Jump to content
zkyllonen8

Democrats Should Talk about this More.

Recommended Posts

Out of all the issues I feel the most strongly about Campaign Finance and Corporate Donations. 

 

I think the eventual Democratic Nominee needs to take a Strong stance on this issue. 

 

For long enough our politics have been ran by one thing:  Money. 

 

We need someone that will pledge to not take Corporate PAC money and not get huge individual donors. 

 

We need someone that will fight for us the people. Not like the past where presidents and members of congress only fight and represent the corporations and top 1%. 

 

I want to hear LO forum's opinions about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 40 years of corporate bribes buying increasing legalization of political payoffs;  And ultimately the advent of Citizen's United, no candidate can survive, in office, without taking contributions from Big Business and the Ultra Rich.  And no elected politician in Washington can ignore predatory lobbyists who represent wealthy interests. 

 

With each large contribution comes a demand for special consideration, often in the form of custom tailored legislation.  If a politician takes the money, or insider information and does not respond to the overt or implied obligation to its donor, the flow of money will almost certainly dry up.

 

I am in favor a type of Campaign Finance Reform, capping the amount any individual or group can donate to a campaign during a given time period.  The cap should be low enough that ordinary people could, conceivably afford it.  Perhaps in the area of $100?  The rest of campaign funds should be from taxpayer dollars and be applied equally to all candidates.  To help facilitate this, campaigns should be of limited duration.  For instance, Australia's campaign season is a sprint, lasting only 38 days.  Compare that to some of the ultra-marathon campaigns here in the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/world/australia/election-campaign-finance-scott-morrison.html  

 

The second part of Campaign Finance Reform would limit the access lobbyists or lobbying firms have to senators and congressmen, to no more than that of any ordinary person.  To help accomplish this, laws will need to be changed preventing either direct or indirect donations capped at some paltry amount ....  Or prohibit donations, by lobbyists or lobbying firms, altogether.  Today, the halls of Congress are awash with well-connected lobbyists who can arrange for  all kinds of money or insider information, to which a normal person has no access.

 

Many ordinary Americans, feel disenfranchised by the power of the Plutocracy.  Even if they don't regularly follow the news, most Americans are more or less aware of current Washington corruption.  Frequently discouraged by the futility of their votes, in the face of Big Money, almost half of eligible voters never cast a ballot.

 

Today, the power of money in politics has gone a long way to nullify the votes of the electorate.  The repeal of Citizen's United and Corporate Personhood, plus government financing of elections would be a good start fo returning power to American voters.  The electoral process itself, would determine which candidates are qualified to receive funds.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 10:12 AM, bludog said:

We have got to get corporate money out of politics.  In order to fix these problems, we need Campaign Finance Reform and Lobby Reform which prevents corporations and super wealthy individuals from legally bribing legislators.  We need to reverse Citizens United and end Corporate Personhood in the 14th amendment.  And then we need to regulate corporations.

 

We need corporations.  They provide the accoutrements, technology and sustenance needed to preserve civilization.  But corporations are not people and money is not free speech.  And in the name of profits-above-all, corporations are capable of heedless abuse of people and the environment.   Regulation is key to minimize the negative and maximize the positive of which corporations are capable.  But corporations can never be regulated while they can still bribe legislators and dominate elections.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

After 40 years of corporate bribes buying increasing legalization of political payoffs;  And ultimately the advent of Citizen's United, no candidate can survive, in office, without taking contributions from Big Business and the Ultra Rich.  And no elected politician in Washington can ignore predatory lobbyists who represent wealthy interests. 

 

With each large contribution comes a demand for special consideration, often in the form of custom tailored legislation.  If a politician takes the money, or insider information and does not respond to the overt or implied obligation to its donor, the flow of money will almost certainly dry up.

 

I am in favor a type of Campaign Finance Reform, capping the amount any individual or group can donate to a campaign during a given time period.  The cap should be low enough that ordinary people could, conceivably afford it.  Perhaps in the area of $100?  The rest of campaign funds should be from taxpayer dollars and be applied equally to all candidates.  To help facilitate this, campaigns should be of limited duration.  For instance, Australia's campaign season is a sprint, lasting only 38 days.  Compare that to some of the ultra-marathon campaigns here in the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/world/australia/election-campaign-finance-scott-morrison.html  

 

The second part of Campaign Finance Reform would limit the access lobbyists or lobbying firms have to senators and congressmen, to no more than that of any ordinary person.  To help accomplish this, laws will need to be changed preventing either direct or indirect donations capped at some paltry amount ....  Or prohibit donations, by lobbyists or lobbying firms, altogether.  Today, the halls of Congress are awash with well-connected lobbyists who can arrange for  all kinds of money or insider information, to which a normal person has no access.

 

Many ordinary Americans, feel disenfranchised by the power of the Plutocracy.  Even if they don't regularly follow the news, most Americans are more or less aware of current Washington corruption.  Frequently discouraged by the futility of their votes, in the face of Big Money, almost half of eligible voters never cast a ballot.

 

Today, the power of money in politics has gone a long way to nullify the votes of the electorate.  The repeal of Citizen's United and Corporate Personhood, plus government financing of elections would be a good start fo returning power to American voters.  The electoral process itself, would determine which candidates are qualified to receive funds.

 

 

 

+1 

13 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

 

I agree so much we need to get corporate money out of politics just overall. 

 

We need a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money being donated and the all of the loopholes current corporations and high earners use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the $100 cap on political donations because it really makes the candidate more in touch with the voters, apparently raising money for campaigns seems to be a big part of Congress members agenda once in office versus doing the people's work. Citizens United is going to be a tough uphill battle to get rid of but it will be a big victory for representative politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think campaign finance reform has been an incredible failure in the past. The US has a deplorable infrastructure regarding transportation. I think it takes big time investment and a large commitment of experienced Engineers to provide what other countries less rich than the US, currently do have.

 

If you've been to Europe, it's dense regarding older foundations, and mass transit is vital. Same thing in Asia where urban growth is exaggerated in time. The major decision had to be in the building of an efficient mass transit in the midst of all living space where buildings grow high.

 

Here in the US, not so much. We are transitory with open wide territories. But even so, we lack the decision making and will to make mass transit work in a way that is meaningful. 

Then, regarding infrastructure for the deployment of electronic energy grids, we are too centralized, and far too inefficient wasting most of the energy resources we put into the system

which of course means we contribute far too much carbon which is not good since it gets trapped in the Earths atmosphere and causes the green house effect. 

 

We don't think. We just don't bother with the important stuff. 

 

And sure, a lot of that has to do with greed. A lot of our democracy is actually corporately controlled. And the Corporations as of late focus solely on increasing shareholder wealth, 

and I'm sure, a big project for any big corporation is to control at least part of the legislation that goes on in the US. Simply put.

 

Our trade agreement, our intellectual property, that's how they sell it. Even though, those are not the not the average person's intellectual properties. The average person doesn't get

any residuals from GE, or Microsoft.

 The average US worker didn't have anything to do with the tragedy in Bhopal, caused by the corporate entity Union Carbide - though the US taxpayer might have had a hand in covering the whole thing up.

 

Peace!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

I think campaign finance reform has been an incredible failure in the past.

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

https://www.history.com/news/election-101-a-brief-history-of-american-campaign-finance-reform-in-7-acts

Campaign finance reform can be very effective if done right, as the The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 shows.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is so important that it derails most campaign finance reform.

 

Freedom of association, via the first amendment right to assemble, guarantees that PACs can exist and spend money.

 

I think the best we can do is to pass laws that make any political donations public information, easily accessible via the internet, organized by doner, by beneficiary, and by intermediary (like e.g. PAC).

 

I would certainly like to see the idea that corporations are people should defeated. If so, they'll easily get around it by funding PACs or some other way. One way or another, there United States is ruled by money. Which country isn't, when you dig deep enough?

 

What is needed is to convince the people with money that the greatest good for the people in the country is in their best interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, laripu said:

Freedom of speech is so important that it derails most campaign finance reform.

 

Freedom of association, via the first amendment right to assemble, guarantees that PACs can exist and spend money.

 

I think the best we can do is to pass laws that make any political donations public information, easily accessible via the internet, organized by doner, by beneficiary, and by intermediary (like e.g. PAC).

 

I would certainly like to see the idea that corporations are people should defeated. If so, they'll easily get around it by funding PACs or some other way. One way or another, there United States is ruled by money. Which country isn't, when you dig deep enough?

 

What is needed is to convince the people with money that the greatest good for the people in the country is in their best interest.

 

But the problem is that your not going be able to do that. 

 

Rich People only care about  there money in most circumstances. 

 

It is in Human Nature that we serve our Self-Interest first. 

 

We need true Campaign Finance Reform, as seen with the Bernie campaigns in 2016 and 2020, you do not need big donors and corporations on your side to be able to get support within the United States. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, laripu said:

Freedom of speech is so important that it derails most campaign finance reform.

 

Freedom of association, via the first amendment right to assemble, guarantees that PACs can exist and spend money.

 

I think the best we can do is to pass laws that make any political donations public information, easily accessible via the internet, organized by doner, by beneficiary, and by intermediary (like e.g. PAC).

 

Why is it that so many Liberals narrowly interpret the Constitution to the detriment of their own cause?  And Conservatives have had no trouble twisting the meaning of the Constitution beyond recognition and then yelling about what's constitutional and what's not?  Many parts of the Constitution were deliberately written, in an ambiguous way, in order to enable a broad interpretation.  But Conservatives have gone way beyond that. 

 

Money is not the same as Free Speech, in my book.  This SCOTUS interpretation of the First Amendment is proof that given enough motivation, any part of the Constitution that offers a little wiggle room, can be perverted to some completely alien intent from what the Framers envisaged.

 

The low influence of money-in-government, seen in the worlds nations practicing the Nordic model is indisputable proof that Campaign Finance Reform and Lobbying Reform can work.

520px-Corruption_Perception_index_2018.s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

 

If money ruled government in the dark blue nations, their social safety nets would disintegrate.  Instead, these nations are the most egalitarian on Earth.  Most of the dark blue nations have histories of barbarism and absolute rule, where money and power reigned supreme.  But they evolved.  So can we.

 

3 hours ago, laripu said:

I would certainly like to see the idea that corporations are people should defeated. If so, they'll easily get around it by funding PACs or some other way. One way or another, there United States is ruled by money.

 

Those with enough resources and influence can eventually, "get around" ANY law.  By design of the influential, lax enforcement is usually the instrument.  But a vigilant government and justice system can undo these end runs by including them in the law, whenever they pop up.

 

3 hours ago, laripu said:

Which country isn't, when you dig deep enough?

 

A vast disparity exists in the amount of corruption found when comparing countries.  In some nations, you will need to dig deep to uncover what little there is.  In others, you barely need to scratch the surface.

 

Transparency International publishes an annual corruption index:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

From 2012 to 2019, the United States is ranked 23rd in corruption.  Ranked more or less corrupt than the US, are mostly countries which you would have guessed, on your own, with Denmark and New Zealand coming in as least corrupt and South Sudan and Somalia with the most corruption.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bludog said:

Money is not the same as Free Speech, in my book. 

 

Sure. The courts could rule that the maximum contribution to a candidate would be $100 it $1000 or $10,000 per person. Then the rich could still buy themselves another dozen TV channels and web sites registered in Kamchatka, East Timor or Brunei, beyond US law.

 

It's not free speech, you're right. It's expensive speech and they can easily afford it. Their hold over candidates will have to be a bit more subtle, but they'll still have the same influence.

 

Since it's expensive speech, either the left needs it's own rich benefactors to propagate a competing message, or millions of people like us will have to fund it ourselves.

 

If we wait for a better Supreme Court ruling, it'll never come. By the time the left organizes enough to combat Citizens United, the right will have bought their way to 6 Alito clones, a Kavanaugh, a Thomas and a drooling DNA-experiment multiplex of Ayn Rand, Michelle Bachmann and Ann Coulter. And the latter will be as dumb as nine chickens, but to the right of Phyllis Schlafly. Yes, that's a sick joke.

 

5 hours ago, bludog said:

Why is it that so many Liberals narrowly interpret the Constitution to the detriment of their own cause? 

 

That's the wrong question. The right question is whether it's possible to change the current SCOTUS interpretation of the law. I doubt it will be for a long time. We have to deal with the situation as it is now, rather than merely live in hope for a better future.

 

If we have no wins by other means, we will lose altogether. We can't limit right wing money. To counter it, we need left wing money.

 

@Bill Gates, are you listening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being in total agreement with this,

 

On 1/25/2020 at 1:10 PM, Zaro said:

As to the dogmatism of Bernie - seems to work for McConnell just fine. This single-minded focus on the ultimate goal, the power to shape this nation, it works. And if it doesn't, so what? We would just be right back to where we are now

 

here's the obvious and entirely achievable scenario we need to bring about meaningful, possibly lasting change including Campaign Finance Reform and Supreme Court modification.  We need a left of moderate president who is willful, determined and skilled at selling his agenda ...  And Democratic super-majorities in both houses ...  If not in 2020, then sometime down the line.  FDR and LBJ are examples.  Both achieved historical change

 

The number of justices on the Supreme Court is not set by the Constitution but is left up to Congress.  With Democrats in control of government, Liberal justices could be added to the existing nine to make the SC majority Liberal.  The other thing that should be done is set 18 year term limits on justices.

 

And with Democrats in control of Congress and a progressive president, Campaign Finance Reform could be written into law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

Rich People only care about  there money in most circumstances. 

 

It is in Human Nature that we serve our Self-Interest first. 

 

For the most part true.  There are exceptions.

 

Even most philanthropists insist on tight control of how their charitable donations are to be spent.  Most disapprove of being heavily taxed and allowing the people's representatives in government to decide how the funds should be used.

 

14 hours ago, laripu said:

If we have no wins by other means, we will lose altogether. We can't limit right wing money. To counter it, we need left wing money.

 

@Bill Gates, are you listening?

 

The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of this world aren't enough.  And they are atypical of their class.  A large part of the solution is to bring back progressive tax rates similar to the Eisenhower administration ...  Narrow the wealth gap and increase equality. 

 

The ultra rich will still be able to enjoy the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed.  The difference is, they will no longer have staggering fortunes, lying fallow, which they could never possibly spend on even the most extravagant luxuries.  So there will be far less impetus to control government with near unlimited funds, they no longer have.

 

The above, combined with Campaign Finance Reform, which includes oversight of "end runs" around finance laws. 

 

Of course these are ambitious goals and achieving them will require full progressive control of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bludog said:

The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of this world aren't enough.  And they are atypical of their class.

 

It's this true, even if it feels true? I Googled "left wing billionaires".

 

A right wing website said that beside George Soros: "Five top donors – Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Pierre Omidyar, Tom Steyer and George Soros’s own son, Jonathan – are major funders of the left. Together, they have contributed at least $2.7 billion since 2000 to groups pushing abortion, gun control, climate change alarmism and liberal candidates."

 

Add the following, taken from this page:

- Laurene Powell Jobs (widow of Steve Jobs) gives millions to mostly Democratic causes.

- James Simons and his wife Marilyn gave millions to Democratic causes, directly to Dems in tight races, such as Senate candidates Maggie Hassan (N.H.) and Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), and Clinton.

 

That's nine I've found in two minutes, without breaking a sweat. 😉 I'm counting Gates and two Soroses. (Sori? Sorosauruses? ... Sorry.)

 

I'd bet you could also get pot-smoker Elon Musk on board if you tried.

 

Unfortunately, the biggest donor by far is Sheldon Adelson, who donates exclusively to the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, laripu said:

A right wing website said that beside George Soros: "Five top donors – Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Pierre Omidyar, Tom Steyer and George Soros’s own son, Jonathan – are major funders of the left. Together, they have contributed at least $2.7 billion since 2000 to groups pushing abortion, gun control, climate change alarmism and liberal candidates."

 

Add the following, taken from this page:

- Laurene Powell Jobs (widow of Steve Jobs) gives millions to mostly Democratic causes.

- James Simons and his wife Marilyn gave millions to Democratic causes, directly to Dems in tight races, such as Senate candidates Maggie Hassan (N.H.) and Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), and Clinton.

 

That's nine I've found in two minutes, without breaking a sweat. 😉 I'm counting Gates and two Soroses-eses. (Sori? Sorosauruses? ... Sorry.)

 

I googled this before posting also and got the same results.  These good folks, so generous with their billions are still a small minority of the ultra-rich.

 

According to Google, there were 607 American billionaires in 2019.  Most donate only for tax purposes, if they donate at all.

 

3 minutes ago, laripu said:

Unfortunately, the biggest donor by far is Sheldon Adelson, who donates exclusively to the right.


This is why I like bringing back high progressive tax rates and letting the representatives of the people in Washington decide how to spend the money. 

There is also a large amount dark money being donated in the era of Citizen's United.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bludog said:

This is why I like bringing back high progressive tax rates and letting the representatives of the people in Washington decide how to spend the money. 

 

High progressive tax rates are very important, necessary, and difficult to sell politically. If a genius candidate could ever manage do that, that would be a great thing indeed.

 

We could fund all important causes like MFA, free (or nearly free) university for all worthy students, infrastructure repair, lifetime care for disabled vets, serious drug rehab for addicts instead of prison, mental health care for people rather than allowing them to become homeless. And still have enough for a zero deficit and even pay down the debt.

 

This is an incredibly rich country. What the stupid right doesn't understand is that this kind of investment would, in time, actually make it richer, and with less suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, laripu said:

High progressive tax rates are very important, necessary, and difficult to sell politically. If a genius candidate could ever manage do that, that would be a great thing indeed.

 

We could fund all important causes like MFA, free (or nearly free) university for all worthy students, infrastructure repair, lifetime care for disabled vets, serious drug rehab for addicts instead of prison, mental health care for people rather than allowing them to become homeless. And still have enough for a zero deficit and even pay down the debt.

 

This is an incredibly rich country. What the stupid right doesn't understand is that this kind of investment would, in time, actually make it richer, and with less suffering.

 

I think you've made the basic case right there.  Of course it needs to be reworked, rewritten and put in front of focus groups many times before being presented to the public.  And, as you say, it will take a persuasive progressive to help sell it.  And Progressive control of government will be necessary to put it through.

 

The 1950s and 60s when taxes on the top earners were highest were peak years for the middle class.  That combined with high levels of union membership created a golden era for ordinary Americans.  And at the same time, US industry boomed.  Reagan was the first president to burst the bubble by declaring war on labor unions with his firing of the striking Air Traffic Controllers;  At the same time, he began a series of cutbacks on top, marginal tax rates.  After that, the wealth gap started to increase.  Today the gap is yawning wider than ever before with no sign of a letup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bludog said:

The 1950s and 60s when taxes on the top earners were highest were peak years for the middle class.  That combined with high levels of union membership created a golden era for ordinary Americans.  And at the same time, US industry boomed.

 

And that's the historical evidence.

 

At the same time, there was widespread racist discrimination, that too often went as far as murder.

 

It's taxes and unions on one side, racism and discrimination on the other. Why does the MAGA crowd choose the evil alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, laripu said:

At the same time, there was widespread racist discrimination, that too often went as far as murder.

 

This is a social phenomena which existed in even more severe form, before the economic boom of the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

 

8 hours ago, laripu said:

It's taxes and unions on one side, racism and discrimination on the other.

 

Today, the few unions we have left mostly embrace people of color and many are in positions of leadership.

https://www.theroot.com/the-top-black-labor-union-leaders-1790867923

 

8 hours ago, laripu said:

Why does the MAGA crowd choose the evil alternative?

 

If you're asking me:  In the US, we have a long history of Identity Politics.  In the civil war, dirt poor southern Whites stubbornly fought for the interests of wealthy, privileged slave-owners and the continuation of Black bondage.  In reality, these poor Whites had more in common with the slaves than their owners but would literally rather have died than give up their shared delusions of racial superiority. 

 

The very same misguided approach as in the Civil War, which prompted poor Whites to fanatically fight and die on behalf of their oppressors, can be attributed to the MAGA crowd today.  For most, their main concentration is on bolstering a fragile self-esteem with delusions of White superiority, while managing to ignore their own economic inequality.  This bigotry has long been exploited by Conservative politicians and talking heads in Right Wing media.  Myths like "trickle-down" and  "makers and takers" glorify the wealthy and privileged.  While Labor Unions have been subjected to a steady stream of demonizing propaganda.

 

As for taxes:  For some time, the propaganda line has been that government is untrustworthy and corporations can do no wrong.  Cons feel that their tax dollars will be "misused" on things like food stamps, welfare, social programs and abortion.  The only government spending they really approve of is military.  All this is the result of Right Wing propaganda and disinformation since Rush Limbaugh first went on-air in 1988 and became wildly successful.  He was followed by a flood of copycats until, today, with the exception of NPR, the right Wing has nearly total domination of talk radio.

 

Eight years later, in 1996, Fox News premiered on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2020 at 6:57 AM, laripu said:

At the same time, there was widespread racist discrimination, that too often went as far as murder.

 

 

On 1/28/2020 at 1:12 PM, bludog said:

This is a social phenomena which existed in even more severe form, before the economic boom of the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

 

I think you may have misunderstood me. What I meant was that there were two different things going on in the 50s and 60s. One was unions + meaningful taxes (and consequently middle class prosperity) and the other was violent racial discrimination.

 

On 1/28/2020 at 6:57 AM, laripu said:

It's taxes and unions on one side, racism and discrimination on the other. Why does the MAGA crowd choose the evil alternative?

 

The MAGA crowd seems to want to return to the discrimination part of the 50s and 60s.  They are certainly not clamoring for unions and higher taxes on the ultra rich.

 

But I didn't express it very well. In my defense, I probably wasn't completely awake yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, laripu said:

The MAGA crowd seems to want to return to the discrimination part of the 50s and 60s

 

I think for them, the prejudices of the 50s and 60s never went away.  When Trump came along, they felt legitimized and became emboldened.  Suddenly being racist went from shameful to mainstream.  After all, Trump was voted in by "The People".

 

8 hours ago, laripu said:

They are certainly not clamoring for unions and higher taxes on the ultra rich.

 

Beneath whatever facade they can muster, most of the MAGAs are to a large extent, self-defeating/destructive people with low self-esteem.  That's why it's so easy to get them to vote against their own best interests.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2020 at 10:32 AM, bludog said:

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

https://www.history.com/news/election-101-a-brief-history-of-american-campaign-finance-reform-in-7-acts

Campaign finance reform can be very effective if done right, as the The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 shows.

 

 

As of late, always no. PAC's are a way around the last effort to pass campaign finance laws. 501(c)(3) grants all kinds of contributions as the law is currently written.

Capping donations at $100.00 would be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 10:04 AM, bludog said:

Being in total agreement with this,

 

 

here's the obvious and entirely achievable scenario we need to bring about meaningful, possibly lasting change including Campaign Finance Reform and Supreme Court modification.  We need a left of moderate president who is willful, determined and skilled at selling his agenda ...  And Democratic super-majorities in both houses ...  If not in 2020, then sometime down the line.  FDR and LBJ are examples.  Both achieved historical change

 

The number of justices on the Supreme Court is not set by the Constitution but is left up to Congress.  With Democrats in control of government, Liberal justices could be added to the existing nine to make the SC majority Liberal.  The other thing that should be done is set 18 year term limits on justices.

 

And with Democrats in control of Congress and a progressive president, Campaign Finance Reform could be written into law.

extravagance is difficult to heed. IN truth we have a system that doesn't allow for honest appeals regarding freeing big money from our campaign finance laws. The only way to under-cut this horrible issue is to elect a president who doesn't take donations from the big donor class. You need to start from square one - the people first and foremost must set an example!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TheOldBarn said:

IN truth we have a system that doesn't allow for honest appeals regarding freeing big money from our campaign finance laws. The only way to under-cut this horrible issue is to elect a president who doesn't take donations from the big donor class.

 

Absolutely:

But we will also need congress on the president's side.

On 1/27/2020 at 11:04 AM, bludog said:

We need a left of moderate president who is willful, determined and skilled at selling his agenda ...  And Democratic super-majorities in both houses ...  If not in 2020, then sometime down the line.  FDR and LBJ are examples.  Both achieved historical change

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

Absolutely:

But we will also need congress on the president's side.

 

 

  On 1/27/2020 at 10:04 AM, bludog said:

We need a left of moderate president who is willful, determined and skilled at selling his agenda ...  And Democratic super-majorities in both houses ...  If not in 2020, then sometime down the line.  FDR and LBJ are examples.  Both achieved historical change

 

- His or Her Agenda. Yes, we do need a determined president who is willful - like a breath of fresh air, at selling her agenda. Someone who can appeal to all Americans regarding Healthcare, 

as well as skillfully operate how to tackle climate change. WE need someone who can talk about the economics, how to bring in more needed revenue without taking from the people on the lower rung of the economic scale. Yes, we need a sustainable economy - which might entail slow growth at first, even zero growth for a bit. You have to be honest about budget short-falls and how taxes are spent. Debt spending is perfectly allowable - it should be, the Republicans introduce it ever chance they get with tax cuts for the Super rich and sometimes even with stupid wars... see Vietnam War / Iraq War/ Afghanistan War - or whatever it is we call it now.

 

Strong on Science. Strong on policy that works. People in government who are topic experts who can be independent politically who can then show the facts behind the policy to all Americans in a common sense way. Yeah, basic honesty. Did the policy work, or was it a waste, or was it enough? Who did it affect, what groups lost and who won? For instance, where are all the GI's who fought in Iraq war II, how many still are in desperate need of assistance? For instance, what about privatized prison systems - and our unfair legal system - how many people could be released from prison who are of no danger to society, and how would it help our economy to allow them to be set free? So what about our public school system - what is the truth about poverty when it comes down to crime?

 

WE should ask for a lot. Just like employing teachers in public education - you should pay them what they are worth and expect a whole lot!!!

What's the motivation? I think that is the biggest question of all. 

 

I know a lot of very great examples, of people in society, people in science, people in search of a purpose, just waiting, and possibly thinking what their true calling in life should be. 

I'm sure you do too Bludog.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...