We really need a new progressive movement in America

[Eric the Green]

A movement that will reject the free market as the utopian solution to our economic problems, and instead advocate a mixed economy.

A movement that advocates, as Mario Cuomo said, no more government than we need, but all the government that we need.

A movement for campaign finance reform and lobbying reform to take money out of politics, and to stop defining political spending as "free speech."

A movement to end corporate personhood, regulate dealings by big financial companies, reduce corporate influence in government, and end corporate welfare when it is not constructive investment for the people.

A movement to protect human rights as well as keep us safe from terrorists.

A movement to end the religious right's culture war, and instead support tolerance and women's rights and protect freedom of speech and religion.

A movement for an internationalist foreign policy that is multi-lateral and peaceful, and supports advancement of freedom instead of corporate and fossil-fuel interests.

A movement to end global warming and other pollution, and supports new laws and energy sources to quickly clean it up.

A movement that supports and protects efficient social programs that help the poor and middle class, and to invest in vital infrastructure.

A movement to lower the cost of living by bringing down the high price of education, transportation and health care, now being driven up by greedy free-market policies.

A movement for a fair and progressive tax system instead of a flat tax or other tax breaks for the wealthy. A movement to reduce the debt in sensible ways, instead of using it as an excuse for the government not to do the things we need it to do.

A movement to create and foster a climate of free inquiry, creativity, the arts, idealism, health and fitness, relationship and connection, ethics, community, local economies, sensibility, spirituality, and cultural ferment. A true attitude and cultural shift to match a true political program-- even involving the government where appropriate!

Finally, a movement that is willing to use any effective and ethical means necessary to achieve these goals, not declare up-front that it refuses to use any of these means in order to protect its "purity" from feared co-option.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. Let's revive the vision!

[Blake]

Is it Spring Break already?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A movement that will reject the free market as the utopian solution to our economic problems, and instead advocate a mixed economy.

What does that even mean?

A movement that advocates, as Mario Cuomo said, no more government than we need, but all the government that we need.

And who precisely gets to decide how much government is needed? A group of right thinking people I would guess.

A movement for campaign finance reform and lobbying reform to take money out of politics, and to stop defining political spending as "free speech."

And how exactly are you going to achieve this? It seems to imply that all political advertising will be illegal, all campaigning involving co-operation between the candidate and any other person will be illegal, employing electoral aides will be illegal and exhorting another person to contact their congresscritter will be illegal.

Or is this yet another case where "right thinking people" get to define where "co-operation" and "advertising" becomes "political spending" and where "political activiism" becomes "lobbying".

A movement to end corporate personhood, regulate dealings by big financial companies, reduce corporate influence in government, and end corporate welfare when it is not constructive investment for the people.

In short, you wish to demolish the US economy and attempt to rebuild it from the ground up while simultaneously making it incapable of engaging in international trade.

That certainly seems like a wise policy.

A movement to protect human rights as well as keep us safe from terrorists.

Once again, who precisely gets to decide how safe we should be and what rights people have? Yet another group of right thinking people? The same group of right thinking people perhaps?

A movement to end the religious right's culture war, and instead support tolerance and women's rights and protect freedom of speech and religion.

So you are proposing to engender tolerance and free speech by silencing the religious right on cultural issue and denying them political representation.

Yes, that seems like a fine plan. And while you are at it you can try fighting for peace and fucking for virginity.

A movement for an internationalist foreign policy that is multi-lateral and peaceful

So in addition to demolish the US economy, you also intend to disband any armed forces capable of international intervention.

Well that will certainly save money.

and supports advancement of freedom instead of corporate and fossil-fuel interests.

So your position is that corporate and fossil-fuel interests are mutually exclusive with advancement?

A movement to end global warming and other pollution, and supports new laws and energy sources to quickly clean it up.

And this will be achieved how exactly?





And so on and so forth for the rest of this scree. It's standard left wing undergraduate boilerplate. It is most amusing that it has changed so little in the last 50 years.

None of these ideas are original and none of them are well thought out.

The best of them, eg "let's stop all pollution" are bland motherhood statements. Might just as well say "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice". Well, yeah, but how do you intend to do this?

Some of them are just ridiculous, such as the idea that there will be no US foreign policy that is non-peaceful. No country in the world has a foreign policy that doesn't even have policies for foreign military activity.

The worst of them are totalitarian nonsense that has been tried and failed many times. The idea that you can silence those you disagree with to produce tolerance and freedom, the idea that you can produce a perfect balance between governnance and freedom if only the plebs didn't have any say on what that balance should be.

Seen it all before. It would invoke a yawn if only it wasn't so alarming that the latest crop of college students haven't learned a damn thing from the past.

[Mangetout]

We all know what we need. Delivering it is the real problem. Take just one of your points:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A movement to protect human rights as well as keep us safe from terrorists.

OK, how?

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Blake

Is it Spring Break already?

What does THAT mean?

What does that even mean?

I though it was pretty clear. What wasn't clear? Every concerned and alert citizen knows that trickle-down economics has crippled all political action in this country.

And who precisely gets to decide how much government is needed? A group of right thinking people I would guess.

Yes, the people need to support those who are doing the best thinking.

And how exactly are you going to achieve this? It seems to imply that all political advertising will be illegal, all campaigning involving co-operation between the candidate and any other person will be illegal, employing electoral aides will be illegal and exhorting another person to contact their congresscritter will be illegal.

Or is this yet another case where "right thinking people" get to define where "co-operation" and "advertising" becomes "political spending" and where "political activiism" becomes "lobbying".

The solutions are very obvious and well-known to all these issues. Limit all campaign spending to $100. Require broadcasters to offer free time to candidates. Public financing of all campaigns. For a country not populated by right-wing free-marketeers, these solutions are no mystery.

In short, you wish to demolish the US economy and attempt to rebuild it from the ground up while simultaneously making it incapable of engaging in international trade.

No, make it incapable of financial gambling with no regulation.

Once again, who precisely gets to decide how safe we should be and what rights people have? Yet another group of right thinking people? The same group of right thinking people perhaps?

Probably. Right-thinking people should be elected, instead of the idiots you guys voted for in 2010.

So you are proposing to engender tolerance and free speech by silencing the religious right on cultural issue and denying them political representation.

No, they just need to be outvoted. Santorum lost; that's an example.

So in addition to demolish the US economy, you also intend to disband any armed forces capable of international intervention.

Well that will certainly save money.

It will save money to use our military only when we need to, which would be a lot less. It would save money to use diplomacy more often. This is no mystery either; Democrats have been on the right track since Carter.

So your position is that corporate and fossil-fuel interests are mutually exclusive with advancement (of freedom)?

In regards to what we use our military for, that is? Example, we would never have invaded Iraq if not for oil interests. They may or may not have gotten more freedom, but at terrible cost to both countries. In Libya, we acted for the benefit of the people there.

And this will be achieved how exactly?

If you have to ask that, you are terribly uninformed. There is nothing mysterious about requiring a shift to alternate energy, or laws against pollution. The obstacles are from conservatives like you; nothing else.

And so on and so forth for the rest of this scree. It's standard left wing undergraduate boilerplate. It is most amusing that it has changed so little in the last 50 years.

I am an MA over 50. What's remarkable is how little of it has been achieved, because of so much resistance from folks like you.

Might just as well say "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice". Well, yeah, but how do you intend to do this?

The solutions are so obvious. The only obstacles are political.

Some of them are just ridiculous, such as the idea that there will be no US foreign policy that is non-peaceful. No country in the world has a foreign policy that doesn't even have policies for foreign military activity.

Peaceful is a general term; as in more peaceful than today. I'm not a pacifist, but unprovoked imperialist attacks like the ones on Iraq should not happen, and the war in Afghanistan was poorly waged and overly ambitious.

The worst of them are totalitarian nonsense that has been tried and failed many times. The idea that you can silence those you disagree with to produce tolerance and freedom, the idea that you can produce a perfect balance between governnance and freedom if only the plebs didn't have any say on what that balance should be.

Not my ideas. Calling it totalitarian is only name calling, and doesn't display the kind of "well thought out" statements you claim to be an expert in.

Seen it all before. It would invoke a yawn if only it wasn't so alarming that the latest crop of college students haven't learned a damn thing from the past.

What is alarming is that half this country is so wedded to the past that they keep installing reactionaries after the slightest attempts to move forward an inch in this country. We will continue to decline as a nation if we take no action to solve problems and improve our nation on the grounds that any action is "totalitarian" or costs someone some money. It is so old hat as to be amazing. If you want progressives to say something "new," then support them so we can move ahead after 40 years of stagnation and resistance by wealthy cats and wannabees like you.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

We all know what we need. Delivering it is the real problem. Take just one of your points:

"A movement to protect human rights as well as keep us safe from terrorists."

OK, how?

People really think this is hard to deliver? It's all politics. How about repealing the patriot act and the recent defense authorization act? We all know what has been happening since 9/11 in this country. There's no mystery; just too much fear, and too little political will to do the right things.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

We all know what we need.

I dispute even that.

Do you really think that "we" all agree that we need to take money out of politics and end political lobbying?

Because I certainly don't agree with that. I find the idea that nobody can spend any money at all on political activity to be abhorent. Even more abhorent is the idea that I can't tell my neighbour to write to the mayor to complain about the pothole down the end of our street. But thatis exactly what would happen if we took the money out of politics and ended political lobbying.

So then Eric the Green will say that he didn't mean to have that effect. Or that he doesn't define those things as "money in politics" or "lobbying". And then we get into a debate over what constitutes "money in politics" and "lobbying" and that stage "we" no longer agree on what we need.

This has always been one of the biggest problem with these freshman screeds. They start from an assumption that the problem is really simple, if only everyone would listen. They ignore completely the idea that maybe people over 20 have given these problems some thought before them, and maybe the current system is the best that can be devised, shitty though it may be. They are based upon a total ignorance of the unpleasant consequences of doing things like outlawing political lobbying and political spending, consequences that those of a us just a little older are well aware of.

Basically, we can't all agree in what is needed because what is needed is needed invariably infringes upon someone's freedom, and that someone is part of the "we".

But I agree entirely that the screed is very heavy on motherhood statements and totally lacking in any sort of implementation even if we do all agree with the goal.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Blake

I dispute even that.

Do you really think that "we" all agree that we need to take money out of politics and end political lobbying?

Of course "we" don't all agree. You guys need to be outvoted.

This has always been one of the biggest problems with these freshman screeds. They start from an assumption that the problem is really simple, if only everyone would listen. They ignore completely the idea that maybe people over 20 have given these problems some thought before them, and maybe the current system is the best that can be devised, shitty though it may be. They are based upon a total ignorance of the unpleasant consequences of doing things like outlawing political lobbying and political spending, consequences that those of a us just a little older are well aware of.

Basically, we can't all agree on what is needed because what is needed is needed invariably infringes upon someone's freedom, and that someone is part of the "we".

But I agree entirely that the screed is very heavy on motherhood statements and totally lacking in any sort of implementation even if we do all agree with the goal.

We don't have to settle for what has already been done, on the excuse that nothing better can be devised. The stagnation of the last 40 years or so is inexcusable. Just doing things the same old way is a recipe for the decline and fall of our nation, and hurts the whole world. Total freedom is a utopian dream; certain things are required for a civil society. Exaggeration is a bad debating ploy. I never said "end" political lobbying; I said "reform." There is no mystery about that either.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

People really think this is hard to deliver? It's all politics. How about repealing the patriot act and the recent defense authorization act? We all know what has been happening since 9/11 in this country. There's no mystery; just too much fear, and too little political will to do the right things.

Right. Sneelock, brave Sneelock will do it just fine - don't ask how he'll do it - that's his job, not mine!

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Blake

I dispute even that.

Fair nipick. I think we probably agree though, that it's really really easy to write a long wishlist of how we would like the world to be that most people would probably mostly agree with, and yet lacks every kind of substance when it comes to delivering those wishes.

[PrettyVacant]

How about settling for something that treats capitalism as a tool (by which wealth can be generated) rather than some quasi State religion, by which - bizarrely - a nation purpose is apparently defined?

I little perspective, maybe.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What does THAT mean?

It means that your entire post reads like a typical freshman screed, and I assumed it was posted because you were off on spring break and thus had time to discover this site.

I though it was pretty clear. What wasn't clear?

None of it was clear. I have no idea what it means.

Every concerned and alert citizen knows that trickle-down economics has crippled all political action in this country.

Which means that anyone who disagrees with you is either blinkered, callous or not a real citizen.

Classy argument technique. You do understand what poisoning the well means i assume?

Such blatant logical fallacies won't win you much support around here.

Yes, the people need to support those who are doing the best thinking.

So these best thinkers are going to decide how the country should be run, rather than elected representatives?

Sounds like a good idea.

The solutions are very obvious and well-known to all these issues.

So the solutions are obvious and well known, but in 6, 000 years of human history nobody has ever implemented them anywhere on Earth.

But you worked them out.

Consider me somewhat skeptical of this claim.

Limit all campaign spending to $100.

Why $100? why not $101? Why not $99? Who decided that $100 is the magic number? Why would that work better than the current limit? What is your evidence for this limit being effective and producing a favourable outcome?

In short, what is your evidence that $100 is the optimum solution, and not $10 billion? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the current situation?

Require broadcasters to offer free time to candidates.

What, only broadcasters? Why not print media? Why not internet sites, blogs and twitters? What is your evidence that broadcasters offering free air time would be optimal over no free air time, or free representation in all mass media?

In short, what is your evidence for the claim that this is the optimal solution? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the currents situation?

What sort of air time? Interviews? One person talking head style addresses? Are they allowed to use Powerpoint presentations during those addresses? How about animated Power Points? Short films? How about 3d short films directed by James Cameron?

What is your limitation here and why did you set that as your limit? Where is your evidence that this is the optimum? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the currents situation?

Public financing of all campaigns.

So if 10 million people adopt a campaign position WRT the US president tomorrow, they will all have to be given the exact same amount of campaign funds as Barack Obama? How would you fund such a situation?

If that isn't the case, then how do you decide who gets campaign funding? Do you intend to make it illegal for me to personally campaign on behalf of Obama because I don't have public funding? If not then in what sense are all campaigns publicly funded? And if so then how do I have freedom of speech in any practical sense of the word?

What is your limitation here and why did you set that as your limit? Where is your evidence that this is the optimum? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the currents situation?

For a country not populated by right-wing free-marketeers, these solutions are no mystery.

And yet amazingly nobody in 6, 000 years of recorded history has managed to make them work.

Doesn't that set off any alarm bells at all?

No, make it incapable of financial gambling with no regulation.

Ummm, financial gambling is just another way of saying taking risks with money, where high risks reap high rewards and vice versa.

OK, so how do you do that? How can the US economy possibly remain fluid and stable when it is impossible for anyone to advance venture capital?

This isn't a trivial issue. It is the heart of your screed. How exactly can an economy function when it is illegal to so much as buy a share or apply for a business loan?

Probably. Right-thinking people should be elected, instead of the idiots you guys voted for in 2010.

And who decides who the right thinking people are?

You've told us that the limits of freedom and security must be defined by these Right Thinking People. And you've just told us that ordinary citizens can't be allowed to judge who the Right Thinking People are.

So who does decode on who the new rulers are going to be? You and your mates?

You are advocating a system that can only work under authoritarian rule with no democratic representation. Do you really think that would be an improvement over the current system?

No, they just need to be outvoted.

Right. So how do you intend to do that? It's all very well saying that it would be nice if everyone was nice, but what do you propose to do about it?

While your proposal of a system that can only work under authoritarian rule with no democratic representation seems mighty appealing, I don't think many people are likely to vote for it are they?

It will save money to use our military only when we need to, which would be a lot less.

And who gets to decide when we need to? Let me guess, these unelected Right Thinking People again, right? The people that the citizens are too stupid to put into power, but that your reforms require to be in power? the people who we know are Right Thinking because they agree with you?

Because the people the citizens did put into power have decided when to use the military, and the citizens voted them back into power.

It would save money to use diplomacy more often.

Yes, indeed. Being diplomatic with Hitler was a great saving.

This is no mystery either

Well apparently it has been a mystery to the heads of the armed forces and the state department for the past 200 years. But what would they know. You have worked it out.

Once again, I have to ask, doesn't it give you even a moment's pause when what you believe has not been believed by even one the greatest in the field for the past two centuries?

Democrats have been on the right track since Carter.

Ahh, Democrats since Carter have been responsible for more foreign military interventions than Republicans. Hence the old saw "Democrats want a small military and want to send them everywhere, Republicans want a large military and want to keep them home".

Example, we would never have invaded Iraq if not for oil interests.

Evidence?

In Libya, we acted for the benefit of the people there.

You actually believe this? How charming.

If you have to ask that, you are terribly uninformed.

So humour me.

There is nothing mysterious about requiring a shift to alternate energy, or laws against pollution. The obstacles are from conservatives like you; nothing else.

Riiiiiiiiiight. So this answers the question of how we shift to alternate energy, or enact laws against pollution in what way?

You haven't actually addressed the question at all, simply reiterated the statement.

I am an MA over 50.

Really?
Seriously?

I am astounded.

What's remarkable is how little of it has been achieved, because of so much resistance from folks like you.

Yes, those of us who are non-Right-Thinking people who are blinkered, callous and not a real citizen. And you know that we are non-right thinking people who are blinkered, callous and not a real citizens because we ask inconvenient questions like "How?" and "Why stop there" and "Can we see your your evidence please?"

The bastards!

The solutions are so obvious. The only obstacles are political.

By which you mean the solutions are obvious, but 51% of the population keep voting against them. But you know so much better than the majority of citizens and the head of the state department and historians. You just need to put the Right Thinking People in charge. The ones that the citizens steadfastly refuse to vote for.

In short, the solutions are simple, if only it weren't for this bloody democracy

Peaceful is a general term; as in more peaceful than today.

The world today is more peaceful than it has been in the past, but you don't take that as evidence that the policies of the past 50 years have been effective. So what exactly are you using to divine "more peaceful than today" Do you have an alternative universe you intend to measure this against?

I'm not a pacifist, but unprovoked imperialist attacks like the ones on Iraq should not happen, and the war in Afghanistan was poorly waged and overly ambitious.

And.......

Once again, wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice. But what are you proposing we actually do?

Not my ideas.

I'm well aware that you did not originate them, as i pointed out, they are boilerplate freshman screed. Could have been cribbed from 1965.
Nonetheless while you are expressing them they are your ideas and they will be labelled as such..

Calling it totalitarian is only name calling, and doesn't display the kind of "well thought out" statements you claim to be an expert in.

Totalitarian has a legitimate and specific meaning.

You have proposed a system wherein the limits of freedom, limitations upon security forces and political involvement are controlled by a group of elite "Right Thinkers" whom the citizens would never elect democratically. It isn't name calling to point out that such a system is totalitarian.

What is alarming is that half this country is so wedded to the past that they keep installing reactionaries after the slightest attempts to move forward an inch in this country.

Yes, indeed. That bloody democracy. If only you could install your right thinkers into power.

We will continue to decline as a nation if we take no action to solve problems and improve our nation on the grounds that any action is "totalitarian"

Indeed, we should not be afraid to embrace totalitarian political systems, should we.

If you want progressives to say something "new," then support them so we can move ahead after 40 years of stagnation and resistance by wealthy cats and wannabees like you.

Yes, indeed.

We should all support your scheme of installing unelectable "Right Thinkers" to arbitrarily decide the limits of freedom and military intervention, both domestically and abroad, with no evidential basis whatsoever. Simply because it is obvious.

Of course we should support such a system in preference to the horrors of "staganation".

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Of course "we" don't all agree. You guys need to be outvoted.

Ahh, the eternal cry of the freshman screed "If only people would listen".

Or as Harry Chapin put it when referring to his freshman years: "If only the world were as wonderful as I am".

We don't have to settle for what has already been done, on the excuse that nothing better can be devised.

Can anyone parse this in a way that doesn't mean "We should do what I have devised, even if it makes the situation worse?"

Because that is the only meaning I can get out of this. If we don't have to settle for what we know because nothing else works better then it seems the only alternative is that we can settle for something new even though we know it must be worse.

The stagnation of the last 40 years or so is inexcusable.

At least 51% of the popoulation does not agree with you.

Just doing things the same old way is a recipe for the decline and fall of our nation, and hurts the whole world.

Evidence?

I never said "end" political lobbying; I said "reform."

You actually said that you intended to "take money out of politics" and "stop defining political spending as "free speech."" which rather clearly implies that you intend to make it illegal for people to spend money on political lobbying.

And then you weaseled away and said that people could spend $100 on political lobbying, without giving any reason why you set that as the limit or how you intended to delimit it.

Originally Posted by Mangetout

I think we probably agree though, that it's really really easy to write a long wishlist of how we would like the world to be that most people would probably mostly agree with, and yet lacks every kind of substance when it comes to delivering those wishes.

Exactly.
There is a term for these: Motherhood Statements.

Sneelock, brave Sneelock will do it just fine - don't ask how he'll do it - that's his job, not mine!

That made me laugh.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A movement to end corporate personhood, regulate dealings by big financial companies, reduce corporate influence in government, and end corporate welfare when it is not constructive investment for the people.

Who decides when it is a constructive investment for the people? What corporate welfare currently existing is not considered a constructive investment for those that passed it?

What "dealings" do you want to regulate? Should the government decide if an investment is too risky for a firm to take on?

In deciding what to regulate, from whom do you seek advice? For example in regulating the "big financial companies", would politicians have the expertise needed to write such regulation? If not, wouldn't they seek advice from professionals in the industry? Who's interest do you think these professionals have in mind? Your goal of reducing corporate influence in government while simultaneously regulating "dealings" seems a bit silly now, doesn't it?

A movement to lower the cost of living by bringing down the high price of education, transportation and health care, now being driven up by greedy free-market policies.

If you think education, transportation, and health care operate in a free-market you've never heard of public schools, student loans, the interstate highway system, oil subsidies, medicare, medicaid, or insurance mandates. How and when exactly did you discover our civilization?

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

.
.
.
Where there is no vision, the people perish. Let's revive the vision!

While I agree with many if not most of the things on your platform, the problem is that most Americans don't. If the majority of people really wanted all of these things, then there would already be a political party that would use it as their platform. People often make the mistake of thinking that because there is a large faction of people who are fed up with the current two party system, that a third party would be viable. The problem with this is that they always assume that this third party would hold all of their views, when in fact everyone who hates the 2 party system has their own completely different idea of what the third party should look like.

[just_some_guy5]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A movement for a fair and progressive tax system instead of a flat tax

You realize that we have a progressive tax system, right?

Even the oft-vilified capital gains rate is progressive - households making less than ~$60k pay a 0% cap gains rate.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

While I agree with many if not most of the things on your platform, the problem is that most Americans don't. If the majority of people really wanted all of these things, then there would already be a political party that would use it as their platform. People often make the mistake of thinking that because there is a large faction of people who are fed up with the current two party system, that a third party would be viable. The problem with this is that they always assume that this third party would hold all of their views, when in fact everyone who hates the 2 party system has their own completely different idea of what the third party should look like.

There's also the problem of using the system to change the system. The people with the power to change the system are the ones who gained that power using the system and thus are disincentivized to change anything lest it result in them losing power. Which is not to say that they are corrupt; just that any solution that requires people to act against their own personal best interest simply won't work.

I recommend the recent episode of This American Life titled "Take the Money and Run for Office" to you all, assuming it's still available somewhere online. It was quite an eyeopener on the nature of campaign funding, not least because it showed politicians chasing lobbyists for cash rather than the more commonly assumed lobbyists attempting to buy politicians. Also, it featured a conversation with McCain and Feingold, both of whom were less than thrilled by the outcome of Citizens United.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A movement that will reject the free market as the utopian solution to our economic problems, and instead advocate a mixed economy.

A movement that advocates, as Mario Cuomo said, no more government than we need, but all the government that we need.

A movement for campaign finance reform and lobbying reform to take money out of politics, and to stop defining political spending as "free speech."

A movement to end corporate personhood, regulate dealings by big financial companies, reduce corporate influence in government, and end corporate welfare when it is not constructive investment for the people.

A movement to protect human rights as well as keep us safe from terrorists.

A movement to end the religious right's culture war, and instead support tolerance and women's rights and protect freedom of speech and religion.

A movement for an internationalist foreign policy that is multi-lateral and peaceful, and supports advancement of freedom instead of corporate and fossil-fuel interests.

A movement to end global warming and other pollution, and supports new laws and energy sources to quickly clean it up.

A movement that supports and protects efficient social programs that help the poor and middle class, and to invest in vital infrastructure.

A movement to lower the cost of living by bringing down the high price of education, transportation and health care, now being driven up by greedy free-market policies.

A movement for a fair and progressive tax system instead of a flat tax or other tax breaks for the wealthy. A movement to reduce the debt in sensible ways, instead of using it as an excuse for the government not to do the things we need it to do.

A movement to create and foster a climate of free inquiry, creativity, the arts, idealism, health and fitness, relationship and connection, ethics, community, local economies, sensibility, spirituality, and cultural ferment. A true attitude and cultural shift to match a true political program-- even involving the government where appropriate!

Finally, a movement that is willing to use any effective and ethical means necessary to achieve these goals, not declare up-front that it refuses to use any of these means in order to protect its "purity" from feared co-option.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. Let's revive the vision!

Which of those items does the current Progressive Movement not espouse?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

People really think this is hard to deliver? It's all politics. How about repealing the patriot act and the recent defense authorization act? We all know what has been happening since 9/11 in this country. There's no mystery; just too much fear, and too little political will to do the right things.

Yes, yes, but how does that cover the "and keep us safe from terrorists" part?

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Yes, yes, but how does that cover the "and keep us safe from terrorists" part?

Haven't you been paying attention? That's covered by the 'we need a movement' part.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Blake

There is a term for these: Motherhood Statements.

I didn't know that - thanks.

[Dallas Jones]

In order to get a new progressive movement going you really need to ask yourself 'what happened to the old progressive movement?'

Even people who mostly vote a liberal view still tend to see themselves as moderate, and this skews the percentage who view themselves as conservative even higher.

Self identified 'Progressives' are such a small portion of the voting public as to be influential only on the fringe.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141218/am...cal-label.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/20...-liberals.aspx

[Czarcasm]

The board is broken, it seems. Come to the Zombie thread in ATMB to talk about it. Linky-poo.

[Boyo Jim]

We don't need a new progressive movement. Pretty much every idea in the OP is the progressive movement's list. We just need a shitload of more people to support the one there is.

What we need is a much smarter general public, presumably arrived at by creating a much better education system. One problem with that is that primary and secondary education is almost exclusively in the domain of local government, and lots of places have absolutely no interest in producing highly educated, and highly questioning and skeptical, citizens.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The solutions are so obvious. The only obstacles are political.

Political obstacles are the hardest to overcome.

[XT]

We really need a new progressive movement in America

Why? What's wrong with the old one? Are you advocating a new Progressive PARTY, or a revitalization of the old one...or something else? Or are you wanting a new progressive movement that will shift the Democratic party towards progressive ideals (which, to be honest, don't seem all that different than the OLD progressive movement to me)?

Finally, a movement that is willing to use any effective and ethical means necessary to achieve these goals, not declare up-front that it refuses to use any of these means in order to protect its "purity" from feared co-option.

How do you envision this working, in practical terms? Or do you worry about little things like practicality? Do you envision this 'new' progressive movement in the US replacing the current progressive movement, or do you envision them as sort of like the Tea Party...i.e. working for change and attention within the system and as part of one of the two big tent parties? Or do you envision this 'movement' as replacing one of the parties (presumably the Democrats) to become a new dominant player in the two party system? Or are you advocating something that transcends the current system, replacing it with...what?

-XT

[MaxTheVool]

I certainly agree that the OP is a bit pie-in-the-sky and rather lacking in details. That said, I think responding to any pie-in-the-sky proposal with a dismissive sneer of "but who decides X, who gets to sort Y, who gets to analyze Z" as if that just defeats the original proposal all by itself is a little facile. I mean, you can do that to just about anything:

Person 1: I think we should have laws that make sure food and drinking water is safe
Person 2: But who would decide what qualifies as safe? Who would decide what qualifies as food?

Person 1: I think that if you killed someone in self defense, that should be legal defense against a charge of murder
Person 2: But who decides when it is or is not self defense? Once you open this loophole then everyone will always claim it's self defense and we'll never get to convict anyone!!!

etc etc etc.


For instance, in this thread, the OP (presumably) would like a law which makes it hard or impossible for big corporations and super PACs to give millions of dollars to politicians' campaigns without making it impossible for joe citizen to give a hundred dollars to a politician's campaign. Now, we could argue about whether that's good public policy or not, and it's also not necessarily trivially easy to write a law that properly distinguishes between those two cases... but it's also not necessarily impossible to write such a law, either; and responding to his proposal simply by pointing out that a finished law would need way more complicated language than his initial proposal is rather silly. Of course it would! (Granted, in that particular example there's also the question of constitutionality, but my point stands...)

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Blake

Because that is the only meaning I can get out of this. If we don't have to settle for what we know because nothing else works better, then it seems the only alternative is that we can settle for something new even though we know it must be worse.

The alternative is to stick with what we know isn't working, or try something that might work better.

At least 51% of the popoulation does not agree with you.

If we can get that to 49%, then it will fly.

Evidence?

Read the news.

You actually said that you intended to "take money out of politics" and "stop defining political spending as "free speech."" which rather clearly implies that you intend to make it illegal for people to spend money on political lobbying.

I gave specific proposals that are already quite well known and accepted by many.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A movement that will . . .

Look, if you're serious about this, I suggest you get active in an existing progressive organization, no need to re-invent the wheel. The most promising one going right now is the Working Families Party. (Or the Vermont Progressive Party if you happen to live there.) If you want to go further left even than progressive, try the Democratic Socialists of America or the Socialist Party USA. If you want to go further left than that . . . well, you can't, really, not in this country, even the Communist Party USA is really democratic-socialist these days.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Which of those items does the current Progressive Movement not espouse?

I take the lack of response to mean "none".

You don't need a new movement. You need to get enough people interested in the existing one. Good luck.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Blake

It means that your entire post reads like a typical freshman screed, and I assumed it was posted because you were off on spring break and thus had time to discover this site.

Assumptions are not too accurate, are they?

Such blatant logical fallacies won't win you much support around here.

Anyone who has heard Boehner and his cohorts rattle on about "job creaters" knows what I'm talking about. This ideology is intended to deceive the people with libertarian slogans into supporting policies that have and will benefit only the wealthy.

So these best thinkers are going to decide how the country should be run, rather than elected representatives?

Representatives can think too, if we voters decide to vote for people who can think instead of the idiot Tea Partiers who can't.

What, only broadcasters? Why not print media? Why not internet sites, blogs and twitters? What is your evidence that broadcasters offering free air time would be optimal over no free air time, or free representation in all mass media?

In short, what is your evidence for the claim that this is the optimal solution? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the current situation?

What sort of air time? Interviews? One person talking head style addresses? Are they allowed to use Powerpoint presentations during those addresses? How about animated Power Points? Short films? How about 3d short films directed by James Cameron?

What is your limitation here and why did you set that as your limit? Where is your evidence that this is the optimum? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the currents situation?

Why don't you give your proposal, instead of constant requests for evidence and specifics? You are doing nothing but saying nothing can be done. My proposals would be better than having politicians spend half their time asking for money and the other half doing the bidding of those who pay for them. Public financing works in other countries.

So if 10 million people adopt a campaign position WRT the US president tomorrow, they will all have to be given the exact same amount of campaign funds as Barack Obama? How would you fund such a situation?

Major candidates would get a set amount, and people could contribute a set amount that allows each citizen to contribute instead of a few people with the most money.

If that isn't the case, then how do you decide who gets campaign funding? Do you intend to make it illegal for me to personally campaign on behalf of Obama because I don't have public funding? If not then in what sense are all campaigns publicly funded? And if so then how do I have freedom of speech in any practical sense of the word?

What is your limitation here and why did you set that as your limit? Where is your evidence that this is the optimum? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the currents situation?

Money is not speech. We should have Obama campaign on behalf of Obama, not YOU. Restrict money for campaigns so no-one's money is more important than someone else's. Demanding exact figures is just stalling. Legislators and courts can work the best workable amounts out over time.

Ummm, financial gambling is just another way of saying taking risks with money, where high risks reap high rewards and vice versa.

For someone as uninformed as you, you sure are stubborn and proud of your opinions and quick to knock others.

OK, so how do you do that? How can the US economy possibly remain fluid and stable when it is impossible for anyone to advance venture capital?

This isn't a trivial issue. It is the heart of your screed. How exactly can an economy function when it is illegal to so much as buy a share or apply for a business loan?

YOu are exaggerating my claims again. Most of what we need to do is reinstate the laws that you Republicans, "New" Democrats, and Libertarians took away.

And who decides who the right thinking people are?

The voters (I hope; maybe a vain hope in the USA I know)

You are advocating a system that can only work under authoritarian rule with no democratic representation. Do you really think that would be an improvement over the current system?

Almost anything would be better than our Tea Party congress. They are extremely authoritarian and downright stupid.

Yes, indeed. Being diplomatic with Hitler was a great saving.

You must have been around supporting the Vietnam adventure. Your argument is such old hat as to be really tiring. The Munich Doctrine again? Next you'll be trotting out the Dominoe Theory. Gimme a break.

Once again, I have to ask, doesn't it give you even a moment's pause when what you believe has not been believed by even one the greatest in the field for the past two centuries?

Ahh, Democrats since Carter have been responsible for more foreign military interventions than Republicans. Hence the old saw "Democrats want a small military and want to send them everywhere, Republicans want a large military and want to keep them home".

I doubt I would agree with your choice of who is "greatest." Democratic presidents have not been perfect, but their foreign policy is on the right track. They kept us out of major wars, while Republicans deliberately started them for no reason. They certainly didn't keep them home; what planet are you living on dude?

Evidence?

Maybe later. I don't have time now to prove the obvious to you.

You actually believe this? How charming.

I think so

So humour me.

I can give you a few starting points, which I'm sure you will sneer and snicker at.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...te-change-ipcc
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/view/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen.../climatechange
http://www.350.org/letterman

Again, what planet have you been living on? Mars?

Yes, those of us who are non-Right-Thinking people who are blinkered, callous and not a real citizen. And you know that we are non-right thinking people who are blinkered, callous and not a real citizens because we ask inconvenient questions like "How?" and "Why stop there" and "Can we see your your evidence please?"

All the obstacles are political. Your questions are intended to obfuscate and block action.

By which you mean the solutions are obvious, but 51% of the population keep voting against them. But you know so much better than the majority of citizens and the head of the state department and historians. You just need to put the Right Thinking People in charge. The ones that the citizens steadfastly refuse to vote for.

In short, the solutions are simple, if only it weren't for this bloody democracy

Not a bad summary there. The people have indeed voted incorrectly, in my opinion. There is a remedy for that though. The people can vote correctly instead. And there's some hope that demographic changes will favor the correct side in the long run.

The world today is more peaceful than it has been in the past, but you don't take that as evidence that the policies of the past 50 years have been effective. So what exactly are you using to divine "more peaceful than today" Do you have an alternative universe you intend to measure this against?

I was talking about American foreign policy. Democratic presidents have enacted a more-peaceful policy than Republicans over the last 35 years. That's a good starting point.

Once again, wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice. But what are you proposing we actually do?

Why wasn't that obvious to you from my statement? We actually DO not start unnecessary wars like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. You tell me, why were those wars so necessary? Give your opinions for once instead of just knocking others. Are you sure you libertarians are not all the same person? I've heard this all "since 1965" too; nothing new, very old hat.

I'm well aware that you did not originate them, as i pointed out, they are boilerplate freshman screed. Could have been cribbed from 1965.
Nonetheless while you are expressing them they are your ideas and they will be labelled as such..

Your labels have nothing to do with my ideas.

Totalitarian has a legitimate and specific meaning.

You have proposed a system wherein the limits of freedom, limitations upon security forces and political involvement are controlled by a group of elite "Right Thinkers" whom the citizens would never elect democratically. It isn't name calling to point out that such a system is totalitarian.

No, we need to vote correctly to elect people who can think to begin with.

Indeed, we should not be afraid to embrace totalitarian political systems, should we.

We should not be afraid of what extremist libertarians like you CALL "totalitarian." We should embrace it indeed!

Stagnation IS horrible. It will lead to much worse if not corrected. Problems cannot be left to fester. On what basis do you think they can be? Try leaving your house to rot and fall down, and see if that works. It won't work in politics either. We need to take action, and we've been stalled for over 30 years while other nations advance and leave us in the dust.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I take the lack of response to mean "none".

You don't need a new movement. You need to get enough people interested in the existing one. Good luck.

Sorry, the forum would not allow me to post yesterday.

I guess by "new movement" I mean to reenergize the old one, or get it to actually exist and be effective, instead of only being somewhat existing; something like that. It ought to be at least as strong as the lunatic right wing, which it isn't.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

I certainly agree that the OP is a bit pie-in-the-sky and rather lacking in details. That said, I think responding to any pie-in-the-sky proposal with a dismissive sneer of "but who decides X, who gets to sort Y, who gets to analyze Z" as if that just defeats the original proposal all by itself is a little facile. I mean, you can do that to just about anything:

Person 1: I think we should have laws that make sure food and drinking water is safe
Person 2: But who would decide what qualifies as safe? Who would decide what qualifies as food?

Person 1: I think that if you killed someone in self defense, that should be legal defense against a charge of murder
Person 2: But who decides when it is or is not self defense? Once you open this loophole then everyone will always claim it's self defense and we'll never get to convict anyone!!!

etc etc etc.


For instance, in this thread, the OP (presumably) would like a law which makes it hard or impossible for big corporations and super PACs to give millions of dollars to politicians' campaigns without making it impossible for joe citizen to give a hundred dollars to a politician's campaign. Now, we could argue about whether that's good public policy or not, and it's also not necessarily trivially easy to write a law that properly distinguishes between those two cases... but it's also not necessarily impossible to write such a law, either; and responding to his proposal simply by pointing out that a finished law would need way more complicated language than his initial proposal is rather silly. Of course it would! (Granted, in that particular example there's also the question of constitutionality, but my point stands...)

Points well taken.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Yes, yes, but how does that cover the "and keep us safe from terrorists" part?

I'm not against such things as inspecting people boarding planes, and investigating terror plots. I'm against making unnecessary violations of civil liberties on the excuse of fighting terrorists.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I guess by "new movement" I mean to reenergize the old one, or get it to actually exist and be effective, instead of only being somewhat existing; something like that. It ought to be at least as strong as the lunatic right wing, which it isn't.

Well...why isn't it? How would you make it different and relevant enough to be as strong as the lunatic right wing? How would you appeal to enough Americans to make it so? And do you envision this as a direct challenge to the existing dominant Democratic party, or working through existing channels (as the 'lunatic right wing' has done a la the Republican Party), or supplanting them?

-XT

[Absolute]

You know what's absurd about this thread? I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal republican, and I agree with almost every one of your statements!

Yeah, human rights, environmental protection, fair tax system, debt reduction, efficient social programs, cheaper healthcare, all of those are great! Let's go!

We need all the government we need! Sure, I can get behind that!

Protect the environment! Hell yeah, I love the environment! Fuck the polluters!

Where we likely disagree is in the best way to actually accomplish these goals, and balance them when they conflict.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by just_some_guy5

You realize that we have a progressive tax system, right?

Even the oft-vilified capital gains rate is progressive - households making less than ~$60k pay a 0% cap gains rate.

In my opinion, we need to let all the Bush tax cuts expire, enact a millionaire's tax on top of that, and just refuse to do all the other things people are suggesting-- like lower rates, and flat taxes which would NOT be progressive. Corporate taxes are another thing; it might be possible to lower rates if more loopholes are closed. But we already closed enough personal loopholes in 1986.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Absolute

You know what's absurd about this thread? I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal republican, and I agree with almost every one of your statements!

Yeah, human rights, environmental protection, fair tax system, debt reduction, efficient social programs, cheaper healthcare, all of those are great! Let's go!

We need all the government we need! Sure, I can get behind that!

Protect the environment! Hell yeah, I love the environment! Fuck the polluters!

Where we likely disagree is in the best way to actually accomplish these goals, and balance them when they conflict.

Well, you have to be willing to pay for them, and that means paying some taxes. "Fiscal conservatives" don't always like that prospect!

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Who decides when it is a constructive investment for the people? What corporate welfare currently existing is not considered a constructive investment for those that passed it?

What "dealings" do you want to regulate? Should the government decide if an investment is too risky for a firm to take on?

In deciding what to regulate, from whom do you seek advice? For example in regulating the "big financial companies", would politicians have the expertise needed to write such regulation? If not, wouldn't they seek advice from professionals in the industry? Who's interest do you think these professionals have in mind? Your goal of reducing corporate influence in government while simultaneously regulating "dealings" seems a bit silly now, doesn't it?

These are good questions and I probably don't have time now to answer. It may be hard to distinguish corporate welfare from a good investment. But I think investing in infrastructure and research that benefits more than particular companies, may work. For past examples, consider land for railroads, the space program, centers for disease control, support for science, etc.
Financial regulations are an easy call. The trickle-downers got hold of the country and deceived people into repealing laws like Glass-Steagall. Result? The great recession of 2008-2011. We need to put back those laws; that would be a great start. Not much "expertise" needed there, is there?

If you think education, transportation, and health care operate in a free-market you've never heard of public schools, student loans, the interstate highway system, oil subsidies, medicare, medicaid, or insurance mandates. How and when exactly did you discover our civilization?

What I said was free market policies are driving up prices. We are not allowed to regulate commodity markets who drive up prices without any connection to the actual buyers and sellers. Why do we need to allow this? Why do we have the most expensive and least effective health care system in the world? We are allowing people to charge too much, and it is too privatized. Colleges are unaffordable. These high tuitions should be discouraged. Obama has made a good start on that; we need to do more. Just what I admit I'm not too sure at this very moment. BUt certainly the public could bring down the cost of public higher education if we acted to do so.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In my opinion, we need to let all the Bush tax cuts expire, enact a millionaire's tax on top of that, and just refuse to do all the other things people are suggesting-- like lower rates, and flat taxes which would NOT be progressive.

So...are you willing to let ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts(tm) expire...or merely some of them? I'm all for letting them all expire, and I think that's what should have happened. It didn't though because regardless of the rhetoric, those cuts effected more than just 'the rich'...and having them expire would effect a hell of a lot of folks. Probably most of the people participating in this thread.

I'm all for higher taxes...but I'm for higher taxes on pretty much everyone (excluding the really, really poor). My issue with those who call for more taxes is that they generally mean more taxes for someone else.

Well, you have to be willing to pay for them, and that means paying some taxes. "Fiscal conservatives" don't always like that prospect!

And liberals don't always like the prospect of cutting government programs or budgets. It's going to take a lot of folks doing a lot of things they don't always like to fix our fiscal problems. Silver bullet solutions like The Buffet Rule(aar) SOUND good, to the masses, but they are mainly window dressing and fodder for the faithful. Same with your 'millionaire's tax'...anything that you could, practically, get enacted is going to be a drop in the bucket when it comes to our fiscal issues without other measures, including the dreaded budget and program cuts. You might get billions...hell, you might get a hundred billion, or even two (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument let's say you could) but while that sounds like a lot it really isn't when put up against the size of the deficit, let alone the debt. IIRC, it's several tens of billions a year just paying on the current 'debt', and you simply aren't going to be able to squeeze The Rich for trillions...at some point they will simply take their marbles and go play somewhere else. An option that THEY have, but We, The People generally don't have.

The trouble with idealistic screeds is that in general the problems are more complex and resistant to easy, quick silver bullet changes, and the solutions even more so...and require compromise while working with the actual system we have, as opposed to the one some of us WISH we had. You aren't going to be elected God Emperor of The Americas, able to arbitrarily make changes with the sweep of your hand.

-XT

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by XT

Well...why isn't it? How would you make it different and relevant enough to be as strong as the lunatic right wing? How would you appeal to enough Americans to make it so? And do you envision this as a direct challenge to the existing dominant Democratic party, or working through existing channels (as the 'lunatic right wing' has done a la the Republican Party), or supplanting them?

-XT

I think progressives are demoralized and don't think they can challenge the dominant trickle-down ideology. The ideology needs to be debunked and we all can do our part. I know we NEED a new or revived progressive movement, and we need to realize that we need it and that it can happen.

As far as which channel, I don't care at this point; whatever works.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by XT

So...are you willing to let ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts(tm) expire...or merely some of them? I'm all for letting them all expire, and I think that's what should have happened. It didn't though because regardless of the rhetoric, those cuts effected more than just 'the rich'...and having them expire would effect a hell of a lot of folks. Probably most of the people participating in this thread.

I'm all for higher taxes...but I'm for higher taxes on pretty much everyone (excluding the really, really poor). My issue with those who call for more taxes is that they generally mean more taxes for someone else.

I'm with you, just as I said. Obama is trying to play politics by advocating only more taxes on the rich, which won't cure our deficit. Cuts of the right kind are fine, but liberals like me think that it's important to keep Medicare, not gut it as a solution to the debt as Republicans and Libertarians propose.

The trouble with idealistic screeds is that in general the problems are more complex and resistant to easy, quick silver bullet changes, and the solutions even more so...and require compromise while working with the actual system we have, as opposed to the one some of us WISH we had. You aren't going to be elected God Emperor of The Americas, able to arbitrarily make changes with the sweep of your hand.

-XT

It is tough, but it helps a little to realize that most of the obstacles are political. As Al Gore said, political will is a renewable resource. If we are to renew our country, we will need more of it one of these days.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think progressives are demoralized and don't think they can challenge the dominant trickle-down ideology.

Again...why?

The ideology needs to be debunked and we all can do our part.

Debunking is harder than you think. Look at the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I know we NEED a new or revived progressive movement, and we need to realize that we need it and that it can happen.

The Tea Party folks think exactly the same thing, interestingly enough.

As far as which channel, I don't care at this point; whatever works.

Work within the existing channels then and push for change within the Democratic party...if you REALLY want any shot at all for change. Do the whole grass roots thingy...the only way progressive ideals are ever going to get out of the fringe is if there is a sea change in thinking among American voters. I wouldn't hold my breath, but that's the only realistic way to do it. Listen to BG...he knows what he speaks of wrt third party politics in the US, if you don't want to attempt to work through existing political parties and channels.

As John Mace said...good luck (storming the castle boys).

-XT

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by XT

Again...why?

Many things have happened. The republicans had the power to steal elections, for one thing. They have the power and ownership control to spend lots more money to persuade people, and they have the power to fire you if you don't adopt their attitudes. Labor has declined for many reasons, and it's hard to realize that we can demand fair wages. And one charismatic actor can do a lot, as happened in 1981.

Debunking is harder than you think. Look at the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Apples and oranges. There has to be something worth debunking and that can be debunked.

Work within the existing channels then and push for change within the Democratic party...if you REALLY want any shot at all for change. Do the whole grass roots thingy...the only way progressive ideals are ever going to get out of the fringe is if there is a sea change in thinking among American voters. I wouldn't hold my breath, but that's the only realistic way to do it. Listen to BG...he knows what he speaks of wrt third party politics in the US, if you don't want to attempt to work through existing political parties and channels.

As John Mace said...good luck (storming the castle boys).

-XT

Thanks, but we'll all need it!

I don't know who "BG" is.

[elucidator]

Storm? You never heard of sappers? Quietly, underground, busy busy busy. Dig dig dig.....jah, Boss!....dig dig dig......

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is tough, but it helps a little to realize that most of the obstacles are political. As Al Gore said, political will is a renewable resource. If we are to renew our country, we will need more of it one of these days.

It's certainly tough. And it's tougher BECAUSE the obstacles are political...which is just another way of saying that large numbers of voters don't see things the way you (or I for that matter) do. The trick is to change peoples perceptions and thinking at the grass roots, as this will cause change on the political scene.

I'm with you, just as I said. Obama is trying to play politics by advocating only more taxes on the rich, which won't cure our deficit. Cuts of the right kind are fine, but liberals like me think that it's important to keep Medicare, not gut it as a solution to the debt as Republicans and Libertarians propose.

If it was easy then someone would have solved it. That's the real trouble...the American voter EXPECTS easy, quick and painless (to them as individuals...no worries if it's someone else pain) solutions to difficult and complex problems.

I mean look what you wrote here. You are all for cuts...but not of Medicare, because you think that it's important. I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, or whether it should or shouldn't be cut...but translate your attitude into 10's of millions of voters in thousands of districts and towns, hundreds of cities, and the states and you start to see why it's not going to be easy. Everyone has a different idea on what they think could be cut, should be cut...and absolutely can't or shouldn't be cut. Everyone has an idea on what they think their taxes should or shouldn't be...while having a different opinion on what they think their neighbors or fellow citizens taxes should or shouldn't be. I try and explain this to my dad all the time and he just doesn't get it...but it is THE fundamental problem, IMHO in this country. Everyone wants something different, everyone prioritizes differently, is willing to have someone else sacrifice something while not wanting to sacrifice something else that they think is important...and politicians cater and pander to the various groups of folks with similar desires, assuming they constitute enough voters to entice them into pandering to them.

-XT

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

....
I don't know who "BG" is.

Barry Goldwater. Its an old fart thing, you wouldn't understand.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know who "BG" is.

'luci is pulling your leg (that's elucidator)...BG is Brain Glutton.

Apples and oranges. There has to be something worth debunking and that can be debunked.

Lots of things are worth debunking, including the 9/11 Truther non-sense. Sadly, things can and have been debunked repeatedly yet they stay with us anyway, year after year, decade after decade. You'll have better luck debunking the Magic Bullet, the Moon Landing Hoax or alien space ships crashing in Roswell than you will trickle down economics.

-XT

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, you have to be willing to pay for them, and that means paying some taxes. "Fiscal conservatives" don't always like that prospect!

I am happy to pay for a government program if I think it will actually accomplish those goals.

Simply throwing more money at these problems is not an answer.

What I said was free market policies are driving up prices. We are not allowed to regulate commodity markets who drive up prices without any connection to the actual buyers and sellers. Why do we need to allow this? Why do we have the most expensive and least effective health care system in the world? We are allowing people to charge too much, and it is too privatized. Colleges are unaffordable. These high tuitions should be discouraged. Obama has made a good start on that; we need to do more. Just what I admit I'm not too sure at this very moment. BUt certainly the public could bring down the cost of public higher education if we acted to do so.

This is a very simple-minded attitude.

When speculators buy a good in the commodity market, they are most certainly not doing so "without any connection to the actual buyers and sellers". Who do you think they are buying it from? There is someone on the market producing bushels of wheat, tons of copper, (or whatever) who is happy to have received a high price for it, and happy for the liquidity the speculators provide.

When the speculator eventually sells (or, when the other speculator the first speculator sells to eventually sells), he will only make a profit if there is actually enough demand in the market to justify the price he is asking for. Speculators or not, someone is going to pay for that wheat, copper, oil, whatever, and use it to produce a product.

"Free market policies" are only "causing" prices to rise in the sense that people are free to pay whatever price they want for whatever amount of commodities they need. If you limit every company in the US to XX tons of copper per year, sure, you will drive down the price of copper - and you'll raise the price of whatever product the copper is being used to produce, because it will now be artificially scarce because of your manipulation of the market.

As another option, if you place a ceiling on the price of copper, all you're doing is hurting the copper producers, and transferring profits that they would have made to the companies that are using copper to produce products. What's the result of this? The supply of copper will go down because there will be no incentive to invest in new copper production, and the situation will be even worse. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost as mines are shut down, smelters are shut down, etc.

Finally, if you ban speculators from trading in the market, you are simply taking money from the commodity producers and giving it to the commodity consumers. That might sound good to you, as I am assuming you are primarily a commodity consumer, but there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of ordinary, lower and middle-class people in this country that work to produce commodities, and it makes little sense as public policy to take money from them and give it to you.

Regarding "colleges are unaffordable" - there are literally thousands of colleges in the US. The idea that they are all involved in some vast conspiracy to collude to keep prices high is ridiculous. If college is unaffordable, maybe the problem is that a good education is just very expensive to provide. Most colleges are non-profits! Government restrictions on the cost of college would do nothing but force colleges to lower staff salaries and cut spending.

A competitive free market is a very efficient system. Unlike what many libertarians will tell you, it is necessary to regulate the free market in order for it to remain competitive - prohibit monopolies from developing, punishing companies that gain an unfair advantage by breaking environmental laws, etc. And sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice a little efficiency in the market in order to achieve other goals - minimum wage laws, for instance.

But most of the problems that people blame on the "free market" are actually the result of a market that is not free at all, but distorted by a corrupt political and economic system influenced by large, powerful, monopolistic corporations - the total opposite of a free market.

[elucidator]

There will always be a need for a new progressive party, as we evolve and/or mutate. Forty years ago, ideas I held were radical, now they are commonplace. Goody gumdrops and go team go. But whether progressive thinking is best represented by a separate political party is an issue of tactics, not convictions. Personally, and for now, I don't'think so. At the moment, our best organized advocates are our enemies, compared to the people who hate us, how crazy can we be?

[Eric the Green]

Here's the straight dope on oil and Iraq
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp