The prescription to fix so much of what's wrong with this country is simple

[cali]

but it won't happen. That's what's so frustrating.

Taxes need to be hiked on the wealthy. We need cuts in defense, including the security agencies. We need to raise the federal minimum wage and we need to invest in infrastructure. We need to invest in renewable energy.

But this country is owned lock, stock and barrel by the wealthy/corporations and they have the power to control politics.

It's worse than the gilded age.

What would it take to change this dynamic?

[Squinch]

1. Nice summation! It would take a Democratic House and Senate in 2014, and

a push by Move On and other orgs like them that get millions of signatures.

[leftstreet]

2. For 2 years Obama had the power of the will of the people

Most political capital of any President in our lifetimes

He and the Democrats could have gotten anything WE wanted

[truebluegreen]

13. Not a big Obama fan but, while he had nominal majorities in Congress

there were a ton of Blue Dogs in the House and Senate Democrats were too weak (or naive or optimistic or corporatist or whatever) to do away with the filibuster so actual goals could be accomplished.

That said, we would have a lot more of the right kind of Democrats in there if Obama had "led" where the people wanted to go.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. And every time Harry the Wimp...

has a chance to get rid of the filibuster he fails. He is either ineffectual or in on it (the most likely).

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. You realize that ...

the filibuster rule cuts both ways, right?

[awoke_in_2003]

76. And that attitude....

is why there is never any change in DC. The system isn't broken, it's fixed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. That "attitude" ...

reflects reality ... the place I chose to dwell.

I am not saying that Congress isn't broken; but I would rather engage a fix that won't come back to bite us.

While the current 60 vote rule prevents some Democratic legislation, it is also the reason we don't have a national concealed weapon law (CW Reciprocity) today.

[awoke_in_2003]

92. When we were the minority party in the senate...

The pukes had total control because Harry was a weak minority leader. Now that we are the majority the pukes still have total control because Harry is a weak majority leader. No matter what is going on, we cannot seem to do a god damned thing. And the more I see, the more I think it is by design.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. okay ...

I'm not going to go through this again ...

Democrats hold a numerical majority; but cannot trust that the Blue Dogs will vote with the caucus.

The problem that you fail to acknowledge is ... Democrats value governing over ideological posturing, and unfortunately, as the expression goes, "the person that cares least about the relationship, controls that relationship ... because they do not care about the result.

[awoke_in_2003]

100. Or the most likely explanation...

is the big money owns enough politicians of both parties that only the legislation that big money wants will get passed. The majority of people in congress have sold their souls, and the few honest ones that pop up every now and then are treated like pariah. True Kabuki theater.

[Enthusiast]

113. Oh, it's Kabuki theater alright.

No question about that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

149. Funny ...

doesn't the "captured congress/Kabuki Theater" argument cut against the "He changed" argument?

[bvar22]

164. Well, t least you agree that the Republican Party is not the BIG problem preventing any progress.

We agree that the BIG problem is within the Democratic Party (Conservative Blue Dogs).
We can't do anything about the Republican Party,
but we should DAMN WELL be able to do something about the malignancy in our OWN Party!

[1StrongBlackMan]

203. No ...

We do not agree that the big problem is within the Democratic party. Where did you get that from?

Yes, we can do something about the republican party ... namely field alternate candidates, even Blue Dog Conservatives, to challenge, and hopefully remove them from office. 70+% support > the (maybe) 4% support of the most moderate republican. And oh yeah, we can spend our time and energy attacking republicans rather than attacking Democrats.

Understand, if given a choice, my electoral preference would be: Progressive Democrat; Liberal Democrat; Centrist Democrat; unaffiliated Liberal; unafiliated Progressive;Blue Dog Democrat; Moderate republican; republican. So, yes ... I would (and have) supported, campaigned for and voted for Blue dog Democrats ... I was living in Cincinnatti, OH, at the time.

[rhett o rick]

104. And you think that if the DEmocrats play nice, then the Republicans will in the future.

The Republicans are abusing the filibuster rule and they will change it as soon as they are in power. Are you saying that you trust Republicans?

[1StrongBlackMan]

145. I have no doubt ...

that the modern gop will try; but so long as they don't have 60 in the Senate, the filibuster rules will work for us.

[bvar22]

188. Just like it did when Bush was President...

...and wasn't able to get anything he wanted.

[awoke_in_2003]

200. Thank you. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

204. Did you miss the part ...

where Democrats did not use the filibuster rule; but opted to vote with bush?

[truebluegreen]

85. I'm going for Door #2.

[totodeinhere]

175. Yes, but if we could eliminate that dinosaur we could actually get some

things accomplished in the Senate and greatly increase our chances of holding on to a majority. The alternative is to keep the status quo and then watch the Republicans take control and then they will be the ones to get rid of the filibuster once it's to their advantage to do so.

[truebluegreen]

199. My thoughts exactly.

[Cryptoad]

35. Democrats have had Control of Congress

for a total of 13 weeks since Obama has been elected

you want that change

the solution is easy ,,, elect more democrats

The change we need will take control of Congress and the SCOTUS!

[L0oniX]

37. Well ya vote em in ...and then they change ...not for the better. n/t

[Phlem]

67. True Dat!

the Barack Obama running for President is not the same man we have in office.



-p

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. Yes he is n/t

[Phlem]

79. Oh, OK then.

Since you say so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Yeah ...

that works both ways.

[Phlem]

89. yeah well not this time.

Goodby.

[Enthusiast]

114. Why do so many of us disagree?

Think we're all secret Rand Paul supporters? Think we are just miserably misinformed? Racists? We have serious questions about policy, policy that takes us away from where we want the nation to go.

[1StrongBlackMan]

148. For a variety of reasons ...

that have been detailed in inumerous threads on this topic ... the reasons haven't changed.

And yes, some of those reasons (for a significant number of people on DU) are because of the reasons you state, i.e., rp supporters (and anarachists and purist progressives), unacknowledged racism (different standards for this President), but mostly, the uninformed (those that heard his words of "hope and change", in the context of the bush years, and projected their own meanings) ... President Obama was a Center-Left candidate, and has governed from the Center-Left.

[L0oniX]

162. LOL

[1StrongBlackMan]

202. Am I ...

to take that as an expression of your disagreement?

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Yep ...

But, as the "debates" here demonstrate (with all the "I'm never going to vote for anyone but 'REAL' democrats) ... I am doubtful that this will happen, even as the Blue Dogs (that are electable in red districts) vote with the Democratic Caucus 70+% of the time.

[Doctor_J]

191. So you're saying that without say 64 Senators and 270 House members, we're impotent?

wow, that is some fatalistic thinking there.

[truebluegreen]

198. I'm saying that we need not just more, but better Democrats.

A majority in each House would do, if the Senate was more interested in functioning than being collegial.

[JaneyVee]

15. Democrats had a majority for 24 working days. Zero if you count Lieberman and Sanders.

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

[Mojorabbit]

16. It was still a huge amount

I wonder what would have happened if he had gone all LBJ on them but he was just getting his legs under him new in the job.

[bhikkhu]

53. and the economy was losing 750k jobs a month

...the full focus was on stopping the collapse, which had been put in place by the repugs. And even the manner of stopping it was constrained by the plans already under way. During the short time Obama had a democratic majority, he had practically no freedom to act.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. LBJ ...

super majorities in both Houses of Congress ... that made it possible for him to "go all LBJ" ... that and, LBJ didn't have to deal with the new politicians that are all to willing to call a press conference to whine about how mean the President is treating him/her.

[Mojorabbit]

77. I know exactly what LBJ had. I remember it well. He used his clout while he

had some wind at his back.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. So was ...

his "clout" his super-majority ... or was his super majority the "wind at his back."

I suspect that should Democratic leaning liberals and Democratic progressives give President Obama an LBJ or FDR Congress, we'd see LBJ and FDR results.

[Mojorabbit]

91. It was his ability to wheel and deal and twist arms. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. Do you really think ...

his ability to wheel and deal and twist arms would be effective, or even possible in current times?

I suspect if President Obama were to wheel and deal ... it would first be the subject of conference with tapes and video, if not a kiss and tell all book; and secondly, would be example number 1 of what is wrong with the system ... wheeling and dealing.

And, what about this new age politician? Do you really think any attempt at arm twisting would not be met with a press conference with tapes and video, where the legislator would be front and center whining about how mean the President is acting towards him/her?

Nope this is a different day and time, with different players both on the field and in the stands.

[Mojorabbit]

95. We will never know will we? That was the point of my comment. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. So you advocate an approach...

that you know will be ineffective? Why?

[Mojorabbit]

98. No, I think it could have been effective. I think he could have turned

enough republicans at that time to get what he wanted if he had really gone for it like LBJ wheeling and dealing and twisting arms. He had the nation at his back. He could have used that leverage. When he wants to fight for something he does and is pretty effective. I don't think he had found his footing yet as I stated above. There is a steep learning curve for the job. Have a good night.

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. That is pure fantasy ...

you do recall that this a republican party that met to plan an obstruction strategy before he took office; a gop that has a media willing to promote the most outlandish gop-victim crap imaginable; and a Democratic party that is unwilling to stand up until after they have tasted the wind ...

Nope, his "wheeling and dealing" would not be met well ... not even here on DU.

[heaven05]

26. that's the real truth

never had a real majority, ever, and with the number of bluedog democrats who have worked against their POTUS and with the rethugs, from day one, our wishes have been subverted as democrats.

[dreamnightwind]

110. Both things can be and are true

The Senate super-majority was barely real. Our guy in the White House wasn't exactly a progressive force either, far from it, unfortunately.

[heaven05]

155. I won't disagree.

Somewhat, so far, as a 'true' progressive, a disappointment. But with the money driving our political system you can only be as progressive as a Clintonista can be. The bankers and corporations control this system. And I don't want Hillary as next POTUS. President Warren would work and if she makes it to POTUS, I bet she'll have to govern center right also..

[dreamnightwind]

205. I also like Warren

I don't know if she's a real progressive. What I do know is she will stand up to power, economic power, and that is what is needed.

These are strange days where the old lines of left, right are messed up. There are socially progressive policies, which have made progress under Obama, mainly by pushing him from the ground. There are also economic issues, where you have to directly go against the powerful, and that's where Warren would stand up for us.

[kardonb]

45. we want

aHouse lead by democrats ! As long a Repugs control the House , they can stop about any measure they please . GET BACK THE HOUSE , and we will get our priorities done !

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. President Obama may have had ...

the most political capital of any President in our lifetimes; but he has never had sufficient majorities to pass any of the legislature that you mention as the "simple" prescription. You know how you can tell?

No of the liberals in the House or the Senate, including the Progressive Caucus, has gotten anything resembling what you call for out of committee.

[indepat]

72. And what we mostly got were a kinder and gentler society, but with continuing: wars, the

Patriot Act, fiscal and tax policies, gorging of the MIC, income inequality, ludicrously invasive airport safety measures, and the crown-jewel, a Republican health law.

[cali]

4. oh, I don't think that would do it unless we elected

a lot of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren types.

The D party is almost as much in thrall to the wealthy/corporate interests as the R party.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Yes.

The DLC/Third Way has just about destroyed the core values of the Party.

[bbgrunt]

32. yeppers.

[L0oniX]

38. [phone] ^^^this^^^

[kimbutgar]

51. I got so fooled by your bug, kept trying to smash it.

Pretty funny

[L0oniX]

54. Another in a long line of victims.

[lark]

181. Sorry to be a downer, but.....

I can't see this ever happening in today's environment. So what if we had Dem majorities, that's happened before and still little/no progress. Why? Because so many Dems are blue dogs or are are on the take for the 1% - like DiFi. Schumer PROMOTED John Roberts for SCOTUS because he was a reliable corporatist and 1%er, no Democratic values there. Kerry supporting bombing of Syria when it would help Al-Qaeda. Until Citizens United is taken down and a new voting law put into place to encourage voting and stop the suppression, until Congress changes the tax laws so companies aren't better off by hiding money in the Caribbean and moving their production offshore, nothing will change.

[pampango]

3. You covered it well, cali. I would add legislation to strengthen unions. n/t

[Blanks]

5. I think it works best to focus on one issue first...

and keep hammering away at it until there is movement.

I'd put them in this order.

1) Raise taxes on the wealthy
2) cut military spending
3) infrastructure
4) renewables
5) minimum wage

But I realize not everyone has the same order of importance.

[cali]

7. works for me, but as I said, I think the grip that

wealthy/corporations have on government and the media makes it all but impossible to raise taxes and without doing that, change can't happen.

[Blanks]

12. I agree.

I put taxes first because it is one way of reducing the influence of the wealthy, but the folks with the influence aren't going to give it up without a fight.

We need to return to the tax structure we had the last time we were seriously trying to pay down war debt.

We need to change our perception of who the money really belongs to. It originates from the government so if people aren't using money in a way that the government is encouraging them to use it (deductions) they need to just tax what they aren't using. It is created for the purpose of barter - it has no intrinsic value, if it is not used to barter the government just needs to scoop it up.

If the government isn't going to raise taxes then they at least need to come up with a way of bringing money home from overseas so that it circulates in the economy.

Whatever we need to get things going in the right direction isn't going to happen while republicans have control of the house so that has to be the first step.

[Lurker Deluxe]

172. Holy Hell !!!!

"We need to change our perception of who the money really belongs to. It originates from the government so if people aren't using money in a way that the government is encouraging them to use it (deductions) they need to just tax what they aren't using. It is created for the purpose of barter - it has no intrinsic value, if it is not used to barter the government just needs to scoop it up."

WTF?!?!

Money originates from the government? Since when?

Not used to barter the government should just "scoop it up"?!?!?

Uhh, hell no. If I choose to live below my means and save money, or invest it, or build patio furniture out if it ... it's mine not the governments.

[struggle4progress]

120. There are 300 million people in this country. You won't get them to walk in lockstep:

it's like carting frogs in a wheel-barrow

If you want to win with people-power, you have to realize people will only actually work on what they want to work on

So the trick is to learn movement-building

[Blanks]

154. I agree.

Keeping in mind that there are 47% (Romney voters) that will oppose every one of the issues because they WILL march lock step.

One of the tricks is to get people who should be your ally - from working against you. It isn't necessary that we are ALL working toward the same thing as long as the half that aren't working toward something - aren't working AGAINST that same something.

So we are going to have to convince some dyed in the wool republicans that fighting FOR these issues is in their best interest. That has to have been how it happened after the Great Depression. Otherwise, how did the democrats control congress almost exclusively from 1932 to 1980?

[bvar22]

189. This guy was good at "Movement Building".

[font size=3]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=3]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]

[heaven05]

156. Wow!!!!

you guys are talking about how real change will happen. Better cut that out, people might forget about the is he progressive enough or not 'problem'.

[First Speaker]

6. What will it take? A massive crisis...

...something on a 1929 scale, at the *very* least. It will have to be massive, since the Bush debacles weren't enough. Another Wall Street-led collapse, only worse...a disputed presidential election, only more blatantly stolen than even 2000...another Occupy movement, only more militant. God knows. Something, I suspect, that nobody can now foresee, like the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This, by the way, is a profoundly pessimistic post. Who could *want* some great disaster? But if you're asking me, for better or worse, that's what it'll take to genuinely change our national dynamic. What *won't* change it is ordinary electoral politics... ...

[cali]

8. I agree with you.

I can't see change happening in the electoral process.

[blue14u]

78. Maybe campaign reform needs

to be at the top of the list Cali> ???

These issues are all tremendous, and complicated.

I tend to be a pro-active person and thoughtful of what I say, I'm not always successful

with that..

With that said, it usually does take a catastrophe to make change sadly.

* sigh*

[struggle4progress]

121. Abstract pessimism doesn't accomplish anything. Lots of people out there are unhappy

with the state of affairs

The trick is to start to put in motion those who are unhappy for the same reasons we are unhappy and who generally support the remedies we support

If you offer people a coherent and feasible activity, that has a sensible goal, many of them can be persuaded to act

[heaven05]

157. you are on the case.

[Cleita]

9. Economic war against those corporations?

If we don't crack their influence, nothing will get done.

[struggle4progress]

122. Don't think too abstractly and don't be too much of an ideologue

If you have a particular corporation or a particular industry in mind, a particular abuse in mind, and a particular reform in mind, then its possible to study the issue in detail and to craft definite strategies and learn from mistakes

[Vanje]

10. Repeal Citizens United verdict, for one

Get those swarming big money lobbyists out of congress and the WhiteHouse.
Increase government transparency.
Un-do media consolidation and bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine'. Free people need a free press.

[L0oniX]

39. You first must have transparency in order to increase it. n/t

[RC]

44. To repeal Citizens United, we need to impeach at least 5 members of the Supreme Court.

Between the Republicans, the DLC and DINOs', none of it gonna happen.

[Vanje]

11. Prosecute corporate criminals

Dont bail them out.

[struggle4progress]

123. That's too abstract. You need more focus

[JaneyVee]

14. Republicans are the problem.

[cali]

17. It's partisan madness not to recognize that

the democratic party is also in thrall to to the wealthy and corporations even if it's not as bad as the republican party.

[JaneyVee]

18. Nah, check the voting records of your list. Less republicans = more progress.

[cali]

24. Sorry, but denying that the Democratic Party has a "corporation" problem is nutso

it's really not that hard to do the research. And it doesn't take much.

[jeff47]

178. They aren't pure, but they are also nowhere near as bad. (nt)

[struggle4progress]

124. Winning political fights in the US is not a matter of absolute victories or defeats: it is often

a process of shifting the political center

[Vanje]

47. They are not the only problem, sad to say.

In fact, no. I dont think so.

Most all my neighbors and co-workers are republicans.
Regular Idaho folks, struggling to get by. like the rest of us.
And guess what. They're getting screwed too.


Its the merger of big money with government.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. "What would it take to change this dynamic?"...

Guillotines

[Jackpine Radical]

28. LSD in the punchbowls at Congressional parties

[L0oniX]

42. IMO the only thing that will change it can not be spoken of on DU or anywhere. n/t

The gov is ready for it too. I imagine a bloody V movie sort of op. I expect that even being passive in mass protests will be defeated. They already were putting OWS protesters in sniper scopes. It's almost like they want a confrontation so they can kill the people who protest. I am afraid we are already defeated. You can't vote Goldman Sachs out of office.

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." ~ Emma Goldman

The biggest threat to America today is it’s own federal government…. Will the Army protect anybody from the FBI? The IRS? The CIA? The Republican Party? The Democratic Party?....The biggest dangers we face today don’t even need to sneak past our billion dollar defense system….they issue the contracts for them. - Frank Zappa

MLK: Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Martin Luther King, Jr.

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.- Abbie Hoffman

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight Eisenhower

[Vanje]

49. It won't be televised.

[Art_from_Ark]

65. Nice group of quotes

If Eisenhower were around today, he would be a liberal Democrat. No wonder why today's Republicans don't associate with his name.

[awoke_in_2003]

75. I think you post may be depressingly true. nt

[bluedeathray]

161. I'm feeling it's unspokeness.

This has been going on for much too long. With much too little in it's way.

[Doctor_J]

192. Yep.

I personally think it's still doable, by targeting the propaganda outlets. But it would require risking everything and I don't think enough are ready for that.

[RC]

46. Worked for France at one time.

[pampango]

56. It worked in Nazi Germany, too.

The guillotine has also been employed in other countries. In Germany, it saw rapid and prolific use during the Third Reich ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine

[struggle4progress]

127. That is a crude solution, which history shows always cuts both ways: there is a certain

continuity between the methods employed and the results obtained. It is much too easy to replace the peace of a nation by politics based on violence, and it can be astonishingly difficult to restore a rational politics later

[phantom power]

20. One thing that would help is real policy alternatives from the Left

I wish I could find the link now, but somebody posted a recent survey where 40+ % of people didn't believe they could achieve middle class status.

So, people are aware of the problem. Which in itself is "good," in the sense that understanding you have a problem is always the 1st step.

But, realistically, the range of narratives, concepts and policy options that are actually presented and discussed in this country is pretty narrow. You can choose from insano-hard-right policies, on over to centrist. I see signs that this is starting to change, in fits and starts, but it's still the essence of our political landscape.

[Brigid]

41. The 99% needs to get rid of what I like to call the "Steinbeck Syndrome."

John Steinbeck has often been quoted as saying that the reason socialism never took root here was that too many Americans view themselves not as an oppressed proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. If that is beginning to change, perhaps there is hope after all.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

108. look up "Overton window"

The window of what can be permissibly discussed in the media.

I heard Keith Olbermann use it once on TV.

[struggle4progress]

130. Corporate media is not the only way to reach people

[struggle4progress]

128. The trick here is to re-imagine how a particular aspect of the society could be ordered

For example: fossil fuels are not only a finite resource, they also pose a serious problem for global climate. This suggests that we need to rethink our energy usage. And there are multiple issues there that might be worth people's time and organizing efforts

For example: Are our buildings energy efficient? Or can we make gains by supporting public transportation?

For many people, winter heating costs or summer cooling costs can be substantial. Similarly, gasoline purchases are an increasing chunk of American budgets. There ought to be specific pieces of this puzzle, where one can combine advantages to individual household budgets with other social gains

[Brigid]

21. Thus has it ever been with the one percent.

Back in the nineteenth century, the one percent of the day in Chicago would not close the canal to prevent cholera from spreading up from the Mississippi to the city because, they argued, it would interfere with business. A little later, they organized the famous engineering feat of reversing the flow of the Chicago River, causing sewage from the city to flow downstream to smaller towns along the canal, despite their complaints. In other words, the well-being of people, except for themselves, just doesn't matter to the one percent.

[essaynnc]

23. Don't forget......

that we'd have to reform financing of our political system.... Repeal Citizens United, or else it will all just happen again. As long as money can purchase lots of influence and access to our political process, Money WILL BUY INFLUENCE AND ACCESS in our political process.

[struggle4progress]

131. The advantage of money is that it can hire organization and communication media

That advantage can be overcome by building organization from the grassroots with enough people and using them for communication

[Chaco Dundee]

27. I feel your pain

The only way I have ever found to make reaal changes is to work from the bottom up.you kiil the root,the tree dies.you can plant a new one.if you just cut back the branches on the existing one,it will grow even better the following year.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. And that's exactly what's meant by RADICAL change--

"radical from L. radix, root.

[struggle4progress]

132. That may sound clever but in reality it's just an empty abstraction

We win by studying the concrete details of the world and by using our knowledge to win specific struggles

[Chaco Dundee]

159. right

That would hopefully fix specific problems whilel the unatended ones still fester and grow.the concrete remedy for all is to take the whole thing down and start over,using our knowledge and avoid the mistakes we made the last time so we won't have to fix them later.specific problems should never have to be adressed if they are not created or tolerated to begin with.that is clever compared to any emty abstraction.we are not mending pants here because they did not fit.we buy a new pair.

[struggle4progress]

190. A social system is not a plant that can be dug up & replaced or a pair of pants that can be changed:

it is an abstraction that reflects countless daily interactions between various people as they "solve" countless concrete problems they face

The actual dynamics are so complicated, that they far exceed the ability of any person or any small group of people to comprehend

Your view, that "specific problems should never have to be addressed if they are not created or tolerated to begin with," completely ignores the fact that we do not choose the world in which we find ourselves: the nature of the physical world and the history and structure of the social system within which we first find ourselves is simply handed to us, the social system having develop from efforts to solve specific problems and having in the course of its development created new and unanticipated problems

It is simply impossible to sweep away, in a single stroke, all existing social forms and to replace those with new understandings about human interaction and behavior which solve all known problems without creating new problems

[gopiscrap]

30. Exactly

[raouldukelives]

31. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."

Ah, but if only they would do nothing. Instead they actively work their lives away diligently investing & laboring for the cause of corporations.
Only by good people, wanting, above all else, to do good for other people will things change. Until that time, that enough rise up to defend liberty and the downtrodden, the dreams of Paine and Jefferson will vanish into the ether replaced by best funded efforts of CEO's and shareholders.

[struggle4progress]

133. Humans usually have some mixture of motives. Jefferson was a great man in some ways,

but he was also a slave-holder who had no objection to sexual exploitation of one of his slaves, a young woman over whom he could exercise absolute power

It is unwise to demand absolute purity of motive from others: you will never get it, and instead you will merely select as leaders those people most skilled in feigning it -- who, unfortunately, are likely to be psychopaths

[raouldukelives]

206. So true. And so many ways like today.

People who profit from Wall St today are the same type of mentality who could justify & profit from slavery in the past. Future generations will look back upon the accomplishments of the corporations and its supporters with teary eyes from knowledge of the nature and wildlife they were robbed off for short term profit of a few.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. Lately all we seem to be able to do is make things half as bad as they are.

[struggle4progress]

134. That is much of human history, I am afraid, and the only advice that can offered there

is that it is necessary to redouble our efforts

[Spitfire of ATJ]

168. I was hoping to get the ERA passed under Obama....

Or at least get Republicans on the record opposing it.

There wouldn't be a working woman in America who would even CONSIDER voting Republican for at least a generation.

[Coyotl]

34. In other words, we need to throw the Republicans out of the House of Representatives

One way to do that, paint them as sold to the highest bidders!

[RC]

52. Along with the DLC Democrats and the DINO's and with anyone else bought of with big money.

A look at their campaign contributors will tell us the last one.

[Coyotl]

169. What, use Tea Party strategy to defeat Dem incumbents and give the seats to the Rs? BAD idea.

Fratercide is fine for Republicans, in my view, but not a good idea in one's own party!

[RC]

174. So it is OK to elect DINO's or whoever, if the have a (D) by their name?

Anyone ever stop to think that is how we got to be where we are?

[Coyotl]

179. Reread what I just posted instead of rewriting it.

It is wrong to do what the Tea Party is doing, literally handing over the seats by their own divisiveness.

That graphic illustrates the problem some people have in comprehending the political spectrum and their position on it!

[RC]

186. Yes, it is wrong to do what the Tea Party is doing

But what to many people in this country also do, is to let those letters, (D) or (R), do their decision making for them.

That graphic represent the reality of the present political situation we currently find ourselves in. Because of people that believe in that all important (D), no matter how far to the Right the wearer may be, also often believes in the Big Tent and popularity contests. Those beliefs have pushed out and marginalized the true Center and Left of Center Democrats.

With the Democrats following the Republicans like a shadow, to the Right, the Center is not where many people think it is. That graphic is mostly correct, except the Donkey should be facing the other way.

[struggle4progress]

135. There's an excellent suggestion for a large number of political research projects,

examining various officials and their positions and their funding

[SunSeeker]

173. +1

[Doctor_J]

193. We did that in 2006-2010

but then were told that those huge majorities weren't huge enough because of the DINO's. But then when we nominate real Dems we're told they can't win the GE. So your proposition is self-contradictory.

[sulphurdunn]

36. Massive, relentless non-compliance

regardless of how much blood is shed. A population willing to do that is invincible. The security apparatus of the state is not designed to deal with non-compliance, especially when coupled with persistent and organized non-violence.

[L0oniX]

43. Gov snipers already had OWS in their scopes. They are ready to kill for the 1%.

[Enthusiast]

116. No question.

TPTB knew there would eventually be push back against their obsessive greed and they have prepared for it, on our dollar.

[sulphurdunn]

125. Yes, they are.

Meaningful change of the status quo requires refusing to be deterred by that.

[struggle4progress]

136. That can work if you can make a convincing moral case for the non-compliance

and if you have an achievable goal. But it is important to remember that there are no silver bullets: for whatever one does, one's opponents will eventually learn a response -- so by acting like a one-trick pony, one makes the job very easy for one's opponents

[sulphurdunn]

146. Lennin

was supposedly asked if the Bolsheviks were a non-violent movement. He is said to have responded that they were. When asked why, he replied that it was because they had no guns but when they got some they would reassess their position.

[struggle4progress]

150. that, unfortunately, did not turn out particularly well, as trotsky noted:

"the party apparatus substitutes itself for the party, the central committee substitutes itself for the apparatus, and finally a dictator substitutes himself for the central committee"

this moral dissolution required barely a decade and left a crude and violent dictator in control for a quarter century

whatever methods one adopts leave their enduring signature on the results one obtains

the content of my prior post #136 was not an objection to non-violent direct action: it was the remark that non-compliance only makes sense as a strategy when you can clearly explain what the aims of the non-compliance are, how the non-compliance relates to the stated aims, and why the non-compliance is morally appropriate -- there will be circumstances when non-compliance is a useful strategy, and circumstances when it is not

[sulphurdunn]

158. Certainly,

clear goals, objectives, strategies and tactics are essential. The linchpin is the organizational structure, something OWL did not have, which made it easy pickings once the authorities decided to play rough. I think that all institutions go through a similar process to what you describe relative to the communist party. The oldest institution on earth began as a religious commune 20 centuries ago. The US began as the most revolutionary political experiment in history.

[Eleanors38]

40. Lay out the positive role and need for government action in the areas you mention.

[struggle4progress]

137. It is better to show than to tell

[Eleanors38]

196. Sure.

[another_liberal]

48. Turn out and vote.

What is needed is a truly informed public, a truly informed public willing to turn out and vote.

If the fatcats then try to reject the democratic election process, it will be their swift and certain destruction.

[Brigid]

58. One of the most depressing sights I've seen lately . . .

Was the sight of long lines at many polling places, with people waiting for eight hours for their turn to vote. Some gave up and went home. The depressing part is, that was no accident.

[another_liberal]

81. That kind of disregard for the voting public . . .

Our elected officials must be made to know that kind of disregard for the voting public will be punished. More polling places and more early voting must be provided, or else!

[Vanje]

62. We dont have a "truley informed public".

And we will not have an informed public, as long as our every last one of our news sources are run by 2 or 3 aligned corporations.
What possible interest would these entities have in the empowerment of the 99%?

[another_liberal]

80. I see your point . . .

Still, that is what it will take to cause the change the top post was asking about. How we get there is another question.

[Vanje]

82. Its a hard road

We're up against in in a lot of directions.

Even an informed voting public has an uphill chance against a flawed election system.
There are obstructions to registering and getting to the polls for many.
And the vote counting has become kinda dodgy in some areas.

Not to be discouraging, but theres a HUGE dam that needs to break.
Maybe the first trickle is happening now.

[another_liberal]

83. Yes maybe it is.

Next November will tell us a great deal about that.

[Vanje]

84. In the mean time, keep your congress-dudes and dudettes apprised of your thoughts

When they think about November, they start to worry about whats on the minds of their constituents.

[struggle4progress]

151. surely people engaged successfully in political action prior to the age of television

[struggle4progress]

138. Elections are important, but they only determine part of the field. Activity between elections

is also important

[Jake2413]

50. A true progressive President

and progressive Congress.

[RC]

66. Someone not bought and paid for before the fixed elections.

[struggle4progress]

139. Have you ever heard the slogan "If the people lead, the leaders will follow"?

Democracy is not a spectator sport. One cannot elect Lincoln and then wonder why he has not single-handedly abolished slavery

[bhikkhu]

55. I would add raisng the minumum wage

...and say that that might be the most attainable measure, and one that we should really run on in 2014 (though it would be much better to see something done before then).

[quaker bill]

57. The dynamic has changed before

Usually it takes a level of damage similar to a natural disaster. In the current crisis, you may or may not know someone who has lost a home or a job. You may have suffered yourself.

However, having been through a few national news worthy natural disasters, there was something different. The difference was that nearly everybody suffered damage directly, and there was no element of shame in having your home torn up by hurricane. People worked together instantly, as soon as the storm passed.

This crisis hit just some people and the elite took efforts to make it clear that the ones hit "were not responsible people" who "spent beyond their means". Intentionally creating a us VS them psychology.

In times like the Great Depression, the damage is too broadly shared to pull the Us V Them scenario off. I hope not to live to see the crisis that makes the change possible, as it will surely be ugly.

Maynard Keynes did a big service to moneyed capital. He created enough of a safeguard and counter balance in the system to prevent the ultimate crisis that would create revolt. This time was a near miss, and they had to push the Keynes button very hard to avoid it (and still are pushing it). Republicans have been working for 30 years to toss all that out. They really don't know what they are asking for, and when they finally get it, those who survive will not be happy with the result.

[grahamhgreen]

59. I would add exiting the costly trade agreements.

[scarletwoman]

60. I would say that the very root and core of how positive change is blocked is

the current way elections are financed.

Public financing of election campaigns is the ONLY way we will ever get a representative government that actually works for US, and not for the deep-pocketed private campaign contributors.

[TBF]

63. To change it peacefully?

You have to get rid of the capitalism because when profit drives everything and is the key reward that is the focus. How to get rid of capitalism peacefully? Dunno about that ...

[LondonReign2]

70. We need all three branches

Even though Democrats briefly held a slim majority in the Legislative Branch while also holding the White House, the Supreme Court is so beholden to corporations that we can do little except on the margins until we can get rid of several of the troglodytes.

[emsimon33]

73. In answer to your question: I am beginning to think "a revolution like the French Revolution"

Blood of the 1% in the streets--their children, their grandchildren to the 7th generation--may be what it will take to take back our country and to free our world.

They have militarized our police forces who now violently and aggressively attack peaceful protesters. They record all our digital communications and our movements. All we may have left is our numbers and to rise up against them may be very violent but at some point that may be our only recourse, I hate to say.

[struggle4progress]

140. The effect would not be as salutarious as you imagine: the politics of blood-in-the-streets

is an ugly and degenerative politics, that tends to reproduce itself for quite a while afterwards; it cultivates a certain self-righteousness, an inability to compromise, a savage over-simplification of other people, and it replaces rational persuasion by a tendency to mutilate flesh. Once you animate that golem, you cannot control its further progress: every base human desire becomes cloaked in fine-sounding motives. There may sometimes be just wars and there may sometimes be necessary revolts, but such events, even when unavoidable, are hellish affairs

And the bottom line is always that even in war or revolution, one ignores politics at one's peril: one cannot escape the necessity of persuading people. This being the case, one always does better to start with persuasion and the ordinary tools of politics, and to craft them into the finest tools possible, being drawn to other options only slowly, rather than to embark on projects of ruination heedlessly with the aim of emotional self-satisfaction

[libdude]

74. The beginning

of a good political platform, unfortunately, there is not a major political party that would adopt it. It would additionally require a solid leader that puts the peoples' interests above their own.

[struggle4progress]

141. It is silly to think that the problem is one of finding good leaders, if one is interested

in substantial change, because leaders can be too easily neutralized

The problem is one of carefully developing the ability of large numbers of people who are capable of understanding the issues and interests involved, of charting general goals, and then of acting coherently together to move towards those goals. Such groups will, with practice, produce their own leadership as the need arises

[AdHocSolver]

88. The problem with fixing this country is determining where to begin.

Most DU posters have a handle on what the problems are. We lack workable solutions and how to implement them.

I would point out that one of the biggest problems is loss of jobs and the huge trade deficits that America suffers from because "we" import nearly everything we buy.

If "money is power", the loss of income due to outsourcing, represents a much greater loss of political power and economic power than the fact that the wealthy pay little in taxes.

The power of the unions stemmed from the fact that they could withhold their labor from targeted companies as well as reduce demand for a targeted companies products. Jobless people can't withhold demand since they have no money to spend anyway.

This destruction of the middle class is a major component of the power grab by the one percent.

Trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO, have decimated the middle class.

If the TransPacific Partnership gets implemented, the game is over for Americans. The big lie peddled by the one percent is that the TPP will "create" jobs. Nonsense! The TPP will be used by the one percent to sell American raw materials at cut rate prices to their Asian manufacturing partners while producing a trivial number of jobs for Americans.

Stop moaning and start complaining. Spread the word that the TPP is a disaster waiting to happen.

[pampango]

115. "..."we" import nearly everything we buy." Trade is 22% of our economy. It's 50% in Canada, 80% in

Germany, 60% in Sweden, etc. (It's about 15% of the North Korean economy, but figures there are sketchy to say the least.)

There is no country this side of North Korea where trade is a smaller part of the economy than the US. To blame all of our economic problems on trade is inconsistent with the fact that countries with much more trade than the US have strong economies and progressive distributions of income.

[Enthusiast]

117. I agree with your take.

"This destruction of the middle class is a major component of the power grab by the one percent."

[struggle4progress]

142. That undercutting of American worker also corresponds to the exploitation of workers abroad

so to address such issues some international solidarity may be needed

[Llewlladdwr]

94. Not all of us can support your agenda. We have families to support.

I'm a DoD employee. Am I really expected to vote to eliminate my own job?

[Egalitarian Thug]

99. What are your principles worth? You choose to be where you are, do you have principles

or are you looking to rationalize your choices?

[Llewlladdwr]

106. I'm looking to feed my family.

And on top of that, I feel my job (aviation training support) contributes to the nation's security. So I'm okay principle-wise, at least in my own mind. I just wish people would realize that "cut defense" means real people lose real jobs.

[quaker bill]

119. I am aware that "cutting environmental protection"

meant lots of real people I knew and supervised lost their government jobs two years back. It was done to pay for corporate tax breaks.

Until the last minute, I was in doubt about my own situation. I did not vote to eliminate my job, and I would not expect you to do so, or anyone else for that matter.

That said, the OP makes a good point. Spending more money on defense than the next 25 countries combined is simply not sustainable. So over the long haul you may need to look for another line of work, because that which cannot be sustained will not be sustained at some point. The only real question is how it ends. Empires unravel slowly or they collapse suddenly, but it is always one or the other, or some combination of both.

[Egalitarian Thug]

152. There it is. IGMFU.

[b.durruti]

102. Smash capitalism. Utterly and completely. Nothing less will do. ~nt~

[struggle4progress]

144. That, however, is too abstract to be meaningful. What we need are

detailed and achievable objectives, not gigantic goals motivated by mere ideology

[Revanchist]

103. Term limits

When congress critters think that their job is to be re-elected instead of serving the people that put them there we have a problem. We have too many people in congress from both parties that have been there for too damn long and forgot why they are there.

Although this is mainly about passing gun control legislation, the important bit about how congress thinks is from 2:01 to 2:50.

?t=2m1s

[struggle4progress]

118. Term limits merely guarantee that elected officials don't have time to learn the issues

and therefore the professional lobbyists suddenly gain enormous power

[Omnith]

105. A tipping point is coming. The consequences of corruption can not be put off forever.

[Precisely]

107. Everyone voting

[jberryhill]

109. Do they still prescribe Thorazine?

[Enthusiast]

111. What would it take to change this dynamic?

It could change if the people were informed. Unfortunately the entire US media is focused on misinforming the people and maintaining the status quo.

I said the entire media, including MSNBC.

[pnwmom]

112. Putin, the favorite of so many around here lately, established a flat 13% tax rate in Russia.

How come no one here ever criticizes him for that?

[Democat]

147. As long as Putin is anti Obama he'll be popular here

That's all it takes.

[PotatoChip]

126. Well, one can start by listening to this guy,

with an open mind regarding what he has to say. Better yet, go beyond this one uploaded video, and seek out his teaching series on YouTube.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017146024

[Laelth]

129. Some time ago, I wrote an essay that responds directly to your question.

You probably read it back in 2011 when it was written, but, just in case, I'll give you the URL:

http://laelth.blogspot.com/2011/01/turning-american-ship-of-state.html

I argued that 1) revolution, 2) a strong global power advocating for the working class, or 3) a true depression are the most likely stimuli to generate a new, progressive era in American politics. Of the three choices, I suggest, a true depression may be the least painful option.

-Laelth

[Utopian Leftist]

143. It takes people . . .

who will get rid of their televisions, get up off their assets, and DO something!

[LWolf]

153. Changing the dynamic:

I think it takes some radical election reform.

I'd like to get all private dollars out of the election process, and make every election publicly funded, with every candidate equally funded, with no outside funds allowed to promote them in any way.

I'd also like to guarantee all candidates equal press time, but I don't know how to do that. At the least, we could return "debates" to the League of Women's Voters, and we could ensure that all candidates answered the same questions with equal talk time.

For national primaries, I'd like to see all primaries/caucuses held on the same day, with no results released until the polls close on the left coast. I can't tell you how enraged and disenfranchised I feel by having Iowa and New Hampshire narrow my choices for me.

Finally, I'd like to add IRV to that, encouraging people to vote for the candidate they actually support the most, instead of lesser evils.

I'm open to exploring some kind of proportional representation, as well, but haven't currently formed solid opinions about that.

I think this kind of election reform would get us a representative government that would be more representative of, and accountable to, the 99%. Then we could begin to pass the things you suggest, and many other needed reforms.

[CrispyQ]

160. The people I know are not as well off as 5-10 years ago,

but they are not so bad off they are going to risk what they do have to hit the streets. Some don't even think there is much of a problem.

[RevStPatrick]

163. It's very simple what would change the dynamic...

...but nobody seems interested in doing the obvious:

STOP BUYING THINGS FROM RICH PEOPLE, THEREBY MAKING THEM RICHER!!!

We happily give them our money for things that we may or may not really need, and then bitch about it when they screw us. We have the power to stop enriching them, but it's just too convenient.

And really, what it comes down to mostly is interest.
We borrow their money to buy things we may not need, and then pay them the money back with interest. Those interest payments go straight to the top.

We put our eyeballs in front of their advertisements, and then bitch about the content.
(daily Morning Joe threads, anyone?)

People bitch about companies like Bain or Carlyle, with a cup of Dunkin' Donuts coffee in their hand. (Dunkin' Brands is partially owned by both)

We buy products from General Motors and General Electric (as easy examples) and then bitch when they use those profits to finance the manufacture of bombs and tanks and nuclear weapons.

95% of the income gains went to the top 1% this year, and we let it happen because of convenience.

Simplistic, I know, but that's the essence of the problem.
Fix that, and the rest will follow...

[Precisely]

166. That is fixable on an individual or family basis

MANY people are already doing this. Saying "nobody" gets it defeats the purpose.

[RevStPatrick]

170. Yes, of course. You're right.

"Nobody" was a mistake.

But, it will require a critical mass.
We don't have that yet...

[Precisely]

171. you're right about how important it is

critical mass comes from individual acts

[Warpy]

165. When the derivatives casino collapses

(and it will, it's looking awfully shaky these days), many huge fortunes will go with it since they're entirely based on the funny money generated by it.

Unfortunately, that is also going to take everything with it and by everything, i mean not only the big banks, but the little banks who are forced to do business with them, the credit unions, state funds, corporate accounts, everything. It will be like 1929, when people said the money just disappeared overnight, leaving people with no jobs and only what they could barter for.

If we're lucky when this happens, a Democrat will be in charge. Our party has dealt with this before. The Republicans will produce a Hoover, at best, who will do some of the right things but not nearly enough of them, worsening the crisis.

There is no real way to prepare for such a total collapse beyond making sure we on the bottom have skills to barter for food and if we have food, sharing it. The top will retreat into their mansions and try to wait it out and unfortunately, a few will succeed.

You're absolutely right about the causes of this mess: greed at the top, no mechanism for circulating cash downward where it is needed, and a government that has been starved of funds for everything but a runaway military budget, leaving the infrastructure in desperate shape.

Only a massive crisis on the level of having all the money disappear overnight again will change this. Only banding together and pooling skills and other resources will allow the 99% to survive it.

[Dash87]

167. Every candidate running for office since I've been alive has promised to do at least one of those.

Somehow, it miraculously falls to the wayside. Obama should really make his second term about these issues and fight for them passionately.

I disagree that it's simple. If it was, this would all be done already. We need a fireball like FDR to take on the naysayers and lazy congressmen/congresswomen. We need a "don't like me? Fu!" President now more than ever.

[Skidmore]

176. It'snot the only thing that needs to be fixed because it is more complicated than

just an economic fix. There needs to be a corresponding cultural shift toward valuing community, inclusion, the "other", and so fostering a sensibility that we are all in this together and have a responsibility to and for one another.

[BelgianMadCow]

207. yes, and YES - we need to put economy back in perspective

as in, something that's meant to serve we the people, and not the other way around. The supposedly "scientific" and "neutral" science of economics is full of ethical choices, that are never highlighted.

Can culture save the world? Hell, yes.

[jeff47]

177. All it takes is time

Over and over, a very high level of inequality leads to a "correction" that reduces that inequality. For example, the French Revolution, the New Deal, and a host of other corrections.

If the wealthy are smart, they'll do so with a "New Deal"-style realignment. Such reforms would actually make them more money due to higher overall GDP, but it takes more intelligence than most wealthy have to realize paying more taxes can actually make you more money.

If they're not smart, they'll stop that first solution. Which will result in a violent solution.

[ProSense]

180. Here's some good news:

Why It Matters That Home Care Workers Just Got New Labor Rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023684107

[Tiredofthesame]

182. IMO, the response is a simple one.

CCFR!!! Complete Campaign Finance Reform.

Its the only thing. Name a problem that exists in today's politics, there is a 100 percent chance that CCFR would eliminate or curb the problem immensely.

Its the only thing we should talk about. Every thread on a major political issue posted on this board would be affected positively with CCFR.

Follow the money!!

Everyone should watch Pricele$$. Its always on Free Speech TV for those lucky enough to have it. You tube --->

Fixate on the part how our government all but laughed down the idea of public funded campaigns, like Arizona does.

Gun control < CCFR
Poisoning your food with Big Agro < CCFR
Clean Energy < CCFR
And the list goes on and on.

This is not a Democrat thing!! This is not a Republican thing!! This is us versus them. You mean nothing to them, that has already been proven time and time again.

What's disgusting is, the really truthful ones in power already admit it!!! They admit that money controls our government. Outright, ON TV!!! And it continues to perpetuate through our fixed system.

The greatest crime in the history of humans happened on Dec. 23rd, 1913., with the creation of the Federal Reserve.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

I mean no condescension, but THAT'S A PRESIDENT TALKING ABOVE FOLKS!!!!!!

You, I, and everyone else already knows this to be true. Hell, my 7 year old asks me what the president does with all the money they give him. HAHA

I myself am lost on the "how to fix this". Grassroots. Down home activism. Scream from the mountain tops. I really don't know.

Too many people comfy, too many people jacked in to the Matrix, too many lazies, too many uninformed/dis-informed. Ignorance is bliss.

[ErikJ]

183. Separation of Corporation and State......... NOW!

[valerief]

184. As long as the most important thing in the world is to keep very rich people rich and make them

richer, nothing will change.

[colsohlibgal]

185. It's Time...But

The one thing we have now that wasn't there in the Gilded Age is Fox News/Limbaugh beaming all over the US - working hard to keep getting non rich people to vote totally against their own financial self interest.

It's low info/low IQ insanity. Being in Ohio I see, election after election, in rural counties in southern Ohio, people without a pot to pee in voting in mass pluralities for people who will make sure they still don't have a pot to pee in. Why? I can go around my radio dial during the day and hear Limbaugh on podunk station after station.

[Prophet 451]

187. What would it take to change this dynamic?

A new Guy Fawkes seems the best bet. Preferably one who isn't a religious fanatic this time.

[NCcoast]

194. Publicly funded elections, that's where you start

And don't let them take a dime from anyone until they're well out of office. Until our politicians are only beholden to the public we'll never have sensible and responsive government. Publicly funded elections. It must start there.

[BlueJac]

195. Kick the bums out....

end their entitlements priority number one!!! Leave everybody alone. Cut all the illegal actions this country is doing. Quit all the unknown programs and agencies that are sucking us dry. Raise taxes on rich, no brainier. Less military spending. Quit being such corporation cock suckers!!!!!!! Legalize pot nation wide!!!

[perkygrubb]

197. Great discussion....

WOW, first time login here and frankly, I'm impressed with the tenor of this conversation. Everyone has such a grasp on the issues. Ultimately, I agree with some responders that throwing out the whole system is the best bet. Western capitalism is on its last legs. That's what IMF Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said back in 2009.

The challenge has been that there were no viable solutions/alternatives to Western capitalism powerful enough to dislodge capitalism's grip on America (or the world for that matter).

I think the most important thing to do has nothing do to with raising taxes and cutting spending. Nor is attacking corruption in politics. That's status quo. Instead of fighting the status quo, Americans need to create a new one. That starts with redefining how money works so you limit money's ability to do evil things with it (like buy elections).

The next thing is to reorganize the free market. Instead of trading physical commodities for profit and creating financial spreads on prices as a way to generate wealth, have the free market trade benefit defined as "the degree to which ones actions positively benefit others."

These two things can create a new future for America that doesn't have the challenges everyone here so clearly grasps and it sets America up for a level of prosperity unprecedented in the history of mankind.

[Link Speed]

201. Nothing is going to happen

Recessions will only go so deep, to be flicked back up like a yo-yo when the action is deemed necessary.

Political sea changes will not make any difference as the handlers will remain the same.