Suggestions for a Democratic, "Contract with America"

[niceypoo]

The democrats will really need to come up with something similar to Newt's "contract with America" a month or so before the vote.....enough time to scream it from the rooftops but not enough time for the Rove right to twist and distort the message. It will have to be bold, not the same old watered down "tread lightly and don't offend republican voters" message that the democratic party has used to ill effect in the last 6 years. I know that the term "contract with America" is offensive to a lot of Americans but it implies action......we need a strongly named "pact" with voters.

A few of my suggestions:
A MASSIVE scale effort to cheaply extract hydrogen from water and develop safe hydrogen fuel cell technology. Give the technology away. This would Halt our dependency on oil (so we can leave the middle east forever) and would be the first step toward STOPPING GLOBAL WARMING!

A guaranteed minimum level of health-care for all Americans OR at least a guaranteed minimum level of health-care for all American CHILDREN!

Bring back Clinton era fiscal sanity and pay down the national debt COMPLETELY. We owe it to our children.

Repair and restore Americas position as the leader of the free world.

A bold, reality based, non political (not based on nationalism,/fascism/Fear) anti-terror policy that addresses the root causes of terrorism, make friends in the world instead of enemies and lastly KILL BIN LADEN.

Massive economic development for afghanistan. Schools, roads, hospitals....everything Bush initially promised when he invaded Afghanistan but then reneged on a month later.

STOP Bush from SCARING AMERICANS for political gain!

these are just a few suggestions.......

[wyldwolf]

1. several of them already running around

Good ideas in yours, though

[niceypoo]

2. A really obvious one...

...that I missed.

guarentee that EVERY VOTE COUNTS. Set a national standard for federal elections.

[Atman]

3. Never, ever call it a "Democratic Contract With America."

Might as well call it a "Democratic Watergate." You've taken the very worst icon of the Newt Gingrich congress and slapped the "Democratic" name on it. Regardless of what the intent is, or how great the content is, it is a horrible idea to use failed Republican terminology to sell our ideas. It is like admitting that we can't come up with anything new on our own.

[niceypoo]

4. Im not suggesting naming it that....as I said.

The word "contract" is offensive to many Americans in that context. It's the concept that I am suggesting. You totally missed the point.

[Atman]

10. No, I got your point 100%. I am saying NEVER use their terminology.

Why do you feel I missed your point? I think perhaps you missed mine! The concept of a platform of ideas for America from the Democratic Party is a great idea. Period. So why do we have to use the label of a failed Republican ploy to describe it, even if (especially if?) you don't like that name, and realize we need a new one?

Just referencing the "Contract With America" lends gravitas to it, as if it is something that was a great success for them and therefore something we strive to emulate. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

So don't get so offensive. People always ask "How do the Republicans manage to stay on message so well?" and this type of thing is how they do it. They take the suggestions to heart and not take everything personally. I've said this exact same thing to just about everyone else who's posted a "Democratic Contract With America," not just you. It is basic marketing, not a personal attack on the OP.

[niceypoo]

12. And your alternative suggestion is?

???

[Atman]

14. I don't recall. I've posted about this several times, but...

The last time was quite a while ago. I'd have to do some digging. But even still, my suggestion isn't the point. Call it ANYTHING. Call in our "Plan as yet unnamed." It doesn't matter in the slightest, the entire point is that we really don't want to be co-opting failed GOP ideas. You know they'll throw it back at our candidates whenever possible if it ever went public. You can just hear Ken Mealymouth now..."You see these Democrats have no new ideas! They even have to reach all the way back to New Gingrich's brilliant Contract With America for inspiration...blah blah blah."

All I'm saying is, never give them the ammo with which to attack us. "Democratic Contract With America" serves it up to them on a silver platter, imho.

[ACK]

5. Perhaps a populist set of platforms?

1. I believe the Government has a duty to regulate the power of corporations when the corporate interests conflict with public interests. In a capitalist society you have to work with business interests but you cannot be whores to them. When the rubber meets the road and the public interest is at stake then the citizen's interests must be preserved. You can simplify regulations while making them stronger and most of all enforcement and funding for enforcement is the key.

2. I believe that the full protection of the Bill of Rights outlined in the Constitution should not be curtailed. Repeal the Patriot's Act and keep government out of the bedrooms and out of the business of trying to dictate behavior and speech.

3. I believe in a woman's right to choose.

4. I believe that universal healthcare is a moral imperitive and can benefit both the public and the corporate structure of this country. This can be a great benefit to both the public and business interests in America. Free up the HR departments from having to worry over healthcare and you free up an incredible amount of money into the economy. With that kind of money back into the economy insuring the uninsured with pay huge dividends in increased productivity in the end. I see a single-payer system with plenty of options much like what is available to the feds right now. However, I am open to all options that meet the requirements of universal healthcare.

5. I believe in the seperation of church and state and that public money should not go to fund religious organizations.

6. I believe in the social safety net. I believe that government can give a hand up and not just a hand out. The real issue is connecting people with jobs in the private sector. The real issue is retraining and getting people to the available jobs in their areas. Moreover, the biggest issue is figuring out how to prevent single moms from having to choose between providing for their families and abandoning their children. A system with a framework of available childcare, retraining programs that work with local businesses and job networking systems that focus on the local employeement needs.

7. I believe in proper education funding. Focusing on the schools in the most need is crucial and accountability for performance is important as well. There can be no more unfunded mandates. We must have the guts to put our money where our mouth is. The money has to be connected to results but the idea of results without proper funding is a self-fullfilling prophecy of doom.

8. I believe in morality in foreign policy. Too often, being pragmatic has turned to being opportunistic and bullying. In the end, we always pay for it. We have to frame our actions within the insititution of the UN and embrace our allies. We do not have to take a weak hats in our hand approach but that is not the same as being arrogant and unilateral in our actions. We have to have a policy that understand the role of diplomacy and action.

9. I believe in protecting the environment and this can be done without being proxies for industry and without destroying industry. Any progress toward a cleaner environment has to involve business interests as well as environmental groups. A balanced well thought out approach is the answer here. When the business interests work with government and play fair -- praise them (this is tough for some of us) but you have to give them the chance. This is the noose of a chance that every polluter will have the opportunity to hang themselves on. Play the game or pay big. Enforce the laws on the books with a vengence. Come up with a list of the best companies and the worst and make it a huge public affair. Take down the punks and praise those who try to do right.

10. Fiscal responsibility is key. We have to balance the budget. The borrow and spend Republicans are giving away the future for short term economic gains. A total reform of the tax structure, simplification of the rules and the cutting of loopholes for the wealthy are needed immediately.

11. Corporate welfare should end. It is not the government's job in a capitalist society to bail out or give aid to failing corporations. Target the worst of the pork belley giveaways to the richest corporations and make it a reform based media event. This is the biggest key for reducing the size of government spending and freeing billions for other initiatives.

12. I believe in a military strong enough to defend the nation. A two-pronged approach to the military is needed. Weed out waste and give over better benefits to the men in the ranks. We all know there is waste in the current defense budget. This is the only way to cut down defense spending without looking weak. You highlight the cuts as unpatriotic wastes of the taxpayer dollars. You give back at least 50% of all the cuts back to the common soldiers and the vets that have given so much.

13. Independence from non-renewable energy sources should be a national goal with a set of real deadlines. A real energy policy that focuses on getting America away from the dependency on foreign oil and onto the path of using renewable resources is an idea who's time as come. We cannot simply give away more money to energy companies and destroy our national wildlife heritage. That is not the way. Initiatives and grants aimed at promoting new ideas and technologies is the real winning plan. These are the technologies that can put America businesses on top in the long term and preserve our nation's treasured resources.

14. I believe in a worker's right to organize and collectively bargain. Any law that would take away over-time benefits or prevent the rights of workers to collectively bargain must be stopped. The minimum wage must be expanded. Illegal union busting tactics must be stopped. The business of America is business but the core of business is built on the initiative, work, sweat and pride of the American worker.

15. We must save Social Security by putting those funds out of the reach of anyone who would raid those funds for their own political ends. In addition a reform of the current tax system would have to include an elimination on the cap which allows high income individuals to avoid paying their fair share into the system. These two simple reforms can save Social Security for all generations to come.

[niceypoo]

7. Wow!

Very solid stuff there ACK.

[Totallybushed]

6. Excellent suggestions.

However, the question that Republicans and the voters will ask is: How do we pay for all these wonderful things? The answer will have to be higher taxes. Yes, only on the rich, but it will be spun. The Dems will need inimpeachable numbers and figures to back them up, becasue, as I see it, Americans will look at what they have to pay and compare it with what they will get, and decide if they want our products at the price.

[niceypoo]

8. The same way Clinton paid for things.....fiscal sanity

Then you compare and contrast with what we have now. How do you pay for all the massive debt we are accumulating now? Point out that the accumulated wealth of the richest americans doubled under Clintons economic policies.

[Totallybushed]

15. Right.

I'm not disagreeing.

But, the devil is in the details. Democrats say, with some justice, I think, that they can do it better. But the electorate is going to want to know just exactly how. What programs will be cut. What taxes will be raised?

If we don't have answers, they'll go with the devil they know instead of the one they don't.

Besides, fiscal sanity isn't the only issue. How will the Dems fight the war on terror better than the Repubs? surely, as badly as Bushco has fought it, it should be easy to articulate a general plan based on something more than "we'' attack the root causes of terror". Americans don't care about the root causes so much as they care about making it stop or killing the perps. Any campaign, no matter how good otherwise, that ignores this little quirk in the American character will not win an election.

What about the social issues? Gay marriage, abortion, immigration? Sure, we're on the right side of these issues, but our opponents have not gone away and will be spinning like crazy. How do we address their "concerns"?

The Democratic Party needs a strong, and consistent message on all these issues, and more. Silence on any issue implies that they have no plan for that issue. This will be pointed out again and again by the Rs.

And it's no use telling them to stop making the American people afraid, concentrate on the real issues. Those are real issues to them; hence they must be to us.

[ACK]

9. Answer of the lazy - sorry if that sound offensive

We have to get it out of our heads that new programs always need new money or we will always fall into the tax and spend bullshit trap of the Repukes.

The way to increase the amount of money for worthwhile programs in our society is to end the 85 billion dollars a year we spend on pork belly crap policies that amount to corporate welfare or in my eyes corporatism.

60% of all corporations during the boom years of the 90's paid zero percent in taxes. I am not completely anti-corporate and there are in my eyes some good corporate citizens but if you pull the piggies from the trough then we can take the cash out of the slop and put that money to better use.

The issue of corporate giveaway, incentives and breaks are the biggest noose around the necks of the fiscal side of government.

We have the money. We just need to liberate it from the corporate interests.

[niceypoo]

11. We can't fall into the "if we say this then they will just say that" trap

We need to be adamant, we need to be bold, we need to be louder than them. No more milquetoast attitudes or shying from debate.

[ACK]

13. The money is already there in the budget

Its just being tied down as incentives and giveaways to corporations. Why should my tax money go to subsidize some corporation and give them a bonus to move my job overseas!! That is the insanity of Republican thinking and corporatism in America via GOP policies. We are not talking about bailing out entire industries after a national disaster. No, we are talking about giving rich companies doing very well huge breaks, and grants to do business they were already going to do any-damn-way!

Is that forceful enough? :)

[Totallybushed]

17. That is correct.

We need to stand up and say what we will do. In plain, simple language that the slowest sheeple can understand.

The American people will decide rightly if we do so.

[Totallybushed]

16. New programs DO

always need new money. Why would you think otherwise.

Sorry, it's more than a semantic quibble to say that we don't have to end programs, then suggest cutting out the pork for some program. I don't disagree that wwe should cut a lot of pork and raise some taxes on the rich corporate citizens. I'm just saying that your answer is dishonest. ]Somebody wants and depends on every government program, or we wouldn't have it. Some congress critter will scream to high heaven if that program is cut.

Dems have to make these decisions, or we will have the rampant inflation of the Johnson years or the stagflation of the Carter years or the infaltion of Nixon's years.

[ACK]

18. Not always

You do not have to make more money to buy more food or a new conveince even a monthly one in your household.

Instead you cut back on other things in your house or distribute your savings in a different manner.

I am saying you take the money we currently give to large corporations in the manner or grants, incentives, breaks and right out giveaways and put that money instead into programs like the one's the original poster mentioned.

Not a lot of people understand the sheer volume of money the government gives out in to corporations amounting on a yearly basis to 85 billion dollars of the US budget.

That is the essence of my other post that quite simply the money is already there.

It is dishonest to say that some programs do not help anyone except for the corporations and putting a bright light into that dark corner and starting a real national dialogue about the sheer incredible amount of money going out to big business and using that money to fund worthwhile projects is the best way to fund said programs.

And its absolutely the only way outside of raising income taxes to bring under control the national deficit. We are literally mortaging away our children's future for programs like the ones that give incentives to corporations and tax breaks in order for them to "do business overseas" which translates into them getting money from the government in order to ship jobs overseas. That is plainly insane.

You do not raise taxes you eliminate the loopholes that allow 60% of all corporations during the Clinton boom years no less to pay 0% taxes.

If they pay their fair share there is no reason to have to raise taxes at all.

[Totallybushed]

20. I hear what you are saying, but

you're fooling yourself.

Yes, the money has to be re-distributed between programs, which include corporation giveaways. Eliminating loopholes is raising taxes on somebody. They will scream. If there are more of us than of them, we can raise the taxes on them, but let's not kid ourselves that it's anything but a tax raise.

Yet Democrats are so afraid of the term that they basically waffle over saying that's what they are going to do. Nobody is going to vote for a coware who can't tell them his policies, and waffling convinces people that the politician doing so is a coward. Say what you will about Bush, he pretty much laid it out there what he was going to do. And this convinced people that he was a)a "stand-up" guy, and b) telling the truth, although, as we know, all the evidence says otherwise.

To balance the budget there are only two ways to go about it. Cut programs (what you are suggesting), or raise taxes, which you vehemently deny suggesting, but which you really are. Or both.

But you are right, it needs to be done, and soon. We can't keep going on like this. So what I want is a Democrat who will tell the American people what they need to her, and also, do it specifically. Not some generic crap like, "We'll cut the pork; we'll cut the fat out of the budget." No, I want someone that will say, "This program, program A, that only helps the XX industry, must be cut and the money applied to program B, for poor children."

That's the kind of talk that will get people thinking the politician has a plan and the guts to carry it out. Of course, everybody depending on program A will vote against him, so he has to choose his targets to maximize his gains by winning more votes than he loses. He can't please everyone, so he should pick his side and stick with it. We need no more Leibermans.

[ACK]

21. Ah but that is the key you are eliminating loopholes

Which is what Clinton did to a small degree and the Repukes tried to paint it as raising taxes but had a lot of trouble doing.

I hear what you are saying. The key is to ask the man on the street "Are the rich paying their fair share?"

The answer on the street is what they already know, "No." They get out of it by hook and crook.

Eliminating loopholes for the rich and greedy is in a sense raising taxes which is always the way the Repukes will paint it.

But its not the same as adding NEW taxes or NEW money. This is money that was already spent or accounted for as going out to this corporation or that industry. Also its far different than actually raising the income tax rate which even if you did it only to the rich would do nothing but ensure another republican victory.

This is especially true and more palatable when talking about corporate welfare programs to companies that already doing quite well in the economy.

If you are straight forward its both honest and very liberal and shines a light into a nasty corner of budget politics than only Nader has had the guts so far to try and walk into.

No we do not need any more fence sitters I think in my first post I painted a pretty clear platform of issues for examples. It made me sick to see men like Edwards and especially Kerry during the debates talking circles around themselves over the damn abortion issue. Everyone knows you guys are pro-choice so they should have stfu said they were pro-choice and left it at that. Instead they wormed around the issue.

Having a stand-up guy as a candidate is definitely something we can both agree with I am tired of the folks who try to reach out to everyone on each side of the issue.

[Totallybushed]

22. You are right.

The Democratic leaders HAVE to stop sitting on the fence. They need to take a stand, even if it offends some progressives on some issues. I'm not saying that they need to be "moderates". What I'm saying is that there are issues that progressives can legitimately disagree on, or think should be put on the back-burner till after we're in office again.

I'm also particualrly not saying we should move to the right to attract the middle. Those folks aren't going to vote for us, anyway.

What they need to do is stop worrying about offending someone and losing their vote. Go for the votes of those you will agree with you on more issues than not. don't be afraid to speak up, Dem leaders and candidates.

On the other hand, I see no positive results from the attacks on Republican candidates and spokesperson. They will hang themselves out of their own mouths. For us to try to do it for them is no more effective, and demeans us, IMO. Especially the candidates. It's OK here on DU, although I find it distasteful, myself.

[niceypoo]

23. Can the US afford to NOT go all out against global warming, damn the cost?

Think about it. If the seas rise 3 feet, how much would that cost us? trillions and trillions and that would only be the beginning. Eventually soneone will have to grow a pair and face reality.

[Totallybushed]

26. Well, and good.

Still, there's little that the USA can do as long as underdeveloped nateions insist on improving their own standard of living. And Americans will be extremely reluctant to lower their standard of living. why should they be any different from anybody else? That fellow (or woman ) with the pair is unlikely to get elected if they are honest about what they intend. And I really think that if the government is going to be overthrown, it's likely to be over something like that rather than a war in a foreign land with minimal (compare CW, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam) casualties, or the lack of universal health care. I might be wrong here, but that's the way my money goes.


Only a world-wide dictatorship is likely to be able to enforce the cutbacks necessary. Wouldd that be an acceptable alternative?

Of course, use of alternative energy sources could be done. Nuclear seems the one that could be installed the fastest. There are dangers to this path, of course, but are they greater than the dangers of global warming?

I guess my fear is that trying to cut back on energy use will mean, in the end, war, vast, global war, as different tribes compete for scarce resources. Naturally, that is one way to reduce the growth in population that drives energy use and global warming, but it is not one that I would care to see.

But you are right. Something should be done.

[bobbolink]

19. Nothing at all on poverty, eh?

whew! I'm so glad my vote isn't needed or wanted.

:thumbsdown:

[niceypoo]

24. Well then suggest something!

[bobbolink]

27. WHy?

Only to be met with dismissal, and being ignored? That's what I've encountered in the past here. It's very discouraging to see thread after thread like this, and hardly a squeak about those who are poor and hurting. Katrina taught nothing, obviously!!

Why can't those of you who are "comfortable" actually THINK about those of us who are being ignored by the party??

Don't you think that might actually help the party, in the long run, besides helping people in poverty?

[Joey Liberal]

25. Promise to follow the Bill of Rights n/t