Is there really a debate about whether Sanders/AOC's *rhetoric* is class warfare? They openly demonize one class of people (wealthy). Republicans do it too with poor people, but it seems hard to argue that's not Sanders' rhetoric when he openly says it:
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart The minimum wage has existed since 1938. It has never increased by double. Even in 2007 when it hadn't increased for 10 years It only increased from 5.15 to 5.85
One of of the biggest misconceptions about Hispanics taking jobs is they learn trades. They aren't taking jobs because they are willing to do jobs Americans aren't willing to do, they are taking jobs Americans can't do
Thank goodness Sanders knows we are in the middle of a class war. I just wish everyone else knew it. Working class: Help us?! Republicans: Hell No.. Bootstraps, lock her up, abortion or some other dumb ^$%& Democrats: Yes, but actually No... #BLM
All I know is I’m waiting for my third stimulus check before I file for taxes this year so I don’t get screwed by Uncle Sam in the future
Do you think what corporations do with their undue influence on our legislative process is class warfare? Are you saying there is no merit to what Bernie is saying?
It's amazing how some people think that the way the commin American has been treated with the cost of living drastically outpacing inflation while wages aren't isn't going to result in people engaging in "class warfare" whatever that is. Now we call tweets criticizing tax evaders and people who have undue influence on our legislation process "warfare". It's sick. I fought in a actual war. What Bernie is doing is the farthest thing from "warfare" from my experience. It's s easy way to descredit his rhetoric.
Would you really characterization of how they talk about the wealthy as “demonization?” What they have done is point out the history of tax rates and deductions and argued that it’s currently unfair and counterproductive, but I don’t see that as the same as claiming the wealthy are evil. Sure their language isn’t economic journal dry, but I don’t see it reaching the level of gross hyperbole that we see when someone or something is typically demonized. Furthermore, doesn’t Bernie’s tweet seem more like a response to the accusations that he’s fomenting “class warfare”? It does to me. But as dmoneybangbang pointed out, the Democrats haven’t nearly refined enough how they talk about these realities. And so when taken in isolation, I will concede that some of the rhetoric can seem like it’s playing class warfare. I just don’t agree that class warfare is an accurate phrase to describe their real economic proposals.
Lol, which party just tried to raise the minimum wage, in the process of delivering 2 trillion dollars, the vast majority of which is targeted to the lower half, and which voted against it unanimously? People take the broken ass Senate and it's broken ass procedure and just say "the Democrats". It's a systemic failure. The Senate is a broken system. It is very easy for minorities of legislators representing a tiny minority of the people to block any action at multiple points. The Senate should be reformed, although really it should just be dissolved. You could have 49 Bernie Sanders in the Senate and 400 AOCs in the house and it would still be as broken as it is. You would get the same result! That's not an exaggeration at all.
I understand what is going on, it's Joe Lieberman all over again... I'm just frustrated that I "have" to vote for what I consider a center right party because the alternative is literally fascist. So tired of watching Democrats meet in the middle while Republicans are walking backwards.
Wouldn't increasing higher wages for your poor cause them to be moved into a higher tax bracket, thereby making them ineligible for specific government assistance programs which could save tax payers hundreds of billions every year? How is that not making companies force tax payers to provide inadequate relief to the poor and lower middle class with government assistance programs? How is that not class warfare?
The country isn't left or right. Just because Trump won one election and would have some one in any other election with his 2020 vote total doesn't make half the country right wing extremists. The Democrats really do vote middle in primaries. Sanders had a fair shot in 2020. Biden's middle of the roadness actually won. So did Obama's
Also if the poor get higher wages causing them to be moved into a higher tax bracket, isn't that more taxes collected which could provide more financial relief to public schools that are typically underfunded in poorer areas? Like if inflation is a side effect of increased wages, wouldn't that ripple out to homeowners in poorer areas? Like wouldn't home value in poorer neighborhoods go up? And if home value goes up doesn't property taxes in turn? And aren't property taxes how most public schools get their funding? Maybe the extra tax revenue could cause some updates to outdated chemistry labs or get an addition in comp-sci labs or re-integrating shop or extra curricular activities that were cut in the past that could be a deterrent for youth that would turn to crime. Wouldn't these also be rippling effects by giving the working poor higher wages? Wouldn't this lead to a better overall society? https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/School Finance 101 (Revised Oct 2014) v2.pdf#:~:text=Funding for Texas's public schools,school districts, and state funding. Ya. It's mostly property taxes. If you live in the poor side of town, you pay less in property taxes because the value of your home is worth less than the richer neighborhoods that pay more. Since poor neighborhoods pay less in property taxes, that's less revenue to collect to fund poor side of town public schools. This leads to cuts in extra curricular activities that could be a deterrent to youth that might otherwise get caught up in crime. It also affords less opportunities to develop skills that would be valued in the work place for a demographic of people most likely to be caught in perpetual cycles of generational poverty. Increasing wages would help with this even if there was inflation.
I just find it so pathetic how shitty the messaging is from the democrats about this bill. Cutting child poverty in half (giving monthly checks to families), giving 100% SUBSIDIZED plans for obamacare for anyone in poverty or whos unemployed (currently would impact 31 million ppl on obamacare and the tens of millions on unemployment), daycare cost covered for parents this entire year, complete rental relief. Yet what the hell do we get from democratic leadership? You have dumbass like AOC and other progressives bashing Biden and Manchin instead of focusing how there helping the American people. 99% of Americans have no clue what relief there getting. (If you dont believe me youtube stimulus update and you'll see youtubers taking the role of politicians) Instead you have trump who hired a corporate lawer who busted unions all four years, more jobs got outsourced under Trump then Obamas last four years, manufacturing jobs disappeared in the rust belt, we have massive semiconductors and raw minerals shortage yet ALL Republicans believed Trump and his Americs first message even though he was the definition of a con man. The democratic party is literally the most pathetic party I've seen in terms of political will. If Trump and GOP passed this same stimulus they would have trump on a golden statue about solving child poverty LOL.
I agree that a socially conservative Democrat would have a very hard time winning primaries and why I said the bigger challenge I see is whether such a Democrat could be accepted by Democrats. Such Democrats did exists before and as noted 20 years ago the Minnesotans for Life were dominated by Democrats. Many of those people have now become Republicans and Trump Republicans. Regarding IA the TEA Party was at very strong in 2012 but Obama still won that state and as the incumbent there no longer was that historical moment of the first black President. That said I agree with you that it is harder because Trumpism is so much a cult of personality where even die-hard Conservatives like Liz Cheney are considered RINOs just because they oppose Trump. My main point though is that if Democrats want to maintain and strengthen their majority it will take a big tent approach.
McConnell et al has decided to try to repeat the strategy of 2009 and oppose everything even if it is popular. Their view is that as the "opposition party" their job is opposition and gamble that problems with the rollout and slow recovery will end up souring the electorate.
I agree the Democrats have shitty messaging but most people that need the stimulus know what's in it.
The problem with the rhetoric of Populism is that the Bannon type argument is easier to make and comes off as more consistent. While both Sanders and Bannon will decry Globalization and how the foreign governments and corporations are undermining the working class Americans by outsourcing jobs and bringing in cheap manufactured goods. Bannon though will also say that the flood of immigrants willing to work for lower wages is undermining American workers the same way as low cost labor in other countries is doing. Just that rather than sending the work their they are doing it here. Sanders and the Progressives though will argue that immigrants even those who are here undocumented aren't the problem and should be treated with dignity and given a pathway to becoming Americans. For people who believe that America is being undermined by Globalization they don't see much of a difference between whether the global labor is being done there or here. Either way it is foreign labor undermining American labor and one reason why among the working class Trump support anti-Immigrant views are so strong. One of the analysis I've seen of why Trump support didn't completely collapse among black and Hispanic voters is that many of those working class voters actually share those anti-immigrant views. As a personal note, I wouldn't support a candidate who was for both progressive economic policies but also was anti-Immigrant. I'm skeptical of both economic and social populism. My main point is what would it take for Democrats to not only hold the Presidency, majorities in the Congress but also expand and win back several state houses. I might not agree with such a candidate but there are plenty of districts where such a candidate could do well.
To put it more concisely, Trump/Bannon plays more towards mankind's baser instincts. Obama and Bernie both can play to our emotions without denigrating immigrants and foreigners. Dems were already pro immigration, but Hillary conceding and damning the Dems to being the globalist outsourcers was just a terrible blunder by the Hillary campaign while a shrewd maneuvering by Bannon/Trump. Hillary running such a weak campaign to where she allowed herself to get broadsided, is even more surprising as time passes for me. Dems have put themselves in this corner where they are going to have to adopt "stricter" immigration policies in order to gain back some working class credibility; which could just be something like more robust border security and customs but more technology and less wall focused. I think minimum wage is also important, which is why progressives realize this moment is important. You have spoken about infrastructure (I believe) and I'll add that border security, hardening coast lines, highways, transmission lines, bridges, reservoirs, rural airports can all be tied together in an infrastructure package. That should be the focus after the Covid package in order to get some results for the midterms and 2024.
