Can real Democrats support taxcuts over social programs?

[kentuck]

We have always had the 1%. They just have more of the nation's wealth at this time than they normally do.

They have a political Party that refuses to raise taxes for anything. They want to cut social programs that help the people so that the wealthy 1% can keep more and more of their wealth.

Can true Democrats vote taxcuts for the wealthy while, at the same time, they cut benefits for the poor and middle class? Would you call them Democrats or Republicans?

The working and middle class have fought for centuries to get more rewards from the capitalist system. There have been violent battles between the companies and unions. People have died in labor camps and locked manufacturing doors, in order to make just a little progress for the people. Now, we have politicians that are willy-nilly ready to surrender those hard-fought gains.

We also have middle-class voters that call themselves Democrats but they will fight like hell to keep George W Bush's taxcuts for themselves. They know we need the revenues if we are going to keep the programs alive that people have fought and died for but they insist on keeping that Republican tax cut. Are they Democrats or Republicans? Are the Democrats now the tax-cutting Party ready to throw everything overboard, including Social Security and Medicare?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Not in my book.

They are faux Democrats, really more in line with the GOP of old.

[kentuck]

2. From what I have read lately...

There are more than a few here on DU.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. A whole SHITLOAD of'em --

Kind makes me throw up in my mouth a little. :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. It depends on the size of the payoff the fatcats are willing to give them.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Mark Twain

More true now than ever.

[theballguy]

5. I sincerely do not want to take anyone's money...

I sincerely do not want to take anyone's money that was earned but we do have social programs (as well as some some non-social programs) that cannot be axed.

I am a middle-class person and would volunteer to have a little bit more of my income taxed to pay for these things. I make less than 100k/yr. If I'm willing to do that, why would someone who makes a good deal more not be willing to do that?

All of us in this country will need to use some form of a social program before we die. None of us ever came to do well entirely alone.

All of us at some time or another have had to stand on the shoulders of others to get where we are. Believe me, you do not become a multi-millionaire without squeezing someone.

If you can support tax cuts for the wealthy, then you are beholden to someone because you are afraid of losing your position and you are not doing your job which is to represent everyone's best interest. Shame on you. That is all.

[kentuck]

6. Workers need to understand...

That when they get short-changed on wages, by not being rewarded fairly for their labor, their money is being taken by the corporation or employer. This is taking money out of the pockets of the working and middle class, just as much as taxing the wealthy is taking money out of their pockets.

[theballguy]

7. Very good point....

Very good point. Money's a very subjective thing especially over time. We really are being robbed. And what's worse is that we've allowed it to happen. :-|

[dkf]

10. What is a fair reward for labor?

And how do people taking advantage of low labor costs in China argue their labor is so much more valuable?

[kentuck]

11. It's called exploitation...

and greed. It is only "fair" to share in the productivity. It is not fair for labor or management to take the lions share of the profits from the productivity, as the graph shows has been the case since about 1978.

[dkf]

15. Are you greedy if you buy something at a lower price than you would value your own labor at?

People can always choose to buy from the place that pays better. That generally means paying the higher cost.

[kentuck]

16. Production and consumption...

are apples and oranges. People buy what they can afford, usually, without thought of the labor that went into making the product. The product would not exist without the labor. I'm certain you have seen the old quote by Lincoln:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."
 Abraham Lincoln

[dkf]

17. With automation and efficiency, capital + energy has been replacing labor.

That is the trend. What happens then?

[kentuck]

18. And wages continue to shrink...

when they should be exploding with less workers and more production.

Eventually, the modern concept of work will be obsolete. At the present time, there is work to be done, infrastructure and otherwise. But we don't want to invest our capital in that pursuit. We would rather search the world for the cheapest labor so a very few can make all the money for themselves, with no thought of their fellow man or any responsibility for capitalists. They are exempt from responsibility.

[dkf]

19. Supply and demand sets prices.

A huge supply of excess labor plus capital investing in automation brings down wages.

In order to add value we need to have qualities that exceed a robot.

[kentuck]

20. Yes, supply and demand set prices...

But the profits are still produced by labor. The question is how much do they deserve? How much is fair? Naturally, you are not going to pay more in labor than you make in profits? So, eventually, we get down to the argument over the supply of labor and whether or not someone is willing to work for a nickel an hour? That still doesn't address the fairness issue.

[dkf]

22. If capital and labor are interchangeable, wouldn't the labor be priced by the cost of automation?

If you have a robot that costs $4.00/hour to run, why would a human's labor be worth $30/hour?

You might say that the labor that created the robot was worth a lot because he/she basically created the ability to do the labor of 30 people. but once they created the robot their job was done.

[kentuck]

26. Capital and labor interchangeable?

I don't know about that? But what about taxcuts vs social programs? Which of those are you partial to?

[dkf]

28. Sorry but I'm in favor of raising taxes by eliminating tax loopholes and dropping the bush tax cuts

And cutting social programs by instituting single payer which is technically less spending, and means testing social security.

I don't see the point in redistributing wealth upwards as we do when poor younger workers pay benefits to pretty darn comfy Warren Buffet types.

[kentuck]

27. Somebody has to run the machines...

It's true that they don't call in sick but sometimes they do break down.

Take, for example, call centers that take orders for products. These people operate computers that increase productivity several fold from just a decade or two ago. Should they not share in that productivity? True, it doesn't take as many people but they get more done. Should labor be based on supply and demand, like the products they make, or by another standard? Should none of this extra wealth go to labor? It would not exist without them.

[defendandprotect]

25. Agree -- but would just like to make a point re wealthy who profit by exploiting nature . . .

and natural resources ---

Without that ability, they would have no profit -- !


Nature, natural resources, animal life -- are all part of the common wealth and NOT

to be exploited for a buck!

Manifest Destiny and "Man's Dominion Over Nature have to go -- it's a religious license

for elites to steal --


We should have nationalized Oil and other natural resources decades ago --


There should also be no right to EXPLOIT labor -- humans -- and that's been going on

forever!


We need to overturn these few who are willing to be violent, to deceive, to steal elections

and to pay for it all and keep it covered up with the profits they make by destroying

nature and the planet!!


Whenever the wealthy want to suggest that taxing the rich is an attempt to "redstribute the

wealth" we should remind them where they wealth originates from -- and, in fact, we should

put a stop to it!!

[sabrina 1]

8. No ~

Isn't that generally accepted? Isn't that one of the reasons why we are Democrats?

[kentuck]

9. In the new big tent...

I guess not?

[FiveGoodMen]

12. ANYONE who does that is a piece of Satan's shit.

I don't really care if we want to call them Democrats or not.

[newfie11]

13. any one that does has lost my vote

Their no better than a repug

[Scuba]

14. No. Certainly not when the wealthy are doing this well. n/t

[louslobbs]

21. No, and anyone who puts earned benefits on the table for possible cuts cannot be a "real" Democrat

either. Anyone who takes corporate bribes (campaign donations) to put the corporate agenda and the agendas of the rich and powerful above the needs and will of the majority (the 99%), cannot be a "real" Democrat.

"Real" Democrats are supposed to govern for We the People, "real" Democrats do not take bribes from the corporations and the rich and then sell our their constituents in order to get additional bribes to continue their reigns of power in an ugly cycle of election rigging that benefits those at the top, while causing a continuous cycle of pain and suffering for the majority through draconian cuts to necessary earned benefits and social programs.

"Real" Democrats are supposed to govern for the majority of the people, they are not supposed to rule over, run over, and pull the wool over the eyes of the majority while doing the bidding of those who have purchased their honesty and integrity, those purchasers of our government, being the corporations, the rich and the powerful in this country and around the world.

Solidarity.......we are the 99%. You will know a "real" Democrat by his or her deeds and not by their empty words and promises. Listen to their words, but observe their actions in order to determine who is owned by the corporate and wealth laden minority, who have with the help of the Supreme Court, purchased majority ownership and rule of our supposed "Democratic" government.

Lou

[defendandprotect]

23. No -- and we should target them when they do these things -- !! ALL of them -- !!

[defendandprotect]

24. THIRD WAY which now controls the Dem Party says "base of the party is to be ignored" ... and that

"Populism and populist discussions and debates are the equivalent of Karl Rove

propaganda of extremism" -- !!!


Makes pretty clear that they think New Deal/Social Security is "extremism" -- !!

So -- good luck to us all re the Dem Party!!



Btw, this quote comes from Jonathan Cowan, Pres. Third Way who appeared on C-span

about two weeks ago to deliver that message to viewers and those who support the party!

[Enthusiast]

29. Real Democrats cannot

support taxcuts over social programs.

Only DINOs and Blue Dogs would do this.

[mmonk]

30. They can do whatever they want, but they are losing support by being Republicans.

And that's what they are. What is the use of twin parties in action? No use.