Yes, Virginia, there *is* a Democratic agenda. Some current threads on the early Democratic agenda.

[pinto]

Just a quick snip on a five minute scan of some current topics here on DU. I'm sure there's other threads and other items I've missed. Don't let 'em say we don't have any plans. And this is only, what, two days in for the 110th Congress...

House Approves Changes to Budget Rules
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2677192

Democrats Rename 5 House Committees
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2677506

Bill would permanently bar drilling in Alaska refuge
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2677531

Rice to testify on Iraq before Senate Foreign Relations Committee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2677547

Reid wants to end "intractable" Iraq war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2677800

Democrats Prepare Slew of Oversight Hearings "Congressional Power in its Rawest Form"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2677910

Webb Introduces Sweeping Expansion of Veterans' Education Benefits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2677935

Waxman creates new transparency subcommittee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3049402&mesg_id=3049402

[snowbear]

1. Good job Pinto~

~~~

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Yawn.

This is just getting out of bed stuff. Better than nothing, but it will have little effect on the average Joe and Jane who've been brutally sodomized for the past 30 years.

Give me a call when they do something like end "free" trade with countries filled with $2-a-day workers, or raise taxes on the Predator Class to, say, 92% - what they were when Ike was in office. Or impeach Bush for his full frontal assault on our Constitution. Or ending union-busting.

[pinto]

3. Good points. This is a start. Yet it sure looks like we have a majority that's

interested in doing some above board business. There's a Committee Chairperson list in a thread today -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3056837&mesg_id=3056837

- they need to hear from us all.

[sandnsea]

4. Yawn is right

How 'bout you insist they cure cancer and end all violent crime while you're at it. I don't hear anybody screaming to have taxes raised to 92% on anybody or to end trade either. It's as worthless as saying stop cutting down all trees when you continue to use toilet paper. Ranting for the sake of ranting, or diverting and dividing, is all I see.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Where Do I Start...

We need to end "free" trade with miniscule-wage countries - not end trade. We may not want to raise taxes on The Predator Class to 92% - but they should pay at least the same rate (including SSI) as does the Middle Class.

[pinto]

11. Raising the Social Security tax cap would be a good start.

It's currently at $90,000, as you know. That's an unrealistic cap in light of today's upper wage scales.

[sandnsea]

14. Then say what the fuck you mean

And quit with these rants that do nothing but alienate 90% of the country. If you want equitable economies and trade, then just fortheloveofchrist say so. If 92% tax is too high and you've got the common sense to know that, then don't say it. We've got enough problems getting through to some of the knuckleheads in this country without having to swat down our own hyperbole.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Read Slowly And Carefully

Let's see... I wrote a college textbook that sold 30,000+ copies, and I was in the 99th percentile on my verbal SATs. I'm thinking that my communication skills are OK.

There's no hyperbole. Our country was at its economic best when we had a 92% marginal tax on the wealthiest Americans. Now the wealthiest Americans pay roughly 17% in taxes, while the Middle Class pays twice that. What part of this is tough to understand?

Which part of "free" trade don't you get? We've dropped all barriers to trade with countries filled with $2-a-day workers. Our jobs have all gone to those countries.

Adjusting for inflation, wages for a 40-hour-a-week job peaked in the early 1970s. I expect Republicans to make this kind of thing happen - but not Democrats.

What we need are real Democrats.

[sandnsea]

18. Read your own posts

First you said raise taxes to 92%, then you said 'we may not want to raise taxes.. to 92%'. SAT's or no, that's two different positions.

Attacking 'free' trade isn't pinpointing any problem, it's simply calling for trade agreements like NAFTA to be abandoned. That ignores the fact that we've always traded and ending a trade agreement isn't going to end trade. Truly communicating would entail saying what you mean, which is that you want trade that produces equitable economies around the globe, that protects wages and labor rights, human rights and the environment.

Spouting off about a book you wrote or ancient test scores is a pretty poor communication tactic too.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. And Again

I want to raise taxes on the Rich back to 92%, as it was in Ike's time - even when Republicans led both houses of Congress.

We, i.e., We the People, may not want 92% - as you pointed out in the post that I responded to. But We the People do want the Rich to pay taxes at the same rate as the Middle Class - not at half the rate.

Yes we have always traded. But we used to have arrangements that compensated for disparities in wages and rules. Those compensations are now gone - and so are many millions of good jobs. European nations still have those compensations - and they still have a strong Middle Class. NAFTA is not a synonym for trade - it is a synonym for harmful trade.

As to my book and "ancient" test scores - tough noogies. It's external validation for my hypothesis, and it's the first time I've ever mentioned it in a post. It's also the first time I've been attacked for being unclear.

[sandnsea]

23. Well fine then

back to the point of my original post. The only in purpose setting up a bunch of unrealistic goals is to create a phony debate to pick apart. That 90% of the country doesn't even want them, makes them even more pointless and does nothing but divert attention from what we can accomplish and divide us in the process.

[ellisonz]

5. To consolidate and show there is much more to come:

House:

Ways & Means - Rep. Charles Rangel (NY)
Armed Forces - Rep. Ike Skelton (MO)
Natural Resources - Rep. Nick Rahall (WV)
Oversight and Government Reform - Rep. Henry Waxman (CA)
Judiciary - Rep. John Conyers (MI)
Energy & Commerce - Rep. John Dingell (MI)
Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence - Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX)
Education & Labot - Rep. George Miller (CA)
Homeland Security - Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS)
Appropriations - Rep. David Obey (WI)
Agriculture - Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)
Budget - Rep. John Spratt (SC)
Ethics - Rep. Stephanie Tubb Jones (OH)
Financial Services - Rep. Barney Frank (MA)
House Administration - Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA)
Foreign Affairs - Rep. Tom Lantos (CA)
Rules - Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY)
Science and Technology - Rep. Bart Gordon (TN)
Small Business - Rep. Nydia Velaquez (NY)
Transportation & Infrastructure - Rep. James Oberstar (MN)
Veterans' Affairs - Rep. Bob Filner (CA)

Senate

Appropriations Committee - Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
Judiciary Committee - Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
Foreign Relations Committee - Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware.
Budget Committee - Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota.
Homeland Security Committee- Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
Armed Forces Committee - Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan.
Environment & Public Works Committee - Sen. Barbara Boxer of California
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee - Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Energy & Natural Resources Committee - Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.
Rules & Administration Committee - Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.
Agriculture Committee - Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa.
Select Committee on Intelligence - Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee - Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.
Veterans Affairs Committee - Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii.
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee - Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee - Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.
Finance Committee - Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.
Indian Affairs Committee - Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota.
Select Committee on Ethics - Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Barbara Boxer is chair while he's in the hospital, I believe.
Select Committee on Aging - Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.

Edit for name changes, which I missed when I was compiling this late last night.

[iowasocialist]

6. Dem Agenda

Anyone have any news on Barney Frank offering Big Business the support of congressional Dems for the views of business on trade, investment, and immigration, in return for their support for the Dems on their congressional agenda?

Included, according to "Marketplace" on public radio, is some sort of labor law reform. Anyone hear more specific information on this?

Thanks...

[ellisonz]

7. If you're suggesting Barney is going to "sell-out"

Think again: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jsc-6T9JD9E

[pinto]

10. I like that he addressed pension funds in light of big CEO payouts.

His committee is in a position to help protect employee pensions from both mismanagement and usury.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. I Was Just Discussing This With A Fellow Barney Constituent This Morning

We're getting a bit worried about Rep. Frank - our congressperson seems to have changed somewhat over the last two years.

[ellisonz]

13. Got a link?

I doubt he's changing, just aging.

You know for someone who endorses Marxist vangtage points so much, I think it's kinda funny you have a pro-liberal statement in your sig. Marx was no fan of the liberalism of the bougeoise classes.

;-)

Edit for correction link-statement.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Marxist?

Link? I'm not inclined to poke around right now, but I'll tell you what we were discussing: Frank was calling for impeachment investigations in 2005 - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/19/101607.shtml - recently, Frank went postal on my buddy for suggesting the same thing. Odd.

I really think that I'm more of an FDRer than Marxist... please point to an instance that illustrates your claim.

[ellisonz]

17. Ok, let's shred.

I'm not using Marxist as a dirty word here...in fact, I generally agree w/Marx. I don't think there's anything wrong with a little democratic market socialism; but doctinal Marxism is generally anti-American in its politics.

"The Predator Class"

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It... has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”... for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation...
- Karl Marx,

"This is just getting out of bed stuff. Better than nothing, but it will have little effect on the average Joe and Jane who've been brutally sodomized for the past 30 years."

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

FDR would never have used the language you use, so call yourself a New Dealer if you want, but you're not really a pure one, you sound much more like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace

Say what you will...but don't beat around the bush, using the veil of liberalism to advance socialism.

Out of curiousity...do you have a link for your textbook?

Oh, and on Frank, you're reporting unsubstantiated second hand speculation. I'd bet your friend misunderstood Barney, and then Barney corrected him like a politician is supposed to...and he didn't like what Barney had too say.

Edit: I well understand the class warfare Nixon- Reagan-Bush waged against the American people, but I do not believe that gives us the mandate to wage unmitigated class warfare against the rich. 92%, not gonna happen, 45% its quite possible say around 2010-2011.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Whew

OK, I've had a beer, but I'll try to respond.

Can you identify this quote?:

"Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."

If you can't identify this, I'll spare you the Google - it's FDR's first inaugural address. In the 1920s, FDR was considered to be a fringe lefty kook - until the Democrats needed something to fend off the Communists, who were quickly overtaking the Dems in elections. I don't see how anything that I'm saying is different (although not as well said) as what FDR would say. Can you be specific on this?

I'm not a Socialist in that I don't believe that Socialism is, in itself, a good thing. I believe that:
1. Basically free markets are basically good things - at least they're better than the alternatives.
2. Historically, perfectly free markets lead to eventual catastrophe, due to positive feedback
3. Some functions have been proven to work better if they are "owned" by society - e.g., roads and health care.
4. Since the Wealthy always have the upper hand vs. the rest, it is the job of government to help level the playing field.
5. Rather than doing 4., as it did until the 1970s, our government now works to actively shift the playing field TOWARDS the Wealthy. Which is why the Wealthy now pay taxes at half the rate of many in the Middle Class, and why median wages are dropping.
6. Save for a few folks (Feingold, Conyers, Waxman, perhaps a few others), our government is led by lunatics and craven triangulators that have utterly abdicated their responsibilities.
7. We The People have allowed 6. to happen - shame on us.
8. We the People can reverse 6. If we get a clue.

As to Frank's exchange with my buddy - I was there and observed it. As were a number of folks that we know. I don't think that it was a misunderstanding. It was pretty clear. Anecdotal, but it's my own anecdote, so I'll stand by it.

As to the textbook - Manny Goldstein is my "nom de web". A link to my book would reveal my true identity, which would be no fun. Sorry to disappoint.

[ellisonz]

22. Fair enough on the textbook.

You're being alot more clearer and have stripped off alot of the hyperbole...

Except:

"In the 1920s, FDR was considered to be a fringe lefty kook - until the Democrats needed something to fend off the Communists, who were quickly overtaking the Dems in elections."

Except for being a NY State Senator, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the 1920 Democratic VP Candidate, and Governor of New York...You've got to remeber the context in which Roosevelt was speaking those words, a tremendous economic depression, not comporable to the economic stagnation of today.

6. Save for a few folks (Feingold, Conyers, Waxman, perhaps a few others), our government is led by lunatics and craven triangulators that have utterly abdicated their responsibilities.

Is still an exaggeration...there are not just a few others, we now have a Majority Democratic Congress and a DNC full of leaders who are not "lunatics and craven triangulators."

[DeepModem Mom]

12. Thanks, pinto -- K&R!

[Cameron27]

20. k&r

[sofa king]

24. First, get rid of George Allen....

...Oh, wait. You're talking about the overall plan for the nation, and making a holiday funny. Okay:

Second, stop taking things so literally....

[bananas]

25. Thanks, pinto.

I tried to rec but it was too late.