Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Miles Mogulescu comes out and says it.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
yui Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:38 PM
Original message
Miles Mogulescu comes out and says it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-democrats-authoritari_b_402146.html

This is simply the best and most powerful explanation of "corporatist liberal" as opposed to "progressive liberal" I have yet encountered.

Mogulescu begins, "If Barack Obama and today's Congressional Democrats were passing Social Security for the first time, instead of a creating a public program, they would likely be mandating that every American buy an annuity from a private, profit-driven Wall Street firm like Goldman Sachs (who could keep 15%-20% of their payments for overhead, profits and executive salaries) with the IRS serving as Wall Street's collection agency. If they were passing Medicare today, they would be mandating that every American buy a health insurance policy from profit-driven companies like Aetna, Humana and Wellpoint that would start paying benefits with 40% co-pays and $10,000 a year deductibles when they turn 65."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent. Welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yui Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Thanks for the welcome!
I've been a regular DU reader for a long time, but have been too shy (or afraid) to post. I just feel so strongly about this issue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. If, were, instead, would likely. If, they were today, they would, that would......
In otherwords....nothing but a bunch of unprovable speculating bullshit. And to think he gets paid for this? I hope the fuck not....Cause we all can play that game.....

If FDR and last century's congressional Democrats were passing Social Security in a right wing leaning Media driven, instant gratification post Reagan era, with millions of dollars spent against them in advertising, and if FDR was Black with some crazy ass fools protesting and getting endless television coverage for it, FDR and those Democrats' asses would be passing the same kind of limited Social Security that you some are stating that this health care bill is.

See how that works. :shrug:


Let history's past be a guide,
but don't let it be your master,
cause that is not how historical moments happen...
as unprescendented history is bigger than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. There was a right-wing media machine in FDR's day
(the Hearst newspapers, Father Coughlin, Henry Ford) and although FDR wasn't black and although the media tried to hide it, his disability was not a secret.

Opponents referred to him as "that cripple in the White House."

The wealthy considered him a traitor to his class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. and that's why what FDR passed had to get improved over time......
Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<11> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<12> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<13> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<14> Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.<13> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<15><16> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<16>

Some have suggested that this discrimination resulted from the powerful position of Southern Democrats on two of the committees pivotal for the Act’s creation, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Southern congressmen supported Social Security as a means to bring needed relief to areas in the South that were especially hurt by the Great Depression but wished to avoid legislation which might interfere with the racial status quo in the South. The solution to this dilemma was to pass a bill that both included exclusions and granted authority to the states rather than the national government (such as the states' power in Aid to Dependent Children). Others have argued that exclusions of job categories such as agriculture were frequently left out of new social security systems worldwide because of the administrative difficulties in covering these workers.<16>

Social Security reinforced traditional views of family life.<17> Women generally qualified for insurance only through their husband or their children.<17> Mothers’ pensions (Title IV) based entitlements on the presumption that mothers would be unemployed.<17>

Historical discrimination in the system can also be seen with regard to Aid to Dependent Children. Since this money was allocated to the states to distribute, some localities assessed black families as needing less money than white families. These low grant levels made it impossible for African American mothers to not work: one requirement of the program.<18> Some states also excluded children born out of wedlock, an exclusion which affected African American women more than white women.<19> One study determined that 14.4% of eligible white individuals received funding, but only 1.5% of eligible black individuals received these benefits.<16>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. And yet the important difference is that he STARTED with a PUBLIC program
not by turning everything to the private sector.

Unless the government nationalizes the insurance companies, it will have little control over them.

Congress can't even bring itself to extend antitrust law to the insurance companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Unprovable speculating bullshit?
Takes one to know one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yes, that's the correct analogy
And neither one would go into effect for 4 years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. Bad analogy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. Absolutely perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wall Street had just crashed
Nowadays that might not be a bad idea, as in giving deductions for 401k investments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. Very interesting! Welcome to DU!!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. You know what they say it's called when you fuse corporations and government...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
13. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
15. And furthermore
any evolving of social security would be as dead in the water as medicare with the very likely failure of the "good things" in the bill itself. Disaster economics might even more hay for big health care in the political meltdown of corporate Dems, regressives perceived dubiously as "New" Democrats, but treated as leftist pariahs by more clear headed opportunists in the corporate GOP party of outright economic rape.

Equating social security evolution from FDR's arguably grim beginnings to this current faith in passing an unnecessarily corporatized "reform" skips the fate of Medicare which though it improved and survives well under siege like Social Security has not evolved with a glaringly obvious capacity for universal expansion- for decades. The current state of legislation is regressive. Is that a political reality of the result of big capital learning where reformers do not and the real progress has been in corrupting the government beyond semblance of reason and public duty? If pressure for better is put in abeyance to let the bill harm future real reform irrevocably(the opposite of what the WH believes) can it ever improve? The system of corruption itself survives and thrives whether health care reform improves or not.
People's true needs and opinions are more excluded from the political process than they are from health care. THAT is truly almost universal lack of coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cowpunk Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
16. Mogulescu's analysis of the HCR politics is spot on.
Thanks for posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar 13th 2025, 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC