Basic Question: Does our Political/Economic System Need Fundamental Reform? or Just Tweaks?

[Armstead]

That, ultimately is what this primary and this election boils down to.

That is a perennial question in elections. But this time, it is more crucial than ever.

My question -(and it is an honest one) is: Do you believe that we should elect a president that will acknowledge the need for Fundamental Reform in the system? Should we address the Structural Inequities as well as specific issues?

Or do you think that is too ambitious, and that we should just look for small changes without trying to press for fundamental reform?

I'd really like to know how people see that, and how their choice of candidates reflects that. Not the personality-driven factional infighting or Tiger Beat personalty fluff.. But honest answers. (I'll behave myself if I respond to anyone who responds civilly).
----------

My own answer-- I support Bernie because I believe we need Fundamental Reform. Not just good programs but a general awakening that admits we have a basic problem in our system, and begins a counter movement to address this -- not only through policies but also a shift in popular pressure and a reassertion of morality and ethics.

I'm not talking about Marxist Revolution. But more a Pendulum Tipping Point -- the reverse of 1980, when Reagan and the GOP (and Democratic DLC) pushed the pendulum towards the Corporate Right Wing.

Actually the real election that should have been a Pendulum Counter Shift where this should have been the question was 2008, because the need for change was obvious. That was why President Obama was elected. Some might say he achieved important reforms. Others might say that he had mixed results. And others might say he just perpetuated the status quo.

But, however one judges President Obama, the system has rolled along on its merry ay and the fundamental inequities and structural deformations remain in place.

Wall Street is worse than ever and the Banksters are fatter than ever. Corporations still abuse workers and consumers, even as they make high profits.

Healthcare is somewhat better around the margin, but too many people and businesses still can't afford coverage, and the insurance companies and Big Pharma and Big Corporate healthcre are still in the drivers seat.

Too many jobs continue to disappear, ousourcing is as prevalent as ever, and wages for existing jobs are still way too low.

And Ultimately -- We STILL have a system that favors the Wealthy and Powerful far too much, the system still continue to support and enable the march towards a Monopolistic Corporate Oligarchy, and the middle class and poor are being shoved further and further down the ladder.

Changing that in a basic way -- that's what I see this election as being about. What say you?

[HerbChestnut]

1. The historical approach has been incremental change.

But that's gotten us to where we are today. The last time there were sweeping changes made to the way our economy works and the government was run was during the Great Depression, and I think it's time for those types of changes again. Our economy works quite well for those already at the top while leaving the rest of us barely scraping by. Our politicians are bought off by the same people who hoard all the wealth. Yeah, we need fundamental reform.

[Armstead]

11. I agree

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Fundamental reforms, and even Bernie winning isn't going to get us near to them.

But look at it like a coding issue. While you've got the people working on getting version 2.0 of the code working, you still keep on adding updates to 1.0, (ok, which is more like 1.157 or somesuch), so that by the time 2.0 comes out, it's not such a shock to people, and there's some continuity of use, even if the underlying code is radically different.

So Bernie means we get new updates, while other folks mean we get either more old code, or support outsourced to a call center in a country where most people are being screwed even worse than we are.

[Armstead]

3. I'm not sure I see it that way

Reagan was a a reboot. I remember how that election totally changed the context of public attitudes, policy and the political discourse. "Morning in America"

The actual changes did not happen overnight. Reagan had to comprimise, failed some, and all that. Took years, and are still going on. But the tone snd context and setting in motion was based on a new template.

Thats what I think we need.

[alc]

4. fundamental reform is needed but it won't come from government

It can be done from within the current system but will be fought every step of the way (with success) if it's attempted from the government, no matter who is leading.

Take all of the wealthy people calling for this (i.e. Michael Moore, Hollywood, ... ). And unions. And everyone putting money into this election (a billion $$$). Put all of that money into changing the system using the current system. Maybe the wealthy advocates can give a 10 year interest free loan so they aren't just "giving away their money". You then have $billions to split up into 3 funds plus overhead

1) Franchise fund - buy franchises
2) Venture capital fund - like any other VC fund, except pay founders big on success but don't IPO.
3) Failing business fund - buy and fix instead of selling off parts or going into bankruptcy and canceling union contracts
4) overhead - lawyers, lobbyists, etc so the other funds are treated fairly by the government

All 3 funds feed profits back into themselves. 50% profit goes to employees. 50% back into the fund. You may only have a few franchises the first year. But that will be a significant change in in one year (worker owned franchises exist). And it can grow quickly. Show success and you're likely to have more donations/loans. If nothing else you'll see which of the wealthy people advocating for economic change really want to change things (e.g. loans to the fund) and which really want to say the right thing but still donate to politicians who are not making changes. And you'll have a revenue stream to keep growing. Between the fund's value as collateral and a revenue stream you can probably even get loans to expand quicker without depleting the funds (the way businesses do though probably not from US financial institutions).

If it's done right there's no reason the funds shouldn't grow while paying employees well. And not long before it's able to start a new financial sector fund (get into credit unions, banks, stocks, etc) and everywhere else (pharma and other highly regulated/difficult to enter industries). All from within the current system and the only thing politicians need to do is not let it get shut it down. If a fund like this could have saved GM there could be a major auto manufacturer that's not obligated to the stock market. Start now and that may be possible next time.

Capitalism does work for the owners. So help workers become the owners. Elect representatives who will allow it to happen and don't just expect any politician to make this happen from government - even Bernie can't do that unless Congress has a HUGE change and not just a change of more of today's D's.

[Armstead]

5. Interesting idea -- Though I don't see it as a replacement

It looks like You're basically talking about social investment, mixed with worker- owned enterprise. Those are great things, and should be part if an econimic reorientation....

But I thonk we wil also need a strong public sector.

[Skwmom]

6. That's why I support Bernie, but now we have

Lessig who arrives on the scene.

There is the Time Article which refers to Bernie's "talking points" and makes it look like one picket walk is all he has to show that he supports labor.

On the CNN scroll this morning they said Lessing was running for president and said something along the lines about politicians just "talking" about the problem.

Plus in surfing the net, I see how Lessing is saying Sanders will deliver no change like Obama - when Sanders has repeatedly said he needs the people to help him implement the required change.

I'm seeing a lot of promotion of Lessing in the future in an attempt to take down Sanders while letting others keep their hands clean. They are going to make sure Lessing gets on that debate stage.... If he can help damage Bernie and draw away some of his support they will consider it mission accomplished.

Well here's hoping it backfires and works to Bernie's advantage.

[Armstead]

7. I don'lt think Lessig would undermine Sanders

Lessig is making a valid point, but using a very strange way of bringing it to public attention.

[Skwmom]

9. Time will tell.

But I stand by my prediction.

They want to split the fed up with the political system vote.

Now who would that benefit? Hmmm... maybe the established, politics as usual candidates.

Lessing is now on TV getting his message out. Bernie - well they are reporting how he is doing in the polls. Of course, that will drive up the coverage of Bernie percentages.

And the manipulation continues.....

[MisterP]

12. it's very late in the game and Lessig isn't getting THAT much coverage

ironically what Lessig's warning about--that we voted for change from someone who didn't provide it for 8 years (even Cuba was just to squeeze the island a little harder)--is the precise reason Sanders is running

hence also the absence of personality-cult politics--Sandernistas don't support policies because the candidate supports them, but vice-versa; so they poke him to talk more about race, foreign policy, and above all to look out for the fact that it's the reforming Presidents that get cornered and stampeded into the most reactionary stuff

[LWolf]

8. Fundamental reform, and

it actually has to begin with people; with citizens demanding it, being actively involved in creating it, and electing people who will work for it, as well.

Fundamental reform dies another death every time voters elect the status quo because they are afraid of "losing."

[Armstead]

10. I agree 100 percent

[elleng]

13. NEEDS fundamental reform.

Will get tweaks, if we're lucky.

[restorefreedom]

14. full on reform

with a combination of people in govt like sanders and om as well as people in non government efforts working together

the oligarchy needs to go. not piecemeal, but gone

[hifiguy]

15. Sweeping changes

in the direction of social democracy.

Truly progressive taxation with top individual rates in the 80% range

Confiscatory estate taxation on piles of money passed from genertion to generation - think the Walton and Koch families - but exemptions for genuine small, family-owned businesses.

A size-limit, adjusted biannually for inflation, on all corporate entities. Automatic divestiture of business units once a certain dollar threshold is reached. This would address the banking and media oligopolies.

The reinstatement and vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws and banking regulation. With significant JAIL TERMS for corporate executives found to be in violation.

Flat bans on revolving doors between government and big bu$ine$$.

Publicly financed campaigns of much shorter duration.

An end to eternal corporate personhood.

Reform and vigorous enforcement of labor laws, making unionization far easier than it is now, including the repeal of Taft-Hartley.

That's a decent start, I think.

[jwirr]

29. +1

[Armstead]

32. I agree with all of that -- anti trust and monopolization has been a core, but ignored, issue

Allowing the economy to metastasize from a diverse mix of competitors into a handful of all-powerful monopolistic global corporations is a Cancer that should have been dealt with long ago.

I might quibble with the notion of "confiscatory estate taxation" bit I certainly agree that those mega fortunes like the Kocjs and Waltons need to be trimmed down to size through more progressive taxation than we've got.

[hollowdweller]

16. Really only tweaks but any change has been so opposed it will seem like fundamental reform.

[postatomic]

17. I don't believe any candidate can effect worthwhile change

I'm not a single issue voter but Campaign Finance Reform has always been at the top of my list.

There needs to be tighter limits on contributions, 100% transparency, and we need to eliminate the Super PACS. Of course, eliminating the Super PACS would go a long ways toward the goal of contribution limits and total transparency.

There are congress critters on both sides that aren't running this year because they are fed up with spending most of their time in office.... fund raising.

The big elephant here is that worthwhile change must be bi-partisan. I just don't see that ever happening any time soon. Certainly not in my life.

I could peck at a couple of your points but I'm not in the mood for a pissing match. The economy is soooo fucking complicated. Hell, I don't understand some of it.

I guess having a discussion is a start. There always has to be a beginning. That doesn't mean I will be supporting Bernie any time soon, but I'm listening.

[Armstead]

20. I agree with you totally about campaign finance reform as important...

But I also believe messaging -- what candidates and a party collectively say and campaign on -- can make a big difference, and can at least mitigate the campaign finance mess somewhat.

Frankly, GOP messaging is a big reason the country is where it's at today. They were so good at convincing people to go along with illogical bullshit (supply-side economics, total deregulation, corporate control of everything).

Anyway, discussion is good. That's one reason i posted this To try and look at things beyond the pissing contests.

[stevenleser]

18. That's not what this primary and election is about

We will have a Republican House until January 2023 at the earliest, so there will be no fundamental reform by any Democrat in the White House the next two terms.

Next?

[Armstead]

19. Whatever

[Armstead]

21. I promised to behave in the OP, so....

I disagree. A president who pushed for policies that would benefit a majority of the ordinary and disadvantaged, could get compromies in that direction or -- at the least -- show up the GOP for the scumbags they are. Thus preparing th foields for Democrats to wrest them from Congress.

Its possible that would niot work. But its absolutely certain nithing will work if we give up before we even start.

[stevenleser]

22. No, the Republicans in congress don't care what a Democratic President does and

Don't care if we protest.

The voters in their gerrymandered districts will reward them for opposing anything a Democratic President tries to do.

It's that simple.

[jwirr]

24. So then we just surrender and keep the status quo?

Or worse yet give the corporations and banksters more power?

[stevenleser]

26. By all means, list Republicans in the House whom will vote for Progressive legislation

And specify which house members will vote for each bill, and I will call their office to verify.

And we can all save time and acknowledge you won't be able to list a single member of the GOP caucus who would vote for a single bill.

We have been outmaneuvered with the loss of too many state legislatures leading up to 2010 and the Republicans controlled redistricting and this, combined with how Republicans in congress behave now, which is opposing anything progressive a Democratic President tries to do and you have the current situation.

Pretending this isn't what we face won't make it go away.

[jwirr]

30. You missed my point. We may get nothing done due

to the GOP. But we can keep their actions in the news and illustrate the way it should be. That is long range planning.

I do not see that happening when we use triangulation. What happens there is that we merely let the GOP have what they want without a struggle.

[Armstead]

33. Amen

[stevenleser]

34. That's not long range planning, that is planning to fail and failure is what it will look like.

If a candidate promises to get 50 things done if elected and gets zero done, that is something the opposition can run on in the midterm elections and the next Presidential elections.

The public will not care that it was the Republicans in congress that obstructed him.

They expect the President to be able to get results. That's why you get President Obama making compromises with Republicans in order to get certain legislation passed.

[jwirr]

35. Isn't it interesting that so many consider Bill Clinton

to have failed on so many levels?

He compromised away a welfare program that was working. Can't even remember what he got in exchange.

He took a media system that was working and turned it into a monopoly for the rich and powerful corporations. Most have gotten something for that.

He signed away a middle class economy that was working for what he calls a good trade deal NAFTA. We had trade deals that worked before this one but this one was mainly about corporate profits not trade of products.

He helped repeal Glass-Steagall which laid the groundwork for a crash that lost not only the money of willing investors but all of us because there was no longer a difference between depositors in a commercial bank who invested in their own communities and investor banks that gambled depositors money in any way they chose. He did not even put up a fight.

The 1%, the banks and the corporations won under Clinton's compromises but for the rest of us he failed in the long run. We have been getting poorer ever since.

As to planning to fail. The people have very little power left - even our votes are triangulated away in behind the door deals for super-delegates, limited debates and Citizens United trade offs.

Even if you do not like it most of us have had it with the GOP and DLC Democrats selling us out. That is failure without a whimper.

As to Bernie promising to do 50 things - I am not hearing promises - I am hearing him tell us the truth for the first time in decades. He outright tells us that he cannot do it by himself. He tells us that we are going to have to fight the fight with him. If he fails we will be failing with him. And maybe people like you will be blaming him but we will not.

One thing I do know he will not sell us down the drain through triangulation. He will not sell us out behind our back and he will stand beside us.

You can save you voice - I am not interested in Hillary. I have had enough with triangulation or as you call it compromise. It is nothing more that cooperating with the GOP.

[Armstead]

36. Okay then -- Be intellectually honest and say NONE of the candidates should propose ANYTHING

Do you think these all-powerful GOP Boogeymen that you are so afraid of are going to be any more cooperative to Clinton or any other Democratic president? You think she won't face the same obstacles, or worse?

If you assume Sanders will automatically fail for the reasons stated then you should be intellectually honest and call for Clinton to retract all of her campaign proposals and promises, and slink away too. No democratic cnidate sgold make any promoses. Zip. Zero. Nada.

I;ve got a better idea. Why doesn't the Democratic Party just sit out this Presidential Election? "Folks, we're taking a break, since there is nothing a Democratic President can do under the circumstances. We'll be back in eight years, if we have gotteen a Cingress that is more receptive to our wishes."

[stevenleser]

37. I've been saying all along that compromise legislation is the best we can hope for and that might be

too much considering with whom we have to work.

The next two Presidential terms, if we are lucky enough to seat a Democrat for both of them, are about holding the line at the status quo versus a potential Republican alternative that coupled with a Republican congress would certainly start tearing down many things we find important.

On Edit:

For starters, they would

- Tear up the Iran deal and go to war with and try to regime change Iran

- Tear up the Affordable Care Act and replace it with some measly tax credits and force folks to try to buy full priced insurance with those credits, which will likely amount to 1/3-1/4 of a monthly premium.

- Pass another large tax cut for the wealthy

- Cut back on various services for the poor.

[Armstead]

38. I agree that they have nasty things on their wish list

I disagree with you that the Democrats have to be powerless to fight back or advance anything. The partisan composition of Congress and dominance is always shifting in one way or the other, but that is never a reason to just give up. Among other things, the GOP has their own internal divisions, and tussles between their establishment status quo and more ideological elements.

The next election may (or may not) strengthen the hand of their pragmatists and rein in the Tea Party types. These things are always fluid and volatile and unpredictable.

But in terms of this, I am simply saying that of yyo truly believe yor contention, then your reasons for criticizing Sanders for presenting "promises," proposals whatever, you should also apply to Clinton and all other candidates,

[Armstead]

25. Its not about convincing the GOP in Congress. That isn't the point

We don't live in a country where people are assigned a Red or a blue at birth and afr incapable of changing.

There is a portion that are hardcore partisans, yes. But there are a lot of people who, to various degrees, are not locked into "red" or "Blue" or afre incapable of making decisions on particular issues.

And people, if given an actual choice and reason to support tip the balance.

Yes it's necessary to deal with the lower level races, etc. But the positions and message espoused at the top of the hierarchy set the tone and lead what happens throughout the system.

[stevenleser]

27. Yes it is, and see my #26. Nt

[jwirr]

23. Yes. Bernie takes the message of change and fleshes

it out.

He is also telling us that it is a huge problem that he cannot fix alone. He has gone beyond what the 2008 campaign was about.

[cantbeserious]

28. Needs Comprehensive Systemic Reform To Counter The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

eom

[Maedhros]

31. The two-party winner-take-all model has failed, spectacularly.

I favor proportional representation with public funding of elections.