My vision of an American left

[Fovea]

Would be centered around the following platform planks.

Labor friendly economic recovery.
Executive Compensation Caps.
Market reforms that curtail speculative action by transaction tax and accounting reforms that prohibit tranching debt instruments.
Public education to grade 16.
Equal oversight on labor and management by the government.
Universal Healthcare (Medicare for all).
Thirty percent per capita energy efficiency by 2016.
National high speed rail and national lightrail interurban network with its own track.


These all win based on upcoming trends and the need for massive Keynesian stimulus or the obvious need for economic reform.

[Profprileasn]

1. Ultimate

That would be an ultimate goal. One step at a time. I think the major problem, as with wanting things for your own family, is paying for it all.

[BeFree]

2. Not bad, pretty good actually

But we'd have to see the end of capitalism as we know it, first.

There would have to be a great equalization of the income extremities, meaning a whole lot less rich mofos and a lot less po'. And mo' just middle folks.

Getting from here to there would also help slow down about half the environmental crises we face, and the other half we'd have a leg up on.

How long is this gonna take before we see it gettin' done?

[...of J.Temperance]

5. Capitalism is the only proven method of economics that works

Which is why 99% of the planets Governments are Capitalist.

The "equalization of the income extremities" is also known as Wealth Redistribution, a key aim of Socialism.

I see no need to PUNISH success, and I see no need to steal from Peter to give to Paul.

The Middle Class are helped by further tax cuts that are geared toward them, and by things like more affordable childcare and more affordable healthcare etc.

[Fovea]

8. Name ten actual capitalist governments

Governments with no welfare, no governmental labor rights, with a pure market driven healthcare system and an unregulated investment and security market.

Where is AynRandia?

I don't get your point about socialism. I think you believe that economic success is not dependent on government infrastructure. Taxation is not robbery. Progressive taxation is based on the unarguable concept that the poor spend a higher percentage of income on the essentials of life than do the idle rich but that a portion of most income is the cost of living in society,. as opposed to some Hobbisan construct of the cash nexus.

[...of J.Temperance]

10. Not sure where you get this from:

Capitalism =

"Governments with no welfare, no governmental labor rights, with a pure market driven healthcare system and an unregulated investment and security market."

I wasn't suggesting any of that, I was saying that Capitalism is prefered across the planet rather than Socialism, the latter is rejected by the majority of people.

Can you name 10 purely Socialist governments, as in where the population controls ALL of the land and property and BUSINESS of their country and where rich people have their money taken off them and given away to the less rich in a redistribution of wealth program.....I can't think of many countries that adopt a Socialistic form of government like that, can you?

[Fovea]

14. No, I can't name a government I would call completely socialist

That's the core of my point.
I was not specifically calling for worker control of the means of production, collectivization of agriculture, nationalization of all industry.

I do think profits from all non renewable or carbon neutral energy should be nationalized and plowed back into research and development of systems.
To do this will require some redistribution of wealth, but we have been doing that since the beginning of Income Tax.

I am also ok in expanding tariffs to reduce middle and lower income tax burdens.

I am not much of a free trader.

As for your last question, most industrial first world nations have some form of universal health care.
Of first world nations, we are the sole one without it.

[...of J.Temperance]

16. The points you made earlier Re. Capitalism

"Governments with no welfare, no governmental labor rights, with a pure market driven healthcare system and an unregulated investment and security market."

I am a Capitalist, I admit that, but I also fully support a government having a welfare system, a country has a moral right to protect and help it's most vulnerable citizens, welfare though should be a safety net whereby those who genuinely cannot help themselves are protected and given assistance.

The welfare system is often abused, by those who aren't vulnerable, but instead just bone lazy, so I do support further Welfare-to-Work programs for the able-bodied, obviously if someone finds themselves unemployed, I think they should be given welfare for as long as they're unemployed.

But at the same time they should be put onto a job finding program, and them getting unemployment welfare should be tied to going on the job finding program, if they refuse to go on the job finding program then they should NOT be given unemployment welfare....because welfare should be a hand-up and not a hand-out.

Those who are seriously ill, elderly and other vulnerables, I consider these people as the genuine needy for which the welfare system should be there to give them a safety net to protect them....I also believe that anyone over the age of 70 should have completely FREE healthcare and completely FREE prescription drugs.

I support labor rights, although I'm not 100% pro-Labor Unions, I think that workers should be given a choice of whether they want to join a Labor Union or not, sometimes it seems that workers are intimidated into joining a Labor Union, which I don't think is right myself.

I'm opposed to a market-driven healthcare system.

I agree that some form of regulation regarding big business does need to occur, although not like a stranglehold regulation, but more like a watchdog.

Your other points:


"I do think profits from all non renewable or carbon neutral energy should be nationalized and plowed back into research and development of systems."


Well not ALL profits, I think that maybe a windfall tax every say two years on said profits, and that money is used to be put back into research and development into renewable and/or carbon natural energy. I am 100% against ANY nationalization by the government of anything regardless of what it is.


"I am also ok in expanding tariffs to reduce middle and lower income tax burdens.

I am not much of a free trader."


I do support free trade and I'd like to see less tariffs in order to create even more free trade, I don't think it's a good idea to have these barriers that block free trade between nations.

I fully support assisting the middle class by, as I said earlier, having targeted tax cuts specifically designed and geared towards the middle class, and added benefits such as more affordable childcare and more affordable healthcare.


"As for your last question, most industrial first world nations have some form of universal health care.
Of first world nations, we are the sole one without it."


The Japanese and French healthcare systems I think are excellant, I think those are two models that should be studied and seen if in some form they could be adopted....affordable healthcare is a human right, healthcare shouldn't be on a tier system, whereby those with money can afford it and those with less money can't afford it, to me that's pretty immoral, there shouldn't be a price put on a persons health.


So there are a number of things that you and I can agree on to varying degrees.


On Edit: Added comment

[sfnative]

70. Right-Wing Myths

"I support labor rights, although I'm not 100% pro-Labor Unions, I think that workers should be given a choice of whether they want to join a Labor Union or not, sometimes it seems that workers are intimidated into joining a Labor Union, which I don't think is right myself."

Your comments sound like they've been taken out of the pages of right wing talking points. The biggest lie about unions is that we "intimidate" workers to join. In actuality, employers are doing all the intimidating. Companies like Wal-Mart hire million dollar union-busting lawyers to figure out how they scare employees into not organizing without breaking any unfair labor practice laws. Don't think employers are not above firing or threatening workers for unionizing when the employees are simply asking for better working conditions, benefits and a living wage.

If you want the poor to try harder becoming rich, how about the rich trying harder to become poor? How about CEOs taking pay cuts so that the lowest paid worker can have a little more to survive on?

The only welfare queens I see today are the financial companies who were handed $700 billion without any oversight.

[...of J.Temperance]

90. I myself think that CEO's should have their salaries capped

It's pretty grotesque, especially now during this recession, that CEO's are getting these $40 million a year salaries.

And for the record, I hate Wal-Mart and the Walton family.

[girl gone mad]

101. In our economy, the lay ones are the paper pushers at the top.

and robbing Peter to pay Paul means taxing the middle class to bail out the wealthy.

[...of J.Temperance]

109. The Middle Class need

A tax cutting package aimed at them, coupled with more affordable childcare and more affordable healthcare, the new Congress and President Obama will see to it that the Middle Class receive these things.

Part of this whole problem began of course, when W and the Republicans decided to put into place their utterly reckless and lop-sided trillion dollar tax cuts, which were geared toward helping the top 1% who don't NEED help at the expense of the Middle Class who needed help even back then.

Had we of had responsible people in charge, quite a bit of this mess wouldn't have gotten as bad as it has.

[cali]

22. You are clueless about Socialism.

just clueless. What you're talking about is communism not socialism.

[...of J.Temperance]

24. Socialism is a watered-down version of Communism

They are two sides of the same coin.

[Terry in Austin]

33. oooh - commies!

Boo!

[...of J.Temperance]

38. Yeah I know, they're EVERYWHERE!

:P

[Terry in Austin]

46. Gee, maybe they're onto something, then

Actually, communism is very rare. Not the USSR, China, or any national government. Closest examples would be monasteries and the military.

Socialism, well, that's a very vague term. It's just as vague -- and therefore meaningless -- as "capitalism."

But the basic idea is that if you're going to have a society, it might as well be social. Beats being anti-social, but YMMV.

[Fovea]

95. Glen Fiddich

is a watered down version of anhydrous ethanol.

Capitalism as you, yourself describe it is a very watered down version of what Milton Friedman would describe,
or Adam Smith, for that matter.

In fact, what you call capitalism, most would call a mixed system. They exist along a spectrum, from almost fascist to almost marx-mao-castro levels of central economic control.

Soviet Communism was a bastardized version of what Marx describes.
Social Democracies are a far cry from what Lenin cobbled together.

The problem is that these terms you use are both terms of art in political science, and vices in a long playing right wing morality play.
You are tending to use them in the latter way. Using the specter of communism as a boogie man. I am living in a nation that suspended habeas corpus and read its citizen's email without a thought of due process, and you are red baiting? I, for example do not think that workers should control the means of production, but I damn well think they should not be wage slaves either.
They should have all the tools of legal, peaceful collective bargaining at their disposal in any shop bigger than your living room.

Does that make me a member of the Red Army? Of course not, though being able to sing the internationale in slavic would be suspicious.

Let's deal with this on a less dramatic level. There are some really valid things that are government business. Functions that extend the benefits of human society upon all. Like the gentle rain and summer sun, the benefits of human society rightly fall on the virtuous and the foolish. To do else would require more than our duty to our species and our conscience should allow, no? Those things are at least as dear as a 600 ship navy, because without them, what besides the fortunes of the few are we protecting? Paying for those functions can occur via several mechanisms. One of those is taxation; another is tariff. Yet another is state management of a specific resource for the public good.

If you think the way to go is a straight flat income tax, then you have skewed the game very favorably to those who enjoy massive capital gains. Take away inheritance tax, and you just loaded your family in the SUV and took the entrance ramp for the Interstate To Serfdom(tm).

I advocate constraints on massive wealth because I do not think that a republic is well served by having a familial overloardship. Aristocracy cannot sustain, and it is a brutal form of governance. Democracies flourish best in a flat linear distribution of wealth and a uniform availability of opportunity. At least so far the EU seems to be verifying this in the real world.

Like my SIG line says...

[Zhade]

114. You can't be stupid enough to believe that.

NT!

[LeftishBrit]

126. I honestly disagree

I think that socialism has as much in common with communism (in the sense that the term is generally used politically) as Christianity has with the Inquisition, or Islam with the Taliban. Most Communist states have been quasi-theocracies, where, as with religion in other theocracies, socialism has been distorted into a rigidly, tyrannically imposed doctrine. The leaders become all-powerful, the representatives of ultimate Virtue as well as temporal power, and dissent is stifled. Realism is sacrificed to ideology, and in the end equality is usually also sacrificed to privilege for apparatchiks.

But socialism as such, applied flexibly, without tyranny, and with a 'mixed economy' that gives a role to private ownership, has generally worked rather well IMO: e.g. pre-Thatcher Britain, especially under Attlee, and some Scandinavian countries nowadays.

[blindpig]

129. Who is clueless?

Communism is the end game of socialism.

[...of J.Temperance]

12. We need to find a middle way

A way that will help the poorer in society to get a better deal, BUT we shouldn't go about doing that by punishing those in society who are successful.

I'm not saying that taxation is robbery, I'm not anti-tax, although I do support keeping as many taxes as possible as low as possible.

[Fovea]

15. Re establishment of trade tariffs would be my preferred way

and the reduction of the military to a force designed to defend America, not enforce its foreign policy.
That alone, right sizing our military would go a far way toward making America livable.

[...of J.Temperance]

17. I'm against trade tariffs, but I agree that the military budget is obscene

I think the military budget needs looking at with a fine toothcomb, there are many areas I suspect where good reductions can be made, targeted reductions I mean, not slash and burn reductions.

I think it's important to have a strong military, I think you do have to have the military in foreign situations sometimes, I don't agree with just having the military there to solely defend one's particular home country.

[Fovea]

20. I am not convinced we need 400 ships online

and the ability to have a military presence in over one hundred countries.

The founding fathers would have been dead set against it. And were, as a matter of fact.
They wanted a republic, not an empire.

I think it is important to defend America. We can do that substantially from home. We have the largest air force and nuke arsenal in the world. It alone means no one will ever invade us.
One MOAB into a hijacked tanker would end indian ocean piracy forever. 100mil insurance claim. Twenty five collateral fatalities, the deterrance factor, priceless.
It would then suffice to tell the house of fahd that the next wahabbist who borrows an airliner gets their oil infrastructure turned into glass.

Instead we invaded their secular socialist neighbor -- the major rival in terms of oil reserves and the major check to the power of Iran.
We don't need a bigger hammer, we can't use the one we have now without breaking stuff and acting like a drunken fratboy.


Other nations have structural barriers to our products. Globalism is a racket, as Smedley Butler might have said.
Tarriffs halt the race to the bottom among trading nations.

[...of J.Temperance]

26. We are agreed on Saudi Arabia and Iraq

Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan, are the worlds two biggest sponsors of REAL terrorism, the Saudi's fund the Madrassas hate schools in Pakistan, all of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi, none were Iraqi, Pakistan is harboring senior Al-Qaeda figures in Southern Pakistan.

The REAL war on terrorism is to be found in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Iraq had nothing to do with anything, I was against invading Iraq from day one.


On Edit: Dammit typing error

[Fovea]

97. The Saud Royalty turned

the wahabbists into a hate motivated sect pointed at modernity.

The CIA taught them asymmetrical warfare.
The Bush Family gave them weapons and pointed them at godless communism.

It seemed like a smart idea at the time by all the best men.
Rummy was selling poison to Saddam to kill Iranians who hated his godless socialism
enough to send teenage boys in human wave attacks again sarin nerve gas.
Condi was about to earn her oil tanker by humping central asian despots.

Saddam's Iraq officially protected Shia, Sunni, Christian (his cabinet had a major figure who was Christian), and Jews.
The new Iraq, not so much. Yes, Saddam was a megalomanical strongman, but the baathist party seems to favor them, and I don't see us
putting the same sort of effort against megalomanical strongmen not sitting on the world's second largest reserve of sweet crude.

As we have also seen, Iraq is a hard creature to nourish. It is a third camel, a third papyrus, and a third oil pipeline. It was a modern affectation, a nation made of other people's problems, and glued in place by oil and the need for a counter-weight to Iran and the SSRs. It was the land BP would not let die.

Pakistan is the sad armpit of the last incarnation of the great game. It is the curse laid upon Moslem Indians who could not abide a Hindu replacement for the Raj.
They inherited the tribal lands, and the toxic things it produces. As far as I am concerned, Pakistan answers the Miltonian question. It IS better to serve in heaven.

[BeFree]

11. Well then

I guess you can call me a socialist, please do. Make my day.

There is no need to punish success, that is a fallacy, except when the success comes at the cost to those who are beaten down or deprived just so that one gets more than is truly needed. Then punishment should be quick and successful.

There are a whole bunch of things the middle class could be helped by, throwing them a bone like you suggest is just that, throwing them a bone after you've eaten away all the meat.

Besides, the present system is unsustainable. Ecologically, progressively and humanely. There are many far more important things in this world than just what one individual can acquire and hoard.

[...of J.Temperance]

18. I don't call giving the Middle Classes tax cuts and affordable childcare and affordable healthcare

"Throwing them a bone"

[leftofthedial]

27. works? ha ha ha ha!

Now that all the free resources are gone except slavery, it will either fail miserably (as we now see happening all over the world), or it will enslave us all.

Either way, that does not work.

Capitalism was adopted widely not because it works in any objective sense, but rather because it is the most efficient form of economic control that allows the welathy to maintain their privilege and power and to extend their wealth at the expense of large populations. It is a pyramid scheme, pure and simple.

[Terry in Austin]

29. Ah, the Capitalist Catechism

You call equalization "punishing" and "stealing" and "RE-distribution"

Hey, bub, there's no "RE" about it. Wealth is distributed, period. And it's according to a priority that's set by those in power.

[Zhade]

113. Social Capitalism, maybe. Try Sweden - beats our ass at economic growth and prosperity.

NT!

[mitchtv]

3. not without Gay rights

NOt this time

[Fovea]

4. I would like to reframe the prop eight issue

as equal rights and equal service. And couple tolerance to a new egalitarian national service requirement.
Within that framework, the issue becomes part of universal suffrage and the social contract.

By doing so, we rejoin the issue of gay rights to the framework of the larger social contract that is irreducible.

But that's just my .02.

[mitchtv]

7. Maybe I am old and stupid

but I don't think my rights need to be attached to any provisos.

[Fovea]

9. Maybe you are currently disinclined to see yourself as part of the whole.

Not without provocation, but my point was not to make one person's rights less than another's. In fact, the point is no man is an island, for good or ill.

Human rights are indivisible. The fact that we even are discussing them as gay or het is a victory for Karl Rove, IMO.

[...of J.Temperance]

6. Gay people should be given 100% the same rights as non-Gay people

We ALL should have the same human rights and social rights....in 2008, it's grotesque that certain sections of society are still being treated as second class citizens.

[BeFree]

13. Actually

Poor people are treated as second class citizens. They can't hire the best lawyers, enjoy the protections of the gov. while overseas, be wined and dined by lobbyists, fly their private jets to and fro, get police at their door in seconds.... do I need to go on? Do you get the point? Because your point seems to be that if you are a success, a financial success, the the whole world is at your whim, and only regulated by how large of a success you are.

[...of J.Temperance]

19. I don't know why you seem so anti-success

Re:

"They can't hire the best lawyers, enjoy the protections of the gov. while overseas, be wined and dined by lobbyists, fly their private jets to and fro, get police at their door in seconds...."

MOST of the people who can do all of that, have WORKED for it, they have worked hard at school and got good educational qualifications and then gone on to have success in their chosen field.

[Fovea]

21. Not in my old field.

Most of the successes I knew personally did not start a software house in their basement with a dream and a soldering iron. They started with a contract they got through their network of cronies and hired talent to fulfill it, then used the golden parachute when they fucked up and sold to a sucker. At my company, much of upper management came from the motivational seminar circuit. They were not hard workers, they were glib frat boys glad handing each other about the invisible hand of the market. They were all after the fast score, in and out.

They got their invisible hand job, and didn't even tip. They were managing the brightest folks in the world the way you wouldn't even manage a neighborhood dog show.
I have not seen much of the classical American dream of hard work and success of the sort you refer to in action. Maybe my ex FiL who was on the board of KMrat for while. The real successes don't get stopped by a top marginal rate over fifty percent. By the time it applies to them, their wealth is already the working stiff in their families.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. For every entrepreneur who goes from rags to riches with something he

built in his garage, there's a crass idiot who was born into affluence, went to an Ivy League school through family connections, and got hired through alumni connections to work on Wall Street or in the upper reaches of the federal government or writing for major publications, despite only average writing skills. How do I know this? I went to an Ivy League school for graduate school, was in organizations with mediocre rich kids and TA'd mediocre rich kids.

There's something suspicious about a young person whose only writing experience is a university newspaper going directly from college to senior editor at a major news magazine, book reviewer for a major newspaper, sportswriter for a major newspaper, staff writer at a major feature magazine. (These are people I knew.)

You can't tell me that those people worked harder or wrote better than the run-of-the-mill J-school graduate who ends up at a small town newspaper and most likely stays there because newspapers are cutting back on their staffs.

[girl gone mad]

105. You might like this letter from a hedge fund manager.

He says pretty much the same thing. He went to elite private schools through scholarships and says the vast majority of his peers were undeserving of their educations and were basically idiot lemmings who screwed up our private sector and our government and were easy to make money off of during the downturn:

Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.

Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, "What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it." I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.

I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.

So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don't worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer's company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.

I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life -- where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management -- with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.

On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government.

Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man's interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft's near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27239479">more...

[cali]

23. most of the people that can do that don't come from poor backgrounds

they've been given an incredible boost up simply by dint of birth.

And believe me, I know. I grew up in one of the wealthiest communities in the country, went to the most elite private schools. I know exactly who my peers were.

[...of J.Temperance]

25. I went to elite private schools as well

And I know who my peers were and are as well.

Regarding the poor, I see absolutely no reason why if they WANT to they can't better their lot, they could go to night school, go to college etc, study for a degree, or study to get some better qualifications that would enable them to get a better paid job.

[cali]

28. Yes, indeedy why can't those ingrate poor people just pull themselves

up by their frayed bootstraps. If you start out in a home ground down by poverty, attending crappy schools, you absolutely do not have the opportunities that someone born into the middle class has- let alone someone born into the upper middle or upper classes.

And please don't tell me that most of the students at the elite private schools you attended were on scholarship.

[...of J.Temperance]

34. Nobody at my elite private schools were on scholarships

Everybody's parents did in fact have to pay....but that's beside the point.

The point is, that the vast majority of my fellow students did indeed work hard and study and pass their exams.

I also never said that poor people should just "pull themselves up by their frayed bootstraps", I'm NOT heartless.

There are plenty of routes for the poorer in society to go to night school or enroll at a college, they CAN get financial assistance from outside organizations in order to help them to get a better education.

The poor need personal motivation, they can get assistance, but also they have to understand that they need to begin to help themselves as well.

If someone is born into poverty, why on earth would they want to remain in such circumstances all their lives and even worse bear children and bring said children up in poverty?

Surely they should WANT to better themselves in order to be able to give their children a better quality of life than they had....isn't that what being a responsible and forward-thinking adult is ALL about?

[cali]

40. let me point out a couple of things:

One is that there is no such thing as an elite private school that doesn't offer scholarships. I challenge you to name one.

The point that seems to completely escape you is that poverty is a grinding down experience and that children born into and raised in poverty absolutely do not have the opportunities of those of more fortunate birth. It's much more difficult to be forward thinking when one's existence is hemmed in by poverty.

I find everything you've written in this thread absolutely lacking in any compassion and utterly clueless.

Not to mention repugnant.

[...of J.Temperance]

45. Maybe there were

Some on scholarships, but I never had any of them in my circle of friends, so I wouldn't be able to say who those on scholarships were, because I never had an association with them.

Regarding the poor being "hemmed in by poverty", IF they CHOOSE to they can break out of that vicious cycle, someone isn't going to go and deliver a better life to them on a plate, they have to say to themselves that they KNOW there's a better life for them, and then take the steps on the road to attaining that better life.

As I said, I'm not heartless, I do have compassion, but also I'm being a realist when I say that the poor IF they WANT to CAN better themselves.

Clueless? Well that's your opinion. Repugnant? Well that's your opinion.

[cali]

48. no, many cannot choose to just break out of the pattern.

For instance, poor nutrition has a known impact on brain development. So do other poverty factors, like poor healthcare. Poverty and disease are connected. People are formed during their childhood years, and poverty deprives many of living up to their potential.

You are clearly igorant on this subject. Why not inform yourself instead of repeating patently false bullshit.

yeah, you bet I'm repulsed by your smug and ignorant crap.

[...of J.Temperance]

55. "For instance, poor nutrition has a known impact on brain development"

There are also higher rates of alcohol drinking amongst those in poverty, and I don't mean alcoholism, I mean drinking booze because there's nothing else for them to do, maybe if they cut back on spending money on booze and spent the money on better food for their children....

Also maybe if they had LESS children, it's highly reckless to produce more children when they can barely afford to provide for the ones they already have....contraception is cheaper than yet another mouth to feed that they can't afford.

Again I've been polite toward you, so there's no need for you to use such hostile language toward me such as "bullshit" and "ignorant crap"

[LeftishBrit]

130. Lots of rich people drink too.

Probably more, because they can afford to drink more. I've heard that the drinking habits of British MPs are not exactly abstemious.

Do you seriously think that a high proportion of parents neglect to buy good food for their kids because they're spending it all on drink? Yes, this does sometimes happen with alcoholics; but you excluded this group. It's not the main cause of child poverty.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. You really have no clue, do you?

It's like what Jesse Jackson said about race, "We'll know that racism is dead when a mediocre black person has the same chance in life as a mediocre white person."

The same is true of social class. It is so much harder for a poor person to make it into the middle class that many give up in despair, or their life circumstances get in the way, or they had no one to teach them how to succeed. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay for private schools, encourage their children to get into a prestigious college, and pull strings to get them interviews at prestigious companies.

I suggest that you go do volunteer work among some actual poor people, listen to their life stories, and then tell me that all they have to do is take some initiative. Or better yet, tell THEM that all they need is some initiative. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they tell you what you can do with your "initiative."

[...of J.Temperance]

47. "Or they had no one to teach them how to succeed"

So you're saying that poor people have an inability to use their God given brain, and instead have to have people there to "teach" them how to get out of their unfortunate circumstances?

They themselves thinking of getting out of their poverty situation should be pure common sense I think.


"I suggest that you go do volunteer work among some actual poor people"

I have already done this, and I still do charity work that involves the less fortunate of society.

[cali]

49. you know jackshit about brain development.

And the environmental influences on it. I'm embarassed by your ignorance.

[...of J.Temperance]

51. You don't need to get bad-mannered, I've been perfectly polite toward you n/t

[cali]

52. I apologize. But you really appear to know nothing

about the effects of poverty on child development. You keep repeating the same unscientific stuff. You really need to inform yourself on this subject instead of simply hewing to beliefs that are NOT grounded in fact.

[...of J.Temperance]

56. Apology accepted

I think we obviously have differing views on how to deal with the poverty situation, I do care that there are people out there who are struggling in rather appalling circumstances....I also get frustrated because I know that they CAN lift themselves out of those situations, it has been done, I'm sure you've read articles where so and so was born poor but have made a success of their life.

[cali]

58. Those are the rare, rare exceptions, not the rule.

you're ignoring the facts. and there's simply no point in discussing something with someone who doesn't want to lift themself out of ignorance.

[...of J.Temperance]

60. I'm not ignorant, it's just that you and I have a DIFFERENT take on this issue

We're just approaching this topic from different angles, that's not ignorance.

[cali]

62. I'm sorry, but it is ignorant not to grasp the profound effects

of poverty on the development of the brain.

[...of J.Temperance]

65. The effects of poverty on the development of the brain

Should be the number one reason why adults in poverty should want to get themselves out of the poverty environment, so that their children grow up in more comfortable circumstances than they grew up in....rather than recklessly condemn their children to a life living in poverty.

[cali]

69. oh for pity's sake

the adults in poverty grew up in poverty. they may well not have the skills to get their children out and how dare you accuse poor peole of recklessly condemming their children to poverty? It's people like YOU with attitudes like yours that condemn children to a life of poverty.

[...of J.Temperance]

74. *Scratches head"

You said:

"It's people like YOU with attitudes like yours that condemn children to a life of poverty."

So it's people like me, it's OUR fault that for GENERATIONS the poor haven't been personally motivated to get themselves an education?

People like ME have held these people back?

Huh?

[Zhade]

118. Some people are not only clueless, they're fucking heartless too.

NT!

[Zhade]

116. You are ignorant of the fact that poor children who can't EAT have less brain development.

That's a proven fact, one you don't even appear to know.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Actually, those of us who were born middle or upper class WERE taught

how to succeed, but it was so much a part of our upbringing that we never even realized it.

Similarly, many poor people have unconsciously absorbed ways NOT to succeed.

It takes an EXCEPTIONAL person to overcome the negative influences of growing up in poverty, while a middle class person with success conscious parents, even a mediocre middle class person, will automatically enter school with a larger vocabulary and more extensive experiences, as well as the expectation that he or she will succeed.

[...of J.Temperance]

59. "Similarly, many poor people have unconsciously absorbed ways NOT to succeed"

Which is a vicious cycle that NEEDS to be broken, because if it's not then we will always have poverty, well obviously, we probably will never be able to totally eliminate poverty, but with the right educational programs and with encouraging the poor to become personally motivated, we can at least go some way to reducing poverty.

[cali]

61. and that will take a huge investment and committment

And raising taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes.

[...of J.Temperance]

66. Or rather than raise taxes, one could cut

Wasteful spending and eliminate certain government departments, such as the hugely wasteful Department of Homeland Security for instance.

Also rather than raising taxes, after say next Summer, the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars per MONTH that are being wasted on giving money to the unthankful Iraqi's should be stopped.

Privatizing NASA would again free up A LOT of money, NASA could adequately survive by being funded by private patronage as opposed to government funds.

These things would create quite a nice nest egg that could be spent on educational programs etc for the poor.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

98. Yeah, right, ANYTHING but raise taxes on the super-rich

or cutting the Pentagon back to what is really needed to defend the country.

:eyes:

[...of J.Temperance]

110. If you read my post # 17, you'll see that I already said that the defense budget needs cutting

Targeted cuts, the defense budget is way out of control, it needs looking at with a fine toothcomb and waste needs to be eliminated and there needs to be targeted cuts....not slash and burn cuts.

Downthread, I said that raising taxes on the wealthy has been tried years ago, it didn't work then, it won't work now and it will also result in people putting more money offshore so the government can't get at it.

[JetCityLiberal]

68. What a slimy post

but you were born into wealth what the fuck do you really know. Your posts show you as clueless.

And despicable.

Paul

[cali]

71. it is rather distressing to see this kind of stuff on du

[JetCityLiberal]

72. I am pretty sick of it cali

Not surprised by this one at all, but I am still sick of it. This is really disgusting to me.

Paul

[...of J.Temperance]

75. Not as distressing and as slimy as the anti-gay posts that popped up all around the place n/t

[cali]

77. ignorance, hate and closed minds are distressing on any subject

being pro-gay rights isn't some blanket absolution.

[...of J.Temperance]

82. I don't think it's me that's displaying the hate here, I am seeing rather a

Number of posts that appear to exhibit some form of loathing for wealthy people though.

It seems that it's bothered a few people because I DARED to suggest that poor people could try and help themselves a bit more, by utilizing the assistance that's out there and provided for them, specifically geared towards trying to get them out of their poverty situation.

It seems some have almost declared the poor as Saintly Beings, where NOTHING is their fault, and EVERYTHING is the fault of EVERYBODY else and as such one can't even dare to criticize the poor for bizarrely staying in their poverty situation instead of getting help to help themselves.

On Edit: Dammit typing error

[JetCityLiberal]

79. Yes it is just as slimy

This is typical of what you post.

You got yours. Yeah we get that from you.

Get over yourself.

Paul

[...of J.Temperance]

78. So this is really all about what? Hating and envying the wealthy

And then penalizing people for being successful? Then taking things from Peter (wealthy) to give to Paul (poor), when Paul (poor) shows NO interest in doing ANYTHING to try and help themselves?

There are means of assistance out there for poor people, that assistance is geared towards helping them to help themselves....either those people are unaware of this assistance, OR they are aware of it but can't be bothered getting motivated and would rather just wait for a hand-out rather than a hand-up.

[JetCityLiberal]

81. You are clueless

and you obviously like being that way.

So all your wealthy 'private education' didn't help you much.

Paul

[...of J.Temperance]

83. Your solution to the poverty problem is what then?

Sorry I must have missed it.

[JetCityLiberal]

84. Higher taxes on the wealthy like your Dad

for a start.

Paul

[cali]

85. your true colors are really shining through

you're reguritating all the right wing lies on this subject. your post would be a perfect fit for freeperville.

And don't make me laugh with that canard about hating and envying the wealthy.

Your disgusting characterizations of people in poverty are quite telling.

And you deserve the contempt and scorn you're reaping.

[...of J.Temperance]

86. Are you and JetCityLiberal trying to get me into trouble or something?

Because if you are, then thats pretty disgusting in itself.

Just because we happen to disagree about the approach to this topic, I've been completely polite in this thread, and just because I happened to suggest perhaps a different approach, I get set upon by a number of people.

I am a Centrist Democrat, which because of my avatar, you already know already that I'm a Centrist Democrat, so I don't know why some people get worked up when Centrist Democrats put forth Centrist Democratic views.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[cali]

87. in trouble? not at all. there's nothing in your posts that could get

you in trouble with admin, as far as I can see. You know I don't have a problem with centrist dems. I think I can honestly state that I'm in a minority here as far as that goes.

I have a problem with your callous attitude toward the poor, and your stubborn refusal to look at the facts about poverty.

[...of J.Temperance]

88. "You know I don't have a problem with centrist dems"

I know, you have always been at least fair with us Centrist Democrats....which is one reason why I really don't like that you and I have butted heads in this thread.

I don't mean to come across as being callous because I'm not, maybe I've phrased some things not as well as I perhaps could, I dunno.

[JetCityLiberal]

89. You don't need any help getting into trouble

I will NEVER understand attitudes like yours.

Good luck j.temp. Seriously.

Paul

[...of J.Temperance]

91. Why are you wishing me good luck?

?

[mudesi]

103. You're right. They can't be bothered.

Or maybe they're too busy trying to figure out what they're going to eat today.

This is why I always say you DLCers are a cancer on the Democratic party. Go join the Republicans. It's where you belong.

[Zhade]

119. You epitomize the phrase, "I got mine, fuck you".

NT!

[blindpig]

131. Unbelievable

Reagan lives!

They shoulda used a wooden stake.

[mudesi]

102. Spoken like a true DLCer

:puke:

[LeftishBrit]

128. Who does want to 'remain in poverty all their lives'?

With rare exceptions, poor people aren't poor because they lack personal motivation; that's a RW myth. Few people choose to be poor; still fewer would want poverty for their children. Of course, if it becomes clear that you will never be able to get out of the poverty trap, you may end up so discouraged that you lose motivation - but that isn't the cause of the poverty. There was much more poverty under Thatcher's 'free market' society than under the mixed-economy socialism of her predecessors.

[Zhade]

117. Um, all of those things cost money. And they're POOR.

How can you be smart enough to type and dim enough not to see the disconnect?

[Terry in Austin]

31. "Success" ultimately comes at the expense of others

The rich are rich because the poor are poor.
If your slice of the pie is bigger, that means somebody else's slice is smaller.

"Work" is not some holy abstract. If you "earn" something, it's because those with the say-so said so. Assignment of merit is fundamentally political. You have to ask who has the power to assign merit... and why!

[...of J.Temperance]

37. I simply don't agree that

The rich are rich because the poor are poor.

[Terry in Austin]

43. Of course you don't

So it's okay for some people to hog up more than their share?

They are able to only because because the power structure backs them up. What's okay about that?

[...of J.Temperance]

50. What we need to do is

Formulate ways that enable the lower-incomed of society to enter the Middle Class, and the only realistic way that we can do this, is if we encourage them to get better skills and better qualifications in order to attain better paying jobs.

This is how we eventually eliminate the term low-incomed by turning the low-incomed into a Greater Middle Class.

You don't do this by going after the wealthier in society in some scorched earth policy.


On Edit: Added comment

[cali]

54. My dad disagreed with you

very successful guy. He believed that he should pay high taxes as payment for a social structure that enabled him to become wealthy.

[...of J.Temperance]

67. Your Dad has a right to disagree

One of the reasons why as Democrats we're different to the Republicans, is that we can disagree and have open debates about a variety of issues.

The Republicans viciously look down on dissent and operate on a policy where they all have to be in lockstep armed with rubberstamps.

[Fovea]

106. I am RealP and I endorse this message.

Ideas become lean and supple by rubbing them against each other vigorously.

Eventually, their progeny are handsomer, more clever at parties, and thus conjecture proceeds onward to satori.

[Terry in Austin]

76. What we WILL do is

Exactly what the people running the show say we will do. They are "the wealthier in society," and they will allow nothing that may threaten their power and privilege. Count on it.

No, you don't go after them, because you don't have the power to do it. They're the ones who set the policy, and it sure isn't going to involve scorching any of their earth!

Now, if we're hypothesizing about what would make a better world, here's a very modest proposal: we take a step or two up the evolutionary scale from this Darwinian alpha-ape-takes-all jungle, and go on to something fair and actually civilized.

Here's fair: make wealth an accurate measure of the amount of productive labor an individual performs. Then, if one guy is three times richer than the next, it is because he is three times more productive, three times more talented, three times more skilled, three times better.

This would naturally bring wealth disparity within a fairly narrow range. I seriously doubt that any human being is, say, ten times better than any other, by any measure you care to mention. And certainly not four hundred times, which is the current range.

[Zhade]

120. That's because you refuse to entertain the possibility you could be wrong.

You got yours, so fuck everyone else.

[Fovea]

96. I do not subscribe to a zero sum economic world

Wealth can be created. Each new form of mechanical traction, for example increase food production and distribution.

But, what makes that surplus material the differnce between treasure and wealth is how that surplus is alloted among those
whose existance and participation in its creation allow it to exist. Does it encrust a vault, or does it buy food, lodging, goods?

When I was young, food stamps were not the means of eating for the poor in my area. We had food commodities, packed under govt contract (government cheese).
This benefited farmers more than food packagers. It benefited grocery stores not at all. The food was good, plentiful, nutritious, and required cooking. It did not make you fat.
Foodstamp food tends to be poor quality, and heavy on starch and salt. Thus diabetic hypertensive poor die younger for the corporate weal.

Now we have ConAgra etc and big box food (imported from the rest of the third world) in the big box malls away from the poor. The poor eat best choice and like it. We have fewer farmers that are not wage slaves.
Food has been WalMarted. This is an example how food become profit rather than provender. How rich you want the rich to be is in our control.

[Terry in Austin]

99. Ah, but does it subscribe to you?

The question of what wealth is and where it comes from gets very philosophical very quickly.

The more practical question is who has more than their share of it and why. I'd say it's also the fundamental political question.

The rich will be as rich as they can get away with, and the problem is that it is definitely NOT in "our" control, unless you mean the most general sense of "we as a species."

[comrade snarky]

73. Now you've lost me completely

The reward of hard work is not always success. Some of the rich and powerful have worked for it but you know as well as I that the best way to join their august ranks is to be born in the right family.

If you don't think it's hellishly hard work to be poor then you've never experienced it. I have though only to a minor degree. I've also worked my ass off to get where I am now but do you know what the one indispensable item in my life has been? Luck. That's it. Both occasional good luck and a lack of really bad luck. Without that I'd be back where I started. Hell, a run of bad luck and despite my hard work I could be there again within a couple of years.

The rich are not better than the poor, let's end that bullshit now. How hard do you think our current resident and chief has worked? How about the 2 daughters? Have they worked harder than the person in a steel mill making $17 an hour? How did they earn those high paying jobs? For that matter how did Clinton's daughter, do you think she'd be making as much as she is at a hedge fund without all those family connections?

What the rich do have is more to protect, assets they could and would loose without a functioning society to help them keep it. What's that worth? How much should it cost the oligarchs to keep us peasants in line? That's why you want to redistribute wealth. Concentrate power and opportunity in the hands of a few for long enough and you will face an uprising. When people have nothing to loose they get dangerous. That's why we have a progressive tax system and fund schools with your stolen money.

[girl gone mad]

104. I think that's debatable.

Nonetheless, most of the people who work hard in our society still never obtain that kind of success.

[Zhade]

115. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh man, what color is the sky in your world?

Most of the people who can do that worked for it by FUCKING OVER OTHERS.

I mean, you said you hate Wal-Mart. Well, that's the model for corporations in this country.

[leftofthedial]

30. works for me.

I'd add a conversion to a collectivist economic organization.

[...of J.Temperance]

39. What would a "conversion to a collectivist economic organization" be? n/t

[leftofthedial]

92. good question

[...of J.Temperance]

93. So the answer is what? n/t

[Terry in Austin]

32. Right on, realpolitik

Someday, it won't be "left." It'll just be "civilized, the way it's s'posed to be."

[bean fidhleir]

44. Or in some future time, if high-order life survives on Earth, some anthro will say

"What was wrong with those people? Couldn't they see what they were doing?"


Just like we do with the Easter Islanders. How could they not have realized what they were doing? Why didn't they *kill* the rulers who were driving them to extinction for the sake of their own petty power games?

[leftstreet]

80. For real

[LWolf]

35. That's pretty good.

I'd add a few things:

End of NAFTA, NCLB, Patriot Acts.

Money appropriated by Congress to help the failing economy to be used for a modern WPA-type program, rebuilding national infrastructure and providing employment.

A living wage.

What has Obama done that makes you think he might support anything at all from the American left?

Or DO you think Obama will support any of the above?

[Fovea]

100. I think that the actual majory is already left of center

as defined by the center of the Clinton years, as opposed to the fascist freak show of the Bush** years.

I certainly neglected these issues in my original post, as I did the declaration of human rights.

I think Obama is a pragmatist who sees America doing a concrete swandive. The only econmy he can depend on for the next four years
will be a command economy. But the advantage is that he is not painted into a corner of military empire. We can step away, and recreate a peacetime economy, leaving generation kill to become generation rebuild this stinking mess.

We have the opportunity to rebuild America, and I pray to all I hold holy that he grabs that puppy and runs with it.

[LWolf]

122. We can step away. I hope it happens.

I heard too much about continuing the war on terror, about pakistan, from Obama to be hopeful that he will step away from war as an instrument of international policy, but time will tell.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. I also think people are farther left than the DLC wants, only they don't

realize it.

Look at the online comments at the New York Times. People are overwhelmingly against the Iraq War (even though the Times advocated for it), for single-payer health care (even though the Times never mentions it when talking about "health care reform"), for a more progressive tax code, for protecting the environment, and for building mass transit and high-speed rail. When I wrote a comment about cutting the Pentagon budget (I post there under a different name), my comment got the second-highest number of recommendations.

OK, the NY Times readers and the Rush Limbaugh listeners don't overlap, but most people who read the Times actually think instead of react viscerally. In other words, the people who THINK are farther left than the DLC. Most of the right-wingers who aren't total manipulative war-mongering Puritanical greedheads are merely ignorant and propagandized.

If properly presented, a more left-wing agenda could work in the U.S.

[upi402]

42. Looks great! Obama has broken my heart and killed all hope

He's gone 100% DLC corporatist. There will be no hope, maybe never now. I think this sets in concrete the corporatist/fascist coup over democracy in the United States of America.

[Terry in Austin]

63. Perspective

Truly sorry to hear the disappointment. We have much to hope for that lies outside the scope of what the US government is capable of. Obama offers plenty of hope within those boundaries, but that only goes so far.

From the git-go, Obama had to be close enough to the dominant paradigm to get in the game and win it. He is and he did. He hasn't "gone" anywhere.

Of all the possible outcomes, the very best that we could expect is a president who doesn't suck. Even if Obama were the absolute Messiah, he would still only be president, and it would still only be the US central government -- and only as relevant.

Don't get me wrong, having a president that doesn't suck is a good thing. Frankly, I believe it was the nation's last shot at having a central government that can maintain any shred of relevance. But actual governance is already devolving more and more to states and localities. As energy gets scarcer, life will get a lot more local.

[liberalpragmatist]

57. Don't we already have public education to 18?

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean better quality education or something?

[Zhade]

121. Grade 16, not age 16.

NT!

[Edweird]

64. Sounds good to me.

:thumbsup:

[...of J.Temperance]

94. I'm sorry that I've unintentionally upset some people in this thread

I wasn't deliberately being obnoxious or whatever, and it's unfortunate that some of my comments have been construed in such a way.

I think we ALL agree that poverty is a most unacceptable situation in this modern age, and I think we ALL agree that measures have to be taken to try and reduce the scale of poverty.

We ALL have differing views on what these measures are and how poverty can be reduced....the fact that my views are coming from a Centrist Democratic philosophy doesn't mean they are less valid than views that might come from a Liberal Democratic philosophy, and I'm not about to brush aside the Liberal Democratic philosophy because that's just as valid as the Centrist Democratic philosophy.

But I am quite bothered that I got jumped on by a number of people, seemingly for having a different opinion than they.

Again, I didn't mean to intentionally upset some people and I'm sorry that I did.

[Terry in Austin]

107. Fair enough

Nothing wrong with having a different opinion, and it's certainly the stand-up thing to try and find common ground.

Not quite there yet, however --

I think we ALL agree that poverty is a most unacceptable situation in this modern age, and I think we ALL agree that measures have to be taken to try and reduce the scale of poverty.

You're still steering it toward your position here. Yes, I can agree that poverty sucks. But no, I don't agree with your framing of poverty as "a situation" for which "measures have to be taken." Poverty exists because undue wealth exists. That's the system, and that's the unacceptable situation. We can just as sensibly argue in favor of taking measures to reduce undue wealth.

The "reducing poverty" frame serves to perpetuate the very setup that creates the poverty in the first place. More particularly, it serves the elite who benefit most from that setup.

[...of J.Temperance]

108. I think we agree that poverty is a distressing problem

We obviously have a differing view on how to reduce poverty.

In years past, taxes have been raised on the wealthy, in an attempt to narrow the gap between rich and poor, and it hasn't worked, the gap hasn't narrowed.

I believe the way to reduce poverty is through education, through encouraging those in poorer communities to enroll on educational programs, and of course providing more funds for those educational programs so that they can expand into more and more poorer communities.

The taxing the wealthy thing has been tried and it didn't work, better educational opportunities can work and do work.

[Profprileasn]

111. Agree

Better to give them tools to make their own money than to just give them money.

[...of J.Temperance]

112. Exactly

It makes so much sense....throwing money at them has NEVER worked, but providing them with the tools ie. educational opportunities does work.

[Terry in Austin]

124. You're kidding, right?

"Them" ???
Oh, brother!

Here's how we can get rid of the poor -- uh, I mean poverty: let's just condescend them to death! We know how to do that, right? We learned how in those elite private schools.

Sheesh!

:eyes:

[bean fidhleir]

125. I don't expect your politics will let you understand this, but your thesis

that the poor are poor because they don't have the gumption to get a good education is nonsense. The proof? The Black college graduates working as railway porters around the turn of the century. Their education didn't matter. Skin color, money, and connections were what mattered, just as they do today. "If you're White, you're all right. If you're Brown, stick around. But if you're Black? Get back, get back, get back."

To get rid of poverty? Change the system so that we have as level a playing field as humans can devise. Make sure that everyone, from conception onward, has healthy parents, good pre- and perinatal care for their mum, a clean safe place to live, good nutritious food, all the quality education they can eat.... In other words let's make sure *everyone* gets the same advantages that only the wealthy get today. Then let's see how it works out.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. I think we need to appeal to left/social libertarians. Marriage = for GLBT, end to the drug war

legalize AND tax marijuana for consenting adults, plowing massive revenue increases along with prison-industrial savings into a SPHC system and infrastructure.

Also, you left out "cut down the massively bloated military budget to something sane".

Nevertheless, you have some good ideas there.

[TooCoolHuh]

132. Realpolitik a class liberal

Realpolitik is a class liberal.

"Labor friendly" as in the auto unions the members of which now earn something around $80 per hour. Buy that American car, sucker! If you don't, the union thugs will break your legs.

Executive compensation caps in quasi government organizations certainly helped Obama's pals, like Freddie Raines, who hauled in $90 million while screwing over every taxpayer in America, with the capable assistance of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and Charles Schumer and Gregory Meeks, Democrats all.

Public education to grade 16 sounds rather strange when over 25% of teenagers drop out of high school. How does realpolitik propose to accomplish this fabulous idea in public education?

By all means let "the government" oversee private businesses so America can have more Freddie Raines and Freddie Macs and Jim Johnsons. The biggest scandal in history was perpetrated by the United Nations, in its ghastly Food For Oil thuggery. More, more!

Oh and universal health care, please. Let's be like Cuba. Bueno!

Thirty percent energy efficiency. No way. Demand 99%. And more. How about 115% energy efficiency.
Look at Al Gore. Why he must be getting 250% energy efficiency in flying around the country in his private jet, lecturing all us environmentalists who drive from miles around to hear Al tell us ... not to drive so much.