• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What and Who is the Progressive Caucus

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6497


Radical caucus of more than 50 members of the House of Representatives
Until 1999, worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America



The Progressive Caucus is an organization of Members of Congress founded in 1991 by newly-elected Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), the former socialist mayor of Burlington and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which describes itself as "the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International."

The Progressive Caucus today includes Sanders and more than 60 other members of the House of Representatives, all of them leftist Democrats and almost all in districts heavily gerrymandered to guarantee the re-election of any Democratic Party incumbent, no matter how extreme.

On November 11, 1999, the Progressive Caucus drafted its Position Paper on economic inequality. It reads, in part, as follows: "Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America's economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities. … The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our social and cultural fabric."

In order "to bring new life to the progressive voice in U.S. politics," the Progressive Caucus has worked closely with Progressive Challenge, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Progressive Challenge is a coalition through which the activities and talking points of leftist groups are synchronized and harmonized with one another, producing coordinated, mutually-reinforcing propaganda from some 200 seemingly-unconnected groups.

The Progressive Caucus recently crafted its "Progressive Promise" document, which advocates socialized medicine; radical environmentalism; the redistribution of wealth; the elimination of numerous provisions of the Patriot Act; dramatic reductions in the government's intelligence-gathering capabilities, debt relief for poor countries; and the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. These measures, says the Progressive Caucus, would help "re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations."

Until 1999 the Progressive Caucus worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America. After the press reported on this link, the connections suddenly vanished from both organizations' websites.

As of June 2006, the following Members of Congress belonged to the Progressive Caucus: Neil Abercrombie; Tammy Baldwin; Xavier Becerra; Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Corrine Brown; Sherrod Brown; Michael Capuano; Julia Carson; Donna Christensen; William "Lacy" Clay; Emanuel Cleaver; John Conyers; Elijah Cummings; Danny Davis; Peter DeFazio; Rosa DeLauro; Lane Evans; Sam Farr; Chaka Fattah; Bob Filner; Barney Frank; Raul Grijalva; Luis Gutierrez; Maurice Hinchey; Jesse Jackson, Jr.; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Marcy Kaptur; Carolyn Kilpatrick; Dennis Kucinich; Tom Lantos; Barbara Lee; John Lewis; Ed Markey; Jim McDermott; James P. McGovern; Cynthia McKinney; George Miller; Gwen Moore; Jerrold Nadler; Eleanor Holmes Norton; John Olver; Major Owens; Ed Pastor; Donald Payne; Nancy Pelosi; Charles Rangel; Bobby Rush; Bernie Sanders; Jan Schakowsky; Jose Serrano; Louise Slaughter; Hilda Solis; Pete Stark; Bennie Thompson; John Tierney; Tom Udall; Nydia Velazquez; Maxine Waters; Diane Watson; Mel Watt; Henry Waxman; and Lynn Woolsey.

See also: Eni Faleomavaega, a former Progressive Caucus member.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
"Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America's economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities. … The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our social and cultural fabric."

Cal, what is wrong with any of this? Is this a "socialist" agenda in your view and just exactly what does that mean?

If you can't see that this is happening in our country right now, you are blind.

Its one of the reasons China has invested so heavily in the U.S.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
From the first part of Wikpedia:

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

Property and the distribution of wealth are already controlled by the laws of the land, when they are enforced. There are minimum wage laws, required taxes on earned income as a wage earner, income taxes, property taxes, SS taxes, Medicaid, etc. There are also pension fund laws that regulate the promises capital has made to labor which have, as of late, been loopholed and abused by the airline industry in its restructuring, and the taxpayers have had to pick up the shortfalls. If this is not corrected, we will have a raid on public funds to ensure the promises are kept (although they will be only partially fulfilled while investors walk away with millions and billions).
 

Cal

Well-known member
You're joking...right?

The Progressive Caucus recently crafted its "Progressive Promise" document, which advocates socialized medicine; radical environmentalism; the redistribution of wealth; the elimination of numerous provisions of the Patriot Act; dramatic reductions in the government's intelligence-gathering capabilities, debt relief for poor countries; and the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. These measures, says the Progressive Caucus, would help "re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations."
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Cal said:
You're joking...right?

The Progressive Caucus recently crafted its "Progressive Promise" document, which advocates socialized medicine; radical environmentalism; the redistribution of wealth; the elimination of numerous provisions of the Patriot Act; dramatic reductions in the government's intelligence-gathering capabilities, debt relief for poor countries; and the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. These measures, says the Progressive Caucus, would help "re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations."

We already have socialized medicine, you just don't recognize it, radical environmentalism is something we could all do without, redistribution of wealth is already happening, some of the provisions of the Patriot Act will later be seen as an overstepping of power and its subsequent abuse, our govt. can't be helped with its current intelligence-gathering capabilities, there is already debt relief for poor countries and this includes ones where the dictators take a majority of it, we will have a quicker withdrawel in Iraq because the war is over, it is now policing, which we are not willing or capable to provide for another nation unless they are willing.

Pick a part to argue about cal.

I just went to a Christian conference with Ollie North, am a right wing conservative, and wish our leaders in the republican party were too. Lets argue about what is really happening, not a dream world.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I just went to a Christian conference with Ollie North, am a right wing conservative, and wish our leaders in the republican party were too. Lets argue about what is really happening, not a dream world.

Being an Independent that usually votes about 90% Republican I have to agree with you- the Republican Party has lost its sense of direction- it has forgot its promise of listening to the people and following the wishes of the people- ex. Mexican border security, immigration, no-amnesty, mandatory ID's, killing M-COOL, balanced budgets, ethics, etc., etc. .... :(
 

Cal

Well-known member
We already have socialized medicine, you just don't recognize it, radical environmentalism is something we could all do without, redistribution of wealth is already happening, some of the provisions of the Patriot Act will later be seen as an overstepping of power and its subsequent abuse, our govt. can't be helped with its current intelligence-gathering capabilities, there is already debt relief for poor countries and this includes ones where the dictators take a majority of it, we will have a quicker withdrawel in Iraq because the war is over, it is now policing, which we are not willing or capable to provide for another nation unless they are willing.

Pick a part to argue about cal.

I just went to a Christian conference with Ollie North, am a right wing conservative, and wish our leaders in the republican party were too. Lets argue about what is really happening, not a dream world.
Then what the hell are we doing paying premiums on health care and getting these bills in the mail? I don't want the government involved in healthcare at the levels in which they are? Dems will make it worse.

Who sides with the radical environmentalists in general and vice-versa? Is it the GOP?

Which side do you think is going to increase redistribution of wealth more?
We're not going to the extemes of estate planning because of Republican policies. Those would put alot of accountants and lawyers out of a job.

Which side was against the Patriot Act? Who saw terrorism as a law enforcement issue? You want to withdraw from Iraq, wonderful, an oil rich nation in the hands of al-Qaeda...not a problem evidentually.

So fill us in, as a Conservative Republican, are you going to vote the same as Ollie North, or not?

I wish the Repubs were a whole lot more conservative and tougher on whole, but the alternative, for the most part, really makes me ill.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Cal said:
We already have socialized medicine, you just don't recognize it, radical environmentalism is something we could all do without, redistribution of wealth is already happening, some of the provisions of the Patriot Act will later be seen as an overstepping of power and its subsequent abuse, our govt. can't be helped with its current intelligence-gathering capabilities, there is already debt relief for poor countries and this includes ones where the dictators take a majority of it, we will have a quicker withdrawel in Iraq because the war is over, it is now policing, which we are not willing or capable to provide for another nation unless they are willing.

Pick a part to argue about cal.

I just went to a Christian conference with Ollie North, am a right wing conservative, and wish our leaders in the republican party were too. Lets argue about what is really happening, not a dream world.
Then what the hell are we doing paying premiums on health care and getting these bills in the mail? I don't want the government involved in healthcare at the levels in which they are? Dems will make it worse.

CAL: Who sides with the radical environmentalists in general and vice-versa? Is it the GOP?

Econ: Be specific, here Cal, are you talking salmon on the Columbia river or what?

CAL: Which side do you think is going to increase redistribution of wealth more?
We're not going to the extemes of estate planning because of Republican policies. Those would put alot of accountants and lawyers out of a job.

Econ: "We" are not going to extremes on anything. A 5 million dollar exemption and a value basis of real estate for producers based on the income approach would work fine for all but the wealthiest. The wealthiest are making their money IN THE U.S. and giving up citizenship to escape taxes with overseas accounts. Do we need to go into depth?

CAL: Which side was against the Patriot Act? Who saw terrorism as a law enforcement issue? You want to withdraw from Iraq, wonderful, an oil rich nation in the hands of al-Qaeda...not a problem evidentually.

Econ: The Patriot Act was a hastily crafted act that has given up a lot of protections to good american citizens. Many of those provisions are overreaching giving liberty away for security unnecessarily. I agreed with the Iraq War, its aftermath was JUST BUNGLED!!!

CAL: So fill us in, as a Conservative Republican, are you going to vote the same as Ollie North, or not?

Econ: I will vote my conscience, not party after what I have just witnessed. A CROOK disguised as a republican is still a CROOK. When I see them, or smell them, they don't get my vote just because of party affiliation. Would you vote for Foley? Ollie North nor anyone else tells me who to vote for. I respect him, but he is not burdened with the conscience of my vote in our democracy.

CAL: I wish the Repubs were a whole lot more conservative and tougher on whole, but the alternative, for the most part, really makes me ill.

Econ: What makes me ill is the fact that republicans have all the control and screwed up with it. They had both houses of Congress, the presidency, and the 11th circuit among others. They have totally caved into their self interests as politicians instead of watching out for the interests of the country.

We are a nation of corporations now instead of a nation of laws.

"Corporatism should be more accurately defined as fascism as it is the merging of corporate and state power"---Benito Mussolini (you know, the fascist dictator of Italy during WW!!).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I guess there is one question I would like to ask every politician in D.C.- Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal--Administrative and Legislative-- and that is how they plan to pay for this $8.3 trillion dollar debt that grows daily :???: I know most of them say it has been necessary for national security ( which I don't buy after seeing the misspendings of Katrina aid and my local Senator slipping in a multi million $ funding grant to build a school on the richest reservation in the nation, which is not even in his state :roll: ) -- but if it truly is necessary and you've taken the responsibility to determine that, then you also have to take the responsibility to find a way to pay for it...

I know Republicans are the party that claims to be anti taxation- and GW probably doesn't want to fall into his dads downfall with his "read my lips, no new taxes"-- but how long can Dems and Repubs both stand there and say "CHARGE IT"....Its mine, and my kids, and my grandkids charge account its being charged to :( :mad: .......
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Sorry Cal, I didn't paste this one in:

Then what the hell are we doing paying premiums on health care and getting these bills in the mail? I don't want the government involved in healthcare at the levels in which they are? Dems will make it worse.

Your health care premiums also help pay for all those that do not pay. Why do you think they are so high?

OT is right, the current politicians have decided to put it on the charge card and let the next guy pay for it or finance it.

I would like to see NO PAY RAISES FOR CONGRESS if there is ANY deficit.

NONE!!!

The percentage of pay decrease should be the percent of the deficit is of the total budget!!!!! Stop allowing them to charge it.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Sorry Cal, I didn't paste this one in:

Then what the hell are we doing paying premiums on health care and getting these bills in the mail? I don't want the government involved in healthcare at the levels in which they are? Dems will make it worse.

Your health care premiums also help pay for all those that do not pay. Why do you think they are so high?

OT is right, the current politicians have decided to put it on the charge card and let the next guy pay for it or finance it.

I would like to see NO PAY RAISES FOR CONGRESS if there is ANY deficit.

NONE!!!

The percentage of pay decrease should be the percent of the deficit is of the total budget!!!!! Stop allowing them to charge it.
My family has health insurance, we pick our doctors, we pay for our own perscriptions... like every other business but unfortunately to a higher degree, we have to cover the bad debts. I would consider Indian Health Service to be truly socialized medicine, and to that structure of government provided health care I say no thank you very much.

The biggest financial burden that the government will face in coming years is social security. I would very much like to help the government by opting out of the whole program, as would millions of others, but this is a Democrat sacred cow that is forced upon us. The Dems and their allies have fought hard to take that choice away.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Cal, it doesn't help that the govt. borrows the SS surplus and doesn't count that against the deficit.

The risks of an event is why you get insurance. When some people don't pay, you pay for them with your premium. Most doctors I know do quite well, and yes they work hard and deserve it. My point is that they are making their pay off of your and my health insurance, even with the people who don't pay. Our health system could be a lot better off with a little tweaking and getting rid of some insurance company scamsters.

Farm Burea should have their name taken away from them.
 

Cal

Well-known member
CAL: Who sides with the radical environmentalists in general and vice-versa? Is it the GOP?

Econ: Be specific, here Cal, are you talking salmon on the Columbia river or what?

I'm talking Spotted Owl, global warming, nuts against logging, whackos against mining, drilling in Anwar, building new refineries. An expanding economy isn't going to conserve enough to solve supply problems, counter to what's been the Dem message.

CAL: Which side do you think is going to increase redistribution of wealth more?
We're not going to the extemes of estate planning because of Republican policies. Those would put alot of accountants and lawyers out of a job.

Econ: "We" are not going to extremes on anything. A 5 million dollar exemption and a value basis of real estate for producers based on the income approach would work fine for all but the wealthiest. The wealthiest are making their money IN THE U.S. and giving up citizenship to escape taxes with overseas accounts. Do we need to go into depth?
You're wrong. The current exemptions are not adequate for our operation, and we are certainly not among the "wealthiest". I can pretty much guarantee you that there are others on this board with the same dilemna, and scores of producers and businesses just in agriculture that, of course, are never on here. We've worked with professional estate planners for years, you've just plain got it wrong.


CAL: Which side was against the Patriot Act? Who saw terrorism as a law enforcement issue? You want to withdraw from Iraq, wonderful, an oil rich nation in the hands of al-Qaeda...not a problem evidentually.

Econ: The Patriot Act was a hastily crafted act that has given up a lot of protections to good american citizens. Many of those provisions are overreaching giving liberty away for security unnecessarily. I agreed with the Iraq War, its aftermath was JUST BUNGLED!!!
Unless you're a terrorist, and contacting as well as funneling money to terrorist organizations, the government doesn't care about your private conversations. It's a useful tool, and suspicious phone numbers are detected by computor...no big deal.

CAL: So fill us in, as a Conservative Republican, are you going to vote the same as Ollie North, or not?

Econ: I will vote my conscience, not party after what I have just witnessed. A CROOK disguised as a republican is still a CROOK. When I see them, or smell them, they don't get my vote just because of party affiliation. Would you vote for Foley? Ollie North nor anyone else tells me who to vote for. I respect him, but he is not burdened with the conscience of my vote in our democracy.

Foley was booted out on his ass, most Democrat perverts are coddled and protected. You're the one who brought up Ollie North, and yeah, I'll vote with Ollie every time.

CAL: I wish the Repubs were a whole lot more conservative and tougher on whole, but the alternative, for the most part, really makes me ill.

Econ: What makes me ill is the fact that republicans have all the control and screwed up with it. They had both houses of Congress, the presidency, and the 11th circuit among others. They have totally caved into their self interests as politicians instead of watching out for the interests of the country.
They had no supermajority. The notion that legislation could be easily passed by some sort of a united front without regard to the Democrat opposition doesn't hold water.
 

Latest posts

Top