Why can't Democrats come out against multiple wars and taxcuts for the wealthy?

[kentuck]

Are both issues political liabilities?

The Republicans would hammer them over the head as "weak on defense". It's better politically to cut social programs for the needy than to cut defense expenditures.

Also, unless they believe that taxcuts help to spur jobs and the economy, they appear to be afraid to call for increased taxes on the wealthy? The Republicans might call them big spending, high-taxing liberals? That would be the death knell for the next campaign, would it not?

Or perhaps they simply believe we need to spend $700 billion a year on defense, on the CIA black budget, on mercenaries, on Homeland Security, on new weaponry, to keep our country safe?

And perhaps they truly believe that taxcuts for the wealthy create jobs and is the best way to get our economy going? Never mind that it is the cornerstone of the conservative philosophy, maybe that is what the leaders of the Democratic Party now think?

What other reason could there be??

[upi402]

1. I have a theory!

Democrats do oppose those things - at least in degrees.

Republicans don't - in either party.

Also; The NSA is a big expense item often forgotten.

[eilen]

2. Who cares what Repubs say?

Most people (voters) are tired of the wars. They would rather there be more border protection than blowing our our kids and blowing borrowed fortunes.

[Beststash]

3. Dems seem to have

a problem with basing a platform on principle. They look in the mirror and see a deer in the headlights. Although Repubs never ever support working people, they stand united on their issues (for the most part) and they have convinced the American public that they have their best interests in mind. Just look at how many people vote against their own interests.

A casual observance of what occurred after the 2008 elections - Dems in charge in both houses of Congress and the Executive and you would have thought they were the minority party. Take a friggin' stand on something and quit apologizing for everything - act like you really believe it!! At the present moment I don't see much difference between either party - which does not bode well for a party of wusses.

Peace

[kenny blankenship]

4. Democrats need votes from traditionally Democratic constituencies to get elected

but they seek dollars from Republican constituencies (corps, wealthy individuals) to fund their campaigns. They can't come out and tell you that they will cut taxes for the wealthy. They can't come out and tell you that they are going to force you to tithe to private for profit insurance companies. They can't come out and tell you that they are going to fund every crazy ass weapons program on the drawing board. They can't come out and tell you that they are putting American workers in direct competition with the starving, rightless masses of China and Latin America for who can work at the cheapest wage. They can't come out and tell you that they will be chipping away at "entitlement" programs, and opening the door to private interests to raid these public functions for profits. Some of them are against all of this. But watch what they do as a party. They can't join Republicans in blaming Democratic constituencies for everything that goes wrong for America. There would be no one left to vote for them. But they also can't vocally agitate too loudly for policies that would alienate their managerial & owner class "Republican" donors that sustain the Democrats financially. Those traditionally Republican donors might get the wrong idea that Democrats actually meant what they said about making the rich pay their fair share and about opposing wars for empire.

[Truth2Tell]

5. The leadership of the Democratic Party

has shared the cornerstone beliefs of the conservative movement for about 20 years now. Nothing new happening here.

[Lasher]

7. I'm afraid you're right.

We need new leadership.

[RKP5637]

9. Exactly!!! n/t

[Lasher]

11. I thought that was what we were getting with Obama but I was sadly mistaken.

I will now be more cautious about who I get behind. We have six candidates running in the WV Democratic primary for Governor. I'm trying to figure out which one is least likely to be a neoliberal so that I can support that person.

[RKP5637]

15. Neoliberal fits exactly! I've been quite disappointed. I expected it from

the rest of the herd, but not Obama.

[RKP5637]

6. The democrats have no guts, pure and simple!!! And are bought and paid for by

interests other than "we the people." The majorities were squandered by the democrats. It could have been a defining period in our history, and standing up for "we the people." But no, it did not happen. Each step of the way we cave in on our principles if the wind is blowing the wrong way! And one reason I quit giving to the DNC. I'm tired of the charade. I will contribute to individuals. This is clearly not the democratic party I grew up with and believed in ...

[RevStPatrick]

8. They've got a gun pointed to their heads?

Here's why I believe President Obama has been behaving the way he has been behaving since elected:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7879805770464697597#

[FormerDittoHead]

10. Because you're having a meeting with a guy with a big check and he likes those things.

When they're not campaigning and have a TV camera on them, who do politicians talk to?

Rich people, or people who at least have a lot of money to give them.

I remember when Arnold was governor, he wouldn't even shake your hand if you hadn't given $10,000 to his campaign...

I'll even add this: where are the OTHER rich people? The rich people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who probably have a lot to lose if Net Neutrality isn't created and enforced.

Where are the people who own shore property (or property in NYC, I read this week) who are standing by while the Koch brothers are engineering global warming and the impending rise of sea levels which would threaten (the value of) their property?

Where are rich people who own the companies selling fish, only to see pollution make their products more scarce?

The list goes on but the answer is the same: our system is a WINNER-TAKE-ALL-AUCTION, and even though the SECOND highest bidder may still be a billionaire, whoever wins the high bid, GETS IT ALL.

[L0oniX]

12. Simple: Poor people don't contribute to political campaigns.

[xchrom]

13. Because they believe - at the top - in the principals

Of economic austerity.

And that's why you don't hear about cutting DoD and tax hikes on the rich.

[Honeycombe8]

14. The cuts extension was just passed. It remains for 2 years.

You know why it was passed.

As for the wars...which wars do you mean? Afghanistan, you mean? I think that's the only "war" we're in. There's a timeline for pulling out major combat troops, etc., etc. Obama discussed all this during his 2008 campaign.

[JoeyT]

16. It's not pragmatic.

You don't piss off the people that pay you or they cut off the money spigot.

[leftstreet]

17. They did. During the 2006 & 2008 campaigns. And they won!

Imagine that