To Survive, the Democratic Party Needs to Stand Up to Wall Street and Global Corporations

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

With the attention of the nation riveted on the Trump train wreck and on the historic Women’s March, one lesson of this moment is getting lost: The Democratic Party lost an election to one of the most unstable, lewd, and unqualified candidates ever to run for office.

Yes, voter suppression helped, as did media collusion by failing to really examine Trump.

The Democratic Party has fallen short by not taking on the structural causes of this crisis: an economy that favors big corporations and global capitalism. The party also has failed to step up to the climate crisis, which requires a radically different sort of economic recovery, and to the crisis of racial exclusion.
So what to do now?
If the Democratic Party is to retake government, it will need to do more than be the party that isn’t as bad as Trump. It will need to find the courage to stand up for ordinary people, which means standing up to Wall Street and global corporations

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/02/22/survive-democratic-party-needs-stand-wall-street-and-global-corporations

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Gee. Wonder who was the leader who burst a spleen yelling this revelation?

Bernie is still the voice of the 99%. Yet how many turned Trump out and carried Bernie to victory?

Were they afraid or were they just thinking that things would work out without their efforts. They will know soon that when power is unattended it snaps your head off.

I see your point and something must light a fire under the smart people in the US to ride up and stop these spoiled children form ruining our country.

[guillaumeb]

2. FDR won 4 terms, not by being a little better than the GOP,

but by creating the social safety net that the GOP is still trying to destroy today.

Democrats must stand for the workers, or stand with the 1%. Given the sheer sociopathy of the modern capitalist class, there is no way to reconcile standing with both.

[The Wielding Truth]

3. Yep. It is amazing that although he was rich he supported a social safety net.

There are few of his statue these days and those few are cheated out of leadership.

Time to stand up and be smart.
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/

[guillaumeb]

6. There are a few indivisible chapters in my area (near Chicago).

People must get organized and stay active.

[Demsrule86]

5. Roosevelt began the social safety net...

Johnson gave us Medicare and Medicaid...live in the present. Modern problems are not the same as back then...and when the corporations of his day tried to overthrow the government in the businessman's revolt...Roosevelt refused to have them charged...as he did not want Americans to lose faith in our economic system...you all have an idea of Roosevelt that is simply not true...he was a great president for his time and I believe he saved us from fascism. However, that is the past...Time to move on and ranting about banks won't even win a primary.

[guillaumeb]

7. But if one accepts the "inevitabilty" of capitalism,

especially unregulated and predatory capitalism, there can be no real change.

[Demsrule86]

14. Right we need to overthrow the capitalistic system...

That will sell in a country that has moved center left ...how about we get elected and put restrictions on capitalism. People want jobs not a revolution.Roosevelt was a firm believer in capitalism. I am too...but we need rules and regulations...which we won't get until we kick the GOP out of office and all the high minded earnest rhetoric in the world won't do that. We need to be realistic ...have a big tent and a 50 state solution.

[guillaumeb]

16. I am not advocating for overthrowing capitalism.

But it needs to be regulated.

The real issue, what does the big tent contain and what is a 50 state solution?

Do we campaign on a living wage?

Do we admit that manufacturing will never again be the main source of jobs and that service jobs must be better paid jobs?

Do we recognize that a unionized work force has more power to insist on better wages and conditions?

Do we formally recognize a right to vote with automatic, irrevocable registration at age 18?

Do we regulate money in politics?

[Demsrule86]

47. The big tent contains

people who can win...and maybe we bring new manufacturing to this country with a plan that stops rewarding folks for sending jobs overseas ...the first thing we do is throw as many GOP out as we can on all levels.

[guillaumeb]

53. Manufacturing should be a component,

but most workers do not work in manufacturing. They work in the service industries.

[Demsrule86]

68. And that needs to change...we will never be a great country if we don't make things.

We absolutely need to support green manufacturing...it is a crime that it is going to China.

[guillaumeb]

82. Agreed on that.

And if Trump were serious about infrastructure rebuilding, a huge component should be super insulating existing homes and retrofitting them with solar capability using US manufactured components.

[KPN]

72. Interesting conversation.

If I may interject with a question: if we have people who can win, why have we lost so many seats at every level of government over the past 7 years? Yeah, gerrymandering has an affect as does voter suppression. But does that explain it all? I really don't think so.

[Demsrule86]

73. After Dean, we abandoned the 50 state strategy.

We starved the states and some national candidates as well...in Ohio Strickland was abandoned very early in the race...also when Obamacare came out, we should have stuck together and supported the president...I will never forget the whining about a single payer that was not possible unless we ended filibusters...which I favor by the way. Once we lost the House and more importantly the Governorships and legislatures just before the census...the GOP were able to gerrymander the House. At that point we had no leverage at all in Congress...this lead to our not being able to even get our SCOTUS pick through after we lost the Senate. I think how different it might have been if we had stuck by president Obama and voted in the midterms...(the Greens as usual played a spoiler role). We had a shot had we stuck together and elected Clinton...but sadly that opportunity was squandered as well with infighting within the Democratic Party. We will pay a terrible price for this folly. Now...look around you...is the country as liberal as you and I? I don't think so...it looks at best center left to me. We faced the same sort of thing in the early 90's when Bill Clinton running as a centrist and barely won with Perot's help. Now I don't think our electorate is as far right as the electorate Clinton faced, but there has been a move to the right no doubt. I will never forget how Pres. Obama was savaged right here on DU...we need to stick together and come up with a realistic winning message based on Democratic principles...protecting the safety net, healthcare, manufacturing plan to bring jobs back, regulation of business, environment safety, protecting federal lands, gun safety regulation, reasonable immigration policy that does not include a stupid wall, civil rights for all, college tuition help so kids don't have huge student debt etc. These are things that all Americans seem to agree on. We can craft a message that will help us win. especially with Trump so disliked...a wave election is possible.

[KPN]

77. Well, I hope you are right about the Party being able to craft a message that will help us win.

I don't know what you mean by sticking together though. It strikes me that differences of opinion need to be surfaced and dealt with as opposed to swept under the rug. Sometimes sticking together translates into acquiescing to another view. When that view doesn't align with one's perspective regarding fundamentals, it's unrealistic to expect folks to "stick together" for the sake of sticking together. If one's interests aren't being served in the process, it's more like simple acquiescence than teaming.

While your history of what happened to the Democratic Party is quite accurate, it leaves out the rightward drift of the D Party over 35 years on the economic front. Some of us have been concerned deeply about that for most of those 35 years. In my view, that rightward drift has played every bit as a big a role in the party's current situation as did the shift away from a 50 state strategy and GOP gerrymandering.

For me, it has been a long 35 years of continuous disappointment on economic policy. Triangulating and incrementalism have been strategic principles over that timeframe. On the economic front, those strategies have failed us and the working class. Right now, my hopes that the Democratic Party might return to its basic economic principles have never been higher. So let's hope you're right that we can craft a message that appeals to enough people to create a wave election win ... and then follow it up with actions that are consistent with that message as opposed, for example, to lending legitimacy to concepts like chained CPI.

[KPN]

69. Right on, right on.

[G_j]

71. +1000

[malaise]

92. +1,000

Rec the OP

[guillaumeb]

93. Thanks.

60F here today, and sunny.

[malaise]

94. I'll raise you

83F here

[guillaumeb]

96. Now I need some iced tea.

[malaise]

98. I'm having a home made smoothie

with fresh fruit - delish

[guillaumeb]

99. And you HAD to say fresh fruit!!

We must wait until May for local fresh fruit.

[malaise]

100. True but do you worry about hurricanes for six months?

We need fresh fruit

[guillaumeb]

102. True, we do not have hurricanes.

Or car sized bugs.

[malaise]

103. What bugs

VWs?

[Chasstev365]

107. Hear Hear!

[guillaumeb]

110. Here?

Thank you.

[Chasstev365]

115. Yes, Here, Here! Anyway, I agree with you!

[fun n serious]

4. I'm not sure an economic message is what we need.

I think we need facts. There were many many forces working against Hillary. I do not believe it was lack of an economic message. Fact is.. most people in USA work. Really, the only people struggling to find a job is white MEN and they're not our base anyway.

[guillaumeb]

8. The message I received was that uregulated capitalism

is the enemy of democracy. And that the Democratic Party can either represent workers or money.

[Demsrule86]

15. The Democratic Party can't represent anyone effectively now because we lost.

And winning is the only solution ...if we were to use your words as our message, we would lose more.

[guillaumeb]

18. But if losing is recent history, how can that be reversed?

And even out of power, Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton and others are getting out an alternative message. And the overreaching of the Trump Administration is already spurring the media to act like a watchdog again.

SO the Democrats have moral power, and they must continue to call out Trump. Perhaps people like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama should start holding rallies and put more pressure on Trump.

I wish I knew the answer.

[Demsrule86]

75. There is no one answer...

We can pick candidate who can win in red states...which will be less than exciting as some will be conservadems... we better start planning to protect our Senate seats...God forbid Trump gets 60 votes...we can call out Trump. We can delay everything even if we can't stop it completely. Make McConnell break the filibuster which is a bad anyway...join a resistance group and stop fighting each other.

[guillaumeb]

84. All true. eom

[Demsrule86]

91. It is going to be tough...but we have to persevere...hey anyone who wants to make some

calls in CT tonight...they are still looking for help. I am in Ohio but I am calling. You can download an app so it gives you a CT phone number. Nice discussion ...thanks.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

35. Where did you get your information that white men are the only ones struggling to find jobs?

Have you actually looked at the statistics around unemployment? In particular, check out the statistics for minority unemployment rates.

And yes, we do need an economic message (or a better economic message). That's exactly what this election should have taught us and if we didn't learn the lesson, we'll be enjoying decades of potential fascist Republican control.

[fun n serious]

36. Yes,

http://origin-www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-01/the-white-guy-deficit-in-the-jobs-report

Was it Nancy Reagan who said they need to pull up their boot straps?

[joshcryer]

9. We need to stop fighting within the party.

We desperately need to stop it.

[guillaumeb]

10. But we even more desperately need to reverse the steady loss of power

that has been taking place over the last 7 years. Or do we insist that business as usual is fine until every state but New York, California, and Illinois are Democratic?

[joshcryer]

11. Do you know why it happened?

Obama stopped all lobby/pac/corporate donations as soon as he took office. Dems running for office had no money to fight the races at the local district level. And the RNC cleaned up. Good, great Dems, just, they had no help whatsoever.

[guillaumeb]

12. If you accept and insist that this is..... "the answer",

do you accept that money inevitably counts for more than enthusiasm and message?

[joshcryer]

23. If you can't get your message out there...

...then you're doomed from the start.

[guillaumeb]

24. True. But enthusiastic volunteers

can often compensate.

[joshcryer]

25. Why would I be enthusiastic...

...if the only candidate in my district is called some kind of Wall Street shill or some such? It's classic ratfucking. You plant this seed of doubt in the guy that you have representing you, the one who put in all the work on the ground to win his primary, the one who stayed up nights strategizing, but because maybe he had a meeting with a local banker, and there's a picture of him shaking hands with someone who might be pro-life or something, he's done. Kaput. All that work for nothing. That's why we don't have young Democratic candidates running. They don't want to be sullied by being imperfect.

That's the worst part about it. Republicans can get away with being nasty people, literally nasty people, but they win and win and win. Democrats have to be goddamn flawless. Because of this kind of bullshit infighting that causes voters to lose any desire to get off their asses and vote.

The 50 state strategy included running and electing conservatives. When they lost in 2010, on this very site, among others, their losses were cheered as some kind of progressive victory. And it's only been downhill from there.

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[guillaumeb]

28. Some ARE calling for a purity test. I cannot deny that.

But I think that most voters look at the overall record. My Representative is Daniel Lipinski. He is on the conservative side for Democrats, but he supports the ACA, has a good record for buy-American issues, is supportive of labor, and his conservatism is centered around abortion.

And statistics show that in general, GOP voters are older and whiter and vote more often than average. SO the answer is to motivate younger voters and educate them about the issues so they become more politically aware.

[Demsrule86]

48. And what is different?

We abandoned Dean's 50 state strategy and let the states rot...that has to change...now you don't want to hear this but much of the country is center left at best...and we won't win by attacking capitalism.

[guillaumeb]

56. We must attack predatory capitalism.

The WalMart model of low wages for workers and immense wealth for one small family.

[Demsrule86]

67. No, we must emphasize the need for regulation.

[guillaumeb]

81. I think we agree in the essential here.

Better regulation could go far to reining in these predators.

[leftstreet]

13. DURec

[guillaumeb]

19. Thanks. Appreciated.

[Blue_Tires]

17. For that to happen, you've got to take corporate money out of politics

and that shit isn't happening (Thank you Citizens United ruling, and all the suckers who celebrated it)... Not only that, but Congress has been aggressively eroding the remaining campaign finance/reporting/conflict of interest laws we still have...

Does this author really believe this election was lost because something something Wall Street?

[guillaumeb]

20. Well, the money is coming from the 1% who own Wall Street.

So I would imagine that the author blames the 1%, at least partially.

[Blue_Tires]

21. And until elections and advertising are public-funded

this influence of corporate money will only get worse...

Because even the most anti-corporate socialist knows it takes money to win an election.

[guillaumeb]

22. No, it actually takes votes to win an election.

And votes come from voters.

So the key to winning elections is getting voters to actually vote. The 41% of registered voters that did not bother to vote could have given Clinton that overwhelming victory, and control of the Senate and House. The issue is how to motivate those voters, and motivate them for every election.

One way to do that is to have an organization that cultivates people. An organization that has a message that motivates.

[JudyM]

37. THIS. Our model would do well to devote more energy into clear, compelling, pithy messaging and

cultivating a broader and deeper enthusiasm for voting.

[guillaumeb]

39. I hate to admit it, but slogans do work.

And the GOP is great at creating slogans. The downside is that the GOP is terrible at governing.

[JudyM]

41. The neuroscience behind it is pretty interesting.

E.g., we tend to believe statements that rhyme. Crazy. But at a minimum we have to better communications.

[guillaumeb]

46. Dump Trump!!

Repeat this simple rhyming statement 100 times a day.

But yes, like Reagan with his "It is morning in America again" slogan, Trump has his "making America great again" slogan. There is no detail, but the simplicity allows each voter to read into it what he/she wishes.

[Blue_Tires]

43. Which is why you need proper organizing/advertising campaigns

Because you can't just rely on dedicated volunteers for an entire election...

If $$$ didn't win elections, the GOP wouldn't be throwing around mountains of it...

[guillaumeb]

45. Money is a big factor, no doubt,

but 41% non-participation is a huge factor.

[JudyM]

57. I agree, where are talented marketers for us?

[kcr]

60. That isn't free.

You don't get people to vote by beaming thoughtwaves to them, or waving a magic wand. The very thing that gets messages to people effectively costs money.

[guillaumeb]

79. I disagree.

People organizing and talking to people does cost money, but not as much as spending billions on advertising. It takes volunteers, and volunteers must be motivated.

[bravenak]

26. This is such a shallow view of modern problems

If all we needed was an anti wall street message to win election , then the Green Party would be running this nation. That message falls flat, honestly because the messenger is usually a supercilious condescending person who puts fighting walls street above all else.

Does this nation look EXACTLY the same as it did under FDR? No. It's CONSIDERABLY BROWNER. So, thing folks were willing to pay for went mostly to folks who look like them, they were WILLING to hear his message because they had no other realistic option for ending the depression. We are not in a depression. People are not voting on that they are voting their FEELINGS about whatever social issue they care most about.

Some peopke on the left are never as happy as when we lose. They get to beat us up and make demands that only a small portion of our base puts front and foremost politically. If that were the issue that we Democrats felt was the most important ever, it would already be in our platform. We are not going to kowtow to a small part of the left and handcuff ourselves by not being able to fundraise as well as republicans.

[RowdieTurtle]

27. Your missing the point

"If all we needed was an anti wall street message to win election , then the Green Party would be running this nation. That message falls flat, honestly because the messenger is usually a supercilious condescending person who puts fighting walls street above all else."

Come on, the Green Party is a fringe party. No parties in the modern age ever have a chance but the Dems and Repubs. The message wasnt the issue.

If you havent realized by now that Wall Street (symbolic and representative of Big Money) and its influence on both our elections and our elected officials is the very and only root of our current problems across the board, you havent been paying attention.

This is the ONE issue. The rest wont get fixed without it.

You use big words, but they dont mean what you think they mean apparently. Ive never heard Bernie described this way and certainly never pictured him this way. Hes passionate. Theres a difference.

"Some peopke on the left are never as happy as when we lose. They get to beat us up and make demands that only a small portion of our base puts front and foremost politically."

Wow. I know alot of the people i believe your speaking of and not one of them is happy we lost. How condescending. A small portion wants a livable minimum wage? A small portion wants single payer health care? A small portion wants free college? A small portion wants money out of politics? A small portion wants responsible policies regarding energy development and fracking? Really?

"We are not going to kowtow to a small part of the left and handcuff ourselves by not being able to fundraise as well as republicans."

Again, condescending. I think you might be suprised. What your alternative to "handcuffing" ourselves? Selling out for those contributor dollars? Thats how we got here. Purity and truth go further than you apparently think. Somehow Bernie managed without taking those dirty dollars and sparked a movement in the bargain. The DNC is drooling over his list and trying to get it right now.

Lets hope the leaders of our party dont think like this. Otherwise its going to be a long 8 years.

[kcr]

64. You are the one who doesn't get it. That is our political system.

Our political system has to be reformed in order to take the money out of it. If you insist that our party stop spending money, you might as well hand every election to the GOP right off the bat. That ensures the system is never reformed, and destroys the country in the process. Not very smart, is it?

[msanthrope]

83. Welcome to DU. Perhaps you could point to the electoral victory Bernie won with "purity & truth?"

[uponit7771]

29. +1

[guillaumeb]

31. If we fight in the GOP's favored arena, we will lose.

The 1% have far more money than the left. That is a fact. So if Democrats engage in a money race, smart money will bet on the side with the most money.

And if we fight on the GOP's favored ideological ground, we will lose. Should Democrats compete with the GOP to decide which party is the best friend of Wall Street? If the choice is between 2 corporate friendly candidates, that might lead some voters to decide that there is no real choice.

My feeling is that Democrats must have a worker centered platform that emphasizes that systemic racism is at the root of the gross economic stagnation. A platform that addresses all the repercussions of that racism, from crumbling cities, to failing schools, to lack of jobs. A platform that acknowledges that the civil war in the US is still being fought.

A program that emphasizes a living wage, free college, Medicare for all, and infrastructure rebuilding. And fund these things by raising taxes on the 1%. A program that motivates the 41% of unmotivated voters.

As to the "some people on the left argument", my feeling is that if such people exist, they represent a tiny fringe at most.

[kcr]

65. If we just hand them every election, we are sure to lose.

Your assertion that this is the GOP's arena is false. The political system is OUR arena. We fight to change it. We don't concede it to them by giving up, and your way is assured defeat.

[guillaumeb]

80. And how has the Democratic Party strategy being working?

Certainly President Obama won in 2008 and 2012, but those wins were offset by the 2010 and 2014 and 2016 losses.

Add in the losses of state level positions and we see a record of defeat whenever the Democrats try to out do the GOP at cultivating the 1%.

[Demsrule86]

50. Well put! +10000

[JCanete]

90. the money IS handcuffing. It means there are battles we can't fight...messages we have to temper and

water down. At the end of the day, the big money gives more to the Republicans, lets its media make false equivalences and do an all around shitty job of coverage, and ultimately installs the people it really wants in charge. There's a reason why Republicans have consistently taken seats from Democrats to the tune of like a 1000 in the last two decades. We may not be in a depression but we are not in good shape, and the rich ARE a shit load richer than they were. That comes from somewhere. There's a good reason that the establishment wing the party doesn't think this is the biggest deal...because they themselves are rich and have rich friends. They've bought at least in part, into meritocracy. they're just a whole lot kinder and gentler about it. They don't think people should starve or be homeless, and they're usually not the one's attempting to divide and conquer, unless they're in a race with a socialist.

But it really really is a big deal. We can't win like this. We can't hold power for more than a cycle or two. And the money keeps winning, and hate keeps winning, because it is a really good tool to make the first thing happen.

[ismnotwasm]

30. Common dreams?

No thank you.

[guillaumeb]

32. Not a fan of dreams?

I keep hoping the past few months are a dream and that I will wake up and Trump is back doing the only thing he is qualified to do. Hosting reality television.

[ismnotwasm]

33. Not a fan of that website

[guillaumeb]

34. I like some of what I read there.

Other things..........not so much.

[ananda]

38. That's why the Sanders movement and Our Revolution..

.. is the way to go!

[guillaumeb]

40. I partly agree.

But in my view, and a view that I was persuaded to embrace after talking to some here, (thanks to bravenak and others), is that the economic component of Sanders' argument cannot be divorced from the racial foundation of US capitalism.

The US economic system was based on racism, and any attack on the US economic system must recognize that the racism must be dismantled before any other reforms are undertaken.

[Demsrule86]

52. no...sorry. Didn't even win a primary...and would lose in 2020.

[JHan]

42. Some thoughts,

I'm really bothered by what I think is a very glib dismissal of capitalism, as if getting rid of it is some magical cure all. This also dismisses ways in which it has actually been a benefit.

If any of us in this thread wanted to start a business, it's capitalist structures we'll use to make profit - hopefully in a responsible fashion. Every indulgence we enjoy is made possible by a market economy based on capitalism. This structure has evolved over time, but the point of markets, and our participation in them, should be to share resource wealth. Any reform of an economic system should aim to create desirous outcomes. The key is to improve, not to destroy.

So we should call out the predatory behavior of greedy capitalists, but even greater emphasis should be to stress the importance of the good of taxation and a social dividend.

And this is where socialist or collectivist principles are key, and why capitalism functions best as a hybrid with socialism. It's why those Scandinavian countries we love to point to as a models of good governance favor trade liberalization and seek to incentivize growth in their business sector while also securing their social safety net.

Wealth has to be created in order for that wealth to be shared - and this is best done through trade, specialization and mass production ( all features of capitalism)

[guillaumeb]

49. Some very good thoughts.

Some say that capitalism must progress to the predatory capitalism that is dominant in the US. The success of the WalMart form of predatory capitalism is enabled by a US legal and tax system that allows Walmart to behave as it does.

And I agree that the Scandinavian countries, and Canada, are examples of how capitalism can and should be restrained.

But the features that you describe in your last sentence are not specifically capitalist features, they are features of a modern mass economy. Collectives such as Mondragon also specialize, trade, and produce in mass. Capitalism, in my view, is only one option. Others are collectives and state ownership of certain entities.

[JHan]

149. Except:

(just remembered I had wanted to reply to you)

"Some say that capitalism must progress to the predatory capitalism that is dominant in the US." - no it doesn't have to, it just needs to be tempered. The Scandinavians understand the importance of mutual benefit in their system, but their culture is different to ours. They see both the value of enterprise and the importance of social dividends.

The collectives in Mondragon have ended up functioning like your typical company, note their response to pressures in the economy in the early 2000's. In the current capitalist paradigm, there's no escaping capitalist law or the rules of the market place. The same rules apply whether co-op or not.

The opposite of capitalism is communism, which destroys the idea of ownership of capital - I despise this concept since it's illiberal.

The key is to create enough wealth through enterprise so that productivity gains are funneled to wage increases. With advanced technology, and a supplementary UBI, we can finally do away with a puritan work ethic which values work just for sake of it, even if that work is demeaning, monotonous, stressful and unrewarding. To make this a reality requires political will and persuasion and incrementalism. We have to make good arguments for the benefits of taxation, reform our tax codes so they're more effective ( and eliminate corporate welfare), but these arguments won't be won overnight. But abandoning capitalism is not the way we will get there.

[guillaumeb]

151. Your last paragraph deals with significantly regulated capitalism.

And given how capitalists historically behave, that fight for significant regulation will be uphill and long.

Capitalists like the Koch brothers, like the Walton family, and hundreds more who are lesser known, all subscribe to a predatory version of capitalism. They can never have too much money or influence, and they are willing to use both to insure that their money and influence is not touched.

If I posted something advocating a return to the 90% top marginal tax rate, I am certain that many at DU, a liberal site, would argue against it. I would hear arguments about capital flight, and a reluctance to create jobs. The same arguments that the right wing uses, by the way.

Part of US mythstory, as opposed to history, is that capitalism is the best of all possible economic systems. But the historical fact is that the rich will use whatever system is in place to oppress the workers. Call it capitalism, call it feudalism, call it chattel slavery, any system will be manipulated by the rich and sociopathic to oppress others.

[JHan]

155. Well I will never argue against regulation perse

Regulations are important, and Yes Capitalism can be a pain in the ass, in fact any system can be a pain - as you acknowledged.

Capital flight is already happening through tax inversions because America has the highest corp tax rate in the world - not even the Scandinavian countries, or Canada, has as high a rate. Is the alternative, then, to raise this tax even more ? Or create policy in touch with reality, instead of imagined alternatives? That is the current reality today. This is what we're working with. So we have to understand the dynamics, understand the power structure and work within it.

Making the argument of "Us" vs "Them" misses the point in my view. Today it's Walmart, tomorrow it will be some other company. I'm not really concerned about these particular corporations as a focus of this particular argument because it's larger than just Walmart's operational systems and the principle should guide policy, not the individuals or specific corporations.

Throughout human history there's always been a tug of war between individualist concerns and collective concerns. Today, depending on where you fall ideologically, you'll either blame the government for society's problems or blame corporations. Lefties tend to blame corporations and depend on government to enact big socialist policies - on the right, they blame government (except when it comes to the military) and they lean towards corporations and/or religion as an expression of collectivist principles. So both on the left and right, collectivist behaviors have different triggers - on the left, it's triggered when social justice is under attack and on the right, these behaviors are triggered over religious grounds or when they perceive their "traditional" norms and values under threat.

Understanding that for the health of the whole, individual needs must be respected and individual rights not infringed upon, is a tough balancing act.* Yet, individualist concerns must see to the health and prosperity of the whole. Insects show this: A bee hive is made up of individual worker ants and a Queen, with the Queen at the top, however the purpose of the work in the hive is not to ensure the Queen lives, but ensure the longevity of the hive - A true balance of collectivism and individualism at work...

No system will ever be perfect, but demonizing either capitalism ( individualism) or socialism ( collectivism) outright, isn't the solution. How we create a hybrid will require regulation, and corporations seeing the benefit of regulations. That can only happen in a stable fashion through reform, not anarchy.

(edited for clarity)

[guillaumeb]

157. Imagine a trade agreement that harmonized tax rates so that there were no tax havens.

Instead, trade agreements focus on the rights of capital and the rights of investors.

If these individuals, and the corporations they owned, knew that they would be taxed at the same rate no matter where they located their money, inversions and other tax dodges would not happen.

And while the US has a high nominal corporate tax rate, many very profitable corporations pay nothing in taxes on their immense profits.

[JHan]

158. Trade agreements aren't the solution to this:

But tax code. I can't imagine any trade partner agreeing to that...

This is a home problem. The tax code needs to be reformed and stripped of corporate welfare. For tax purposes, a company operating mainly from the States should still be listed as "American" and only considered foreign if over 50% of its ownership actually is foreign - on this I agree with Citizens for tax Justice. I also agree with Sanders who suggested barring companies that engage in this type of behavior from lucrative government contracts.

And even though I agreed with Obama wanting to lower the corp tax rate to 28% , anything lower than 20% is a race to bottom , bottom meaning a significant reduction from individual tax income revenues through income reclassification. Point is, the solution is our tax code has to tackled at home (and looking at the competing rates state by state)

[guillaumeb]

159. Agreed. Taxes must come from somewhere.

When the 1% pay so little, the 99% must pay far more.

And part of the problem is that many people buy into the GOP framing that taxes are an unjust taking. Taxes should be seen as that which makes life in a civilized country possible.

[Adrahil]

59. I concur. Well said. NT

[Barack_America]

44. DU doesn't tend to like the "change" message. Posters mocked Obama in 2008....

...as unrealistic and a relative party outsider (sound familiar?)

Many of these same posters wept as Obama left last month...

For reasons I will never understand, many posters here are absolutely wedded to losing strategies and only accept change when it is forced upon them.

[guillaumeb]

51. It does appear that way.

A strategy that has resulted in the Democratic Party steadily losing positions and power is not a winning strategy. It is that simple. And yes, voter suppression is a problem, but lack of voter enthusiasm, as evidenced by the 41% non-voting rate, is a bigger problem.

[Adrahil]

62. I'm fine with "change"... so long as ....

it's not a regurgitation of 1970's socialism repackaged as "progressive" politics. My main problem with the "Sanders movement" is I feel like I'm back talking to the socialists in college who wanted to tell me how wonderful Cuba is half the time, and how we need to abandon capital for woprkers' cooperatives. We need to embrace a synthesis model, that recognizes the strengths of finance and capital (which are real), and not just vilify their weaknesses (which are also very real)

[BSdetect]

54. Read this to see what we are really up against

This alone matters

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[MedusaX]

63. Russia's Vision for Journalism

The future use of AI in journalism was a topic discussed at the 2016 St Petersburg International Economic Forum

Here is the overview & questions they focused on:

* Computer software is offering cutting- edge online solutions that increasingly surpass humans in terms of speed and quality of produced content.

* Automatic scripts for writing news products based on processing raw data are being widely used by dozens of news organizations around the world and

* these news writing robots do not need holidays or weekends, never miss deadlines and generate content ready at a fraction of the cost.

* How far away are we from the day when machines acquire the ability to perform journalistic investigations and write analytical memos?

* Are we on the doorstep of a new era when human beings will no longer be necessary to do a journalist’s job?

[uponit7771]

55. So you're implying they don't do such RIGHT NOW?! tia

[guillaumeb]

58. The author is not implying, the author is stating it as fact.

Many Democrats have seemingly accepted the taxes=bad approach that the GOP favors. Low income tax rates benefit only the rich who can accumulate enough money to buy politicians, but these low tax rates starve government of the money and resources needed to help those in need and to maintain infrastructure.

[stonecutter357]

61. the Democratic Party is Standing Up to Wall Street and Global Corporations.

stop watching fox.....

[guillaumeb]

85. I never watch FOX. I value what is left of my sanity. eom

[marybourg]

66. I think they need to stand up to tRump

and the Publicans, myself.

[eniwetok]

70. DEMS NEED TO REFORM THE SYSTEM THAT STEALS POWER FROM THEM!

Twice in 16 years that antidemocratic abomination called the EC has STOLEN the presidency from the Dems. And in that antidemocratic Senate Dems represent 33 million more American's than do GOP Senators... yet the GOP has control.

What is "self-government" when those who represent the MINORITY can govern?

[Demsrule86]

74. See this is what I don't get.

We have no chance to do what you suggest...it will never happen. Why should we waste our time pursuing policies that have no chance? How about something that has a positive effect?

[eniwetok]

78. Your attidude is shocking. Did abolitionists, suffragettes, etc give up?

Yours is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy... and yet I'm reminded of 1787. Those we call the framers were faced with reforming the failing Articles of Confederation. But that, too, was a virtually reform-proof document requiring all states to agree to any amendment. The Framers worked in secret to dump the Articles... an illegal act in itself, and propose an entirely new system.

If one BELIEVES in democratic principles as the basis for morally legitimate government... and topping that list it those who represent the minority should NEVER get the power to govern over the majority... THEN THERE IS NO CHOICE but to push for those reforms because they now as just as unfair to Dem voters who are being disenfranchises and robbed of power they should have... just as blacks were deprived of the power they deserved by white supremacist vote schemes in the Jim Crow era. They were declared ILLEGAL... and now all states have civic equality in the vote... but this does NOT apply to the federal system.

The REAL question is how to reform what seems to be a virtually reformproof system... and like how in the 70's the Right developed a coordinated strategy to turn America into Amerika... and it's largely worked with the help of our antidemocratic system. Dems need to do the same... and the first place to start might be reforming our absurd amendment process where now states with 4% of the population can block any reforms. There needs to be consciousness raising to create a new civil rights movement for civic equality in the vote so all votes weigh the same in terms in terms of representation. States with public referenda can push for more modern democratic models such as proportional representation.

Of course given the dynamics and antidemocratic nature of our system... and even Dems being AWOL on democracy... any long term strategy might take 50-75 years. Which is why I believe that the system may have to be shocked into reforms... and the best way I can think of is for CA... the state most disenfranchised by the system, to demand reforms or threaten secession.

And yet if it's not done... the US is likely to sink deeper into the far right abyss even if it's against the will of the People. Tell me fighting THAT isn't worth while.

[guillaumeb]

87. This should be a stand alone post!!!!

Well said.

[eniwetok]

89. thanks... and I've tried...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028707874

feel free to add your thoughts!

[Demsrule86]

105. Quite an interesting post...And I would love to see the system reformed...but I will point out to

you, our first job is to stop Trump...we have no time to tilt at windmills. My vote did not count here in Ohio either...I am shoved into a gerrymandered district like many Americans...that would be my first priority after getting rid of Trump... there are many things I would like to see happen...but I think I will work for those things I have a hope of accomplishing ...and work incrementally on the others...if you look at the suffragette movement, you will see, it took many years. My Grandmother was a suffragette in her teens and a flapper in her 20's (had my Dad late in life) so I have had heard first hand accounts of that movement.

[eniwetok]

108. There's always a reason to delay this effort...

Just think if FDR had set the wheels in motion... or if Dems never lost site of reform after the Bush Junta was imposed on the nation.

Dems can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time.

The problem here is the system isn't just antidemocratic... its very nature destroys any democratic impulse. Not even a Bernie Sanders would push for democratic reforms because VT would not want to give up the gravy train.

[Demsrule86]

126. I disagree...we can not take the money from our guys...

we will only get the very rich who can afford to run first of all...and secondly we will lose...tired of losing...don't care about purity...I would like to see United gone but first we have to win...many of you ...use it generally not you in particular... care about everything except winning.

[eniwetok]

127. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

The BIGGEST factor in recent presidential loses are the victories ARE STOLEN by an antidemocratic system which hands the presidency now TWICE to someone who, along with their agenda... were REJECTED by the People.

In the Senate the Dems now would control it if it represented PEOPLE instead of states. Dem senators now represent 33 million MORE people than the GOP. So now that GOP president and GOP Senate who represent the MINORITY of voters/Americans can pack the court with right wing Neanderthals who will further rig the system against the Dems.

You seriously need to see the big picture here... but it's clear you can't.

[eniwetok]

131. Please explain... your post makes no sense.

I said nothing about money... and pushing for a government based on democratic principles has NOTHING to do with "purity" since I can think of no Dems that even care about this issue.

Back in the 70's the far Right DID take on the windmills. They developed a long term, strategic, multifront offensive to turn America into Amerika.... AND IT'S WORKED... in large part because of cowardice on the part of Dems to develop a similar counter strategy of their own.

In politics if one's not on the offensive, they're losing ground. Dems are at a perpetual disadvantage because THEY HAVE NO VISION of where to take this nation in 20-50 years. All they care about is the next presidential election... and they delude themselves that demographics are on their side. Election 2016 should have demolished that idea. But usually Dems are clueless.

[Demsrule86]

135. Ah...since Dems have always had governments based on Democratic principles...I thought

you were talking about money...as for government...I would settle for any government which has some or all three branches of government with Dems in control...

[eniwetok]

142. Dems never even bothered to define democratic principles... if they did...

they'd IMMEDIATELY discovered that fact. Dems don't even stand up for the concept of civic equality in the vote where all votes weigh the same in terms of representation. If they did... they'd oppose state suffrage... where "states" vote instead of People. STATES DON'T VOTE... the PEOPLE in them do... which is why we got the Bush and Trump Juntas and despite Dem Senators representing 33 million more Americans than the GOP... the GOP controls the Senate.

Our system is antidemocratic to the core... allowing MINORITIES to govern. Have you EVER heard Dems say they were determined to make our system democratic?

[guillaumeb]

86. It does seem strange that a vestige of slavery still keeps poor people in bondage. eom

[eniwetok]

143. technically the system now keeps Dem Voters in "bondage"

It's now Dem voters who are screwed by the system having to endure policies that the majority voted for.

[guillaumeb]

146. True. It is not majority rules,

it is former slave states and lightly populated western states rule.

[ghostsinthemachine]

76. Wrong.

No corporate $$$$$$$$$ no chance. Had Bernie been nomiated he would hae been foredto take $$$$ fro those he detested.

END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD! UNLESS THAT CHANGES, nothing changes.

[guillaumeb]

88. Corporate personhood IS the problem. We agree on that. eom

[Rex]

95. Of course it does. Dark money in politics brought us Trump and the plutocracy we live in.

They all know that, it is a question of will they fight against the endless money stream. I would think Congress could pass laws against it, but I believe Congress to be owned money by dark money donors.

Maybe that is changing, we sure do need it.

[guillaumeb]

97. Agreed.

Money allows the 1% to buy a wide selection of politicians.

[Rex]

101. This is my personal hope, that people are watching Trump and understand he is part of the 1%.

That he is part of the overall problem. He mental insights explains why there is such depressing wage disparity; that his micro aggression of cheating out hard working employees - works the same on a macro level and really drives home why we need to curb these folks ability to amass great amounts of money which turns into political power.

I know it is taboo to say someone can have too much in a capitalist, pragmatic society - but it is what it is.

[DanTex]

104. The problem with this theory is that the Dems have already done that.

The Dems passed Dodd-Frank, the strongest financial regulations since WW2, and now Trump is intent on dismantling it.

I don't see any factual basis for the idea that moving left is going to help the Democrats electorally.

[Demsrule86]

106. It will hurt Democrats...we could have a McGovern style loss.

Reality bites sometimes, but delusional thinking is worse in the long run.

[guillaumeb]

109. Do you see any evidence that moving center right has helped?

Polling regularly shows that the voters are more liberal on the issues than politicians. So perhaps the politicians should get to the front of the parade instead of marching center right.

[DanTex]

111. There has been no move to the center right.

Obama was to Bill Clinton's left, and Hillary in turn ran to Obama's left. So this "center right" thing is a total fantasy.

[guillaumeb]

112. That is your opinion of the 3 politicians that you named.

Other opinions may differ.

[DanTex]

113. Which do you disagree with?

You think Obama was to the right of Bill? Really? You think Hillary ran to Obama's right? Really?

[guillaumeb]

114. Obama had numerous positions/policies that I feel were definitely not progressive.

The chained CPI proposal,
drone killings,
the intervention into Libya,
and others.

[DanTex]

116. Fair enough, but he was to the left of Bill Clinton, do you agree?

I am to Obama's left too. I disagreed with chained CPI. I thought the stimulus was too small, and I was disappointed when he adopted the "tighten our belts" rhetoric. I didnt't think Larry Summers belonged anywhere near the White House. And he could have pushed harder for a public option, though I don't think it would have made any difference with Lieberman and Nelson. And so on.

On foreign policy, I am less critical. The Libya intervention was a case of rock v hard place. And people who compare it to the invasion of Iraq are nuts. It was airstrikes only, not a massive invasion, it was led by Europe (France flew the most missions), civil war was already underway unlike Iraq which was stable at the time we invaded, and the objective was to protect civilians and prevent an impending genocide, not regime change. If we had prevented European nations from intervening, and it had turned into another Rwanda, then Obama would be taking heat for that also.

But whatever critiques of Obama I might have, it's obvious to me that he was to the left of Bill Clinton. I mean, Clinton "reformed" welfare and deregulated the financial industry. No comparison.

[guillaumeb]

117. I believe that the public option was never an option.

Ask Max Baucus about his contributors.

As to Libya, the US attacks destabilized the country.

President Clinton did sign numerous GOP promoted bills. But I agree that President Obama was to the left of President Clinton.

[DanTex]

118. That's on Baucus and Lieberman, not Obama.

Libya, let's be serious. The country was already destabilized before the EU-led intervention (why do you call them "US attacks" when the US flew about 25% of the missions?). They were in the midst of a civil war. Like Syria is now, where there was no international intervention.

And, to my earlier point, you talk about a move to the center right, but the party has actually been moving left, as the Obama/Bill comparison shows. And also, Hillary ran to Obama's left, so we are continuing to move left.

[guillaumeb]

119. Libya was a US operation, with European cover. In my view.

I also believe that NATO is merely a cover for US actions all over the globe.

And running to the left is different from governing from the left.

[DanTex]

120. It is a simple fact that France and the UK led the Libyan intervention.

It's not a question of "view", it's easily verified. The US could have vetoed the action, given the influence the US has, but this is not a case, like Iraq, where the US dragged a few other countries into an action that nobody else actually wanted.

You're right, running left is not the same as governing left. So maybe Hillary would have governed to the right of Obama. But the facts we actually have are that the Dems have moved left over the last 20 years, meaning that your "center-right" point is incorrect. There's no case whatsoever to be made that the Dems have been moving center-right. There may have been one in 1996, but that was 20 years ago.

[guillaumeb]

121. If we look at how Democrats have governed while in power,

as opposed to the rhetoric:
We see Democrats showing support for a chained CPI.
We see Democrats advocating for much the same military intervention in support of regime change.
We see Democrats using drones to extra-judicially murder people all over the world.
We see Democrats deporting undocumented immigrants in high numbers.
We see Democratic Governors offering tax breaks to ultra wealth corporations so those corporations will bring in a few low paying jobs.

[DanTex]

128. That's a totally one-sided account of the Obama administration.

No mention of Dodd-Frank, ACA, saving the auto industry, his carbon regulations, and everything else progressive he accomplished. Not to mention everything that got blocked by the GOP.

[guillaumeb]

129. It was not intended to single out President Obama.

And it was not intended to be the definitive history of his Presidency.

[Demsrule86]

136. You are looking at national elections only...the fact that the GOP has

most of the governorship's, most of the state legislators and has national majorities too...indicates a lurch to the right. I do believe we are center left...but you are kidding yourself if you think we have moved substantially left...there is not evidence to support that.

[DanTex]

139. The GOP has moved to the right, and also the GOP has taken over more seats, which

means that, yes, the political system as a whole has moved to the right over the last 6 years.

But the Democratic party has not moved right. The discussion we were having in this thread was about whether the Democratic party has moved towards the center right, and the answer is no. The Dems are farther left than they've been in decades.

[Demsrule86]

140. I agree with you...we have always been big tent...

and we have to realize to regain the majority, we are going to have to win some red states which means tailoring the candidate for the area...which is going to give us some heartburn...I saw a post about kicking Manchin out of leadership. We are less moderate now...most of the conservadems are gone and we are in the minority big time.

[DanTex]

141. I agree about the heartburn.

Sometimes I see things Dems like Manchin do or say and I want to scream at them. But my cooler head understands that people like Manchin, even though I may strongly dislike his views on things like the environment and guns, are going to be essential if we are going to get back to majority status.

[HughBeaumont]

122. The lack of recs and the amount of venom is depressing.

It lets me know that our party pays just as much fealty to this supposed infallible religion as the Republicans do.

"We're capitalists, and that's just the way it is." - Nancy Pelosi, to a student whose family filed bankruptcy during the Great Recession's recovery. OoooooooooK, Nancy, let me know how well that consumer-based religion works when you have millions of people not able to, you know, CONSUME.

[guillaumeb]

123. Capitalism IS the American religion.

Many Americans will happily accept restrictions on free speech.

Many Americans will accept that the press is mainly corporate owned.

Many Americans will accept that the war machine consumes 60% of discretionary spending.

Many Americans will accept that the oil industry is ruining the planet.

But these same Americans cannot accept that capitalism is behind the war spending.
That capitalism is behind the planet being ruined.

That multimillionaire Pelosi identifies as a capitalist is understandable. What is not understandable is that low wage workers also call themselves capitalists.

[HughBeaumont]

124. It's so powerful . . .

. . . that, in spite of what Capitalism has done to them, these same low-wage workers blame Democrats, the social safety net going to non-whites, immigrants, women, the government, regulations, minimum wage, even themselves . . . . and will never, ever, ever, ever . . . ever, EVER ever ONCE take Republicans, the wealthy or their precious narcotic Capitalism to task. EVER.

It's the success of a long-term plan combining Religion, Brightsiding, cheap sales ploys and a purchased media to take the heat off of the betters and make hyper-Capitalist Republicans as champions for the common man. And guess what that's a product of? CAPITALISM!!!

When you believe in something so steadfastly, as Americans do with Republicans and capitalism . . . like it is to their individual health, it's just as addictive and long-term damaging to America's health as tobacco and alcohol are.

[guillaumeb]

125. Well said.

Stockholm syndrome in action. They are poor, not because of the system, but because of their own lack of ability. Or, as you pointed out, because others are taking their opportunities.

In the same vein:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028721960

[qdouble]

130. The Dems just need to be focused on being pro-Worker, not anti-wallstreet. Which sounds like just

being anti-business/anti-capitalism, which is not a winning argument outside of socialist circles.

[guillaumeb]

132. But in the class war that the 1% always wages,

if one is pro-worker that will be framed as being anti-Wall Street because the Wall Street model is one of endless austerity for the workers and an ever bigger share of the wealth for the 1%.

So how can we break that indoctrination? That worker vs. worker battle that leaves us all poorer?

[qdouble]

133. Being anti-wallstreet makes no sense within itself. How would wallstreet doing poorly benefit labor?

[guillaumeb]

134. If we look at the economic history of the past 30 years,

we see approximately 95% of the income gains going to the top 1%. So the current economic model is anti-worker by choice.

Second, business types love to talk about everyone benefitting when Wall Street does well. But studies show that the top 1% own approximately 80% of all common stock. So if Wall Street shows a gain, 80% of that gain is going to the top 1%.

WalMart is hugely profitable, so much so that the 6 principal Walton heirs are as wealthy as the bottom 40% of Americans. How does this immense wealth benefit anyone but the Walton heirs? It does nothing for the vast majority of WalMart workers, many of whom qualify for state benefits.

So Wall Street IS doing well, and most workers are not. How do we change that business model?

[Demsrule86]

137. Not crazy about Walmart but here in Ohio they have raised wages while

others stores have not...Kohls for example...and Target raised wages after Walmart...

[guillaumeb]

144. WalMart is a net loss for states and communities.

It takes out more than it brings in. And many WalMart workers qualify for State and Federal aid. Which means that the Walton billionaires are externalizing their operational costs onto the taxpayers.

I use WalMart as shorthand for predatory capitalism. I am not implying that they are the only ones, but WalMart is the largest private employer.

[qdouble]

138. You're conflating different issues here..the strength of Wall Street is connected to the strength of

the overall economy. There is no way in which Wall Street collapses in which the economy doesn't also crumble. You need to make a convincing argument as to why decreasing the amount of capital available to create jobs would result in more jobs.

Wealth concentrations mostly happens because productivity, automation and technology aren't directly tied to labor. So we can produce more things and the economy can grow without necessarily having to hire more people or raise wages. Attacking Wall Street isn't going to fix this. Real fixes are in taxing the rich/inheritance taxes, universal basic incomes, etc... as automation and technology are going to increasingly reduce the need for labor.

[guillaumeb]

145. I disagree.

Wall Street really represents the speculative sector. It has much influence because of the interlinking of various aspects of the financial economy.

And given that this increased wealth for the 1% has not translated into living wage jobs, it is Wall Street that has not made a convincing argument why it should not be more regulated and significantly taxed. A tax on trading, for example, would easily raise billions with no impact on the bottom 99%.

As to your real fixes, I agree with them.

[qdouble]

147. I think this a correlation vs causation issue. Simply because the market has increased while wages

have declined, does not mean that the stock market causes decreased wages. There's been a plethora of societal changes.... I'd point a finger at the lack of unions, no raises to the minimum wage, automation, etc before I'd say that the market gains causes wealth disparity (not to mention, when we talk about market value, this isn't liquid cash... bill gates can't just cash out his net worth).

While there is speculation in the market, high volume trading is mostly only profitable to day traders.... a lot of the market's value is based on the long term success of American businesses, not just speculation.

[guillaumeb]

148. I agree on correlation.

The 1% has always waged class warfare.

It is not simply being anti-union, it involves writing laws that support the rights of capitalists while undermining the rights of workers.

The minimum wage is linked to the law. Another example of class warfare.

And wages have been stagnant for over 30 years. Decreased wages has reduced the ability of American to save for retirement. And lower wages caused many Americans to see refinancing as a way to pay bills and buy large ticket items. A further reduction of wealth.

Allowing companies to raid pension funds has led to fewer workers being covered by pensions. And the GOP fully intends to eliminate or cripple Social Security. Work until you die is their unspoken plan.

And in my opinion, the long term US business model is to make the 1% wealthy while paying everyone else sub-living wages.

The current Wall Street model is succeeding in making the 1% ever richer but is not helping anyone else. The results are all around us.

[randome]

150. There is no 'war'. There is tropistic behavior.

There is a simple fix for out-of-control corporations: regulation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[guillaumeb]

152. Regulation requires both an informed citizenry and political will.

In my view, both are currently lacking.

[randome]

153. Definitely.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

154. K&R!

So true!

[guillaumeb]

156. Thank you.

Ones hopes that the combination of Perez and Ellison is belated recognition by the Party of the need for a more progressive message.