General Discussion

It's one of the major problems for me. I consider myself progressive in that FDR level change is required to fix what the incrementalists have more or less stood by and allowed to happen over the past 40 years (with many actively participating in it as they lined their pockets, those wily stock prognosticators).

You don't get to this level of economic decline for the working classes, the harm to unions and the erosion of social safety nets, without allowing it to happen to some degree. Look at California. Now, let's discuss reining in utilities like PG&E, dealing with the housing crisis, and stop cutting social services. Sacramento will laugh you out of the room. That's nice, peasant, but we're making deals over here.

We've seen the influence of corporations grow over the decades, and rather than fight that with every ounce of their being, they figured they'd co-opt them. But they didn't. The corporations co-opted them.

Oh, people still get improvements here and there, but it's truly crumbs in the scheme of things as the looting of the American treasury and the American people continues apace.

But, the two sides generally agree on some basic things. Social liberalism for the most part. The Supreme Court for the most part. It's economics where the division is most profound.

When the system is one step forward, two steps back, I just don't enjoy the "One Step Forward For Life!" people. And when you note it, it's "Oh, so you don't like a step forward? What are you, a regressive?!" It's tiresomely disingenuous. And you know who's usually pro-one step? People who are largely insulated from the next two.

But it's been blowing up in some faces the past ten years. Yes, it has.