs siphoned those off, except for the electrical engineers who went into semiconductors and software. If a market can force reality onto engineering, it can't control bureaucratic elitists who wield economic power. The power to treat people badly makes management easy because people get driven far down the Maslovian hierarchy of needs. Management was incredibly easy on a plantation or in a fascist 'labor' camp: work, starve, or be beaten.

Just think of it: in the Soviet Union, a managerial elite that Marxist ideology said could never become exploiters because it did not own the means of production became as exploitative elite as tycoons, financiers, and big landowners. At least with big landowners the owners must invest in land improvements and maintain and modernize their equipment to keep making profits. At the least tycoons face the potential for cut-throat competition from fellow tycoons (the cut-throat competition being the essence of capitalism in theory). At least the financiers must establish the best uses for their investments, which means that loans that ruin the borrowers are to be avoided. Managerial elites know no such constraints. They can treat subordinates who have no share in the ownership of assets as expendable objects... with impunity.

The managerial elite can enforce austerity at its harshest with pay cuts and work speedups that increase productivity while keeping real wages low despite productivity increases. It also gets much by pushing debt instead of pay.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

What people forget about "a well ordered militia" (and which I didn't know until I read a book about the year 1860--there have been a number of good new histories about the outbreak of the Civil War published in the last few years) was that the US HAD well ordered militias for it's first 80 years. Male Americans (white Americans at least) in the North and the South not only owned rifles, they drilled with them in militias every week (in the tactics of the War of 1812). The idea was that the country needed to be able to create an army quickly but could not afford a standing army. The states controlled those militias. And the existence of those militias no doubt deterred European nations, particularly the UK from trying to retake the American colonies. And made it easy for the US to mobilise for the Mexican War. And in the South, state militias evolved into regular "slave patrols" to control movement of African Americans--often quite brutally.

The final result of all these militias (which legally COULD be federalised) was a quick mobilisation into civil war in 1860. Thanks to all that military training (the modern equivalent is Israel) both northern and southern states could quickly mobilise to fight each other. And did. And this led to a wider Civil War as North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas (and partially, Missouri and Kentucky) mobilised for the Confederacy only after President Lincoln attempted to mobilise those states to fight against the Confederacy.

Which is why the right to bear arms got detached from militia duty after the Civil War. Nobody wanted a nation that was not only armed but trained to mobilise en masse after the result was secession that almost succeeded. Particularly after workers began to demand the right to bargain collectively after 1877.

Having defined something that we've decided to abandon doesn't change the definition. The entire point of the 2nd amendment was the provision of personal arms for use by the militia in lieu of the government having armories and providing them directly. Pretending otherwise is simply folly ... a potent motivator for the current SCOTUS.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Part of the problem of intensifying inequality is the rise of the MBA. In earlier times, the smartest (but not particularly moral) kids went into science and engineering. The MBA programs siphoned those off, except for the electrical engineers who went into semiconductors and software. If a market can force reality onto engineering, it can't control bureaucratic elitists who wield economic power. The power to treat people badly makes management easy because people get driven far down the Maslovian hierarchy of needs. Management was incredibly easy on a plantation or in a fascist 'labor' camp: work, starve, or be beaten.

Just think of it: in the Soviet Union, a managerial elite that Marxist ideology said could never become exploiters because it did not own the means of production became as exploitative elite as tycoons, financiers, and big landowners. At least with big landowners the owners must invest in land improvements and maintain and modernize their equipment to keep making profits. At the least tycoons face the potential for cut-throat competition from fellow tycoons (the cut-throat competition being the essence of capitalism in theory). At least the financiers must establish the best uses for their investments, which means that loans that ruin the borrowers are to be avoided. Managerial elites know no such constraints. They can treat subordinates who have no share in the ownership of assets as expendable objects... with impunity.

The managerial elite can enforce austerity at its harshest with pay cuts and work speedups that increase productivity while keeping real wages low despite productivity increases. It also gets much by pushing debt instead of pay.

Having graduated from the MBA program at the University of Colorado, whenever you make this statement I can't help but wonder what you think the courses were that I was taught, and what the content was that you think was in them?

*Exploitation 310 - screwing over "little people."

*Management 240 - making folks' lives miserable on a daily basis, until they commit suicide.

*Marketing 550 - Profitably making and selling plastic dog shit.

*Business Ethics 330 - What the fuck was so wrong with Goebbels approach, anyway?

Something like that, PB?

Originally Posted by TnT

Having graduated from the MBA program at the University of Colorado, whenever you make this statement I can't help but wonder what you think the courses were that I was taught, and what the content was that you think was in them?

*Exploitation 310 - screwing over "little people."

*Management 240 - making folks' lives miserable on a daily basis, until they commit suicide.

*Marketing 550 - Profitably making and selling plastic dog shit.

*Business Ethics 330 - What the fuck was so wrong with Goebbels approach, anyway?

Something like that, PB?

What colors of plastic dog shit do you carry?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The Democrats did abandon the working class of all races. Minorities have stuck with them because what choice do they have? Whites have increasingly left.

It seems an exaggerated claim. Democrats always campaign on the promise to help the working class. Their policies in office have certainly been better for them. I'll need to find those stats again.

The abandonment was under Carter. The core problem of the time was high inflation. There are two ways to deal with that, austerity or interest rate control by the Fed. Interest rate control is what the Democrats chose (Carter appointed Volcker). This policy controls inflation by suppressing worker's wages through interest rate hikes that slow economic growth. There have been no real wage gains over the last 40 years because that is the objective of official government policy. inflation control is achieved at worker expense.

Volcker hiked interest rates to sky high levels. It does slow borrowing, and borrowing helps growth. So growth slows. High interest rates affect business though, not just their workers. So it does affect everybody too. Of course, those of us who had bonds and money market funds etc that generate interest payments benefited.

Austerity (properly done) is more worker-friendly. Austerity means fiscal control of inflation through high taxes and budget surpluses. It achieves inflation control with the cost shared by everybody. It is what Keynesians recommend during expansions. Note: Republican-style austerity means lower income taxes and greater spending reductions targeted on the lower classes--it takes the cost away from the upper classes.

Austerity today generally refers to the type that Republicans favor. Higher taxes have been so out of favor that Democrats can't impose them except on the upper classes. It is a stretch, it seems to me, to say that by refusing to raise taxes on the middle classes, Democrats have abandoned the working class. Many of the working class are middle class, income wise; or used to be.

Could Carter have done this? Well, he had a Democratic congress. Johnson had pushed through a surtax in 1968, that Nixon discontinued when recession hit in 1970. The surtax should have been reintroduced. The Democrats could have raised Social Security taxes (like in 1986), but without income tax reduction on top incomes. Finally they needed to hold the line on new programs and spending increases so as to generate a large surplus like Clinton did (but with the 77% 1968 top rate intact).

That would have reduced the federal debt, which soon exploded under Reagan. But how does lower government debt help the working class? It seems to me that deficit spending helps the working class. It creates jobs and stimulates the economy.

It might depend on interest rate hikes. Conceivably the government could be paying out more interest on the high debt, which reduces fiscal flexibility on social spending, taxes, etc. Nowadays that's not a problem, because although government borrowing continues, this doesn't raise interest rates, which are being kept very low.

They did not do this and so created conditions in which labor operated at a disadvantage to management. The result, unions were destroyed and two generations of working class Americans have made little or no progress. When Reagan shellacked them, what was the Democratic response? To move to the right on economics, while continuing to hew a liberal path on social issues. When Clinton became president after talking about "its the economy stupid", what did he do? Gays in the military, NAFTA, assault gun ban, 100000 cops. The only economic thing was free trade, a pro-management, anti-labor policy. And it continues, Obama working with Republicans to ram TPP down worker's throats.

Yes, some New Democrat policies such as free trade and deregulation of banks have not helped the working class. But Clinton also expanded the earned income credit. That was an "economic thing."

The Center for American Progress says:

Consequently, policies that aim to strengthen the middle class, make it possible for more people to join its ranks, and support those who are going through temporary stress to rebound are policies that help produce growth. Over the course of the Clinton administration, the president and Congress agreed on a number of policies aimed directly and primarily at supporting working families to clear their path for success. They enacted:
1. An increase in the minimum wage. In 1996 Congress passed a 20 percent increase in the minimum wage, raising it from $4.25 to $5.15 in two steps. The wage increase boosted earnings for nearly 10 million Americans, almost half of whom were working full time. Furthermore, empirical studies conducted in the aftermath proved that there were no negative impacts on overall employment.
2. The Family and Medical Leave Act. The very first law that President Clinton signed was the Family and Medical Leave Act, which ensured parents could take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or a sick relative without risking their job. Over the next eight years, more than 35 million workers took advantage of its protections. And though critics warned that the FMLA would hurt businesses, subsequent research showed that businesses had no trouble complying with the new law.
3. The child tax credit. Middle-class tax cuts were central to the budget deal President Clinton negotiated with Congress in 1997. The child tax credit included in that deal directly reduced a family’s income tax bill by $500 per eligible child. This was estimated to direct between $16 billion and $19 billion a year in tax benefits to families with children.
4. More federal funding for Head Start and child care. Head Start is a federal early childhood learning program for low-income families. In 1993, the first year of President Clinton’s administration, federal funding for Head Start totaled $3.3 billion (in constant 2000 dollars). After two major reauthorizations, funding for Head Start grew to $5.3 billion in the year 2000.





https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...clinton-years/

"Our way works better" -- Bill Clinton

"as millions more Americans entered the middle class and real wages grew, President Clinton also met his goal of spending less on tax breaks for the wealthy and debt services—and giving the middle class more room to spend and grow the economy instead. And for the first time in 30 years, incomes of the bottom 20 percent of the workforce rose nearly as much as the top 20 percent, and the number of people living in poverty actually declined."

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...clinton-years/

Carter controlled inflation in many more-important ways than with higher interest rates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a...b_3418868.html

You could say that Carter abandoned the working class. But Carl Bevin says Carter had little choice given the situation:
(quote)
The massive inflation and oil price shocks of the 1970's damaged Jimmy Carter's presidency. In Jimmy Carter's Economy, Carl Biven traces how the Carter administration developed and implemented economic policy amid multiple crises and explores how a combination of factors beyond the administration's control came to dictate a new paradigm of Democratic Party politics.

Jimmy Carter inherited a deeply troubled economy. The "great inflation" that is associated with his presidency in fact began in the latter part of the Johnson years, and the oil crisis Carter faced was the second oil price shock of the decade. In addition, a decline in worker productivity and a rise in competition from Germany and Japan compounded the nation's economic problems.

These economic pressures created a crisis of political identity for the Democratic Party, moving it toward the political center. Full employment, the traditional priority of Democratic policy, requires an activist government willing to increase public spending and cut taxes. The anti-inflation policy that was forced on Carter by the economic realities of the day included controlling public spending, limiting the expansion of the welfare state, and postponing popular tax cuts. Moreover, according to Biven, Carter argued that the ambitious policies of the Great Society were no longer possible in an age of limits and that the Democratic Party must by economic necessity become more centrist. Although he faced severe criticism during his term, says Biven, Carter accurately perceived the changed fiscal landscape and the need for a shift in Democratic policy.
(unquote)
Biven, W. Carl: Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits (2002)

However, Carter also helped the working class:
(quote)
The Department played a major role in the President's economic stimulus program. It received about $8 billion for Public Service Employment and other programs under CETA. Public service jobs increased from 310,000 in 1976 to a peak of 725,000 in 1978. The Department also expanded the Job Corps and other youth training programs. It developed and tested new ways to meet employment related needs of rural workers and Native Americans. It improved on-the-job training for veterans and others through the Hope through Industry Retraining and Employment program. This program provided incentives for companies to hire and train needy persons. A Skill Training Improvement Program provided retraining for displaced workers to prepare them for jobs by giving them skills which were in short supply.
(unquote)
Much More:
http://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/dolchp08

See also the What Democrats Do thread for a chart comparing Carter and Reagan policies and their results.

Comparing Carter and Reagan:
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/c...-Ronald-Reagan

You may have known that Clinton was a better “job creator” than Reagan, but did you know that over the course of the Carter administration — January 1977 to January 1981 — the economy actually added jobs faster than it did under Reagan? Maybe you want to claim that the 1981-82 recession was Carter’s fault (although actually it was the Fed’s doing), so that you start counting from almost two years into Reagan’s term; but in that case why not give Obama the same courtesy? The general point is that the supposed awesomeness of Reagan’s economic record just doesn’t pop out of the data.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...ganolatry.html

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Part of the problem of intensifying inequality is the rise of the MBA. In earlier times, the smartest (but not particularly moral) kids went into science and engineering. The MBA programs siphoned those off, except for the electrical engineers who went into semiconductors and software. If a market can force reality onto engineering, it can't control bureaucratic elitists who wield economic power. The power to treat people badly makes management easy because people get driven far down the Maslovian hierarchy of needs. Management was incredibly easy on a plantation or in a fascist 'labor' camp: work, starve, or be beaten.

Just think of it: in the Soviet Union, a managerial elite that Marxist ideology said could never become exploiters because it did not own the means of production became as exploitative elite as tycoons, financiers, and big landowners. At least with big landowners the owners must invest in land improvements and maintain and modernize their equipment to keep making profits. At the least tycoons face the potential for cut-throat competition from fellow tycoons (the cut-throat competition being the essence of capitalism in theory). At least the financiers must establish the best uses for their investments, which means that loans that ruin the borrowers are to be avoided. Managerial elites know no such constraints. They can treat subordinates who have no share in the ownership of assets as expendable objects... with impunity.

The managerial elite can enforce austerity at its harshest with pay cuts and work speedups that increase productivity while keeping real wages low despite productivity increases. It also gets much by pushing debt instead of pay.

And all the managerial elite has to do is keep "shareholder value" (from which they get THEIR bonuses) high. They are not even directly beholden to stockholders.
I think one of the reasons the managerial elite has become as predatory as it has has been the groupthink you put your finger on with the MBA program. Somewhere along the line in the 80s and 90s, management claques in major corporations and banks became progressively more and more like religious cults, not only unquestioning but right down to the lack of sleep that makes questioning impossible. This is the sort of thing that can happen when the top management is Idealist and the lower echelons are Reactive. Idealists as they age often harden into cultists, religious and otherwise.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You may have known that Clinton was a better “job creator” than Reagan, but did you know that over the course of the Carter administration — January 1977 to January 1981 — the economy actually added jobs faster than it did under Reagan? Maybe you want to claim that the 1981-82 recession was Carter’s fault (although actually it was the Fed’s doing), so that you start counting from almost two years into Reagan’s term; but in that case why not give Obama the same courtesy? The general point is that the supposed awesomeness of Reagan’s economic record just doesn’t pop out of the data.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...ganolatry.html

I started working continuously (as opposed to job shopper / contract stuff to pay for school) during Reagan's 2nd term. 1st couple years I had plenty of work but was badly hindered in career advancement by the grey ceiling (well, it wasn't all that grey yet, but you get the point). Late part of Reagan years I had some fantastic career and pay improvements. Improvements continued albeit at a slower pace during Bush 41 years, with the lone exception of his last year ('92) which was a banner year for me. Clinton years - what can I say. If I could turn back the clock. Since 2001 or 2 it's been a case of degree of suckyness.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Carter controlled inflation in many more-important ways than with higher interest rates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a...b_3418868.html

You could say that Carter abandoned the working class. But Carl Bevin says Carter had little choice given the situation:
(quote)
The massive inflation and oil price shocks of the 1970's damaged Jimmy Carter's presidency. In Jimmy Carter's Economy, Carl Biven traces how the Carter administration developed and implemented economic policy amid multiple crises and explores how a combination of factors beyond the administration's control came to dictate a new paradigm of Democratic Party politics.

Jimmy Carter inherited a deeply troubled economy. The "great inflation" that is associated with his presidency in fact began in the latter part of the Johnson years, and the oil crisis Carter faced was the second oil price shock of the decade. In addition, a decline in worker productivity and a rise in competition from Germany and Japan compounded the nation's economic problems.

These economic pressures created a crisis of political identity for the Democratic Party, moving it toward the political center. Full employment, the traditional priority of Democratic policy, requires an activist government willing to increase public spending and cut taxes. The anti-inflation policy that was forced on Carter by the economic realities of the day included controlling public spending, limiting the expansion of the welfare state, and postponing popular tax cuts. Moreover, according to Biven, Carter argued that the ambitious policies of the Great Society were no longer possible in an age of limits and that the Democratic Party must by economic necessity become more centrist. Although he faced severe criticism during his term, says Biven, Carter accurately perceived the changed fiscal landscape and the need for a shift in Democratic policy.
(unquote)
Biven, W. Carl: Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits (2002)

However, Carter also helped the working class:
(quote)
The Department played a major role in the President's economic stimulus program. It received about $8 billion for Public Service Employment and other programs under CETA. Public service jobs increased from 310,000 in 1976 to a peak of 725,000 in 1978. The Department also expanded the Job Corps and other youth training programs. It developed and tested new ways to meet employment related needs of rural workers and Native Americans. It improved on-the-job training for veterans and others through the Hope through Industry Retraining and Employment program. This program provided incentives for companies to hire and train needy persons. A Skill Training Improvement Program provided retraining for displaced workers to prepare them for jobs by giving them skills which were in short supply.
(unquote)
Much More:
http://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/dolchp08

See also the What Democrats Do thread for a chart comparing Carter and Reagan policies and their results.

Comparing Carter and Reagan:
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/c...-Ronald-Reagan

That "Age of Limits" and inflation didn't just happen. They were a direct result of the US investing years of blood and treasure in the Vietnam War (forced on LBJ by conservatives, Republican and Dixiecrat who were outraged by Kennedy's toleration of the existence of Castro's Cuba post Missile Crisis). But for the Vietnam War, the US could have easily evolved into a European style social democracy, marginalising conservative voices. The War on Poverty would have been affordable even if Neo-Confederate conservatives found an end to poverty outrageous (which they still do).
As a result of US failure to have it's way in South Vietnam, the US was left to search for a way to retain it's world dominance. It found that way for the next 35 odd years in the domination of the Mideast and creation of the Petrodollar. It would take a while for incomes and military capabilities to equalise enough for Muslims to be able to bog the US down in insurgency in desert and urban areas as well as the VC bogged the US down in Vietnam's mountains and rainforests.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You may have known that Clinton was a better “job creator” than Reagan, but did you know that over the course of the Carter administration — January 1977 to January 1981 — the economy actually added jobs faster than it did under Reagan? Maybe you want to claim that the 1981-82 recession was Carter’s fault (although actually it was the Fed’s doing), so that you start counting from almost two years into Reagan’s term; but in that case why not give Obama the same courtesy? The general point is that the supposed awesomeness of Reagan’s economic record just doesn’t pop out of the data.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...ganolatry.html

And unlike under Clinton and Obama, those jobs were not dead end, minimum wage, often temporary jobs.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It seems an exaggerated claim. Democrats always campaign on the promise to help the working class. Their policies in office have certainly been better for them. I'll need to find those stats again.

Volcker hiked interest rates to sky high levels. It does slow borrowing, and borrowing helps growth. So growth slows. High interest rates affect business though, not just their workers. So it does affect everybody too. Of course, those of us who had bonds and money market funds etc that generate interest payments benefited.

Austerity today generally refers to the type that Republicans favor. Higher taxes have been so out of favor that Democrats can't impose them except on the upper classes. It is a stretch, it seems to me, to say that by refusing to raise taxes on the middle classes, Democrats have abandoned the working class. Many of the working class are middle class, income wise; or used to be.

That would have reduced the federal debt, which soon exploded under Reagan. But how does lower government debt help the working class? It seems to me that deficit spending helps the working class. It creates jobs and stimulates the economy.


Yes, some New Democrat policies such as free trade and deregulation of banks have not helped the working class. But Clinton also expanded the earned income credit. That was an "economic thing."

The Center for American Progress says:

Consequently, policies that aim to strengthen the middle class, make it possible for more people to join its ranks, and support those who are going through temporary stress to rebound are policies that help produce growth. Over the course of the Clinton administration, the president and Congress agreed on a number of policies aimed directly and primarily at supporting working families to clear their path for success. They enacted:
1. An increase in the minimum wage. In 1996 Congress passed a 20 percent increase in the minimum wage, raising it from $4.25 to $5.15 in two steps. The wage increase boosted earnings for nearly 10 million Americans, almost half of whom were working full time. Furthermore, empirical studies conducted in the aftermath proved that there were no negative impacts on overall employment.
2. The Family and Medical Leave Act. The very first law that President Clinton signed was the Family and Medical Leave Act, which ensured parents could take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or a sick relative without risking their job. Over the next eight years, more than 35 million workers took advantage of its protections. And though critics warned that the FMLA would hurt businesses, subsequent research showed that businesses had no trouble complying with the new law.
3. The child tax credit. Middle-class tax cuts were central to the budget deal President Clinton negotiated with Congress in 1997. The child tax credit included in that deal directly reduced a family’s income tax bill by $500 per eligible child. This was estimated to direct between $16 billion and $19 billion a year in tax benefits to families with children.
4. More federal funding for Head Start and child care. Head Start is a federal early childhood learning program for low-income families. In 1993, the first year of President Clinton’s administration, federal funding for Head Start totaled $3.3 billion (in constant 2000 dollars). After two major reauthorizations, funding for Head Start grew to $5.3 billion in the year 2000.





https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...clinton-years/

"Our way works better" -- Bill Clinton

And at the same time, the Clintons ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children, substituting only Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, passed an immigration law that tightened borders in such a way that migrants could no longer come and go freely, creating the ten million undocumented, at least half of which have started families of US citizens and repealed the Glass-Steagall separation between commercial and investment banking. What Clinton gave with one hand, he took away with the other.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The Democrats did abandon the working class of all races. Minorities have stuck with them because what choice do they have? Whites have increasingly left.

The abandonment was under Carter. The core problem of the time was high inflation. There are two ways to deal with that, austerity or interest rate control by the Fed. Interest rate control is what the Democrats chose (Carter appointed Volcker). This policy controls inflation my suppressing worker's wages through interest rate hikes that slow economic growth. There have been no real wage gains over the last 40 years because that is the objective of official government policy. inflation control is achieved at worker expense.

Austerity (properly done) is more worker-friendly. Austerity means fiscal control of inflation through high taxes and budget surpluses. It achieves inflation control with the cost shared by everybody. It is what Keynesians recommend during expansions. Note: Republican-style austerity means lower income taxes and greater spending reductions targeted on the lower classes--it takes the cost away from the upper classes.

Could Carter have done this? Well, he had a Democratic congress. Johnson had pushed through a surtax in 1968, that Nixon discontinued when recession hit in 1970. The surtax should have been reintroduced. The Democrats could have raised Social Security taxes (like in 1986), but without income tax reduction on top incomes. Finally they needed to hold the line on new programs and spending increases so as to generate a large surplus like Clinton did (but with the 77% 1968 top rate intact).

They did not do this and so created conditions in which labor operated at a disadvantage to management. The result, unions were destroyed and two generations of working class Americans have made little or no progress. When Reagan shellacked them, what was the Democratic response? To move to the right on economics, while continuing to hew a liberal path on social issues. When Clinton became president after talking about "its the economy stupid", what did he do? Gays in the military, NAFTA, assault gun ban, 100000 cops. The only economic thing was free trade, a pro-management, anti-labor policy. And it continues, Obama working with Republicans to ram TPP down worker's throats.

The Democrats under Carter actually came the closest they ever did to making state "right to work" laws illegal, as I recall. Within a whisker of defeating a Republican-Dixiecrat filibuster on the issue. Even common-situs picketing might have been approved.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

That "Age of Limits" and inflation didn't just happen. They were a direct result of the US investing years of blood and treasure in the Vietnam War (forced on LBJ by conservatives, Republican and Dixiecrat who were outraged by Kennedy's toleration of the existence of Castro's Cuba post Missile Crisis). But for the Vietnam War, the US could have easily evolved into a European style social democracy, marginalising conservative voices. The War on Poverty would have been affordable even if Neo-Confederate conservatives found an end to poverty outrageous (which they still do).
As a result of US failure to have it's way in South Vietnam, the US was left to search for a way to retain it's world dominance. It found that way for the next 35 odd years in the domination of the Mideast and creation of the Petrodollar. It would take a while for incomes and military capabilities to equalise enough for Muslims to be able to bog the US down in insurgency in desert and urban areas as well as the VC bogged the US down in Vietnam's mountains and rainforests.

The US never really needed to care about the Middle East from our own selfish perspective. Barely any Middle East oil ever gets shipped to the US. Almost all is shipped to "the liberated countries" - e.g. the countries we liberated during WW2 then supported ever since. Essentially our involvement in the Middle East is indirect foreign aid to Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, etc.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And at the same time, the Clintons ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children, substituting only Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, passed an immigration law that tightened borders in such a way that migrants could no longer come and go freely, creating the ten million undocumented, at least half of which have started families of US citizens and repealed the Glass-Steagall separation between commercial and investment banking. What Clinton gave with one hand, he took away with the other.

Yes indeed. But in saying it was "the Clintons" who ended AFDC and substituted TANF (with some added support), are you saying that Hillary will do the same sorts of things if elected this year, that Bill did then? I'm not so sure.

"Our way works better"-- Bill Clinton

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The Democrats under Carter actually came the closest they ever did to making state "right to work" laws illegal, as I recall. Within a whisker of defeating a Republican-Dixiecrat filibuster on the issue. Even common-situs picketing might have been approved.

I can find nothing on a late 1970's attempt.

There was one in 1965.

Eric, you are not addressing my main point of how the idea that Democrats abandoned the white working class came about. This meme has some basis in truth.

Southern whites bolted from the Democrats in 1948, but they came back because they had no place to go. In 1964 a fair number of Southern white Democrats voted for Goldwater because the Democrats were becoming the party of civil rights for blacks. In 1968 they again bolted en masse to support Wallace and Nixon won. In 1972 they supported Nixon. Yet in 1976, when one of their own was on the ballot, many came back to help elect a Democrat. By 1976 it was clear that the Democrats were becoming the party of social change. Socially conservative working class people, particularly white men, would not be enthusiastic about social change, but would likely still stick with the Democrats if they believed that they were still looking out for working class interests. A strong economy benefits labor because it improves their bargaining position.

But economic growth is inflationary without policy to counter the inflationary effects. In hindsight it is clear that Job #1 for Democrats in 1977 was to not drag their ass on inflation like Johnson did and put in the tax increases and spending restraint needed to eliminate the deficit ASAP. They could build on the "peace dividend" from the end of the Vietnam war. Instead Carter spent a good deal of his effort on his foreign policy--human rights and Mideast peace initiatives. The center of Democratic politics shifted to social issues, rather that fixing the broken economy (and so the economy remained broken to this day).

I think what most on the left do not realize is that politics is asymmetrical. Republicans can pursue economic policy that makes things worse for workers and that is OK, because everybody knows that are for the rich, and so they aren't going to do anything to help workers. If things get worse for workers under Democrats they will get the blame. Same thing goes for foreign policy. Republicans don't have to win their wars or show competence in foreign policy. If they fail it is assumed that it was not their fault, because everyone knows they are tough guys, the Daddy party: their guys look strong in flight suits, our guys look effete in tanks. If Democrats fail it is because they are weak.

Democrats have to be twice as good to get half as much credit.

Originally Posted by TnT

Having graduated from the MBA program at the University of Colorado, whenever you make this statement I can't help but wonder what you think the courses were that I was taught, and what the content was that you think was in them?

*Exploitation 310 - screwing over "little people."

*Management 240 - making folks' lives miserable on a daily basis, until they commit suicide.

*Marketing 550 - Profitably making and selling plastic dog shit.

*Business Ethics 330 - What the fuck was so wrong with Goebbels approach, anyway?

Something like that, PB?

Some of your classmates.

GI executives did not have the MBA degree available. They had accounting (I have no qualms about businesses watching money closely) and finance (putting money to use)... and I have no problem with that. Of course there were engineers -- and attorneys. (Attorneys can do just about anything except engineering, medicine, or managing money because they are generalists). Most of the rest were generalists -- or people who had worked their way from the shop floor (such was possible for a GI or a Silent in a manufacturing business) or from a sales route far from the home office. So how did they do so well despite the arcane knowledge that an MBA offers?

They typically became executives as they were well into middle age -- their forties. Because they were comparatively old they could not go on the consumer binges that more recent MBA grads can go on. By the time they were executives their kids were already in college and their mortgage loans were paid off. They drove Buick and Chrysler cars (Cadillac was for owners) -- not BMW or Mercedes vehicles.

The musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying may be an exaggeration of how life could be in the early 1960s... but even if everything in the movie adaptation is right (catchy songs, comic situations, failures shown as fools more than as villains "A Secretary Is Not a Toy") it is so out of touch with reality that it is now utterly absurd. Businesses used to be able to develop people from within. Now that the American economic order has become more hierarchical and even aristocratic, people who stay in one company typically have the same job twenty years later. The outlet of small business for allowing talented people who do not quite fit the new model of economic hierarchy is also on the fade.

I question whether the MBA grad really knows what is going on on the shop floor.

OK. I can put some of the blame on the Silent, who generally did not start businesses. Maybe a professional practice: they generally preferred becoming veterinarians or accountants to starting small-scale local businesses or even preserving the entities that the Lost had established. It's easy to get a list of giant businesses that GIs and Lost created. The Silent? Who are the big ones?

Carl Icahn, venture capitalist. Ross Perot, government contractor. T. Boone Pickens, oil wildcatter. Warren Buffett, Investor extraordinaire. Koch brothers, mergers and acquisitions followed by their current attempt at a hostile takeover of American democracy. Dave Thomas, fast food (Wendy's).

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

2012 was what one would expect of an election against an incumbent President. The incumbent usually wins unless he or she is completely out of touch with the country or the national mood has shifted completely ala Carter or a 12 year run of one party has exhausted whatever push created that run in the first place ala George HW Bush. The Republican Establishment did an excellent job of stage managing the 2012 election and colaescing behind the candidate they originally wanted, namely Mitt Romney. The problem with Romney was that Romney, the corporate raider, the job killer, the vulture capitalist was everything that less affluent voters saw as wrong with the economy and the Republican Party. And Romney still came within 2 percentage points of defeating Obama on the popular vote (though Obama still might have won on electoral votes). Frankly, the Romney debacle (and the poor performance of the economy and worsening conditions for poor white males) has paved the way for Trump.
I don't know how well Trump will actually do on delegates. Translating opinion polls into winning primaries and caucuses requires a ground game, something Trump is playing catch-up on. But this is turning out to be a terrible election for the Democrats to be reverting to machine politics and in effect, pre-selecting their candidate for President. Hillary Clinton's "it's my turn" candidacy seems to have been based on a complementary Jeb Bush "it's my turn" candidacy that would turn voters off, not on. Democratic machine politics might be able to win a low turnout election (2012 was lower turnout than 2008). But so far, this election is not going according to script.

pssss, it's not going to script on the GOP side; it's pretty much as expected on the Dem side. You're making the same fundamental mistake as Kinser in getting caught up in the entertaining news making money off of hawking Trump Trash (patent pending).

Also, you're explaining why the '08 coalition held in '12, but not providing much in regard to why you think it won't in '16 - remember, because of demographics, that coalition could take 4 percentage points less in '16 and get the same result as in 2012. You mentioned turnout but really haven't provided anything qualitative let alone quantitative that supports a 4 percentage point drop in turnout by the '08 coalition. What do you got, or is it just a gut feel - a bern perhaps?