home

The Democratic Wing Of The Democratic Party

Via Charles Lemos, when the Democratic Party stood for something other than "better than Bush," and when Democratic Presidents were not bystanders, impotent or irrelevant:

< The Village Bloggers | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Amen, Franklin (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

    In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all--regardless of station, race, or creed.

    Among these are:

    The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

    The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

    The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

    The right of every family to a decent home;

    The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

    The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

    The right to a good education.

    All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

    America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

    One of the great American industrialists of our day--a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop--if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's--then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.



    Noble goals all... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:28:53 AM EST
    but I cringe when things like a good job and a proper home for all are called rights...they're not, they're just good ideas.

    Parent
    So, where should the homeless go? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:28:01 AM EST
    Tent cities are constantly on the move. People don't like to see them in their neighborhoods. It bothers them that these lazy, good for nothings won't look for work and they're scared to walk past them in case they ask for a quarter.

    The right to a place to live doesn't seem like nothing more than a good idea, kdog.


    Parent

    The homeless should go... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:58:26 PM EST
    wherever their heart desires...build a dwelling in some open space...thats an inalienable right, to house yourself.  There is no right to be provided with housing by others....though that too might be a good charitable idea.  

    Parent
    So children should just go and house themselves? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:02:42 PM EST
    What about people that don't have the capability any longer? Are you saying that society has no obligation to anyone because that sounds like the argument your making? The whole entire point of government is based on the premise we do have obligations to ourselves and each other.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    but the solutions we've tried have largely increased the problems- Public Housing turned into a debacle that led to the death of hundreds if not thousands of African-American young men.

    Parent
    just because (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:16:17 PM EST
    they were done wrong doesn't mean they can't be done right.

    There is some indication that it is much better to mix in "public housing" with the rest of society rather than lump them all together to create projects.  Of course no one wants that because it brings down property values and brings in the "wrong" people.  But people do much better when they are able to mix with the rest of society.  Bloomberg has actually been doing this a lot in NY.  

    Think about it in terms of networking opportunities and what you come to expect as a standard of living.  If all you know is poor people, and all you see is poor people, what makes a kid growing up think they will ever be anything but poor?

    Parent

    Oh no doubt (none / 0) (#36)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:04:13 PM EST
    the Bloomberg way should have been pretty obviously superior- I mean-- how on Earth did anyone think constructing Ghetto's and I say that with all the entymological history included, was a good idea?

    Parent
    Some would say (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:38:33 AM EST
    The same thing about health care - there is no right to it. (They're usually called Republicans who think that).


    Parent
    I happen to agree... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    there is no right to healthcare...just a good idea to make it available and affordable to all.

    If your "right" depends on the labor of another, it is no right at all.

    Parent

    Ahh.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    What about people who don't want their neighbors to smoke pot in the backyard?  Or sell drugs out of the house? Wouldn't you say they are infringing on their neighbors' rights, which means the drug users don't have a right?

    Parent
    Reading it again - that didn't make sense (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:03:38 PM EST
    My point was...what about people who use drugs in and around their home.  It affects the neighbors, so wouldn't you say people who use drugs in and outside their home don't really have any rights?

    Parent
    Still don't follow.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:10:36 PM EST
    Because I use dope in and around my house I can't live there?

    I'm baffled as to how me smoking a doobie on my couch or my porch affects the neighbors enough to justify denying my inalienable right to smoke that doobie.

    Parent

    On your porch (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:23:49 PM EST
    Can influence kids, could have nasty smoke blowing into the neighbors' yards.  If you had lots of parties or people hanging out there who chose to do that kind of stuff all the time, or if you and your friends were into harder stuff it could actually affect property values.

    Now you're going to argue that other stuff people do could also do that too, but I'm just saying your personal drug use isn't as black and white as you would like it to be. It actually CAN affect your neighbors, so according to your theory, if it involves someone else, then it isn't a right.  Goes along with the old saying, "Your rights only extend to the end of your nose."  Right? (no pun intended)

    Parent

    jb (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    You are taking the long way to a short saying: "A libertarian is a Republican who owns a bong."

    No offense, kdog--sometimes the lame jokes just dig themselves up.

    Parent

    But I'm a former Dem... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:39:40 PM EST
    who got turned onto libertarianism because of my affinity for the bong Spamlet:)

    Parent
    No no no... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38:44 PM EST
    I said if it requires the labor of another it cannot be called a right.  Of course many things that are rights can affect others, such as breathing if you suffer from halitosis...the rub there is the action has to have enough of a detrimental affect on another to be denied as a right...drug use alone does not rate as enough of a detrimental affect on others, imo.

    Parent
    Besides.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    my charcoal bbq has more negative affect on neighborsair quality than my spliff...my cigs too.  I hope you aren't proposing denying my inalienable right to cook meat over hot coals in my yard in the summer jb:)

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:44:02 PM EST
    Unless I'm not invited.  :)

    Parent
    You're in like Flynn kid... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    though your law-n-order arse might be subject to a pat down to check for a wire:)

    Parent
    I'll survive (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    I'm a rule follower, remember?  Gotta follow the house rules, and all...

    Parent
    So the infirm have no rights to housing? (none / 0) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    or the elderly or children for that matter? There is alot flawed with your logic, at least if you actually believe that being civilized requires certain obligations.

    Parent
    I didn't create this cruel world cawaltz... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    Unfortunately no...the sick, the old, the children don't have a right to a home either...though I do wholeheartedly believe that the only moral and humane thing for a civilized society to do is to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves...the sick, the old, the children.

    But no such right exists...if it did we'd all be born with a house.

    Parent

    Put it this way... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    I have a right to speech because I have a voice.

    If I have a right to a house, where is it?  If I have a right to healthcare, where is my personal doctor willing to work for free?

    Parent

    Do you have a right to a right (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    where is it, bro?

    Parent
    What do you do (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    or have you done, that dosnt require the labor of another at some time, on some level?

    Parent
    Of course... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    I do very little without the help and labor of others...but I do not demand their labor as my right.

    Parent
    The fact of interdependence (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    enters in here somewhere.

    Maybe love is the answer. Too bad you cant legislate it.

    Parent

    I hear that... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    some questions/problems have no legislative answers, and we certainly can't just declare rights and wake up the next day in Utopia...by the grace of god we go or something like that, and hopefully we find more love and respect than hate and oppression along the way...no guarantees.

    Parent
    It rests... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    in my ability to defend it...the only rights that truly exist are the ones we can defend.

    Parent
    So using your logic (none / 0) (#31)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    I have the right to hit you with a mallet over the head if I don't like what you say because I essentially have that capability. I don't buy that capability essentially equals a right. Furthermore, I'd argue that society is more inclined to agree with my ascertian that health care is a right. That's why in an emergant situation they treat you rather than let you die until they find out if you have the means to pay for services.

    I guess you aren't for the second amendment since God didn't send us into the world with a gun either.

    Parent

    Capability alone no.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:08:02 PM EST
    your right to swing that mallet ends at my dome, unless its in self defense. But capability is a requirement of a natural right, sure.

    As for the 2nd, the creator didn't send us here with a gun, but she did send us here with the mental capacity to invent the gun, to build a gun...same thing really.  I realize this means we have the natural right to build cruise missiles and nukes if we have the know-how...which sucks, but it's true:)

    I've discussed this before and its a semantic argument, yet an interesting one.  We're in agreement that healthcare should be available and affordable to all in any so-called civilized society...and provided gratis if necessary to the poor, the old, the kids. The best way to do it I have no idea...pick your crook as long as we still treat all comers at the ER.

    Parent

    She/He also sent us (none / 0) (#41)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:51:41 PM EST
    here with the ability to construct houses.

    I don't understand how someone could say there was a right to keep and bear arms because the Creator endowed us with the ability to invent and build a gun and not have that same premise apply to a house.

    Oh I realize we are in agreement as far as the actual issue. I just find the idea of picking the brain of a libretarian rather fascinating. I have small streak of it myself. I don't believe the government belongs in legislating stuff like who you can marry or whether or not you should be forced to take on the responsibility and risk a pregnancy entails. I hate the Patriot Act and think FISA is creepy. I definitely can understand the idea of keeping government less invasive. Where I start to break with libretarians is on taxes. Along with believing in social responsibility I also believe we are morally obligated to pay for those programs(yep even a little fiscal conservative in me).

    Parent

    In that sense... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:53:58 AM EST
    you do have a right to build yourself a home, to make a home in an unoccupied cave...absolutely, thats a natural inalienable right.  The right to be provided with a home by others does not exist. Just as there is no right to be armed by others.

    The right to be provided with a also doctor does not exist...but you do have the right to treat yourself, to attempt to heal yourself if you have the know-how.  That's why I think the prescription-only drug laws violate inalienable rights and are tyrannical.

    I think the "rights" argument for healthcare does more harm than good because it is so easily disputed and discredited...the better way to go is "good idea" or "moral responsibility to the less fortunate"....harder to argue with that.

    Parent

    The illusion of the right... (none / 0) (#43)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:31:08 AM EST
    ...to have a house played a big part in the housing bubble and subsequent collapse.  People chased that "American dream", even when it meant living beyond their means.  

    Parent
    Good point... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    "McMansion by birthright" nearly brought the house down...or at least the all the bankers summer houses in the Hamptons down, depending on what you believe:)

    Also, housing projects and the poverty cycle they help enable is far from a succesful example of making housing a right.

    Parent

    Clarity (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:49:22 AM EST
    Will Obama or any other Democrat ever speak that clearly again?  

    Short answer (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    No.  That's called "standing for something besides your own personality."

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    FDR was both a brilliant politician and an extremely lucky man-- Other than LBJ after JFK's death no Dem has had the kind of opportunity FDR had- the chaos and despair of the Depression lowered the normal barriers, barriers which are now supplemented by an overarching power of the Health Insurance industry- quite frankly we're going to need someone with the politics of LBJ/Carter and the political savvy of Bill Clinton or Obama combined with a national healthcare tragedy ala a massive Influenza outbreak without a catalyzing event I honestly don't think truly systematic change is possible-- the best we can hope for is nibbling at the margins (my only personal hope for this bill is that the ban on recission and refusal of pre-existing conditions screws the insurance industry so badly (due to them no longer being able to manage adverse selection) that they insist on a public option-- a similar market failure aided the passage of Medicare- the failure of Golden 65 and other plans to turn a profit.

    Parent
    Much more community solidarity (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:34:39 PM EST
    back then. Oraganized labor was MUCH stronger and more influential. And there was a REAL Left -- not this watered down two-degrees-from-the-center, outsourcing, Wall St beholden mockery. And also a lingering rural populist movement that had nothing to with teabaggers parroting talk radio soud-bites.

    Different times.

    Parent

    damn (none / 0) (#35)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:43:25 PM EST
    If only all we needed was a "transformational" president with democratic super-majority elected with a mandate and huge public goodwill.

    Parent
    You forgot the (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    "catastrophic event" something that convinces people that the dangers of complicity are worse than their fears of change- a 9/11, a Great Depression (this recession was far shorter in duration and shallower in bottom than this one).  

    Parent
    Whoa (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    You think it is over I see.

    Parent
    I think we may have a jobless (none / 0) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:44:51 PM EST
    recovery or a lost decade like Japan, I think the bailout as odious as it was may have prevented the systematic collapse that I feared.

    Parent