I would much rather go to a draft if it means that we get an extra $200-400 billion a year in tax cuts or debt reduction or superior schools or whatever.
And yeah, we got away with it in the 1930s because Britain and France etc. were willing to step up. Wanna guess why they’re getting away with not stepping up now? That’s why we give a four-year heads-up to the world: we’re done footing the bill for international democracy or whatever, it’s quite literally bankrupting us.
My first order of business would be creating the infrastructure allowing for long term progressive majorities.
Strong pro-union legislation since unions help progressives get elected to office
Some kind of fairness doctrine, or one that requires misinformation in the news to be addressed
Policies to increase voter turnout among the poor, non-white and working class (making election day a national holiday, funding for registration drives, public service announcements) since they are more likely to vote progressive, but also more apathetic.
Laws limiting the amount of money corporations can put into elections
Yeah its probably unfair and undemocratic, but meh.
After that as far as progressive policies I would want whatever policies worked to create a stable middle class with decent economic growth where the US had more social and economic mobility, and had a stronger role in the major sciences and technologies of the 21st century. Plus a world with sustainable growth and economic policy. Whatever policies helped achieve that would be fine, even if they are conservative policies. I’m more into the goals policies are designed to achieve rather than the policies themselves. A public option is nice, but mostly if it can lower medical costs to make health care more reliable and free up money to invest in other areas of the economy.
My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that we had a draft in WWII partly so we could handle all the people who wanted to join up in an orderly fashion.
I feel this is a questionable principle. Our use of military force should be based on whether or not their is an American interest present (and that can include aiding an ally or eliminating a general threat). If there is an interest we have grounds to be involved and if there isn’t we don’t.
But saying we’ll use our military if other countries pay us makes us merely mercenaries. I don’t think we should be sending American troops into battle just because somebody wrote us a paycheck. If we don’t think an intervention is worth doing for the cause in question, we shouldn’t be doing it for pay.
So the same thing that’s happening with the tax cuts right now, except all the time, and for everything? I don’t think that would be in anyone’s best interests.
My personal “liberal agenda”, most of which has already been mentioned, would include;
-Legal gay marriage and adoption
-Legalization of marijuana and other recreational drugs with a low risk of addiction/negative health effects (mushrooms and LSD ok; cocaine and heroin not)
-Fairness doctrine; Media are required to be non-partisan and accurate, undo the Supreme Court decision allowing Fox News etc. to lie
-Single-payer healthcare
-Guaranteed national income
-Sustainable energy/transportation infrastructure including high-speed trains and increased mass transit options in urban areas
-Full public funding of all political campaigns, from president to assistant dog-catcher
-Crack down on “alternative medicine” and quack medical cures
-Abolish “civic deism” - no “In God we trust”, prayers in Congress, etc.
-Compulsory national service, either military or civilian public works
-End outsourcing of military services to private contractors; no Halliburton, KBR etc. doing jobs that can be done by soldiers
-Comprehensive immigration reform that allows people who want to work low-paying jobs in the US an opportunity to do so legally
-Further investment in the space program with the aim of establishing permanent outposts on the Moon
All policies built around a central and obviously fair theme:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Wait a sec; I’m checking to see if it’s already been tried before…
I’m the most liberal person I know except for nuclear power. Let’s see, I haven’t looked at the thread in detail, so sorry if I restate what others have.
[ul]
[li]Universal Healthcare. Job 1.[/li][li]Streamline the military. Assume a reasonable footing for the kind of conflicts we’re likely to see.[/li][li]At cost student loans.[/li][li]Dream act and massive immigration reform.[/li][li]Gay rights.[/li][li]Prosecute people for torture. The president can commute their sentences if he wants, but it needs to be public.[/li][li]Legalize pot.[/li][li]Nuclear Power.[/li][li]Go back to Clinton tax rates.[/li][li]Inheritance tax of 50% with a 1 million buffer. America doesn’t need dynasties.[/li][li]Reduce corn subsidies.[/li][li]Offer an X prize for artificial plant based liquid fuels.[/li][li]Offer tax incentives for gas stations to put in a fast charger for electric vehicles.[/li][li]Get rid of “In God We Trust” and other ceremonial deism bullshit.[/li][/ul]
Based on how the previous Congress conducted itself when it had 60 people caucusing as Democrats in the Senate and a solid majority in the House, I’ll assume you mean there are no remaining Republicans, conservatives, Blue Dog Democrats, or anyone else to the right of “liberal” left standing in either house. Since if there were, the liberal majority, as far as I can tell, would accomodate them and compromise with them and let them control the legislative process. :smack:
Disclaimer: I have in the past said “I am not a liberal, I’m a radical who is sometimes closer to conservative perspectives than liberal ones”.
CounterDisclaimer: I find less and less legitimacy in saying it. The priorities, attitudes, and practices called “conservative” in the US have changed more than I have. I’m very very seldom close to what modern conservative perspectives are composed of.
OK then…
a) An unfunded INTERNAL mandate that all elected representatives should operate a message board patterned after the SDMB. Seriously. Their editorials about what they are doing, where they stand on this or that bill, their own priorities as a legislator, would be the “columns”. Their constituents would register (registrations including street address and contact info) to post and they could start their own threads, comment in anyone else’s thread… boards would be divided into comments on the legislator’s column, Specific Legislation, Governing Philosophy, Pitting the Politician, and Off Topic. Elected representatives are strongly urged to participate on their own boards and to pay attention to the viewpoints expressed by their constituency.
b) All forms of direct social services and support from the government should have their eligibility rules examined under specific suspicion of the existence of clauses that penalize people for activities that would enable them to change their circumstances and emerge from dependency on such services. Automatic eligibility rules would in such cases be replaced with a flexible process involving hearing boards composed at least 50% of former recipients of such services. This would be an initially expensive initiative but should at least partially pay for itself over time.
c) Foreign policy emphasis is to shift from a realpolitik philosophy driven by a “whoever is the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to an idealistic philosphy driven by a “whoever adopts internal policies towards their own citizens akin to our own ideals of equality and democratic participatory decision-making is my friend”. This change in emphasis is to be enacted in matters surreptitious as well as official.
d) The US commits to a long-term goal of converting the UN from its current structural form to an egalitarian system in which all nations supply an equal number of representatives to one house equivalent to the US Senate and the people of the earth in each nation elect representatives based on population to the second house equivalent to the US House of Representatives, with the permanent security council and other oligarchical powers phased out. Significant funds are earmarked for advertising and advocating a global democratic governing body in all the nations of the earth in their various media outlets and this, too, becomes part of our foreign policy initiative.
e) Health care: No insurance company can be prohibited from operating in any region or state nor any company permitted to operate as a monopoly provider without triggering an antitrust clause. The US Government will operate its own insurance company in all 50 states as a competitor to the private companies. Medication can be purchased from any source that meets quality control standards and the US Government version is required to work with the lowest bidder on medication costs.
f) Tort reform: No limits are to be imposed on compensatory or punitive damages but punitive damages collected from a defendant in civil cases are to be pooled for programs to redress damages done to people in similar situations rather than going to the plaintiff.
g) Teaching and Education: Tenure is to be respected as a barrier to being fired for the content that one teaches but not as a barrier to being fired for incompetence as a teacher or ignorance of basic material. Current quality-of-education initiatives that revolve around standardized testing are to be discontinued. New batteries of tests involving challenges and problems to be addressed in any fashion that solve them with no preordained right answer, essay tests, and independent initiatives will be developed along with a new partial reliance on grading of teachers and school systems by their students. States whose state colleges provide free education to their qualified residents are to be given a tax break, and a formulaically adjusted tax break to states with reduced tuitions. Students committing to teach in public schools within 12 years of graduation are given a deferral on payback of educatonal loans and if they fulfill their commitments the loans become grants not requiring repayment.
I’m not advocating doing for anyone for pay. But we’re already doing it for everyone for free. If protecting a seaway is not in our interest, we shouldn’t do it ar all. And I think of it as more symbolic than practical anyway. Just a negotiating point we should consider in the ‘free trade’ equation.
[ul]
[li]Stronger cost controls on health care, which would involve a public option and much yelping by high cost hospitals. Extending the Mayo Clinic model throughout the country would boost life expectancy and reduce health care spending as a share of GDP.[/li][li]Less security theater, more tough minded analysis.[/li][li]Apply cost-effectiveness metrics to public safety and anti-crime measures.[/li][li]Raise emissions taxes and taxes on higher incomes – aim for a long-run budget surpluses. [/li][li]Defang the budget arsonists with campaign finance and tax reform. Establish a commission to curb corruption in the US, as objectively measured by Transparency International’s index. [/li][li]In the executive branch, end feel-good posturing in favor of careful management of the country’s security challenges. That implies strengthening foreign partnerships and institutions. This is prerequisite for phasing out the expensive Necessary Hegemon model of international affairs.[/li][/ul] Much of the above is consistent with center-right policies in the remainder of the OECD.
No, that’s pretty much exactly what you’re saying. The example you gave was protecting ships from pirates. You said we should do it but not for any ships that wouldn’t pay our fee.
So, according to that, we’re willing to fight pirates if we’re paid and we’re willing to sit by and let pirates attack ships if we aren’t paid. That’s pretty much being mercenaries.
If fighting pirates is a good cause, then we should be doing it - regardless of whether or not anyone else is paying us. And if fighting pirates isn’t a good cause then we shouldn’t be doing it just because somebody is paying us.
I could be wrong about this, but I don’t think our current military is large enough to handle a conflict on the scale of WWII. If a (non-nuclear) WWIII broke out tomorrow, we’d likely need to institute a draft on top of our existing volunteer army in order to fight it.
Quoth godix:
OK, so how about this? We match North Korea on a one-to-one basis, staring right across their border at them, with the assurance than we’ll bring down an even bigger hammer if they step out of line, plus whatever the South Koreans and the rest of our allies are doing. We also do the same thing with Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and any other country where there’s even a plausible chance that they might start being nasty to us. In fact, we match everyone in the whole world on a one-for-one basis, excepting only our close friends and allies like Canada, most of Western Europe, Israel, and Australia. Would that be an acceptable level of military strength to you?
Because that would be a huge reduction in our military, enough to pay for huge piles of liberal programs with the savings.
What’s in China’s?
Let’s see, I say I’m against A. You criticize me for being for Z, without considering B through Y. What’s the name of this fallacy? Excluded middle maybe?
I admit, I don’t keep up with all of the Supreme Court cases, so I’ve never heard of this decision. Which case was it?
I’ll have to look that up. Sounds interesting.
I figured our military is just overexerted, and if we pull our troops out of places like Iraq and Afghanistan then we should be OK, but that’s my gut feeling, I guess I’m not sure on the actual facts.
You guys keep asking how Obama should negotiate differently. The technique is so simple and well known that I must imagine you are being disingenuous, but for the sake of argument, I will spell it out for you. Say Obama is negotiating over taxes. He wants to let the tax cut for the wealthy sunset. So, as I pointed out in a thread some time ago, he does not START by announcing that “Tax cuts for the wealthy are on the table.” INSTEAD what he does is announce that he wants to implement a whole new regimen of taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. JUST the wealthy you understand, people making over $500,000 a year might see their tax rate go up by, say 25% over what it is now, and the taxes on people making $1,000,000 a year might see taxes go up 35% over what it is now, and the loopholes on corporate taxes will all be closed and severe criminal penalties imposed on CEOs of corporations that seek to evade paying their taxes, and mingled in with all this alarming stuff is the provision that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will be allowed to expire.
Well of course the conservative mouthpieces will be running around like their heads are on fire over all this stuff, “War on the job creators!” “Corporations to leave America!” blahblahblah, at the end of the day, the Republicans are allowed to thrash the Dems on all these proposals, but letting the Bush tax cuts sunset is small potatoes, and so they expire.
THAT’S what Obama should have been doing all along! It’s SO FREAKING OBVIOUS! It makes me wonder if he really cared about the tax cuts at all.
Even better would be for Obama to steal a page from the Republican playbook and announce the Freedom of Marriage Act which would allow anyone to marry anyone or anything, and the Sanctity of the Bodies of American Women Act which would make abortion for any woman legal at any time, without the permission of anyone, even her parents/husband. this too would have the conservatives running around with their heads on fire, and in the meantime the Dems could past any damn fiscal legislation they want, including legislation to make conservatives pay a huge “incorrectness tax.”
Excuse me, I posted these in the wrong thread. I’ll humbly apologize and go post them in the right thread. If a mod wants to remove them from this thread, will that’d be all right by me.
Reinstate Glass-Steagal. Getting rid of it was a terrible idea … it CAUSED our current recession, along with ARMs and pretty much illegal lending practices by the banks.
Reinstate limits on electoral spending. Seal off third party monies. Let everyone speak their mind, but don’t let money control the electoral process as it has.
All political jurisdictional lines to be drawn by independent boards not appointed by any politician or political group. End political redistricting. the present process is insanely stupid. HEFTY criminal penalties for trying to influence such boards.
health care to be managed as follows: all federal, state and local government employees are merged into a single health care pool. Private employers may opt to enter their employees into the same pool, at the same rates. Private individuals may do so as well. No restrictions on what private health care plans can do. They just have to compete with the government health care pool. If corporations are so fucking much better at everything, they should do just fine! (Hint: effective single payer inside a decade or two).
Creation of a new bank charter, a “main street bank” which is ONLY allowed to invest in non-financial products. (I.e., no derivatives, no currency speculation, no loan packages) they can only invest in companies that make things and provide non-financial services. Offer differential guarantees for fund recovery in Main Street Banks vs. “Gambling Banks” that invest in financial services industry. Like, cut back government guarantees to $25,000 in Gambling Banks (one account per person or corporation) and increase guarantees in Main Street Banks to $250,000. Idea is, get banks back in the business of supporting productive corporations and individuals instead of casino gambling in currency markets and exotic financial instruments. And write it into law that Gambling Banks MUST be allowed to fail if they do badly at the financial market’s gaming tables.
Sanctity of American Women’s Bodies Act. All decisions regarding abortions are to be made between a woman and her doctor. The government to have no power to intervene.
Gay Marriage Act. Any gay person that wants to be married to a member of the same sex may do so. What the hell.
Free Speech act. Censorship is illegal. Neither the government nor any corporation may forbid freedom of speech, or punish free speech in any way. This applies to ANY form of communication on ANY topic, including sexual topics, in ANY medium. Any individual, person or group may limit what they say on certain topics (children’s TV programming, etc.) but no third party may COMPEL them.
Government investment programs to lead the way in investment during recessions like this one.
I like the idea of BIG but I wonder what a community of BIGots would be like? Slums?
You make good points. I did mention we may want to stop piracy, but we don’t have to return pirated property to its owners. And I didn’t suggest fighting piracy only because we are paid to do it. But I think I should give consideration to your points. It doesn’t do us any good to be perceived as mercenaries.