Democrats already support many things that most Americans support, but you’re right that we’re bad at our own marketing. That, and the other party is just so zealous in their hatred its hard to denounce them in a positive manner. But I could see a Democratic majority if we pledged to support:
Marriage equality
Universal health care
Specifically, free access to women’s health care like birth control
Keeping science in science classes and religion in philosophy classes
Ending the surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act
Amnesty for undocumented immigrants and a pathway to citizenship
Separating religion from the state
Heavy government regulation of industries like Wall Street, along with jail time for those responsible for the recession
Removing our presence from Iraq and Afghanistan
Much more government spending on social programs, higher taxes for the rich, and lower taxes for the poor and middle class
Not even a majority when you get into the details about how to pay for it and what happens to people’s existing insurance.
You already did that.
Not nearly as popular as prayer in schools, so probably not a winner.
Popular, but politically dicey. I think that most politicians would like to get rid of that, but then if something happens, they get blamed. Politicians tend to be risk averse. And Democrats have a branding problem on national security.
Only a 60% issue if we actually solve our immigration problem once and for all.
Very vague.
Industry is already regulated extensively. And jailing people for acts that weren’t illegal is itself illegal.
We did that.
Then you can’t have more government spending. The rich provide a minority of the revenue. Cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the rich and the result is lower revenue. The Bush tax cut repeal will raise about $700 billion over 10 years. The cost of the rest of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class is $3.3 billion.
Depends on how much revenue you want. You raise money by taxing as broad a base as possible. A narrow base means less revenue. That’s why countries with large social safety nets have VATs or sales taxes. The middle class is where the money is because there’s so many of us.
I don’t think that’s what happened. It seems to me simply that the conservative Senate Dems weren’t interested in a public option. I don’t remember it ever being a central part of the debate. The Republicans just tarred the whole thing as socialism, not the public option in particular.
THe middle class does the majority of the whining, and since they have the votes, their whining is listened to. There hasn’t been middle class rate increase since 1982.
Than you can’t have a privileged class of speakers (news media, punditry, political parties, various hired guns, actors, CEO’s), and a restricted class (scientists, historians, and all median-income workers without funds for TV access). It’s equal time and equal voice or nothing.
Funny the Dems didn’t implement all these great ideas when they controlled Congress and the White House, and cemented their majority for the next 15 years.
Foolsguinea, there’s a difference between people having more ability to do something because of money or talent or who they know, and the government deciding who can speak and who can’t. The Constitution doesn’t protect us from life being unfair, it protects us from the government being unfair.
All I’m saying is that if the GOVERNMENT bans TV ads, it can’t allow them from “qualified” individuals or organizations, such as political parties.
You’re thinking of wealth. We don’t tax wealth, we tax income. You can’t tax wealth at a high rate. It’s simply not economically possible. that’s why almost no one does it, and those that do talk in terms of tenths of a percent tax rate.
The other problem is all the exceptions you’d need to pass it politically and practically. First, most Congressmen are rich. While they are willing to pay higher taxes(sometimes), they aren’t willing to see their estates steadily withered away. Plus you’d have to make all kinds of exceptions which would change behavior. For example, if a rich guy’s wealth is 90% tied up in a business that isn’t public, how does he liquidate part of his business every year? But when you create an exception for that, then everyone wants to tie their money up into something the government can’t touch. The merely well off would put all their money in their house, because you know that would be exempt.
