Questions for the DLC (and everyone else who wishes to participate)

[Robert Cooper]

Recently, Don1 asked a series of questions. It took quite a while for the discussion to get around to answers, but at the end answers were beginning to trickle in.

Unfortunately things got cut short, and we never really got to discuss the few answers we were given.

I'd like to try again, only this time we'll do it without the 100-odd unhelpful responses.

Bear in mind I'm here to learn, and to help build bridges between various Democratic camps (if possible). I take no sides pro or con, but await a convincing argument. You might object to the premise of a question. Fair enough, explain why the premise is mistaken.

Here's how I score responses:
10 - you answered the questions in a meaningful way without disparaging the opposing Democratic camps.
5 - You answered some of the questions in a meaningful way without disparaging the opposing Democratic camps.
1 - You contributed meaningful comments without disparaging the opposing Democratic camps.
Zip - none of the above.

If you are seeking greater support for your chosen camp, educate us. There are a number of people who would appreciate this discussion being conducted in a civil and respectful fashion. I think it not unreasonable to expect all participants to bear that in mind.

Here are the original questions. I and several others feel these deserve serious answers from -anyone- seeking the party's nomination, as well as their supporters.

Tell us DLC plans to:
(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;
(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;
(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;
(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;
(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;
(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to
Welfare "Reform";
(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;
(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;
(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media
groups can have power, too;
(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

Thank you

[William769]

1. Well here is the first "odd unhelpful responses"

Your beating a dead horse.

[Robert Cooper]

2. Wouldn't be the first time I've done that...

...won't be the last, most likely.

Still: my nickel, my topic.

If you want to be helpful, join in. If not here, there's lots of others topics to pick from.

[William769]

5. Like the discussion already going on about this?

:rofl:

Like I said beating a dead horse.

[AntiFascist]

6. If I start doing a lot of work on this thread....

you guys better not shut it down again!!!

:mad: :grr: :grr: :nuke:

[Robert Cooper]

8. I'd hope we can disregard the off-topic chatter enough...

...to avoid getting into what closed down this discussion last time, AF.

Let's stay with the topic, and hope those who are sincerely interested will join in.

:-)

[me b zola]

74. interesting

so by declaring that the topic is beating a dead horse, does that mean that you are disrupting the thread?

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, perhaps you shouldn't hit the send key.

:rofl: :dunce:

[Robert Cooper]

79. Your about a week late...

...and this is not how we contribute to the topic of this discussion.

[MisterLiberal]

71. Well, when WE"RE asked to ride that dead horse

Then yeah, it becomes kinda important.

When liberals have to start taking a back seat to "moderates", then I have to protest.

The mere fact that there is pressure to stop criticism of the DLC or to assume that liberals have to compromise OUR OWN PARTY then I have to protest.

I have a simple question: If all you centrists have a problem WHY DON'T YOU START YOUR OWN FUCKING PARTY?

[mdmc]

76. lol - awesome!

We are riding a dead horse.

Buddy, liberal are taking a back seat to moderates, because moderates get elected. We need to get more liberals elected, and make more moderates a little more liberal. Its been rough since 911, but I feel that we have turned a corner.

[Robert Cooper]

77. "liberal are taking a back seat to moderates, ... moderates get elected"..

I'd be curious to see your head count with respect to who fits into each camp at the Federal level.

And if you can demonstrate a significant percentage, I'd ask why this is so?

[mdmc]

80. Here is the deal

When a district is "progressive", a Democrat can "keep it real". When a district is conservative, the Democrat must work to capture middle of the road voters. It seems easier (intellectually vapid) for conservatives to woo middle of the road voters (lower taxes, apple pie, fight terror).

Officials can only be as progressive as their home districts are.

[Robert Cooper]

81. Generally speaking, true, but this isn't an answer to my question nt

[Robert Cooper]

78. About that "PARTY" thing...

Perhaps you overlooked that part in the OP where I said: "Bear in mind I'm here to learn, and to help build bridges between various Democratic camps (if possible). I take no sides pro or con, but await a convincing argument."

Arguing to break up the party does not make much sense. For the party to gain aascendancy, it must be more inclusive, not less.

[AntiFascist]

3. Warning: I'm a poser (in this post)

This is meant as an experiment to see if the DLC could stand up to a pro-corporate anti-neocon platform. I can also cut & paste Don1 and Robert Cooper's responses or we can start all over again. Also, I'm not really a political expert so please forgive any lameness:

Since I recently said that Kerry is making some interesting comments (regarding Bush getting impeached if Dems take control in 2006), and he was looking better as a possible candidate, I'll take a crack at defining the DLC's new platform. Let me state for the record that I don't support HC, for reasons other than being DLC, and I still make regular contributions to PDA.

1.) The Patriot Act is only a temporary measure to help ensure that we are doing everything possible to eliminate the presence of active terrorists within the U.S., and the financial supporters of terrorism. There may be some disagreement as to when it should be fazed out, but there are no long-term plans to permanently disable civil rights. Capitalism works best in a truly free society. Also keep in mind that we want to bring ALL criminals to justice (ahem).

2.) and 3.) The world will be a much more secure place if all nations operate on a level playing field. This is the ultimate goal of free trade. The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China. Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries.

4.) While healthcare remains privatized, there needs to be a standardized system of legislated health care contract points. Insurance companies will suffer severe penalties when violating contracts with their customers. This should not infringe on insurance companies' profitability if they play fair.

5.) Federal laws should be enacted limiting the amount of credit offered to individuals based on their current debt and income. Once these are in place, the bankrupcy laws will be lifted. This is the sane approach to keeping banks from getting into trouble due to customer bankrupcies.

6.) We must do what we can to DEFEND our allies in the Middle East, but not provoke our allies' enemies. Military bases should only be placed in countries where the majority of people desire our presence.

7.) Part of the money planned for future war in the Middle East should instead be allocated to supporting the unemployed, and providing the able-bodied with jobs (including jobs in construction where there may actually be shortages).

8.) A portion of the funds normally spent on defense should instead be used to subsidize emergency room and intensive care for uninsured patients.

9.) There should be a healthy (as in SANE) balance between liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court.

10.) Not only is this good for democracy but its also good for business!

11.) (If people would learn how to use the power to boycott the companies that have influence over us - us being the DLC, then we would pay attention to this demand.)

[Robert Cooper]

4. Once again, thanks AF.

I'll bring my response over. I think we should leave Don's response for Don to decide upon (he may want to rewrite it or not participate, only fair to give him the choice).

[Robert Cooper]

7. Analysis...

"(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act" - OP

"1.) The Patriot Act is only a temporary measure to help ensure that we are doing everything possible to eliminate the presence of active terrorists within the U.S., and the financial supporters of terrorism. There may be some disagreement as to when it should be fazed out, but there are no long-term plans to permanently disable civil rights. Capitalism works best in a truly free society. Also keep in mind that we want to bring ALL criminals to justice (ahem)." - AF

I'm sure with a name like "AntiFascist" you don't need reminding of how close that logic parallels the logic that justified the Enabling Acts of Nazi Germany. Furthermore you are tempting those in power to make it permanent. Indeed, Bushco argues for a permanent installation of the Patriot Act... a foot in the door towards abridging your constitutional rights in the name of 'public safety'.

You say "Capitalism works best in a truly free society". Does this mean suspending the laws that prevent price fixing through the creation of cartels and monopolies? Does this include suspending labour laws that establish minimum standards for work hours and safety? I've always found that "capitalism" works best in RW totalitarian states, where the maximum profit is earned with the least amount of investment, supported by the state machinery. These are the states with the maximum amount of corporate corruption (corporations bribing governments for favourable regulations).


"(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;" - OP

"2.) and 3.) The world will be a much more secure place if all nations operate on a level playing field. This is the ultimate goal of free trade. The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China. Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries." - AF

"level playing field" - the question is who sets the standard for that field: first-world nations or third world nations? Do we use the standard of living for Zimbabwe, Poland, North Korea, America, etc as the benchmark for defining "level playing field"?

"This is the ultimate goal of free trade." - I thought the ultimate goal was to pay the lowest wage while charging the highest price, thus maximizing profits to be paid to stock-holders and thus encourage more investment and greater financial power for the company. Free trade makes it much easier to exploit cheap labour markets abroad, and then ship the goods back to NA where they're sold at high NA prices.

"The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China." - I agree that this is one of the problems. But how many of these countries have passed laws preventing companies from paying their workers there as much as workers would get here? That companies don't do this voluntarily demonstrates free trade is not about creating a "level playing field" but is about exploiting depressed labour markets.

"Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries." - well first off what you propose here would not fit any definition of "level playing field" that I've heard of. What you are describing could be better accomplished by increasing corporate taxes and redistributing the wealth to individuals paying income tax and through increases in social funding such as retirement plans, medical support, welfare.

But I don't think you're addressing a fundamental aspect of free trade: it removes jobs from one place and places them elsewhere. By outsourcing jobs from America, American workers are thrown out of work and into competition with each other for fewer jobs. American standards of living are dropping to compete with third world labour markets. With more American workers out of work or working for lower wages, who buys the products these companies are trying to sell? This is how the Depression got started: productivity outstripped demand to such an extent that demand could not support the marketplace.

Unless the consumer is protected from the effects of outsourcing there will be a dwindling market for the products being made.

Meanwhile, you have increasing costs associated with unemployment and lower standards of living. Local economies are impacted and local investment dwindles. This affects infrastructure, cascading into tourism.

Essentially, outsourcing depresses the American labour market, forcing it towards third world status where it will once again be an attractive choice for business. But as long as business has it's pick of labour markets, and there are markets costing less than the American market, why would business continue to invest in America?


"(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;" - OP

"4.) While healthcare remains privatized, there needs to be a standardized system of legislated health care contract points. Insurance companies will suffer severe penalties when violating contracts with their customers. This should not infringe on insurance companies' profitability if they play fair." - AF

Personally I think Democrats should keep talking about this.

Combine Pro Bono with Greed and litigation -can- get frivolous. On the other hand, the poorest who relies on Pro Bono to obtain justice from a hack deserves his/her day in court.

I think if Democrats can acknowledge this little Gordian Knot then you'll all be in a better position to find a way to untie it.


"(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;" - OP

"5.) Federal laws should be enacted limiting the amount of credit offered to individuals based on their current debt and income. Once these are in place, the bankrupcy laws will be lifted. This is the sane approach to keeping banks from getting into trouble due to customer bankrupcies." - AF

I admit that sounds like a reasonable approach. I'd ask about small business start-up loans but that doesn't seem to be within the jurisdiction covered by the original question.


"(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here; - OP

"6.) We must do what we can to DEFEND our allies in the Middle East, but not provoke our allies' enemies. Military bases should only be placed in countries where the majority of people desire our presence." - AF

I would think that defending your allies would provoke your allies' enemies would be a given, AF. You can't do one without the other. perhaps you can clear that up.

As for military bases, we've seen how they do democracy in Egypt. I wasn't impressed. How do you determine the will of a majority of people in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or several other non-democratic states? And what kind of majority? 50%+1? What about when the local opposition is violent?

I think this question awaits resolution.


"(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to Welfare "Reform"" - OP

"7.) Part of the money planned for future war in the Middle East should instead be allocated to supporting the unemployed, and providing the able-bodied with jobs (including jobs in construction where there may actually be shortages)." - AF

You realize that the money planned for future war is money you don't have coming in through taxes? And with ongoing and increasing outsourcing, you're not likely to have those revenues again, as those people will be out of work, contributing to the problem being described in this question.

Outsourcing = Declining tax income and increasing social assistance costs

I think this question also remains unresolved. This isn't sustainable unless you're also going to deal with the revenue side.


"(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;" - OP

"8.) A portion of the funds normally spent on defense should instead be used to subsidize emergency room and intensive care for uninsured patients." - AF

See my comments for 7, above.


"(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;" - OP

"9.) There should be a healthy (as in SANE) balance between liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court." - AF

Actually, that doesn't exactly answer the question, but I think you're saying the filibuster should be saved for the SCOTUS appointment(s).

Personally, I wouldn't bet that you have more than one filibuster. I think Frist will strip you of it after you use it that one time. It can be a difficult decision to use your one and only filibuster: Is this as bad as it gets, or will Mr. Lunatic Dictator actually come up with something worse later?

I think this is another one of those questions where Democrats would benefit from further discussion.


"(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media groups can have power, too;" - OP

"10.) Not only is this good for democracy but its also good for business!" - AF

Agreement


"(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations." - OP

"11.) (If people would learn how to use the power to boycott the companies that have influence over us - us being the DLC, then we would pay attention to this demand.)" - AF

Would you like to name the companies? That would be a start.

And thanks AF. I look forward to your response.

[AntiFascist]

9. Your welcome, and response....

RC wrote:
"(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act" - OP

I'm sure with a name like "AntiFascist" you don't need reminding of how close that logic parallels the logic that justified the Enabling Acts of Nazi Germany. Furthermore you are tempting those in power to make it permanent. Indeed, Bushco argues for a permanent installation of the Patriot Act... a foot in the door towards abridging your constitutional rights in the name of 'public safety'.

You say "Capitalism works best in a truly free society". Does this mean suspending the laws that prevent price fixing through the creation of cartels and monopolies? Does this include suspending labour laws that establish minimum standards for work hours and safety? I've always found that "capitalism" works best in RW totalitarian states, where the maximum profit is earned with the least amount of investment, supported by the state machinery. These are the states with the maximum amount of corporate corruption (corporations bribing governments for favourable regulations).

AF response: 1.) My statement partly reflected the hope, which I see may be confirmed, that DLC senators will see the error of neocon ways and eventually rollback the entire Patriot Act once Al-Qaida is under control. I firmly believe that Al-Qaida is a very serious threat mainly because it is supported by universal fascist forces, and its not limited to "Islamo-fascism" as they would like us to believe. There are dark, mafia-like forces spread across all 3 major religions.

And let me say this: the radical right wing may be counting on our emotional reaction to the news that Bush illegally allowed the NSA to spy on us. Why? Because the NSA may be digging up quite a bit of dirt on the administration itself. What do you think may be ultimately driving the Plame investigation?

As for my comment that capitalism works best in a free society, what I meant was that people are more likely to be much more productive when they don't feel oppressed. Certainly I would be spending less time blogging myself. I don't believe that monopolies and cartels are the best thing for capitalism. In the case of energy resources I would support government regulation, especially after what we saw happen in Caleephoneeeia. Corporate welfare is also not conducive to good business, it only makes management lazy. Satisfied employees are the best thing for business. Read "Raving Fans" and apply it to the internal customers, your employees.

RC wrote:
"(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;" - OP

"level playing field" - the question is who sets the standard for that field: first-world nations or third world nations? Do we use the standard of living for Zimbabwe, Poland, North Korea, America, etc as the benchmark for defining "level playing field"?

AF response: I agree there's more to it than just resolving human rights issues, there's also standard of living issues. This is where government incentives come into play. This has worked very well in certain industries in Canada, for example, which are now competetive with the US. Since we have no problem subsidizing farmers, why not also subsidize those industries that have historically been the backbone of American industry? Also, we should raise the minimum wage level higher than what it currently is.

RC wrote:
"This is the ultimate goal of free trade." - I thought the ultimate goal was to pay the lowest wage while charging the highest price, thus maximizing profits to be paid to stock-holders and thus encourage more investment and greater financial power for the company. Free trade makes it much easier to exploit cheap labour markets abroad, and then ship the goods back to NA where they're sold at high NA prices.

AF response:
The ultimate goal you describe may be the bottom line for a given corporation, but it does not make for good policy, otherwise we end up with Bush's view of free trade. Again, providing incentives to companies to keep jobs in America would work to counter-balance the profit motives.

RC wrote:
"The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China." - I agree that this is one of the problems. But how many of these countries have passed laws preventing companies from paying their workers there as much as workers would get here? That companies don't do this voluntarily demonstrates free trade is not about creating a "level playing field" but is about exploiting depressed labour markets.

AF response:
I've read that the problem of demonstrations and rioting in China has become much more prevalent in the last couple of years. As information slowly leaks into China about what is possible under a fairer system, they may eventually be in a position to demand more equality.

RC wrote:
"Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries." - well first off what you propose here would not fit any definition of "level playing field" that I've heard of. What you are describing could be better accomplished by increasing corporate taxes and redistributing the wealth to individuals paying income tax and through increases in social funding such as retirement plans, medical support, welfare.

But I don't think you're addressing a fundamental aspect of free trade: it removes jobs from one place and places them elsewhere. By outsourcing jobs from America, American workers are thrown out of work and into competition with each other for fewer jobs. American standards of living are dropping to compete with third world labour markets. With more American workers out of work or working for lower wages, who buys the products these companies are trying to sell? This is how the Depression got started: productivity outstripped demand to such an extent that demand could not support the marketplace.

Unless the consumer is protected from the effects of outsourcing there will be a dwindling market for the products being made.

Meanwhile, you have increasing costs associated with unemployment and lower standards of living. Local economies are impacted and local investment dwindles. This affects infrastructure, cascading into tourism.

Essentially, outsourcing depresses the American labour market, forcing it towards third world status where it will once again be an attractive choice for business. But as long as business has it's pick of labour markets, and there are markets costing less than the American market, why would business continue to invest in America?

AF response:
There's a big difference between providing tax credit incentives and increasing taxes on corporations. This is one of the reasons Democrats are not as popular as they used to be, more people are now investors who are aware of the advantages of lower taxes and increased profitability for corporations. I personally have a problem with raising taxes if it is to be used on increased "defense" spending.

I understand the problems of free trade enabling outsourcing and the problem of bringing down the nation to third world status, and I totally agree with this. What I'm suggesting is that, instead of setting up trade barriers, the government can do quite a bit through offering incentives to corporations to not outsource its workers. Right now the government is mostly providing incentives and benefits only for companies that are part of the military-industrial complex. This has got to change.

[Robert Cooper]

10. Boy, don't -we- write fast ;-)

lol

I think we're all caught up on previous exchanges. I'm going to take a little time to respond here, AF. But I'll be back with a response.

And thanks again.

[AntiFascist]

11. No problem, thank you!! nt

[Robert Cooper]

24. Questions...

"There are dark, mafia-like forces spread across all 3 major religions."

Okay, most of my confusion revolves around this statement.

Please provide something more than declarations to justify this belief.


"NSA may be digging up quite a bit of dirt on the administration itself" - it's within the realm of possibilities. But I think J Edgar Hoover's legacy casts a -long- shadow. Cheney and Rove seem to be doing the steering. The Chimp is the one with his mitt on the pedal.

"What do you think may be ultimately driving the Plame investigation?" - Mostly? Old Guard RW. Isn't Fitz and OG RWer? Say what you want, they talked Nixon into resigning. They had integrity, not like the neo-cons of today for whom only power will do.

Democrats have a market for "limited government" again. The Chimp, Cheney and Rove believe in -unlimited power- for the WH. They've worked five years with a rubber stamp legislative branch. What reason has the legislative branch given to remind them they are not Gods? The Chimp tries to be a Christ raising the dead in Schiavo's case. Imagine if she'd come out of it, said "Hi I'm fine what's for lunch and I owe my life to the Chimp". No doubt that's what -he- was hoping for.

Unlimited power combined with no restraint breeds unlimited ambition. The Plame affair is one of the few ways left to humble the Chimp, bring his feet back to earth, remind him he's flawed and capable of error. Losing something as certain as renewal of the Patriot Act's sunset provisions is a -real- blow to his influence, prestige, and most of all: -ego-.

Remember that when FISA gave Ashcroft flak over wiretaps Bush was approving them without the courts. He doesn't take "No" for an answer.


"As for my comment that capitalism works best in a free society, what I meant was that people are more likely to be much more productive when they don't feel oppressed." - this may be a semantic thing, but replace "don't feel" with "are not" and I'm in agreement.

"I don't believe that monopolies and cartels are the best thing for capitalism." - au contraire. They are the logical outcome of true capitalism. Eventually the more successful companies buy out the less successful. Eventually there is only "one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them".


"In the case of energy resources I would support government regulation, especially after what we saw happen in Caleephoneeeia. Corporate welfare is also not conducive to good business, it only makes management lazy. Satisfied employees are the best thing for business. Read "Raving Fans" and apply it to the internal customers, your employees."

So you are basically saying you support an economy employing capitalistic principles governed by regulations. Not so very different from what we have now?


"I agree there's more to it than just resolving human rights issues, there's also standard of living issues. This is where government incentives come into play. This has worked very well in certain industries in Canada, for example, which are now competetive with the US. Since we have no problem subsidizing farmers, why not also subsidize those industries that have historically been the backbone of American industry? Also, we should raise the minimum wage level higher than what it currently is."

In some countries, "standard of living issues" -are- "human rights issues". Some people are more than just a little poor.

Amongst the really poor in America, the homeless and unemployed/unsupported, this is just as true.

As for government incentives, I approve of them. I have no difficulty with government completely controlling an industry like nuclear power, or buying into an industry as Trudeau did with Petro-Can (which is privately owned now, thanks to our Tories). But not long ago you were decrying corporate welfare. Now you call for subsidies. Please clarify.

As for minimum wage, I highly doubt the most successful companies are paying that to anyone. It'll be the Mom and Pop variety stores who are paying that to high school kids trying to earn tuition.

I'm all for paying the kids more, but Mom and Pop might hire fewer kids if the store is going through tough times. I don't oppose a hike in the wage, but I wonder if it shouldn't happen -after- the economy has recovered enough so that Mom and Pop can afford it.

Or has the economy recovered enough already?


"The ultimate goal you describe may be the bottom line for a given corporation, but it does not make for good policy, otherwise we end up with Bush's view of free trade. Again, providing incentives to companies to keep jobs in America would work to counter-balance the profit motives."

In other words, bribe them. Again we run into conflict with your goal to end corporate welfare. And it's not "free trade" if you subsidize your companies to keep them from investing in your trading partners.


"I've read that the problem of demonstrations and rioting in China has become much more prevalent in the last couple of years. As information slowly leaks into China about what is possible under a fairer system, they may eventually be in a position to demand more equality."

So we're to exploit depressed labour markets and lose ourselves jobs and revenues until such time as the depressed labour markets wise up and demand more? This looks like a race for the bottom to me. With such a vast labour pool and a limited number of jobs, what do you think will happen to the lifestyle of the average American over time?


"There's a big difference between providing tax credit incentives and increasing taxes on corporations. This is one of the reasons Democrats are not as popular as they used to be, more people are now investors who are aware of the advantages of lower taxes and increased profitability for corporations. I personally have a problem with raising taxes if it is to be used on increased "defense" spending."

Let's take a look at your balance sheet so far:

You have outsourcing, which decreases your tax revenues as people lose their jobs and/or take pay cuts to reman employed.

You have corporate tax incentives to keep people employed, which decreases your tax revenues.

You have all of Bush's tax cuts, which decreases tax revenue.

You are already running an annual deficit and not all of it is Iraq and defense.

You've not identified one way to pay for all of this. And you've ruled out increasing corporate taxes.

That only leaves income tax. Or did I miss something?

"I understand the problems of free trade enabling outsourcing and the problem of bringing down the nation to third world status, and I totally agree with this."

I -hope- you're not agreeing with what you appear to be agreeing with ;-)

"What I'm suggesting is that, instead of setting up trade barriers, the government can do quite a bit through offering incentives
to corporations to not outsource its workers."

Trust me, as one of your partners in NAFTA, we most certainly -do- think it is a trade barrier. You are supporting the wages of your employees, thus the "level playing field" is no longer level. That gives your companies an enormous competitive edge over us. Do that and we'll raise tariffs to compensate for the subsidies you give your workers, and your back to outsourcing again.

"Right now the government is mostly providing incentives and benefits only for companies that are part of the military-industrial complex. This has got to change."

So you want to spend more on subsidies.

This makes the revenue side even more important for you to explain.

Thanks AF. Look forward to your response.

[AntiFascist]

26. Again, thanks for the thoughtful response!!!!

and I want to do it justice, so it will take me a while to repond back.

As for the comment:

"I understand the problems of free trade enabling outsourcing and the problem of bringing down the nation to third world status, and I totally agree with this."

I meant that I totally agree with you that it is a serious problem. In someone else's thread I once remarked that the Walmart economy (centralized outsourcing to China) was actually dragging us down to the level of the totalitarian corporatist regime of China.

I'll try to fully respond by tomorrow afternoon.

[Robert Cooper]

27. Thanks for the explanation...

...I -thought- that's what you meant :-)

I look forward to the complete response when you're ready.

Looks like this thread will be slow to build, but oh what a feast for those who love to read :-)

[AntiFascist]

29. OK, I'll use one post just to answer the first question....

"There are dark, mafia-like forces spread across all 3 major religions."

My contention was that Al-Qaida may actually be a serious threat to the U.S. because it represents an important opponent for what Michael Ledeen might call a "universal fascist movement."

http://www.indymedia.ch/fr/2004/01/17406.shtml

Ledeen supports de Felice’s distinction between “fascism-movement” and “fascism-regime.” Mussolini’s regime, he says, was “authoritarian and reactionary”; by contrast, within “fascism-movement,” there were many who were animated by “a desire to renew.” These people wanted “something more revolutionary: the old ruling class had to be swept away so that newer, more dynamic elements-capable of effecting fundamental changes-could come to power.”

In this sense, al-Qaida is not necessarily something that needs to be defeated quickly. On the contrary, it may be necessary to try and foster a revolution in the Islamic world playing on radical jihadists' violent tendencies so that they will actually join the movement and create the appearance of a vast and powerful network that needs to crushed in the process of renewing the Middle East. If the enemy did not exist, the Middle East would not get renewed, if you follow Ledeen's philosophy. Reading between the lines, it may also be necessary to maintain a sense of fear within the American populace in order to keep the movement active, thus, the very real danger.

There is also reported to be evidence of a system of money laundering networks tied in to al-Qaida which also may tie in with networks from the Iran-Contra days, including BCCI. (From "Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Ladin").

I'm not saying the following individuals are necessarilly linked to al-Qaida, but names like Adnan Khashoggi (Islamic), Oliver North and Grover Norquist (Christian members of CNP) come to mind in Iran-Contra dealings, in addition to Israeli participation:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Iran_Contra_Affair.html

The report shows that Israel's involvement was stimulated by separate overtures in 1985 from Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar and National Security Council (NSC) consultant Michael Ledeen, the latter working for National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane. When Ledeen asked Prime Minister Shimon Peres for assistance, the Israeli leader agreed to sell weapons to Iran at America's behest, providing the sale had high-level U.S. approval.

<snip>

Saudi billionaire oil and arms trader Adnan Khashoggi said in an interview on ABC­TV on December 11, 1986, that he advanced $1 million to help finance the first arms shipment in the Iran-Contra arms scandal and put up $4 million for the second shipment.

Jack Abramoff (an orthodox Jew) is also purportedly linked to Khashoggi:

http://www.madcowprod.com/10272005.html

Why might wealthy Saudis want to fund a movement opposing jihadists?

http://antifascist2005.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/6/61854/9150

<snip>
I can assure you that what the Bush administration did in the Wilson/Plame matter amounts to little more than "business as usual".
<snip>
I became a target of this methodology when I stumbled upon illegal dealings between the Bush family, the Saudis and the Israelis in the mid to late 1980's.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/white.pdf

He had explained that the Saudis had basically entered into a quid pro quo relationship with Bush and that Bush when he was CIA director worked with the head of Saudi intelligence and the CIA trained the Palace Guard to protect the Saudi Royal Family who was concerned about a fundamentalist revolution.

Why might Saudis also be funding the jihadists themselves?

In "Forbidden Truth" it is mentioned how wealthy Saudis continued to make payments to Osama Bin Ladin as al-Qaida became active, so as not to become targeted themselves.

Why would Judeo-Christians be interested in the movement to transform the Middle East?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1234216/posts

Led by American evangelist Pat Robertson, thousands of Christian pilgrims gathered in the Holy Land on Sunday to express support for Israel, with hundreds joining a mass prayer session in a Jerusalem park.

<snip>

"The Bible says that the time to bless Zion has come, and I believe that we have come to bless Zion," Robertson, a prominent American religious broadcaster, told the crowd.

[Robert Cooper]

43. Round 2, response to AF...

...thanks for breaking this down and handling this one first. Bite-sized pieces are a little easier to process and this was one question I really wanted you to answer.

Here we go:

You'd said earlier: "There are dark, mafia-like forces spread across all 3 major religions." and I asked you to explain this as best you can.

"My contention was that Al-Qaida may actually be a serious threat to the U.S. because it represents an important opponent for what Michael Ledeen might call a "universal fascist movement." - http://www.indymedia.ch/fr/2004/01/17406.shtml

"Ledeen supports de Felice’s distinction between “fascism-movement” and “fascism-regime.” Mussolini’s regime, he says, was “authoritarian and reactionary”; by contrast, within “fascism-movement,” there were many who were animated by “a desire to renew.” These people wanted “something more revolutionary: the old ruling class had to be swept away so that newer, more dynamic elements-capable of effecting fundamental changes-could come to power.”

"In this sense, al-Qaida is not necessarily something that needs to be defeated quickly. On the contrary, it may be necessary to try and foster a revolution in the Islamic world playing on radical jihadists' violent tendencies so that they will actually join the movement and create the appearance of a vast and powerful network that needs to crushed in the process of renewing the Middle East. If the enemy did not exist, the Middle East would not get renewed, if you follow Ledeen's philosophy. Reading between the lines, it may also be necessary to maintain a sense of fear within the American populace in order to keep the movement active, thus, the very real danger."

Ah, I follow you now. The neo-cons have so embroiled America in Mid East politicis so as to encourage a terrorist movement which can then be used as an "enemy" requiring America to turn to fascism for self-protection.

You seem to be saying they've succeeded enough that the Pat Act, an obviously fascist piece of legislation, is necessary to protect America.

In other words, the neo-cons have been poking a lion in a cage with a pointed stick until the lion is enraged. Removing the Pat Act would be like opening the cage door.


As for the rest, I've read it, but I don't follow you're reasoning for linking these groups religiously.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are facists in every religion (or several of the main ones, anyway).

Perhaps you'll clear this up for me? Thanks.

[AntiFascist]

45. Quick response....

Thanks for your brilliant summary of how Ledeen's theory relates to the Patriot Act! (As you may know, Ledeen has acted as foreign policy advisor to Karl Rove and continues to push his philosophy, sometimes in a veiled way, through editorials in National Review Magazine, http://www.nationalreview.com/. Lately he's been calling for his reader's to push the administration to act on Iran, "faster, please...faster.")

I've gone back and forth on this, but I think the bottom line to those in power really just amounts to preserving the wealth of the super-wealthy, including Bush's American base and that of the wealthy Saudi's and other royalty. They are playing on all 3 religions in order to conjur up popular support, on the side of Judeo-Christian funadmentalists, and ultimately create enemies, on the side of radical Islamic (jihadist) fundamentalists. Of course this plays well to many bible-thumping evangelicals who fantasize about the End Times.

There is a large network of influential religious people called the Council for National Policy (CNP). If you do a web search you can read all about them and their seemingly tremendous influence in Washington D.C. Neoconservatives are also aligned with the orthodox Jewish Likud party in Israel. In the past AIPAC, the American-Israeli lobbying group, has strongly promoted Bush in his bid for election. Times may be changing in Israel, however, as Ariel Sharon has now left the Likud party to form a new more moderate party, and popular support is shifting away from the war-mongers.

I would need to do more research to demonstrate the religious connections to the global mafia, but I think others have already done this and perhaps they can post useful links. You may also want to check out some of my previous DKos diary entries:

http://antifascist2005.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/15/175028/372

and

http://antifascist2005.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/204225/7523


This just IN!!! Ledeen may be trying to weasel out of his stand on regime change in Iran:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200512190833.asp

He's admitting that there may be a CIA conspiracy theory that explains everything?

:evilgrin:

[Robert Cooper]

47. My response...

You know, AF, there are a lot of people who'd be looking for your little tin foil cap about now ;-)

The thing is, my experience with usenet (especially a decade ago) gave me reason to believe the RW grass-roots were being de-sensitized when it came to totalitarian regimes. Too many were demonstrating a taste for unlimited power, no checks or balances, not even a conscience. Power was all they sought and they delighted in using it to their advantage, regardless of the damage they did to others.

Over the years, sampling usenet as I went, I saw no reversal. Indeed, the movement was picking up steam.

So it was no surprise to me America's government went red, red, and red. The perpetual harassment of Bill Clinton leading to his impeachment trial (an effort to balance the record of Nixon before the end of the millenium) was the set-up for the grab for power.

So unlike most, I am not as apt to dismiss your claims on this point.

I'll point out that what I read was thin on supporting documents. There seems to be a lot of speculation based on some rather thin premises (like Hinckley and Bush having a common ancestor).

On the ther hand, in countries where religious fundamentalists flourish, governments tend to inculcate a nationalistic jingoism amongst the faithful. By simply suggesting (or stating unequivocally) that "God is on our side", the powerful flatter the cherished beliefs of the faithful and create the impression that the powerful are one of them.

You only need a faith in a returning messiah/prophet/holy man to give the powerful command over the faithful.

Upon this basis I can see reason behind part of your claims.

Whether these powerful have linked up, and thus brought their fundamentalists to the table as operatives available for the cause is another matter. Not only would I not expect evidence to support that claim, but I've reason to doubt evidence purported to support it (after all, who could penetrate such an all powerful clandestine world organization to get the goods, and what are the odds anyone outside the inner circle actually knows the truth and is stupid enough to spill the beans?).

I try to approach this with an open (and I hope, not gullible) mind.

I like to remind myself that with Bush all things are possible.

It seems to me, regardless of whether a world organization exists or not, the problem of the moment is dealing with the Chimp and his horde.

The question in hand is whether the Patriot Act should be renewed or not. You've expressed support for it as a necessary tool for dealing with that enraged lion I described in my previous reply. I understand that reasoning.

But I must point out that the same Patriot Act serves as a tool for oppressing freedom in America. A tool of fascism. Bush has already demonstrated he treats the 2001 legislation that authorized the move into Afghanistan as his very own "Enabling Act" of Nazi Germany fame. Essentially, Bush believes he was granted uncontrolled and unlimited power to do whatever he believes 'will safeguard americans'.

That's the argument he and Gonzales seem to be pushing, as of yesterday.

Why does it not make sense for Congress and the Senate to pull every fang from this fascist that they still have the power to remove? The time may come when he (or his successor) is too powerful to be leashed. The opportunity to strip him of this power gone.

It's true that removal of the Pat Act may lead to a world of hurt. But it is a certainty that keeping the Pat Act will lead to a world of hurt -and- may not be reversible at a later date. The longer people have to get used to the whip, the less they notice it or complain about it (for certainly the whipping desensitizes people over things like civil rights and even human rights).

Upon this basis I argue for its removal. Bush is a much greater danger to the principles upon which America was founded than any wild-eyed, explosive-packed terrorist.

And -if- a clandestine world organization exists, what better way to hurt it than to deny it the power of the Pat Act in America?

I appreciate the difficulties of being a conspiracy theorist (you should have heard the hoots of derision ten years ago when I predicted America would turn fascist). I hope my open mind does not give you offense.

And I will be interested to hear your response to this.

Thanks, AF.

[AntiFascist]

48. Another quick response.....

then I'll try to move on to the (previous) other questions.

I realize that the one article I referenced on the Fourth Reich (which I did not write myself) may have a tendency to veer into "DaVinci Code" territory. I do believe that when you have a religion as powerful as Catholicism which claims to have God's representative on Earth (the Pope), then together with that there must also come a dark side which may overlap with some of the major organizations such as Opus Dei or Knights of Malta, or at the very least the Sicilian mafia. The danger comes with how these forces may also overlap in the U.S. with organizations that influence the U.S. government, such as the CNP.

There are also the teutonic origins of the CIA.

There is also the overt danger of the protestant evangelical fundamentalists who so obviously want to take control of every aspect of our private lives and who are clearly not shy about wishing terrorism or disaster on any city which would dare deny the presence of their god, or the need for military recruitment to support their crusades.

I don't intend to take the side of those who are supporting the need for the Patriot Act, especially in the long-term. I just wanted to point out that there are some positive aspects to domestic surveillance, namely the information which seems to be leaking from various factions of the intelligence community with respect to those who have connections with the administration and who may be performing illegal activities. That is all.

Many of the fundamentalist forces within our country are trying to start a civil war: the Intelligent Design movement and the "war on Christmas" are small manifastations of this. They are probably banking on the idea that once liberals are fed up they will start turning to violence, and then they will be able to lump us all together and the surveillance records they are accumulating could be put to good use. It just about made me sick to see Bush make references to the Civil War in his last speech.

What they don't realize is that we are smarter than that.

[Robert Cooper]

49. Right now, I think...

...that topic has the potential to overshadow the topic for this thread.

I certainly don't see how it will benefit Democrats in the '06 election.

You might want to start a thread on this to explore it more fully.

I understand this is part and parcel of your position on the Pat Act, and so a legitimate part of your response to the question, but I agree it's time we moved on to the other questions.

Thanks AF.

[AntiFascist]

50. More answers...

Regarding NSA and CIA, there was something of a civil war started in the intelligence community when the Bush admin purged the CIA of the "old guard" operatives. If you watch carefully you can see intelligence leaking out in various places. Fitzgerald may be a Republican but I'm not sure how RW is. His claim to fame, as I understand it, is going after the mob in Chicago. If we can't trust the judiciary then we have to take it to the streets.

If Bush's rating drops back down he will likely be seen as a liability to the Republicans and they may decide its time to resign him before an embarassing impeachment process after 2006.

As for people being more productive when they don't feel oppressed, I think its a psychological thing. When they actually are oppressed its even worse.

Monopolies generally happen when smaller companies are bought out by larger ones. This may be a natural outcome of the profit motive, but some private companies prefer their independence and are happy staying private and sovereign. Cartels are the result of collusion which limits the freedom of a company to act independently. I think capitalism really works best in an environment of intense competition where a company is always challenged to do better. Microsoft is in danger of becoming stagnant because there is little competition for its business applications. The best thing for Microsoft might be to create competing sub-divisions, some of which might eventually break off into separate companies.

You said: "So you are basically saying you support an economy employing capitalistic principles governed by regulations. Not so very different from what we have now?" The energy problems brought about in California had to do with deregulation and slimey energy traders.


"In some countries, "standard of living issues" -are- "human rights issues". Some people are more than just a little poor.

Amongst the really poor in America, the homeless and unemployed/unsupported, this is just as true."


I would agree that we also have human rights abuses in the US, all you have to do is look at the homeless in any major city. By "standard of living issues" I meant that the average wage in some countries is much lower than in the US. People are willing to do more work for less money. Again, I don't think its practical to try and force international unionization on all foreign countries. Once we try to do this we might as well call for a global government, and that could be fraught with all kinds of other problems.

Subsidies and other government incentives don't have to take the form of corporate welfare. Tax credits are more like rewards for proper behavior. In Canada I believe some companies have their advertising partially subsidized. I suppose a company could misuse its additional capital by paying it all out to management. I guess I can see that happening in our current culture of corruption. Canadians must just be more disciplined. :)

Regarding minimum wage, there are the big fast food chains, even certain factory workers....I don't know if its easy to make general comments about who gets hurt by minimum wage levels.


"In other words, bribe them. Again we run into conflict with your goal to end corporate welfare. And it's not "free trade" if you subsidize your companies to keep them from investing in your trading partners."


I guess we may disagree then on the definition of free trade. To me, free trade means no trade barriers such as tariffs, embargos, etc. "Bribing" companies isn't necessarilly setting up a barrier to their foreign trade, its offering them more choices, and as I pointed out above its not necessarilly giving them additional capital that can be wasted on fattening management.


"So we're to exploit depressed labour markets and lose ourselves jobs and revenues until such time as the depressed labour markets wise up and demand more? This looks like a race for the bottom to me. With such a vast labour pool and a limited number of jobs, what do you think will happen to the lifestyle of the average American over time?"


It doesn't have to be a race to the bottom if we provide strong enough incentives to the business world to keep everyone employeed in the U.S. AND create additional jobs for the unemployed.

"You've not identified one way to pay for all of this. And you've ruled out increasing corporate taxes."

The Bush administration wants to spend 100s billions more to continue war in the Middle East. The purpose of my original post was to point out how these funds could better be spent at home. The largest multi-national companies really don't contribute that much in tax revenues as a percentage, except for maybe the oil companies who probably could stand to have their taxes raised. Encouraging the creation and growth of small to middle sized businesses would grow the tax base, in addition to raising the average level of income.

You said: "Trust me, as one of your partners in NAFTA, we most certainly -do- think it is a trade barrier. You are supporting the wages of your employees, thus the "level playing field" is no longer level. That gives your companies an enormous competitive edge over us. Do that and we'll raise tariffs to compensate for the subsidies you give your workers, and your back to outsourcing again."

I think you just described the competetive edge that currently exists in Canada (not to mention China), my friend. Leveling the playing field means leveling the playing field.


"So you want to spend more on subsidies.

This makes the revenue side even more important for you to explain."


Increasing government revenue is important so as not to further increase the Federal deficit. This would come over time if we provided incentives for business R&D and made a point to vastly improve education at all levels including post-graduate. Government should not be in the business of being its own multi-national military-energy-industrial revenue-generating complex. Even Republican paleoconservatives would understand that this is not the path we should be on.

[Robert Cooper]

51. A few points...

...

Re: NAFTA - I think you should better acquaint yourself with this trade agreement. At the moment you seem opposed to it so as to provide subsidies to employees and companies. The truth is, you seem to be saying you're for it, but the details of your plans can't be accomplished unless you scrap NAFTA (and probably CAFTA as well).

Bear in mind I'm opposed to NAFTA, so I'm not terribly bothered by someone whose plan will kill it. But claiming you're for free trade does create confusion.


Re: Tax Revenues - every time I ask you how you're going to pay for your plans, you tell me either you're going to "encourage" new businesses, or you'll divert money that Bush planned on using on war in the ME.

Encouraging businesses requires tax money too (either as subsidies or tax breaks).

Diverting money from Bush's wars of aggressions (money -he- doesn't have) does not leave you with a budget surplus.

And carrying a debt (along with increasing it through annual deficits) raises interest rates and absorbs tax dollars to service the debt without paying for a single social service.


While I look forward to you answering the rest of the issues I've raised, I think these two are important issues that need more attention.

Thanks AF. if we learn nothing else from this thread, I think we're going to learn that writing policy proposals isn't as easy as it looks ;-)

[AntiFascist]

53. You're right....

I probably should have familiarized myself more with NAFTA. As this article points out, NAFTA is more an "investment" agreement than a free trade agreement:

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/

<snip>
Its core provisions grant foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care.

Remarkably, many of NAFTA’s most passionate boosters in Congress and among economists never read the agreement.
<snip>

I support the general direction of true free trade, but I wouldn't try to defend NAFTA until I understand all of its complications. All I know is that when goods are sold to Canada the paperwork is greatly simplified under NAFTA.

As for encouraging business, Bush often talks about supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses, but really this is all mostly just talk and in fact his policies mostly support big business and the military-energy-industrial complex. It is one thing to cut taxes for existing big businesses and wealthy individuals so that they can invest more into big business. It is quite another thing to promote education of the masses and foster growth of new small business and raise average wage levels. This is probably a longer-term approach, but look what was achieved in the short time that Clinton was president. It will probably take something that will draw foreign investors back to U.S. business, like the internet boom, that will help to offset deficit spending.

ON EDIT: I should point out that a hell of lot can be done domestically with even a fraction of $100 billion.

I realize that trying to write policy proposals can be extremely complicated, but what I'm trying to point out are key concepts that can be used as the foundation for a pro-business policy that is vastly different from that emerging from the neocon Republican party.

[AntiFascist]

54. I can't say it any better than this....

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5562

Remember that, this Tax Day, when you mail that check off, made payable to the U.S. Treasury. Imagine if you had to make it out to, say, Trireme Partners, or Hillman Capital, or Boeing-Lockheed-Martin-Whomever directly – think what a difference in perception that would make. Because that's what's really going on. The redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle classes to a government-connected financial elite: that's not laissez-faire capitalism, or anything close to free-market economics – that's political plutocracy.

<snip>

Leftist critics of our foreign policy of global intervention point to this system of war profiteering – of a foreign policy engineered by corporate interests for their own benefit – as an indictment of capitalism. It is nothing of the sort. The interplay of government and corporate interests is made possible by the marriage of economy and state. A divorce, and not a strengthening of the marital vows, is the only way to break the power of the War Party. Laissez-faire is the only alternative to the Welfare-Warfare State.

This is an excellent article that may relate to some of the current aspects under investigation in the Plame case.

[Robert Cooper]

56. re: NAFTA...

...there is much more to it than just investment. Our raw resources are tied in. We can't reduce the quantity we sell to America and we can't raise the price unless we also raise the domestic price to match. No subsidies is another aspect.

As for the expense/revenue issue, you might try preparing a balanced budget to see just what's required for your plan. Don't forget debt reduction ;-)

[Don1]

13. Here was my response from before.

As someone else wrote, 106 posts until someone tried. Generally speaking your answers do not address the future mechanisms of how the DLC will address the issues listed. Instead, there are apologetic justifications of past policy endorsements by the DLC. For example, you do not say that the DLC will endorse policy to remove NAFTA and CAFTA, but on behalf of DLC you say that NAFTA and CAFTA are good things.

I have addressed all your specific points below. Again, thank you for providing answers.

Since I recently said that Kerry is making some interesting comments (regarding Bush getting impeached if Dems take control in 2006), and he was looking better as a possible candidate, I'll take a crack at defining the DLC's new platform. Let me state for the record that I don't support HC, for reasons other than being DLC, and I still make regular contributions to PDA.

Let me state some things for the record, too. I do not believe that all DLC'ers are DiNOs. I have said this before and have listed about half their number in the Senate which I consider DiNOs based on voting record. Neither Kerry nor Clinton are on that list. I am a member of the Connecticut Bill of Rights Defense Committee. I have reviewed the text of the Patriot Act and further researched other fascist tendencies of this administration. The Patriot Act is unconstitutional and I will do everything legally in my power to stop it, including writing counter legislation myself and lobbying. I am a non-combat veteran, a Reservist, and I consider this Administration's justifications of torture and openly disregarding the Geneva Conventions to be something new that we should fear. I also make regular contributions to PDA and am a member of the Connecticut Progressive Democrats. Living in Connecticut, I consider it part of my personal responsibility to pressure Lieberman not to follow in the fascist footsteps of El Presidente.

1.) The Patriot Act is only a temporary measure to help ensure that we are doing everything possible to eliminate the presence of active terrorists within the U.S., and the financial supporters of terrorism. There may be some disagreement as to when it should be fazed out, but there are no long-term plans to permanently disable civil rights. Capitalism works best in a truly free society. Also keep in mind that we want to bring ALL criminals to justice (ahem).

Much of the Patriot Act was and is permanent. Only the specific provisions set to sunset were "temporary." Even these parts might continue. We need to see what happens from now to Dec 31st before making the claim that those provisions are temporary. But the whole thing temporary? No, it's not. Just pieces.

The Senate did not have the votes yesterday for cloture as you know. However, 2 DLC'ers voted for cloture and 1 abstained. Non-DLC'ers all voted No, against cloture. Therefore, 17% of the DLC Senate supported cloture. 0% of the non-DLC Senate dems supported cloture. Additionally, those 2.5 DLC'ers switching sides gives a majority Senate (52-47) for reauthorization of the Patriot Act later. Again, we need to watch what happens, but they might just screw us again.

Where did the 2001 bill come from? Interestingly, it was not Congress that wrote it. So, the claim that we need "to help ensure that we are doing everything possible to eliminate the presence of active terrorists" is a bit unjustified. As a democracy, WE didn't do it. Our representatives did not write the legislation nor did they understand it. Do you know who wrote it? A Vietnamese national reporting directly to Ashcroft in the DOJ. I hope you just did a doubletake, reading that. It was right after 9/11 and there was extreme pressure to get it passed without being able to comprehend it.

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional and no single Congress has the authority to undo the Constitution, with the exception of Article V of the Constitution which provides for amendments. They needed to properly amend the Fourth Amendment by Article V, so they needed 3/4 of the states to ratify that change plus additionally 2/3 of the House plus additionally 2/3 of the Senate. They had no such authority and no such numbers for this change, yet still somehow they legislated it...

And now 3 out of 18 Senate members of the DLC do not actively oppose it. So, getting back to the original question. "What is the DLC plan to give us back our civil liberties taken away by the Patriot Act?" The DLC has no plan, since 17% of them supported cloture. The non-DLC Dems do have a plan and they acted against the Patriot Act along with a couple of Republicans who defected on behalf of our civil rights.


2.) and 3.) The world will be a much more secure place if all nations operate on a level playing field. This is the ultimate goal of free trade. The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China. Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries.

"Free trade" and NAFTA/CAFTA are two different concepts. A level playing field is nice, but corporations are never about level playing fields. They are about "winning" and money hoarding and power hoarding, regardless of who it scews over. The problem with NAFTA is that it is indirectly responsible for the decline of union power in the US. And the DLC has not been an active force in stopping this problem for the last several years.

I do not necessarily oppose your suggestions, but think about them for a moment. You have replaced negative consequences with positive reinforcement using capital that we do not even have. Furthermore, the DLC would be all for corporate subsidies, since they have a form of "trickle down economics" in their Credo. But they as a single organization would not be for negotiating "union demands." Other pro-labor organizations within the Democratic Party might be for meeting union demands, but not the DLC.

You at least tried to come up with a plan. It is not totally consistent with the DLC. The DLC did not come up with such a plan and one can see why.


4.) While healthcare remains privatized, there needs to be a standardized system of legislated health care contract points. Insurance companies will suffer severe penalties when violating contracts with their customers. This should not infringe on insurance companies' profitability if they play fair.

Since the DLC believes in trickle down economics, they would never be for "severe penalties when violating contracts with their customers." That's the point. They cannot have a plan on behalf of citizens due to their pro-corporate bias.


5.) Federal laws should be enacted limiting the amount of credit offered to individuals based on their current debt and income. Once these are in place, the bankrupcy laws will be lifted. This is the sane approach to keeping banks from getting into trouble due to customer bankrupcies.

It has already been the policy of banks to offer credit "to individuals based on their current debt and income." No federal legislation is necessary to add bureaucracy and enact what the free market already worked out properly. Furthermore, this does not address the real problem with the Bankruptcy bill. The real problem is that banks are already favored in our economic system against citizens. They become much more empowered to abuse us of our rights under this legislation. Making it look like there is a citizen problem here is exactly what GOP Orrin Hatch did by calling disadvantaged citizens tricked by the credit card industry scams "deadbeats."

Most of the time when a citizen declares bankruptcy it is not due to that person being a "deadbeat." It is because they had a medical emergency with extreme costs. Here is Feingold on the Bankruptcy bill:
"What is most disheartening is that so many Senators sent here to represent their constituents, to exercise their independent judgment for the good of their States and the country, have been willing to blindly follow instructions from the shadowy coalition of groups that are behind this bill--mainly the credit card industry--and vote down even the most reasonable of amendments. It is just sad when there is no debate on amendments, no discussion, no negotiation, just an edict from outside of the Senate, and the 'no' votes follow every time."

Did the DLC go along with Feingold? No. Here is a record of their votes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1969653

They were more than twice as likely to go along with Hatch. It is because they are pro-corporate like it says in their Credo. So, do they have a plan to remove the legislation that they helped to enact? No.

6.) We must do what we can to DEFEND our allies in the Middle East, but not provoke our allies' enemies. Military bases should only be placed in countries where the majority of people desire our presence.

I agree with you. There should be a referendum of the people in Iraq to see if we should be there. This is similar to what Kucinich (not in the DLC) said. It is also similar to a criticism from Nader. However, this is not a DLC stance. The DLC believes in presenting a strong aura on defense and national security.

One can see this from their votes on Iraq. Here is how the Senate voted on an Iraq War exit plan:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2252142

As you can see, the DLC does not have a plan as an organization. However, the non-DLC does have a plan.


7.) Part of the money planned for future war in the Middle East should instead be allocated to supporting the unemployed, and providing the able-bodied with jobs (including jobs in construction where there may actually be shortages).

Unfortunately, it is part of the DLC agenda to present a strong front on national defense. And it was part of the DLC agenda to enact Welfare "reform" in the first place. They will not divert defense money, but I agree that they might be in favor of some of the economic plans you suggest if it came to a vote. Now, where's the plan, though? Where did they say this?

Does anyone say it? Yes, progressive organizations, but not the DLC as an organization. They do not have this plan.


8.) A portion of the funds normally spent on defense should instead be used to subsidize emergency room and intensive care for uninsured patients.

They will not take away defense funds and they will not stand against the health care industry as a group fighting in unison, due to funding and their third way message. They do not have this plan, but I think it is a good one. Good for you for coming up with it and you should lobby for it.


9.) There should be a healthy (as in SANE) balance between liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the DLC as a single entity refuses to filibuster such nominees. Lieberman said Roberts was "in the ballpark" for example. Here I show how the DLC was almost twice as likely to confirm Roberts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2124708

They do not have a plan.


10.) Not only is this good for democracy but its also good for business!

What is good for democracy? Clear Channel gobbling up all the little guys and helping to turn radio into a conservative force for corporations and corruption?

Or did you mean that my criticism of the Telecom act was good? If so, do you know who supported the Telecom act of 1996? (that was the point...)


11.) (If people would learn how to use the power to boycott the companies that have influence over us - us being the DLC, then we would pay attention to this demand.)

People are boycotting corporations. See buyblue.org for example.

[Robert Cooper]

15. Thanks Don,

...glad you could join us.

I'll get to your response as soon as I can, too.

[AntiFascist]

18. Thanks Don1...

Obviously you seem well prepared to support your general position that the DLC is bad. I would agree that if the DLC continues us along the path we are on that ultimately the economy will suffer and this will be bad for all business. Someone in the DLC needs to acknowledge that fundamental changes in their platform need to be made.

1.) Your statement that 17% of the DLC Senate members supported cloture, means that 83% of DLC members may be able to work with non-DLC members to oppose the Act in the future. The balance of the Senate is likely to change in 2006, although I don't know what legislation may be planned after this time frame. Is there a good reason why the DLC members necessarilly need to act in a unified manner?

<Stepping outside of the DLC for a moment, the big danger I see is if/when a DLC president formally signs onto PNAC and it becomes a de facto platform for both major parties which represent the majority of our government. At this point, anyone who acts to oppose neoconservatives may then be viewed as being against the formally accepted foreign policy of ALL of US government and it may then be easier to claim that these citizens are acting as a danger to the security of the US. I would need to investigate the Patriot Act more, or be made aware of specific provisions of it, that might enable this to happen.>

2.) and 3.) In defending Free Trade, all I'm saying is that the general direction of Free Trade is a positive one, but trying to implement something like CAFTA may have been too radical at this point in time. Bush's embarassing showing in South America underlines this. During his run for president, Kerry proposed drawing up side accords involving foreign labor in addition to pushing through CAFTA. It may have been wise to shelve this until a later time when the U.S. economy is on a sustainable upswing.

Any political policy should not reflect the underlying profit motive of the corporations. The point to legislating subsidies would not be that they "trickle down" as you say, but that legislation dictates that most of the subsidy be passed through directly to pay union wages of union employees. (From other posts I notice that the DLC is talking to union reps.) I don't know if anything like this has been done in the past, and some may scream that this is a form of socialism. Since we are competing with the likes of China, I would say we must fight fire with fire. The subsidies may eventually be phased out when we are back on our feet and the end result is that more US citizens are employed, resulting in more tax revenue. (By the way my post was not intended to argue for any existing policies proposed by the DLC, but something that might be consistent with their goals.)

4.) Again the point of requiring healthcare insurers to conform to specific guidelines regarding their contracts should not affect their bottom line, unless they are planning to screw their customers legally. The hope is that contract points become more black and white legal issues where either the company is playing fairly or not. Another post mentions that the DLC is proposing "health courts" to decide these cases. Having standardized contracts would then hopefully cut down on court cases and legal overhead. In light of recent corporate corruption crack-downs, I would think that even the DLC would support this.

5.) I realize that it has been the policy of banks to perform credit checks before offering credit, but as one who has experienced this problem personally in the past, I know that even the biggest banks are more than eager to offer way too much credit, until such time as you start getting into trouble. Now that it is much more difficult to declare bankrupcy, getting into trouble is almost the equivalent of involuntary servitude, in other words you become a slave to the bank. Since so many people are affected by these problems, it is undoubtedly going to cause severe problems for these individuals, which ultimately translates to poor job performance. Why feel good about working when you can't do anything with the money? This will ultimately be bad for business, once again.

The best way to protect this kind of customer is to pass legislation that limits the amount of credit offered based on income, and don't leave the credit limit decision up to the banks. Unfortunately the DLC probably will never see it this way, until the bankers themselves agree with it. Banks need to take a long-term view of their customers and consider how they will mutually benefit each other over their lifetime. All it takes is one major bank to jump on this bandwagon, and others may follow.

I don't know what it will take to remove the bankrupcy legislation, but the underlying problem is not the legislation itself, its the fact that banks allow consumers to get into trouble so easily, in turn causing problems for the banks. Maybe a good way to penalize the banks for not following the proposed law would be to allow the customer declaring bankrupcy to only write off the amounts loaned by the banks illegally?

6.) I have to agree with you on this, and apparently Kilgore does as well.

I don't understand why the DLC has to take a unified stand on being pro-offense. The key thing might be to make sure that the DLC is fully educated on the underlying philosophies driving PNAC and that they know that the people are starting to catch on as well.

7.) Again I can't speak for what plans the DLC may currently have in place, I'm only proposing some things that may be consistent with their goals. If the DLC eventually develops plans they should stress creation of jobs for the unemployed, not handouts.

8.) Thanks for the feedback. Again this is a subsidy type of approach and it would ultimately benefit drug and other healthcare related companies if there are more customers using their products.

9.) In a previous post I proposed using "off the record" threats of many more indictments if the current administration plans to throw courts more off-balance. I'm sure Congress together with people like Conyers could start making big waves and more investigations if they felt like it. Even now there are serious threats about going after the president for breaking the law regarding domestic surveillance.

10.) This is a big problem if the DLC is supporting the Telecom act (which Bill Clinton now regrets?) I think the industry as a whole is very dynamic at the moment and when things settle down they should do the right thing and support diversity in the media. This is what I feel will be good for business.

11.) Websites like buyblue.org need much more exposure so that all progressives are aware of it. Look at what's been happening to Diebold. :evilgrin:

[Don1]

52. Second Response.(1)

Obviously you seem well prepared to support your general position that the DLC is bad. I would agree that if the DLC continues us along the path we are on that ultimately the economy will suffer and this will be bad for all business. Someone in the DLC needs to acknowledge that fundamental changes in their platform need to be made.

The DLC has helped with the middle class a little, but overall their stances have helped America down a dark path as can be seen by the points we talk about. No, they are not as bad as Republicans. And some of the DLC are MUCH better than others. Again, half the DLC votes like Joe Lieberman. The other half votes better.


1.) Your statement that 17% of the DLC Senate members supported cloture, means that 83% of DLC members may be able to work with non-DLC members to oppose the Act in the future. The balance of the Senate is likely to change in 2006, although I don't know what legislation may be planned after this time frame. Is there a good reason why the DLC members necessarilly need to act in a unified manner?

<Stepping outside of the DLC for a moment, the big danger I see is if/when a DLC president formally signs onto PNAC and it becomes a de facto platform for both major parties which represent the majority of our government. At this point, anyone who acts to oppose neoconservatives may then be viewed as being against the formally accepted foreign policy of ALL of US government and it may then be easier to claim that these citizens are acting as a danger to the security of the US. I would need to investigate the Patriot Act more, or be made aware of specific provisions of it, that might enable this to happen.>

I agree that 83% might oppose the Act in the future. This is the problem, not the solution. Cloture failed because they needed 60 votes. They only had 52, including 2 DLC'ers and 1 not voting. So, if cloture is actually passed for some reason between now and Dec 31st, then the Patriot Act will be reauthorized by a 52-47 vote. 1 DLC'er not voting and 2 DLC'ers switching sides to Republican, just like the cloture vote. This is why they need to vote with Democrats. If the 3 do, then the tables will turn yielding 51 again PA to only 49 for PA.

As to PNAC and fears about fascism, we are already there. 1. Tens of thousands of foreigners (and who knows who else because habeas corpus was removed) were sent off to secret prisons. With no right to make that phone call. The only reason we know about this is because of counts that were reported about immigrant numbers in US. After these numbers were used in a report to show that thousands were disappeared, the govt stopped publishing these immigrant numbers. 2. We have an executive authority that violates civil liberties of its citizens, including the Fourth Amendment. 3. We have powers that be that constantly lie to the citizens through the corporate news media and alleged citizen Foundations, secretly funded by the same. 4. Lynne Stewart who tried to defend one an illegally held terrorist was arrested and tried and convicted for aiding terrorists in order to send a message to all lawyers. 5. The Patriot Act allows agents to search and seize your financial, medical, library, and ALL records. The wording is "any tangible thing" without probable cause. There is a warrant issued but it is with judge-shopping, meaning agents get to pick a favorable judge. AND they do not need to show probable cause in the warrant. They only need to show that the reason for the seizure of records is based on a "reasonable" hypothesis to a biased judge. This violates your Fourth Amendment rights in these two points.

I will respond to other points in other posts as I have time to do it. Very busy here...

[Don1]

57. Second Response (2)

Since my time is very limited, I need to respond to this in pieces. Sorry about that, but I am doing what I can...So, here is my response to point (2).

2.) and 3.) In defending Free Trade, all I'm saying is that the general direction of Free Trade is a positive one, but trying to implement something like CAFTA may have been too radical at this point in time. Bush's embarassing showing in South America underlines this. During his run for president, Kerry proposed drawing up side accords involving foreign labor in addition to pushing through CAFTA. It may have been wise to shelve this until a later time when the U.S. economy is on a sustainable upswing.

Any political policy should not reflect the underlying profit motive of the corporations. The point to legislating subsidies would not be that they "trickle down" as you say, but that legislation dictates that most of the subsidy be passed through directly to pay union wages of union employees. (From other posts I notice that the DLC is talking to union reps.) I don't know if anything like this has been done in the past, and some may scream that this is a form of socialism. Since we are competing with the likes of China, I would say we must fight fire with fire. The subsidies may eventually be phased out when we are back on our feet and the end result is that more US citizens are employed, resulting in more tax revenue. (By the way my post was not intended to argue for any existing policies proposed by the DLC, but something that might be consistent with their goals.)

Free Trade is one of those Orwellian terms. What does it mean and what is its story? Let's look at it. It is called "free trade" to conjur up an image of simple people trading and bartering privately. It would be unfair to restrict these simple people, wouldn't it? So, let's let them trade freely. No, free trade is about something very different. "Free" in this context actually means "Deregulate" and "Trade" actually means "Corporations." The policy of free trade is about the universal deregulation of global corporations. Let no country impose a tarriff on them. Let no government disallow them from entering into their domain.

The opposing philosophy is that governments can decide to impose tarriffs on corporate goods originating in a country with poor labor rights (such as childhood slavery). If everyone followed this regulation philosophy, then citizens across the world benefit from greater labor rights, like being able to form a union, having a decent wage, no childhood slavery etc. On the other hand, if everyone follows global deregulation of corporations, then corporations in countries with good labor rights will begin failing as they have less profit to make (more money is spent on its employee benefits). As a result the economies of those countries suffer until labor rights are relaxed. Unions deteriorate, too, as workers with benefits become jobless.

This is the direction we have seen in the US...loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas. It is because of global economics and outsourcing, free trade (not just NAFTA). So remember Bush tried to reclassify McDonald's jobs as manufacturing jobs to hide this data from the American people.

As to your suggestion, it is more like subsidizing workers. Since government money comes from taxes and there are a lot of workers, though, you are talking about a lot of money missing from govt spending. I suppose you might be right in that this might be like some socialist systems. It actually sounds like the WTO and free trade advocates would all be very against it as it is an undue interference in what they allegedly perceive as a free global market...that which the DLC calls "The New Economy."

[Robert Cooper]

58. "Since my time is very limited"...

With the holiday season and gearing up for '06 I expect participants are going to have other priorities from time to time.

I'll do my best to keep the thread open (and hopefully others :grouphug: will join in the effort) so no one should feel they're rushed here.

'Course I hope no one disappears entirely ;-)

Hope that helps, and thanks for continuing your responses. I enjoy reading them. :hi:

(edit: typo)

[AntiFascist]

60. Response.....

I am glad to see us continuing with the discussion and I hope I'm continuing to be productive. I'll answer this section first as it seems easier for me to deal with.

In light of how NAFTA seems to have been implemented, I can see where you would say that "free trade" is an Orwellian term. Insofar as this trade agreement may enable globalization and the dominance of huge, monopolistic multi-national corporations, it would seem to only favor "free trade" for this type of globalization.

Look at the problem, for a moment, from the point of view of a very small company. Say that my small company can barely make ends meet by selling into the American market. I could potentially double my market by selling into Canada, but there are various trade issues that impede my ability to do so. For one thing, Canadian customers must pay sizeable tariffs, so they are often asking for discounts to offset these tariffs. The other problem has to do with the exchange rate and the difference in standard of living. Canadian customers view the prices that I charge as being too high, so they are less likely to buy products in the same volume as my American customers. If I were to reduce prices to the level that they would find satisfactory, the resulting increase in sales volume would not result in the same total profit that I would otherwise have hoped for to make the effort worthwhile. (This is based on a true story, by the way)

In a truly free trade environment, as I would define it, there are no tariffs or quotas imposed, and the Candadian customer is seeing the same total cost for my product as the American customer. Furthermore, with the levelling of the playing field that would ultimately occur through free trade, the exchange rate may eventually normalize with the American standard of living, and the price level of my product would eventually be viewed the same in Canada as in America, so I could treat the markets as being the same. I could double my market by selling unimpeded into Canada and my company would thrive.

The problem with providing government subsidies to American companies in a free trade environment is that Canada would view this as unfair competition since American companies can now be more competitive with Canada and potentially drive out Canadian businesses. Reverse this situation and you see what America is faced with currently, in certain industries.

Small companies, like what I am talking about, have far fewer employees than the large companies and the effect of providing subsidies may not even be much of an issue as far as the WTO is concerned, or to globalization. Again, I feel it would be appropriate for the DLC, being Democrats, to pay more attention to needs of samll companies rather than larger ones, although I can see where this might not be true in practice. Maybe small businesses that enter into international trade need their own lobbying groups?

There are anti-capitalist types on DU who would argue that the only point to operating a small company is to be able to ultimately sell it to a larger company and make money, ultimately leading to global monopolies and cartels -- like a pyramid scheme. I don't believe this is always the case. If the company is healthy and doing well then it can grow on its own. A shareholder can always sell his shares to someone else, and still allow the company to remain independent. If employees own a significant share of the company then they will usually try to make the best decisions for the working environment within the company. Again, true capitalism works best in a competetive environment and this pyramid scheme leads to less competetion. Profiting by selling a company is not the same thing as profiting by running a healthy company.

[Don1]

61. Small Businesses?

Most small businesses are not benefiting from CAFTA/NAFTA/free trade. Most go on about their merry way as local mom-and-pop shops. Those very few small businesses interested in internationalizing or entering a foreign market would mostly do that through joint venture with big business anyway.

The problems here are not really addressed though. You did not address the issues of union strength or the domination of global corporations that I explained before. NAFTA/CAFTA/Free trade is not about a "level playing field" at all as it does not support globalized unions, or globalized labor rights, or globalized environmental standards. Instead, these Free Trade agreements do the opposite of leveling the playing field. They increase corporate power (the desires of a few rich CEO's) and decrease the power of labor (the needs of many, many workers).

Please read the following study:
"Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.
..."
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147

[AntiFascist]

68. As I mentioned above...

I don't know if I could defend NAFTA because it seems to involve a lot more than just pure free trade issues. The statement I made before was to support the concept of free trade, not to support NAFTA. I think the main problem in negotiating trade agreements is that there are a lot of additional political issues involved, as mentioned before, one country may feel that the other has an unfair advantage particularly if there are government subsidies involved. When "plutocrats" get together to negotiate the agreements then naturally that agreement will come out favoring large corporations of both countries at the expense of the workers.

As we witnessed in the NYC transit strike, unions can be a very significant threat to the corporate elite. I think it was mentioned that $700 million was lost in just 3 days of the strike and this cut directly into the bottom line of Bloomberg's cronies. Realize that Republicans take this threat very seriously and they will be fighting unions every step of the way. Any type of informal worker organizing, even via the internet, may be a threat to Republicans. Keep this in mind in light of the Patriot Act issues.

At the same time, I don't believe it is realistic for us to try and somehow enforce global unionization. This would ultimately lead to the use of force and we would be sacrificing our security, and quite possibly our liberties, in the process. As I mentioned, the process may be evolving naturally in China as workers begin to demonstrate and protest more. Maybe we should just let it evolve.

I agree that free trade will lead to exporting jobs unless it is counter-balanced by government subsidies. This can lead to political problems which need to be worked out in negotiating agreements. The agreements need to be worked out in a bipartisan manner with real progressive Democratic participation.

The problem of how to strengthen unions can be only be addressed once Democrats take back control of Congress.

[Robert Cooper]

82. "The problem of how to strengthen unions can be only be addressed...

... once Democrats take back control of Congress."

Hate to tell you this, AF, but to take control you need to spell out a plan that inspires voters with confidence.

Waiting till after you take congress to make proposals doesn't sound like much of a plan.

[AntiFascist]

83. Here's the proposed plan in a nutshell....

Work with unions to establish a unique type of corporate subsidy where most of the funds must be paid through directly into union workers' wages and benefits, while companies negotiate with the unions what those wages and benefits should be. This would be a type of government program that would act to create a partnership between corporations and unions that would benefit both. Corporations would then be motivated not to outsource workers in order to receive their subsidy/corporate tax credits, etc.

Where would the funding for this come from? The whole point of my posting in this thread was the hypothetical position that the DLC would support a plan to end our aggressive and offensive efforts in the Middle East and instead focus spending on "nation-building" within the US. This could be summarized in a simple and easy to understand campaign slogan, something like: "rebuild the nation at home". I believe there might be a certain peace dividend that can result in the ME. If the US can demonstrate that its direction is no longer on the path set by the neoconservatives as spelled out by PNAC, then there may be less motivation to blow up oil pipelines in Iraq (for example) and ME leaders may be more willing to keep petrodollars in US currency and to sell oil to the US, as long as the peace is maintained.

[Don1]

62. Second Response (4)

4.) Again the point of requiring healthcare insurers to conform to specific guidelines regarding their contracts should not affect their bottom line, unless they are planning to screw their customers legally. The hope is that contract points become more black and white legal issues where either the company is playing fairly or not. Another post mentions that the DLC is proposing "health courts" to decide these cases. Having standardized contracts would then hopefully cut down on court cases and legal overhead. In light of recent corporate corruption crack-downs, I would think that even the DLC would support this.

We already have courts. We already had the ability to sue the pants off of these scamming insurance companies for tricking us...until "reform" came along and took away our rights. So, if I scam an health insurance company, can they only sue me for limited damages, too? Nope. Talk about an unlevel playing field...

I have to make this point again, because I made the point to wyldwolf in a different post that you likely did not see. That whole study by the DLC where they talk about Health Courts referred to the supporting literature of some scary bedfellows: centrists.org, Bill Frist, and the RAND CORPORATION to name just 3.

No thank you. I don't want Health Courts that are secretly supported by right-wingers and I do not want their implementation to occur in a Republican-controlled Congress either. People should get their rights back to sue a health insurance company because the doctor cut off the wrong leg or because the doctor left a huge pair of scissors in their chest or because the health insurance company pretended they could not receive coverage for something and as a result they got a lot sicker.

That would be fair and just.

[AntiFascist]

70. Again the point of my previous posts....

was to propose a system where lawyers could ONLY develop health care agreements from a standardized set (legislated) of contract points. If truly progressive Democrats are involved in establishing such fair contracts then this would hopefully help restore rights that have been previously lost. This would be restoring regulation that may have been lost in previous reforms. Again, I don't knnow if the DLC would go for this idea, but the only reason not to is if they want to support corporate wrong-doing.

[Don1]

72. I re-read your post.

You seem to suggest two things:

(1) you allude to health courts. I think this is a bad idea, because it is extra bureacracy and from a corporate-bias funded think tank.

(2) you mention contract points. Please give more details.

[AntiFascist]

73. To answer...

I only latched onto the health court idea because apparently this is something already being considered by the DLC. I would have to read more about it to understand the negative influences. To be honest, at first it struck me as being unnecessarilly bureaucratic.

The idea of "contract points" would be more or less like having a set of contract templates that contain clauses where the language is standardized, or decided upon ahead of time by a group consisting of, or appointed by legislators. This may be impractical considering that all health insurance companies would need to be appeased, not to mention the differences in law between each state, and may also require checks and balances or thorough review to ensure that the public interest is maintained. The point would be to create language that is crystal clear and unambiguous, and not something that would leave much room for an insurer to easily violate and get away with it, or an insuree to take advantage of. Also, the set of possible templates or clauses would be large enough to satisfy any type of agreement the insurer may want to generate. I'm not an attorney so I don't know how easily this type of system would be to create.

[Robert Cooper]

34. I'd like to see answers to these points...

...and I'd like to see you write up answers for your preferred camp, Don.

For this thread, when you have the time.

And thanks.

[guidod]

63. I only have one to add...

Make SURE each citizen has a place they can EASILY go to vote at. Also make sure their vote is counted correctly and can be RECOUNTED If necessary.

[Robert Cooper]

64. Excellent contribution...and so essential too...

Thanks Guidod. We need to remember the need for a transparent election process.

I might add we need an end to states fiddling with the list of electors too. Florida comes readily to mind. Denying legitimate voters a vote is unacceptable.

[guidod]

65. Excellent!

[AntiFascist]

69. I agree, excellent points!

As I mention above in my latest post, real progressive Democratic change is necessary, but its not going to happen without a real democracy.

[wyldwolf]

12. okey dokey!

First, let me say that the name of this thread should be along the lines of "What does your wing of the party plan to do about the following issues."

Singling out the DLC is confusing to me when there are several other organization/think tanks/policy posses who should also be taking stands on issues beyond the vague "we'll get rid of it/we'll bring our troops home/ we'll do blah blah."

But anyway, my answers taken from the DLC website, DLC writers, DLC politicians, and my own personal observations based on such:

1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;

Senate Democrats, including all members of the DLC, voted down key civil rights infringing elements of the Patriot Act friday. This Demonstrates, of course, that DLC senators are serious about rolling back the patriot act. Let's go to an elected official who also holds leadership positions in the DLC:

Speaking in the spring of 1994, Clinton said, "re-electing President Bush will mean a loss of freedoms and "create an America we won't recognize," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is telling potential Democratic donors.

In an e-mail appeal distributed by the Democratic National Committee to help Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, the former first lady said "the stakes in this election are incredibly high."

"If they get their way, you and I will be living in an America governed not by our hopes, but by our fears," Clinton wrote. "We'll be living in an America where we see our freedoms diminished when they ought to be embraced, our rights restricted when they ought to be strengthened."

But in regards to having a "plan" to restore civil rights, neither the DLC (nor the DNC or PDA for that matter) have a plan other than winning elections and using the powers of congress to effect change.

(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;

Labor unions in Canada and the United States have opposed NAFTA, though Unions in Canada have recently removed objections to the agreement from their platforms.

Drawing upon the traditional Democratic policies of Free Trade, the DLC did indeed support NAFTA and CAFTA (along with other non-DLC Democrats) however the jury was still out on NAFTA's economic impact several years in, according to a study researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles undertook. Said to be the most comprehensive study ever undetaken on the subject, it concluded that "the impact on trade-related employment during the first three years after NAFTA is estimated to be, at the very least, a near zero net impact, and more likely, a moderately positive number."

Despite arguments from supporters of the North American Free Trade Agreement that the pact would bring big employment gains to the United States and warnings from opponents that it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, the accord's net impact so far has been slight, the study found.

Still, the study did not directly address the politically sensitive question of whether better-paying jobs were being lost to Mexico, which has been the chief concern of Unions. Consequently, the DLC and Unions have had a thawing of late, with the DLC hosting a breakfast with union representatives in November - a meeting both sides found to be "productive."

When I couple this with the DLC's economic policies of living wages and family friendly tax reform, I am confident that the DLC is now more sympathetic to the positions of Unions.

But in regards to having a "plan," neither the DLC (nor the DNC or PDA for that matter) have a plan other than winning elections and using the powers of congress to effect change. Stating "we'll get rid of NAFTA/CAFTA" isn't a plan because such action requires details.

I also want to point out that Free Trade has been a Democratic/liberal policy since at least Woodrow Wilson. FDR ran on free trade and was highly critical of Hoovers protectionist policies. When NAFTA was put into effect, no one could forsee the effects many claim it has had. Of course, lessons could have been learned when CAFTA was inacted.

(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;

The DLC's plan is to to create state-administered specialty courts (similar to those that judge workers' compensation claims) whose primary goal would be to quickly and fairly provide consistent compensation for economic and non-economic losses caused by medical errors. The broader goal of the system would be to build up and publicly report a medically sound body of law on standards of care, while holding providers accountable to those standards. Health courts would replace the current system's reliance on dueling testimony by paid experts with court-appointed neutral experts, and would assure consistency by a set schedule of benefits, applied by specialty judges.

Health courts could simultaneously benefit individual patients, and all patients, present and future. As Udell and Kendall note: "Patients have the most to lose under the current system. Without clear signals from the courts about the steps doctors should take to prevent injuries, it should come as no surprise that between 48,000 and 98,000 patients die from medical mistakes in hospitals each year. Patients are also losing access to doctors in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics, particularly in states where malpractice insurance premiums are rising the fastest."

While health courts would be administered by the states, Udell and Kendall argue that Congress needs to jump-start the new system. "Congress should provide start-up funding for states to create health courts, and it should set federal guidelines to ensure that health courts are similar from state to state in their designs and procedures, in the schedules of benefits they use, and in the standards of medical practice they recognize," they write.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=138&conte...
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subs...

(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;

The New Democrat philosophy on this issue was worded this way:

This bill reflects the New Democrat principle of greater personal responsibility by ensuring that those who have the ability to pay off some of their debt do so, and reaffirming that bankruptcy should be a last resort instead of a first option. Requiring people to file under Chapter 7, rather than Chapter 13, and set up a payment plan to repay some or all of their debt is reasonable and fair.

Protects People Living Below Median Income

Only those living above the median income and who have ability to pay debt will be required to do so. Conversely, millionaires who use bankruptcy as a method of financial planning will no longer be allowed to buy extravagantly and subsequently have all debt written off.

Helps Consumers and Small Businesses

Bankruptcy costs are passed on to other consumers, and the average family pays hundreds of dollars a year in higher prices. Small businesses that might otherwise not be paid for their goods or services will have a better chance of gaining compensation as a result of this bill.

Ensures Help for Most Needy

S. 256 includes protections ensuring alimony and child support payments are made. We believe single parents and dependent children need our help far more than millionaires who benefit from current bankruptcy laws. All consideration will be given to factors including job security, medical bills, and other circumstances.

(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;

From The DLC's Ed Kilgore:

1) Publicly announce the United States is abandoning any plans for permanent military bases in Iraq to make it absolutely clear our presence is temporary.

2) Publicly announce benchmarks that will trigger withdrawal of American troops, including approval of a constitution and election of a permanent government; specific levels of trained Iraqi troops and other security forces; and renunciation of demands by major Iraqi communities that are incompatible with a stable and pluralistic regime (e.g., Kurdish right to secede, Sunni Arab privileges in a strong central government, Iranian-style Islamic Republic).

3) Initiate direct negotiations with insurgents.

4) Renounce any public or private-sector U.S. designs for control of Iraqi natural resources

5) Launch an internationalized reconstruction effort which explicitly renounces U.S. exclusive privileges, with special attention to assistance from Sunni Arab countries

The goal would be to leave Iraq with a half-decent chance of maintaining a sustainable government without civil war, foreign domination, or a permament base of operations and recruitment for al Qaeda. The main strategy would be to convince, through carrots and sticks, the Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shi'a to step back from their maximalist demands, while creating trans-communal political and security institutions. The philosophy would be to dramatically invest Iraqis with complete responsibility for their common future. And while they would not provide a guaranteed, fixed date for final U.S. withdrawal, the benchmarks would immediately create tests for Iraqis that would either lead to greater stability in the country ad large U.S. troop withdrawals in a matter of months, or would make it clear it truly is time to cut our losses and leave with a brief effort at damage control.

(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to Welfare "Reform";

Welfare reform is here to stay and it is a concept I believe in.

As Franklin Roosevelt said, "The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief...dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

I'm not even as hardlined about it as FDR. I do believe the Federal Government does have a role in welfare, but not to the point of lifelong dependency.

Bobby Kennedy said welfare should be a "hand up not a hand out." In 1966, Kennedy argued that the welfare state had “largely failed as an anti-poverty weapon,” because it had “destroyed family life.” He contended that only through “hard and exacting” work could poor people achieve upward mobility.

(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;

The DLC are big proponents of Healthcare reform:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=111

(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;

Again, that is something the Democrats have to have the votes on.

(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media groups can have power, too;

Bill Clinton says he rejects signing this bill. I regret him signing it, too. I've seen no plan from anyone to overturn it.

(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

Even the non-DLC Democrats don't vote with the majority of Democrats on these issues the majority of the time. I've seen someone's stats that show a mere 6% voting "disloyally" difference between the DLC and non-DLC Democrats. Others here have used their own methodology to show the difference between DLC votes and non-DLC votes. The problems with these are the person doing the research uses their opinion on what the "Democratic vote" should be.

[Robert Cooper]

14. Thank you WW

And I appreciate the advice about the title of this thread. I tried to be more inclusive, but your siggestion would have been better. I'll keep it in mind for the future.

I'll respond more to the substance of your response as soon as I can.

Thanks again.

[Don1]

16. I appreciate your willingness to come in this thread

and discuss things constructively.

I have answers to half of your points because I began to work on it before the last thread was locked. I need additional time to respond to the remaining. I will not be responding right away because I am busy with other things, too.

But you should see a response eventually after I can get to completing it.

In the meantime, I am going to PM Robert Cooper, so he can confirm that half the response was already done before.

Regards.

[Robert Cooper]

17. I'll vouch for that...

...he's working on it.

[Don1]

19. My Response

1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;

Senate Democrats, including all members of the DLC, voted down key civil rights infringing elements of the Patriot Act friday. The {sic} Demonstrates, of course, that DLC senators are serious about rolling back the patriot act. Let's go to an elected official who also hold leadership positions in the DLC:

...{snipped irrelevancies about 1994 and Bush Sr}...

But in regards to having a "plan" to restore civil rights, neither the DLC (nor the DNC or PDA for that matter) have a plan other than winning elections and using the powers of congress to effect change.

"{A}ll members of the DLC"? No. 17% of the DLC Senators did not vote against cloture. Your mistake. In the future, this resulting 52-47 vote could haunt us all before Dec 31st.

You therefore cannot state based on the cloture vote that the DLC has a plan. However, there is evidentiary support based on the cloture vote that non-DLC has a plan. The non-DLC want this Patriot Act thing to go away. All of the DLC does not have a plan.

Further evidentiary support that the DLC does not have a plan for civil rights can be seen by their lack of unified voting for judicial review rights of "detainees." Here are 4 of them switching sides with the Republicans:
Bayh (D-IN)
Conrad (D-ND)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Nelson (D-NE)

100% of these guys are DLC. None of the non-DLC Dem Senators voted for no judicial review of detainees. Why on Earth would someone want no judicial review especially when mistakes are being made with wrong people getting arrested? And it's damn unconsitutional.

The DLC does not have a plan. "Winning elections" by the DLC will not improve our civil rights. The non-DLC Dems do have a plan based on evidence of their votes.


(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;

Labor unions in Canada and the United States have opposed NAFTA though Unions in Canada have recently removed objections to the agreement from their platforms.

Drawing upon the traditional Democratic policies of Free Trade, the DLC did indeed support NAFTA and CAFTA (along with other non-DLC Democrats) however the jury was still out on NAFTA's economic impact several years in, according to a study researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles undertook. Said to be the most comprehensive study ever undetaken on the subject, it concluded that "the impact on trade-related employment during the first three years after NAFTA is estimated to be, at the very least, a near zero net impact, and more likely, a moderately positive number."

...

These claims are just inappropriate to the topic. Unions in Canada support NAFTA but not unions in the US? Well why would that be? And why would our representatives be interested in representing the thoughts of Canadian unions and not US unions?

No, CAFTA is not one of the "traditional Democratic policies of Free Trade." Most Dems are against it. You also quickly breeze over the issue that the DLC is responsible for installing CAFTA. Here are the vote tallies and why:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1964233

The study fails to address the point, too, of declination of union power. It purports to address "trade-related employment" which is only a subset of total employment added/removed. It does not address the issue of unions losing power in the US over the last few years at all.

Please try to address the question again and admit that the DLC is different with CAFTA support. Also, the DLC does not have a plan to address union strength because its Credo is pro-corporate, not primarily pro-union. Right?


(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;

The DLC's plan is to to create state-administered specialty courts (similar to those that judge workers' compensation claims) whose primary goal would be to quickly and fairly provide consistent compensation for economic and non-economic losses caused by medical errors. The broader goal of the system would be to build up and publicly report a medically sound body of law on standards of care, while holding providers accountable to those standards. Health courts would replace the current system's reliance on dueling testimony by paid experts with court-appointed neutral experts, and would assure consistency by a set schedule of benefits, applied by specialty judges.

Health courts could simultaneously benefit individual patients, and all patients, present and future. As Udell and Kendall note: "Patients have the most to lose under the current system. Without clear signals from the courts about the steps doctors should take to prevent injuries, it should come as no surprise that between 48,000 and 98,000 patients die from medical mistakes in hospitals each year. Patients are also losing access to doctors in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics, particularly in states where malpractice insurance premiums are rising the fastest."

While health courts would be administered by the states, Udell and Kendall argue that Congress needs to jump-start the new system. "Congress should provide start-up funding for states to create health courts, and it should set federal guidelines to ensure that health courts are similar from state to state in their designs and procedures, in the schedules of benefits they use, and in the standards of medical practice they recognize," they write.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=138&conte...
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subs...


Seems a bit experimental and frankly a bit bizarre and perhaps costly. Maybe it could work, if...there was not already a movement supported by the DLC and others for medical malpractice limits. Is the DLC going to overturn that direction? Is the DLC going to put a cap on how much insurance companies are gouging doctors?

The DLC cannot admit to the real problem which is the insurance companies because of their pro-corporate stance. And they cannot go back on their support for those corporations' malpractice limits. It is part of their warped Credo that helping corporations, helps people. No. Helping people helps people.


(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;

The New Democrat philosophy on this issue was worded this way:

This bill reflects the New Democrat principle of greater personal responsibility by ensuring that those who have the ability to pay off some of their debt do so, and reaffirming that bankruptcy should be a last resort instead of a first option. Requiring people to file under Chapter 7, rather than Chapter 13, and set up a payment plan to repay some or all of their debt is reasonable and fair.

Protects People Living Below Median Income

Only those living above the median income and who have ability to pay debt will be required to do so. Conversely, millionaires who use bankruptcy as a method of financial planning will no longer be allowed to buy extravagantly and subsequently have all debt written off.

Helps Consumers and Small Businesses

Bankruptcy costs are passed on to other consumers, and the average family pays hundreds of dollars a year in higher prices. Small businesses that might otherwise not be paid for their goods or services will have a better chance of gaining compensation as a result of this bill.

Ensures Help for Most Needy

S. 256 includes protections ensuring alimony and child support payments are made. We believe single parents and dependent children need our help far more than millionaires who benefit from current bankruptcy laws. All consideration will be given to factors including job security, medical bills, and other circumstances.

Here is what John Edwards says on the matter:
"This morning Elizabeth Warren and her students invited me to say a few words about the bankruptcy reform bill. I'm grateful for the opportunity.

I'm now spending a lot of my time tackling the challenges of poverty, but I learned a lot about bankruptcy on the campaign trail last year. I saw how many good families end up broke and poor, and
how they need the safety net of a fair bankruptcy law if they're going to get back on their feet.

Like a lot of Democrats, I voted for a bankruptcy reform bill before. I can't say it more simply than this: I was wrong.

The bill is supposed to crack down on irresponsible borrowers. That's the right thing to do. The problem is that this bill imposes big burdens on families who did everything right but went broke just because they lost a job or lost their health insurance. And, even more than the legislation I supported, this bill doesn't crack down on the real abusers.

Two million Americans go bankrupt every year, but you might never know it. People keep it to themselves. They're ashamed about what has happened to them. But they aren't alone-these families are our neighbors, our brothers, our friends. And I've listened to so many people tell me how their life was on track until hardship hit. Thanks to Professor Warren, we now know that half of families going broke suffered illnesses or high medical costs.

These men and women want to pay their own way, but they can't. They can't because the hospital wants $135,000 to cover the heart operation and the plant just cut back their hours. They can't because the bank is about to foreclose on a predatory loan unless
they can pay $40,000 in 48 hours. They can't because they lost their job and now the electric company wants a few hundred dollars more just to turn on the lights.

This bill won't do anything to give struggling families more security. It will only make it harder for good and decent people to start over. The new means test that will mean hundreds of dollars in new legal fees for families who barely have money to put
food on the table.

If we want real reform, we shouldn't punish every hard-working family looking for another chance. But we should get serious about the biggest abuses.

In some states, a multimillionaire CEO can drive his company into the ground, declare bankruptcy, and still keep his mansion-tennis court, Jacuzzi, and all. The 2001 bill at least stopped that by capping the "homestead exemption" at $125,000. This bill will allow many multimillionaires to protect their mansions if they plan ahead.

We've also seen the credit card companies and predatory lenders become more aggressive. Today, many Americans have seen their interest rates triple to 29% or higher-not because they missed a payment, but just because they lost a job and needed another loan. Many more Americans are losing their homes because lenders
have hidden points and fees in their loans. These companies are making billions by kicking people when they're down. This bill does nothing to stop them.

Unfortunately, we know what the outcome today is going to be. But that doesn't mean we should give up the fight-it means we have to fight harder. If we want to stop bankruptcies, we need to address their real causes, like rising health costs. We need to stop the abuses by the credit card companies and the predatory lenders. We need to make sure all families, and especially those who are poor, can build their savings and assets so they have some security if something goes wrong. It won't be easy, but it can be done.

That's what being American is about--standing with people who are struggling to do right, and taking on anyone who tries to take advantage of them."

John Edwards re-analyzed the bill's contents and after greater consideration of facts determined that the bill is bad for the people.

2/3 of the DLC Senate voted for it. Only 1/4 of the non-DLC Senate voted for it.

It is more than likely that the DLC did this due to their pro-corporate bias, whereas the 1/4 of non-DLC (like Edwards) were just plain mistaken and have rethought their positions. So, the DLC does not have a plan here to deal with the problem of multi-millionaires screwing over the common man. In fact, they made the wrong decision as Edwards points out.


(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;

From The DLC's Ed Kilgore:

1) Publicly announce the United States is abandoning any plans for permanent military bases in Iraq to make it absolutely clear our presence is temporary.

2) Publicly announce benchmarks that will trigger withdrawal of American troops, including approval of a constitution and election of a permanent government; specific levels of trained Iraqi troops and other security forces; and renunciation of demands by major Iraqi communities that are incompatible with a stable and pluralistic regime (e.g., Kurdish right to secede, Sunni Arab privileges in a strong central government, Iranian-style Islamic Republic).

3) Initiate direct negotiations with insurgents.

4) Renounce any public or private-sector U.S. designs for control of Iraqi natural resources

5) Launch an internationalized reconstruction effort which explicitly renounces U.S. exclusive privileges, with special attention to assistance from Sunni Arab countries

The goal would be to leave Iraq with a half-decent chance of maintaining a sustainable government without civil war, foreign domination, or a permament base of operations and recruitment for al Qaeda. The main strategy would be to convince, through carrots and sticks, the Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shi'a to step back from their maximalist demands, while creating trans-communal political and security institutions. The philosophy would be to dramatically invest Iraqis with complete responsibility for their common future. And while they would not provide a guaranteed, fixed date for final U.S. withdrawal, the benchmarks would immediately create tests for Iraqis that would either lead to greater stability in the country ad large U.S. troop withdrawals in a matter of months, or would make it clear it truly is time to cut our losses and leave with a brief effort at damage control.


This is actually not too bad. It is extremely similar to Woolsey's amendment and a PDA petition which had Progressive support. However, this plan is not a DLC plan. The DLC as an entity or even the majority of the DLC does not support this plan. This can be seen by legislative record on Iraq issues.

For example, 27.8% of the DLC voted against an Iraq exit plan, while 0% of non-DLC Dems voted against it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2252142

Now, just a non-binding resolution stating that El Presidente must make an exit plan is NOTHING in comparison to what would be called a "radical" plan by Kilgore and also the Progressives. So there is no way that the DLC would support it.

Therefore, the DLC does not have a plan. The progressives do, though, as they supported the Iraq Exit Plan bill as well as other bills.


(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to Welfare "Reform";

Welfare reform is here to stay and it is a concept I believe in.

As Franklin Roosevelt said, "The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief...dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

I'm not even as hardlined about it as FDR. I do believe the Federal Government does have a role in welfare, but not to the point of lifelong dependency.

Bobby Kennedy said welfare should be a "hand up not a hand out."

The assumption behind the whole "hand up" "hand out" dichotomy is that everyone is able-bodied and able to work. No, it is not true. Many of the people on welfare have emotional problems or are otherwise dysfunctional. Their problems are systemic much like the study which came out on homeless people showing that significant numbers were mentally disturbed. Many of these people do need "hand outs" and should not be forced to leave the system to look for a company that will never ever hire them because of their problems. Sure, yes, some should be temporary, too, but it needs to be determined on a case by case basis. There should not be a global get out in 2 years policy!

Now, the Welfare "reform" junk started out in the 1990's as the "Welfare Elimination Act" and was sponsored by a Republican. How telling. The resulting legislation was a compromise, not quite being as mean as complete welfare elimination.

But really, this whole idea of welfare mothers taking advantage of the system was first popularized in the 1980's by Reagan. Reagan talked about welfare queens, doing crack, spitting out babies, and driving cadillacs. However, behind the scenes Reagan was busy with the Iran Contra scandal. Guess how the CIA was funneling money in the US? Selling crack in poor, urban areas. Yes, they helped to boost the whole crack epidemic.

There should be no compromise with these fascist Republicans on this issue. Welfare mothers and welfare children need more help, not less. They already live in poverty and malnutrition. Their money should never have been diverted to things like illegimate wars to make Lockheed Martin and Halliburton richer.

As the Constitution describes, the purpose of taxation is for the "common good" not for the select few rich CEO's in the defense industry.


(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;

The DLC are big proponents of Healthcare reform:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=111

"Reform" here does not mean Universal health care, but that's okay. I did not ask about Universal. I just asked if they had a plan. While universal would be better as it would ensure that everyone is getting the same care, regardless of socio-economic class, you're right; they have a plan. So, let's look at it.

Here is the brief promo:
"Our nation's health care system needs a comprehensive reform plan that gives everyone an equal opportunity to be healthy, without forcing anyone to give up the care they already have."

In other words, don't rock the boat of the powerful health care industry. It's for the good of the people (NOT). No, it's for the good of the health care industry to keep the inflated prices the same for everyone who already gets care. Nevermind, how inexpensive government universal health care would be in comparison...

HOWEVER, you are right this IS a plan. It is a centrist plan that has bipartisan support and one that is not as good as Universal Health care. If you look at the references, you can see that they cite centrists.org, Bill Frist, and of course the RAND CORPORATION!!!

Somehow, I would much rather trust the reform from simple Universal Health Care without all the pomp and secret support from the right-wing.

But yeah, there is a plan. You're right.


(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;

Again, that is something the Democrats have to have the votes on.

No, it is not. The Dems only need 41 votes to do a filibuster. They have 44-45 votes. So, again, what's the DLC plan to do a filibuster of the crazy whackos that Bush keeps nominating?


(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media groups can have power, too;

Bill Clinton says he rejects {sic} signing this bill. I regret him signing it, too. I've seen no plan from anyone to overturn it.

I am glad we are in agreement that the provision in the Telecom Act that gave telecom corporations greater ability to become conglomerates was bad for democracy. You are also saying there is no DLC plan to do anything about it. I agree with you.

I searched for a plan by other Democrats, too, to overturn it. I couldn't find such a plan. There are a lot of progressives against it, but I didn't see anything by a congress critter. Perhaps, we should do something about this. What do you think?


(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

Even the non-DLC Democrats don't vote with the majority of Democrats on these issues.

That's not true as I showed in various references cited. The DLC votes differently than the non-DLC Dems.

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. thank you -- I think you articulated the progressive case the best I have

seen here on DU

[Don1]

46. you're welcome. n/t

[Robert Cooper]

35. I look forward to a response to this as well...

...and I think if you take a look at my response you'll find some useful points.

Thanks Don.

[Robert Cooper]

30. Questions for WW...

"1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;
"Senate Democrats, including all members of the DLC, voted down key civil rights infringing elements of the Patriot Act friday. This Demonstrates, of course, that DLC senators are serious about rolling back the patriot act."

This is an excellent opportunity to congratulate all of you who have campaigned so hard for this victory.

And without taking anything away from the vote, my impression has been that the Pat Act would have pretty much sailed through if not for the NYT story on the Chimp's secret and illegal wiretaps. Is there a source where we can verify it was the intent of the DLC to vote against the Pat Act before the NYT story broke (and for the non-DLCers: this goes for -your- Democrats in the Senate too)?

Let's go to an elected official who also holds leadership positions in the DLC:

"Speaking in the spring of 1994, Clinton said, "re-electing President Bush will mean a loss of freedoms and "create an America we won't recognize," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is telling potential Democratic donors."

I take it you mean "2004", not "1994".

"In an e-mail appeal distributed by the Democratic National Committee to help Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, the former first lady said "the stakes in this election are incredibly high."

"If they get their way, you and I will be living in an America governed not by our hopes, but by our fears," Clinton wrote. "We'll be living in an America where we see our freedoms diminished when they ought to be embraced, our rights restricted when they ought to be strengthened."

But in regards to having a "plan" to restore civil rights, neither the DLC (nor the DNC or PDA for that matter) have a plan other than winning elections and using the powers of congress to effect change."

As it may be, the question in that case would be what will each camp do once they get the power. Will they scrap all of the Pat Act? Some of it (which parts)? None of it ? etc.

And shall I take it you see no viable plan for the current Democratic representation in the Congress and the Senate?

"(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
"(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;

"Labor unions in Canada and the United States have opposed NAFTA, though Unions in Canada have recently removed objections to the agreement from their platforms."

Personal note: there is something very screwy with the unions (and I don't think it's all of them) supporting NAFTA, because the rank-and-file I've spoken to over the years hate it. We've a very strange federal election going on, and I don't think we've heard the last about NAFTA from the unions here.

"Drawing upon the traditional Democratic policies of Free Trade, the DLC did indeed support NAFTA and CAFTA (along with other non-DLC Democrats) however the jury was still out on NAFTA's economic impact several years in, according to a study researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles undertook. Said to be the most comprehensive study ever undetaken on the subject, it concluded that "the impact on trade-related employment during the first three years after NAFTA is estimated to be, at the very least, a near zero net impact, and more likely, a moderately positive number.""

"Despite arguments from supporters of the North American Free Trade Agreement that the pact would bring big employment gains to the United States and warnings from opponents that it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, the accord's net impact so far has been slight, the study found."

"Still, the study did not directly address the politically sensitive question of whether better-paying jobs were being lost to Mexico, which has been the chief concern of Unions. Consequently, the DLC and Unions have had a thawing of late, with the DLC hosting a breakfast with union representatives in November - a meeting both sides found to be "productive.""

Okay, let's be clear. NAFTA is much older than three years. As I recall, there were provisions that did not start right away, but rather were phased in.

Another thing: NAFTA came a few years after the FTA between Canada and America. So both countries were already in flux when NAFTA began.

No disrespect, but this study sounds premature as an indicator of the impact of NAFTA. Can the DLC credibly hang its support for NAFTA on a benchmark that is so old and outdated? Can a bunch of millionaires (and that description is not limited to the DLC) appreciate what NAFTA is doing at the nitty-gritty dirt level (ie, our level)?

Glad to see the DLC sitting down with the unions last month, but isn't that a little late? Wouldn't the absence of talks prior to that give unions cause to wonder whose side the DLC is on?

"When I couple this with the DLC's economic policies of living wages and family friendly tax reform, I am confident that the DLC is now more sympathetic to the positions of Unions."

"Now" ? Has there ever been a time when any group of Democrats could or should -not- be "more sympathetic to the positions of Unions."? Could the DLC position before "now" have contributed to the poor image the DLC has amongst other Democratic camps?

"But in regards to having a "plan," neither the DLC (nor the DNC or PDA for that matter) have a plan other than winning elections and using the powers of congress to effect change. Stating "we'll get rid of NAFTA/CAFTA" isn't a plan because such action requires details."

Perhaps you can give a couple of examples of these "details" you're thinking of? Here (Canada) the formula is rather simple: dump NAFTA and go with the WTO and GATT. Why do you see it as more complicated than that?

"I also want to point out that Free Trade has been a Democratic/liberal policy since at least Woodrow Wilson. FDR ran on free trade and was highly critical of Hoovers protectionist policies. When NAFTA was put into effect, no one could forsee the effects many claim it has had. Of course, lessons could have been learned when CAFTA was inacted."

Re: Wilson, Hoover, FDR - the advisability of a policy in the past (especially going back to Wilson) does not lend credibility for a policy today. Laws and circumstances have changed.

Re: no one could foresee - I beg to differ. Nearly everyone in Canada who opposed Free Trade has pretty much been proven correct in their predictions: loss of manufacturing jobs, loss of control over our natural resources, loss of the ability to have a made-in-Canada energy policy, and an American administration that refuses to abide by the Agreement's appeal mechanism (as is the case with soft wood lumber). Indeed, to circumvent the resolution mechanisms in NAFTA, the Chimp has relied on judgments from outside the Agreement. All three parties in Canada are calling for Canada to get tougher with America over this, and you might well see us rip it up.

What happens to NAFTA then?

"(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;

"The DLC's plan is to to create state-administered specialty courts (similar to those that judge workers' compensation claims) whose primary goal would be to quickly and fairly provide consistent compensation for economic and non-economic losses caused by medical errors. The broader goal of the system would be to build up and publicly report a medically sound body of law on standards of care, while holding providers accountable to those standards. Health courts would replace the current system's reliance on dueling testimony by paid experts with court-appointed neutral experts, and would assure consistency by a set schedule of benefits, applied by specialty judges.

"Health courts could simultaneously benefit individual patients, and all patients, present and future. As Udell and Kendall note: "Patients have the most to lose under the current system. Without clear signals from the courts about the steps doctors should take to prevent injuries, it should come as no surprise that between 48,000 and 98,000 patients die from medical mistakes in hospitals each year. Patients are also losing access to doctors in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics, particularly in states where malpractice insurance premiums are rising the fastest.

"While health courts would be administered by the states, Udell and Kendall argue that Congress needs to jump-start the new system. "Congress should provide start-up funding for states to create health courts, and it should set federal guidelines to ensure that health courts are similar from state to state in their designs and procedures, in the schedules of benefits they use, and in the standards of medical practice they recognize," they write. "

Okay, the key statements here seems to be this: "Health courts would replace the current system's reliance on dueling testimony by paid experts with court-appointed neutral experts, and would assure consistency by a set schedule of benefits, applied by specialty judges....health courts would be administered by the states".

These judges will be appointed by whom, governed by what laws, will remain neutral how? You said "court appointed neutral experts" will be called upon instead of expert witnesses hired by the parties involved. How will these experts be declared "neutral"? What principles will be used to decide this?

And what role will the judges play other than to rubber stamp the judgment of a "neutral expert witness"?

You don't mention appeals. Do you not agree with an appeal process?

How will you ensure the justice i receive in Maine will be the same justice I receive in Mississippi? State administered (and presumably state appointed) can lead to a lack of balance in the system.

For example, why work as a doctor in Maine where the health courts are strict, if I can work in Mississippi where the courts are lax (note Maine and Mississippi are just state names I've conjured up: I mean no disrespect to either state)?

What happens to that first court challenge when these new health courts have no body of precedents to call upon to determine whether the judgment is fair or not?

Quasi-legal/no-appeal courts are risky. A state that places only republicans on the bench will differ dramatically from a state that places only democrats on the bench. We already see this problem with Chimp appointees with the current judiciary.

Sorry to give you such a hard time on this issue, but I think there is a lot of fleshing out to do if this plan is to reassure people they're not going to be denied important legal rights.


"5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;

"The New Democrat philosophy on this issue was worded this way:

"This bill reflects the New Democrat principle of greater personal responsibility by ensuring that those who have the ability to pay off some of their debt do so, and reaffirming that bankruptcy should be a last resort instead of a first option. Requiring people to file under Chapter 7, rather than Chapter 13, and set up a payment plan to repay some or all of their debt is reasonable and fair.

"Protects People Living Below Median Income

"Only those living above the median income and who have ability to pay debt will be required to do so. Conversely, millionaires who use bankruptcy as a method of financial planning will no longer be allowed to buy extravagantly and subsequently have all debt written off.

"Helps Consumers and Small Businesses

"Bankruptcy costs are passed on to other consumers, and the average family pays hundreds of dollars a year in higher prices. Small businesses that might otherwise not be paid for their goods or services will have a better chance of gaining compensation as a result of this bill.

"Ensures Help for Most Needy

"S. 256 includes protections ensuring alimony and child support payments are made. We believe single parents and dependent children need our help far more than millionaires who benefit from current bankruptcy laws. All consideration will be given to factors including job security, medical bills, and other circumstances."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but very few millionaires actually declare personal bankruptcy. They tend to use corporations for that purpose. And I seem to recall at least one corporation going out spectacularly leaving their pensioned employees out in the cold. How does this law help people collect from limited liability corporations? How does it keep millionaires from getting rich off shell companies that later go under?

And how do you define "median income" and how susceptible is that to political interference?

The appearance is that this law benefits the rich (like credit card companies charging 24% interest rates)) and not those whose misfortune requires relief (such as those paying medical bills), meanwhile it appears to do nothing to companies who stiff their employees (current and retired).

Correct or incorrect?

And one suggestion AntiFascist made which I do not see here: what about setting legal limits to the amount of credit a person can get?


"(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;

"From The DLC's Ed Kilgore:

"1) Publicly announce the United States is abandoning any plans for permanent military bases in Iraq to make it absolutely clear our presence is temporary.

"2) Publicly announce benchmarks that will trigger withdrawal of American troops, including approval of a constitution and election of a permanent government; specific levels of trained Iraqi troops and other security forces; and renunciation of demands by major Iraqi communities that are incompatible with a stable and pluralistic regime (e.g., Kurdish right to secede, Sunni Arab privileges in a strong central government, Iranian-style Islamic Republic).

"3) Initiate direct negotiations with insurgents.

"4) Renounce any public or private-sector U.S. designs for control of Iraqi natural resources

"5) Launch an internationalized reconstruction effort which explicitly renounces U.S. exclusive privileges, with special attention to assistance from Sunni Arab countries

"The goal would be to leave Iraq with a half-decent chance of maintaining a sustainable government without civil war, foreign domination, or a permament base of operations and recruitment for al Qaeda. The main strategy would be to convince, through carrots and sticks, the Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shi'a to step back from their maximalist demands, while creating trans-communal political and security institutions. The philosophy would be to dramatically invest Iraqis with complete responsibility for their common future. And while they would not provide a guaranteed, fixed date for final U.S. withdrawal, the benchmarks would immediately create tests for Iraqis that would either lead to greater stability in the country ad large U.S. troop withdrawals in a matter of months, or would make it clear it truly is time to cut our losses and leave with a brief effort at damage control. "

Okay. #2 is problematic, since it depends upon cooperation from all parties (including insurgents).

Given #2, what would you negotiate in #3?

#3 - you're going to negotiate with terrorists? Given any thought to how you'll discourage terrorism elsewhere if you're willing to negotiate directly here? Given any thought to how you sell that idea in America '06?

#4 - what do you tell American companies when the Iraqi private sector is being bought up by others (and it will)?

As for your last paragraph on this point (one exception, see below), can you show me the difference between this and the Chimp's publicly-stated plans for Iraq?

Exception:
"benchmarks would immediately create tests for Iraqis that would either lead to greater stability in the country ad large U.S. troop withdrawals in a matter of months, or would make it clear it truly is time to cut our losses and leave with a brief effort at damage control. "

So all the insurgents have to do is keep Iraq destabilized to get America to run without accomplishing any of its nation-building objectives? The power vacuum leads to civil war and/or intervention by Iran, Syria, Turkey, and possibly others.

To be honest, I don't think it's nearly as easy to pull out as it was to get in. I notice you didn't mention a role for the UN. Oversight or deliberate?


"(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to Welfare "Reform";

"Welfare reform is here to stay and it is a concept I believe in.

"As Franklin Roosevelt said, "The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief...dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

"I'm not even as hardlined about it as FDR. I do believe the Federal Government does have a role in welfare, but not to the point of lifelong dependency.

"Bobby Kennedy said welfare should be a "hand up not a hand out." In 1966, Kennedy argued that the welfare state had “largely failed as an anti-poverty weapon,” because it had “destroyed family life.” He contended that only through “hard and exacting” work could poor people achieve upward mobility."

So you would support CPAs seizing children of those whose welfare runs out? It's one thing to say its okay for adults to suffer if they refuse to work. But is it okay for their kids to suffer too?

And may I point out that when FDR and Bobby were talking, America's economy was expanding. Wasn't it FDR who used the government to create a number of make-work projects to get America out of the depression? Seems government handouts did well there.

Fine to say people should work, but they need real jobs with real living salaries to take care of their families. You've just gone through an extended recession. Jobs have not caught up to where they were in 1999. Was this the time for welfare reform?


"(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;

"The DLC are big proponents of Healthcare reform:

"http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=111

Whew, a 16 page pdf file. I'm downloading it now. I'll consider this question answered and reserve my right to come back to this issue once I've read the report.

"(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;

"Again, that is something the Democrats have to have the votes on."

The Democrats have just refused cloture on the Pat Act, so it seems they have the votes on behalf of a good cause. And I think, to be fair, it is a mistake to telegraph to the opposition a plan to filibuster, as it invites counter-measures that could block a filibuster.

So let me ask you, has the DLC given reason for other Democrats to worry about this?

"(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media groups can have power, too;

"Bill Clinton says he rejects signing this bill. I regret him signing it, too. I've seen no plan from anyone to overturn it."

And why has the DLC's not developed a plan for this issue?

"(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

"Even the non-DLC Democrats don't vote with the majority of Democrats on these issues the majority of the time. I've seen someone's stats that show a mere 6% voting "disloyally" difference between the DLC and non-DLC Democrats. Others here have used their own methodology to show the difference between DLC votes and non-DLC votes. The problems with these are the person doing the research uses their opinion on what the "Democratic vote" should be."

Yes, bias in this kind of question can lead to skewed results.

Does the DLC keep a database on the votes of its members so people can judge this for themselves?


I hope I've not given offense in this response. And I hope I've not asked so many questions that you find the task of responding daunting.

I look forward to a response from you.

And thank you for participating :-)

[Robert Cooper]

32. The health issue...

"(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;

"The DLC are big proponents of Healthcare reform:

"http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=111"

Okay, I'm going through the pdf now.

Step 1: "Universalize the Health Care Choices Members of Congress Enjoy"

I admit I am not familiar with your acronyms, so it makes it difficult for me to say whether this plan covers everyone or not.

However, the last paragraph is something I understand better:

"...other revenue sources such as taxes on insurance premiums and pollution." - does this not create a disincentive for people to get good insurance, since the premiums will be higher and thus the tax?

And what's this about taxing polluters for pollution? Shouldn't we be telling them to stop it altogether and to make sure they do? How does a tax on polluters affect large companies vs. smaller companies? And how does a tax act as a disincetive when most companies can pass on the tax to consumers? People end up paying more and pollution does not diminish (it might even increase).

"Future expansions would be contingent on the success of other cost restraint measures..."

Given the article is talking about a $70 billion plan with an initial investment of $20 billion, shall we guess how much of that missing $50 billion must come from the "cost restraint measures" mentioned in Step 3 (the other cost saving measures are required to pay for the initial investment of $20B, along with the taxes I mentioned above)? But Step 3 doesn't identify any methods for cost savings except larger employer coalitions getting better volume deals. And Step 3 would reward those coalitions who decrease costs with "grants" (the purpose for these seems obscure). More on Steo 3 below, but as it applies to Step 1, there seems to be no effort to balance cost savings with the required $50B to be used to fully fund the program.


Step 2: "Require Shared Responsibility for the Cost of Coverage"
A reasonable approach, but... you don't seem to be covering the unemployed. While an employed worker can opt out (for a cost of $3100/year), there seems to be no way for the unemployed to opt in. What am I missing?


Step 3: "Pay Doctors and Hospitals According to their Performance"

The article talks about rewarding health plans and providers for successfully controlling a patient's diabetes. Being a diabetic, I can appreciate what it's like to be out of control. How do you justify blaming health plans and providers if I eat a pound of candy?

The article talks about how "paying by procedure rewards providers when diabetes is out of control and patients need amputations, eye surgery or heart surgery". Is this arguing that so-called 'life-style illnesses' should not be covered? Fat people should not get coverage for knee surgery? Smokers should not get coverage for lung cancer?

In other words, are only healthy people to get health insurance coverage?

Step 3 mentions employer coalitions purchasing health plans. This seems a reasonable approach, until I got to this:

"The federal government should expand purchasing coalitions and increase the effectiveness of their activities by offering performance-based grants that reward groups of employers that improve quality and lower costs by collaborating with providers and patients and sharing successful methods. Coalitions could use these grants to purchase and deploy new technology for reducing costs and improving quality."

Sounds good in theory, until I stop and realize we're talking about a "purchasing coalition" that exists to buy health insurance. They are the only ones who can get a grant: for reduced costs and improved quality.

So I must ask:

What about coalitions that must increase costs to increase quality?
What about coalitions that must reduce quality to reduce costs (and thus encourage more un-insured workers to sign on)?

What about coalitions servicing under-serviced rural areas where quality may be poorer than the large urban centres, and the costs are bound to be higher?

And just what is this purchasing coalition supposed to do with a grant: donate it to a hospital? Buy a CAT scanner (install it where, who runs it, who bills for it, who pays for servicing)?

It's fine, in theory, to assert that higher quality can come at lower prices, but the reality doesn't seem to have -ever- backed that up.

For example, here in rural Ontario there are a -lot- of communities that lack sufficient family physicians. Anyone coming into the area is guaranteed as many patients as he or she would like, and were we not on socialized medicine could probably charge just about whatever the market will bear. And with the lack of competition the demand is sufficient to keep the price high.

In America, without socialized medicine, I can imagine the problems.

Step 3 expects the doctors and hospitals to make the cost cuts, which in turn impact the insurer's price which in turn impacts the cost to the purchasing coalition. Step 3 only rewards the purchasing coalition. There's no incentive for anyone else to pass the savings down the line. Rather than cut into their own proft margin to pass the savings down, they're more likely to keep the savings themselves and re-invest it into their business.


Step 4 "Deploy Information Technology for Better Care and Lower Costs"

:wow:

Where to start?

Okay, first thing: security. Every malicious hacker in the world will try 24/7 to break in.

Second: "Doctors order duplicative tests because they do not have quick access to previous results." Either we're talking about family doctors with very inefficient filing systems or we're talking about emergency personnel. How relevant are previous tests taken prior to an accident? How tough can it be to crack down on family physicians with lousy filing systems? How difficult for people with medical conditions to carry a contact name and number for emergencies?

I don't see this problem, despite the claim in the article about potential savings of $78B - $81B a year. I suppose I'll need to read the listing in the bibliography to get a better handle on this (oh my poor eyes ;-).


Step 5: "Create Health Courts for Fair and Reliable Justice in Malpractice Cases"

"...two fundamental defects: It does not give most injured patients access to justice, and it does not send clear signals about standards of care that would help health care providers avoid medical mistakes in the first place."

I'll save us all a little reading and refer you to my response to AntiFascist on this point.

I will point out that under-serviced states may be tempted to keep awards low and difficult to obtain so as to attract medical professionals, thus tempting other states to do the same so they don't lose professionals.


Step 6: "Create a National Cure Centre to Speed Medical Breakthroughs"

Got no problem with this one :-)

We should also have one for ridding ourselves of fossil fuel dependency.


Thanks for reading, WW. I look forward to your response.

[The Magistrate]

20. It Is A Pleasure, Mr. Cooper

To see a sober and substantial descussion of this matter, after the heated exchanges that have predominated over the last several days.

"Let ten thousand flowers bloom! Let one hundred schools of thought contend!"

[Don1]

21. Yes, thank you.

Recommended.

[Robert Cooper]

22. Thank You, Good Sir...

Family time is important here, and it was with some trepidation that I left the board.

I cannot express how pleased I am to see all is well here upon my return. :party:

Thank you for taking the time to participate. I hope we have more to show for our efforts each time you drop in.

:grouphug:

(edit: typo)

[AntiFascist]

23. I like GD:Politics!

:headbang:

[Don1]

25. A real simple plan

(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;

Revoke the whole thing as many parts were unconstitutional and confusing. Start over with specific legislation that legislators can understand, written by legislators. Should not be written by someone in the DOJ and passed under pressure...


(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;

I do not think corporate subsidies solve this problem. What is needed is to strengthen and internationalize unions to fight global corporations. We need a Constitutional right to unionize. And the only thing that can fight a global corporation is a global union. The movement to internationalize unions must spread. If corporations try to mess with us, they get slammed.

The original matter of corporations, too, was that they were to incorporate in a particular state such that its citizens could watch over them and ensure they were well-behaved. If they misbehaved, then it was up to the states to revoke their incorporation. We should take this plan from the founding fathers more seriously. Any corporation eggregiously acting against the people should give up its "personhood," revoking its right to property etc to the people in the state of its incorporation. They can re-form a new corporation with its property if they so desire to ensure jobs for the people....and a less corrupt, bloated entity will come into being by a naturally evolutionary process.


(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;

Revoke. As in 2 and 3, if a corporation keeps offending the citizens by the types of dirty tricks that insurance companies pull, then they go bye-bye. The people benefit.


(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;

Screw the bankruptcy bill. Get these credit card companies that like to scam senior citizens in trouble.


(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;

Get us out, sure. We need to do more, too, to make sure that this does not happen again. There must be accountability. There must be "impeachment" of multiple political figures. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead. Accountability will go a long way and set a precedent to curtail the political connection to the military industrial complex in the future. There must be investigations. These are described in part here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=143x1744#2075

There must be reparations to rebuild their cities like Falluja, Najaf, and Tal Afar.

We must get out. We must stop these defense corporations from taking our money. Downsize the military. In order to do "nation building here" which was the second part of the question, put soldiers to work in public jobs, same pay, same benefits. The downsizing is with defense contracts, not soldier benefits. If they dug trenches, then put them to work on the highways. If they were medics, put them to work in the ERs which are understaffed. If they were cadre, let them be tutors and teachers' aides. Let them defend our borders and react to disasters, like Katrina.


(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to
Welfare "Reform";

Revoke it. Make sure that all these people live above the poverty threshold (which they all do not now) by adding needed funds and support programs. Yes, skill training and job placement is good. Maybe some can even work in the new military industrial-less complex as described in (6).


(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;

Universal Health Care. It's ALOT cheaper to the citizens.


(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;

The plan is real simple. Keep filibustering until Bush nominates someone acceptable for the Supreme Court, restoring at least a little balance to the government.


(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media
groups can have power, too;

Revoke the provision in the Act which allowed for greater consolidated ownership. Add in public airwave features. Split up Clear Channel and others. The issue of supra-ownership must also be addressed. Huh, you say?

Who owns Clear Channel? Look:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CCU

Do you think any of these firms benefited from Clear Channel's advocacy for the war and their war rallies? Morgan Stanley? Oh, the stories...Who, for example, was in on the Smedley Butler conspiracy? Morgan...

The ownership of media by these huge firms must also be addressed by the same limitations that revoking Telecom Act puts into place on single corporations.


(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

I guess the question is how to fix the system so that Democrats can do this. What is needed? Public financing? More is needed. Here are some things. One is that the people need to be an estate of the government in order to keep pressure up on politicians to represent the people.

[Robert Cooper]

36. Analysis...

"(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;

"Revoke the whole thing as many parts were unconstitutional and confusing. Start over with specific legislation that legislators can understand, written by legislators. Should not be written by someone in the DOJ and passed under pressure..."

Okay, aside from everybody, who would you like to appear before committee to advise congress on what to include and exclude in the new legislation? Do you want to replace the Pat Act with the new act, or cancel the Pat Act and then start from scratch? Any forseeable security gaps, and if not, why write new legislation?


"(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
"(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;

"I do not think corporate subsidies solve this problem. What is needed is to strengthen and internationalize unions to fight global corporations. We need a Constitutional right to unionize. And the only thing that can fight a global corporation is a global union. The movement to internationalize unions must spread. If corporations try to mess with us, they get slammed.

"The original matter of corporations, too, was that they were to incorporate in a particular state such that its citizens could watch over them and ensure they were well-behaved. If they misbehaved, then it was up to the states to revoke their incorporation. We should take this plan from the founding fathers more seriously. Any corporation eggregiously acting against the people should give up its "personhood," revoking its right to property etc to the people in the state of its incorporation. They can re-form a new corporation with its property if they so desire to ensure jobs for the people....and a less corrupt, bloated entity will come into being by a naturally evolutionary process."

Interesting suggestions.

How do you propose forcing Red China to accept a "global union"? How do you propose to pass a CA for a right to unionize? What about workers who refuse to unionize? What about the unemployed, and white collar workers?

How long is this going to take, and what about the damage done by NAFTA/CAFTA in the meantime?

States revoking incorporations: aside from the fact that this will put a lot of people out of business, this isn't going to happen in the dead of night without anyone knowing. How do you stop corporations from uprooting themselves and moving to a friendlier state or country before the situation gets this bad? Why do business in America when they can do business in Mexico or Canada or elsewhere and sell products to America?


"(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;

"Revoke. As in 2 and 3, if a corporation keeps offending the citizens by the types of dirty tricks that insurance companies pull, then they go bye-bye. The people benefit."

And how will they go "bye bye"?


"(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;

"Screw the bankruptcy bill. Get these credit card companies that like to scam senior citizens in trouble."

This doesn't seem to address at least part of the problem. What to do with millionaires who reap the rewards off shell companies only to ditch them later. Revoke laws regarding limited liability?


"(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;

"Get us out, sure. We need to do more, too, to make sure that this does not happen again. There must be accountability. There must be "impeachment" of multiple political figures. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead. Accountability will go a long way and set a precedent to curtail the political connection to the military industrial complex in the future. There must be investigations. These are described in part here:
"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"There must be reparations to rebuild their cities like Falluja, Najaf, and Tal Afar.

"We must get out. We must stop these defense corporations from taking our money. Downsize the military. In order to do "nation building here" which was the second part of the question, put soldiers to work in public jobs, same pay, same benefits. The downsizing is with defense contracts, not soldier benefits. If they dug trenches, then put them to work on the highways. If they were medics, put them to work in the ERs which are understaffed. If they were cadre, let them be tutors and teachers' aides. Let them defend our borders and react to disasters, like Katrina."

A few things:

Leave Iraq and you create a power vacuum. What do you do if Iran, Syria and Turkey descend to pick over the pieces of Iraq? Especially if there is (as is likely) a civil war.

"Borders" and "disasters" - I think Murtha has pointed out the military are poorly equipped as nation builders. Does Posse Comitatus permit the kinds of things you're sugggesting?

And what of the perception problem amongst insurgents? They're going to claim they chase out America. Does this not invite future insurgencies?

Believe me, I want America out of the empire-building business. But your 'footprint' is on the ground in Iraq. Having stirred up the hornet's nest real good, how do you just drop it and say "all yours" to the Iraqis you leave behind? Sounds a lot like the retreat from Saigon.

What about Murtha's plan for getting out?


"(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to
Welfare "Reform";

"Revoke it. Make sure that all these people live above the poverty threshold (which they all do not now) by adding needed funds and support programs. Yes, skill training and job placement is good. Maybe some can even work in the new military industrial-less complex as described in (6)."

Sounds good, but how do you pay for it? You're already running a deficit, and Iraq doesn't account for the entire deficit. What do you cut and what taxes do you add to balance the budget so you can pay for this?


"(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;

"Universal Health Care. It's ALOT cheaper to the citizens."

True, but as expenses increase over time, this will consume a larger chunk of the budget (and especially true as the BBers grow older with fewer taxpayers left in the workforce to pay for it).

So how do you pay for this?


"(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;

"The plan is real simple. Keep filibustering until Bush nominates someone acceptable for the Supreme Court, restoring at least a little balance to the government."

And what about Frist's "nuclear option"? Got a plan to defuse it?


"(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media
groups can have power, too;

"Revoke the provision in the Act which allowed for greater consolidated ownership. Add in public airwave features. Split up Clear Channel and others. The issue of supra-ownership must also be addressed. Huh, you say?

"Who owns Clear Channel? Look:
"http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CCU

"Do you think any of these firms benefited from Clear Channel's advocacy for the war and their war rallies? Morgan Stanley? Oh, the stories...Who, for example, was in on the Smedley Butler conspiracy? Morgan...

The ownership of media by these huge firms must also be addressed by the same limitations that revoking Telecom Act puts into place on single corporations."

Some flesh to these bones would be appreciated.


"(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

"I guess the question is how to fix the system so that Democrats can do this. What is needed? Public financing? More is needed. Here are some things. One is that the people need to be an estate of the government in order to keep pressure up on politicians to represent the people. "

And that's where you're response ends. I'd like to see more on this last proposal, some clarifications etc.


Thanks for answering the questions, Don. I think it helps to get as many Democratic camps represented here as possible.

I hope you'll take the time to provide a response.

[Don1]

59. Second response to Robert

Just a general note. My response is more about my own beliefs and plans and does not necessarily reflect any organization or short-term policy goal. Much of these would be long-term, too.


"(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;

"Revoke the whole thing as many parts were unconstitutional and confusing. Start over with specific legislation that legislators can understand, written by legislators. Should not be written by someone in the DOJ and passed under pressure..."

Okay, aside from everybody, who would you like to appear before committee to advise congress on what to include and exclude in the new legislation? Do you want to replace the Pat Act with the new act, or cancel the Pat Act and then start from scratch? Any forseeable security gaps, and if not, why write new legislation?

The only "security gap" is the threat to national security that this Administration poses by violating citizens' civil rights and foreigners' human rights. As far as a security gap previously, there was none. Even though 9/11 happened, all the information to forsee it was there. They just ignored it. No new information and no new policy was needed.

The only thing that was needed was the wisdom to filter through all the information and come up with a plan to deal with it. How can adding even more information to filter through solve this problem? And by what right does the Administration have to remove our civil liberties? It's illegal.

So, remove the whole Patriot Act. If interested in protecting America better, then refer to part (6). Bringing soldiers home will improve security here.


"(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
"(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;

"I do not think corporate subsidies solve this problem. What is needed is to strengthen and internationalize unions to fight global corporations. We need a Constitutional right to unionize. And the only thing that can fight a global corporation is a global union. The movement to internationalize unions must spread. If corporations try to mess with us, they get slammed.

"The original matter of corporations, too, was that they were to incorporate in a particular state such that its citizens could watch over them and ensure they were well-behaved. If they misbehaved, then it was up to the states to revoke their incorporation. We should take this plan from the founding fathers more seriously. Any corporation eggregiously acting against the people should give up its "personhood," revoking its right to property etc to the people in the state of its incorporation. They can re-form a new corporation with its property if they so desire to ensure jobs for the people....and a less corrupt, bloated entity will come into being by a naturally evolutionary process."

Interesting suggestions.

How do you propose forcing Red China to accept a "global union"? How do you propose to pass a CA for a right to unionize? What about workers who refuse to unionize? What about the unemployed, and white collar workers?

There are many labor groups in China who would be interested. The Chinese govt, on the other hand, squashes labor rights activists. Same here in a way...Our struggle is common. We must start by communicating at a human level. We must join in common interests. The Internet might help. There are also plenty of leftist workers' parties that could lend a hand.

The pressure for a Constitutional amendment would need to come from citizens. We need to inform people, organize, and grow. Obviously, people are too brainwashed to go out and demand rights to unionize tomorrow. But we must work on this together by devoting ourselves. Workers shouldn't be forced to unionize.

How long is this going to take, and what about the damage done by NAFTA/CAFTA in the meantime?

How long is it going to take? I don't know. Probably as more damage is done by NAFTA/CAFTA, the natives will become restless and want to unionize more....unless BushCo propaganda gives them a new enemy to deal with and scapegoat.

States revoking incorporations: aside from the fact that this will put a lot of people out of business, this isn't going to happen in the dead of night without anyone knowing. How do you stop corporations from uprooting themselves and moving to a friendlier state or country before the situation gets this bad?

Actually, it doesn't "put a lot of people out of business." The idea is that the corporate property must be handed over to the people once the incorporation is revoked. This would mean that these bloated, corrupt corporations would suddenly not exist. The people on the other hand would form an efficient new corporation with the property, even a co-op if they chose.

And there are many "corporations" which are just corporations on paper with huge empty buildings in this country. Take a look around sometime in urban areas and at previous manufacturing plants which are closed down. Do you know how it is working in some Latin American countries? The workers are getting together and saying, "well, I have no place of employment, and that place of employment over there has no workers, so let's all band together and start our own company there in that building." These co-op type companies have become very successful.

This scenario is much better than some fat cat who has been claiming the empty building as a loss on his taxes for the last 20 years.

Corporations should not be allowed to move themselves so easily either. Should take a lot of time and checks that there is no wrongdoing.

Why do business in America when they can do business in Mexico or Canada or elsewhere and sell products to America?

Just another reason for getting rid of free trade...


"(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;

"Revoke. As in 2 and 3, if a corporation keeps offending the citizens by the types of dirty tricks that insurance companies pull, then they go bye-bye. The people benefit."

And how will they go "bye bye"?

This is described above...


"(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;

"Screw the bankruptcy bill. Get these credit card companies that like to scam senior citizens in trouble."

This doesn't seem to address at least part of the problem. What to do with millionaires who reap the rewards off shell companies only to ditch them later. Revoke laws regarding limited liability?

I am not sure what you are asking. I meant, for these scamming companies that do this over and over, they should be dismantled. Halliburton for example...


"(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;

"Get us out, sure. We need to do more, too, to make sure that this does not happen again. There must be accountability. There must be "impeachment" of multiple political figures. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead. Accountability will go a long way and set a precedent to curtail the political connection to the military industrial complex in the future. There must be investigations. These are described in part here:
"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

"There must be reparations to rebuild their cities like Falluja, Najaf, and Tal Afar.

"We must get out. We must stop these defense corporations from taking our money. Downsize the military. In order to do "nation building here" which was the second part of the question, put soldiers to work in public jobs, same pay, same benefits. The downsizing is with defense contracts, not soldier benefits. If they dug trenches, then put them to work on the highways. If they were medics, put them to work in the ERs which are understaffed. If they were cadre, let them be tutors and teachers' aides. Let them defend our borders and react to disasters, like Katrina."

A few things:

Leave Iraq and you create a power vacuum. What do you do if Iran, Syria and Turkey descend to pick over the pieces of Iraq? Especially if there is (as is likely) a civil war.

There already is a power vacuum of legitimacy. Because there is no legitimacy, the insurgency exists. Anyway, Bush's armies have no right to be there. No right.

"Borders" and "disasters" - I think Murtha has pointed out the military are poorly equipped as nation builders. Does Posse Comitatus permit the kinds of things you're sugggesting?

I don't think it matters. Change what needs changing to make America better.

And what of the perception problem amongst insurgents? They're going to claim they chase out America. Does this not invite future insurgencies?

Again, the underlying assumption of this question is that the US has a natural right to be in Iraq in the first place. Bush has no such right. I invite you to read the following:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1832524

Believe me, I want America out of the empire-building business. But your 'footprint' is on the ground in Iraq. Having stirred up the hornet's nest real good, how do you just drop it and say "all yours" to the Iraqis you leave behind? Sounds a lot like the retreat from Saigon.

What about Murtha's plan for getting out?

The underlying assumption of your question reminds me of the racism of Condie Rice. She said, "The Iraqis lack certain capacities." Yeah, those cretins over there wouldn't know what to do with DEMOCRACY if it was forced on them for 3 years by killing tens of thousands of them.

I am not buying these types of arguments above. The Iraqis have rights. Democracy is based on self-determination. The Iraqis have to want democracy first...which by the way, not even the US has. Just ask Cheney who was talking about expanding the Presidential authority the other day.

These are the guys you want to teach the Iraqi government how to govern and not its own people?


"(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to
Welfare "Reform";

"Revoke it. Make sure that all these people live above the poverty threshold (which they all do not now) by adding needed funds and support programs. Yes, skill training and job placement is good. Maybe some can even work in the new military industrial-less complex as described in (6)."

Sounds good, but how do you pay for it? You're already running a deficit, and Iraq doesn't account for the entire deficit. What do you cut and what taxes do you add to balance the budget so you can pay for this?

$300 billion in Iraq, yeah. Cut defense contractors significantly. Stop overpaying corporations. Like stop giving Halliburton $108 million for what-was-it a fork?

Even before this year, approx 50% of govt spending was on defense and approx 50% was on social spending. I am sure that about half the defense money is on, not just defense contractors but also international mobilization. If we cut that number even in half, we would get about 12.5% of govt spending back. Let's even say conservatively it is 10%. Then, we could definitely use 10% for revoking Welfare "reform," AND Universal Health Care.


"(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;

"Universal Health Care. It's ALOT cheaper to the citizens."

True, but as expenses increase over time, this will consume a larger chunk of the budget (and especially true as the BBers grow older with fewer taxpayers left in the workforce to pay for it).

So how do you pay for this?

Described in (7).


"(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;

"The plan is real simple. Keep filibustering until Bush nominates someone acceptable for the Supreme Court, restoring at least a little balance to the government."

And what about Frist's "nuclear option"? Got a plan to defuse it?

Yeah, shut down the government like what Gingrich did. There are cloture votes which would require 60 votes. Meaning, if all the Democrats refused to show up, then the Congress could not function. Gingrich did it in the 90's. Remember?


"(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media
groups can have power, too;

"Revoke the provision in the Act which allowed for greater consolidated ownership. Add in public airwave features. Split up Clear Channel and others. The issue of supra-ownership must also be addressed. Huh, you say?

"Who owns Clear Channel? Look:
"http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CCU

"Do you think any of these firms benefited from Clear Channel's advocacy for the war and their war rallies? Morgan Stanley? Oh, the stories...Who, for example, was in on the Smedley Butler conspiracy? Morgan...

The ownership of media by these huge firms must also be addressed by the same limitations that revoking Telecom Act puts into place on single corporations."

Some flesh to these bones would be appreciated.

Okay. What would you like to know about? My response was sort of on-the-fly.


"(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

"I guess the question is how to fix the system so that Democrats can do this. What is needed? Public financing? More is needed. Here are some things. One is that the people need to be an estate of the government in order to keep pressure up on politicians to represent the people. "

And that's where you're response ends. I'd like to see more on this last proposal, some clarifications etc.

"...implementing further our notion of a government of, for, and by the people, including the right of the people to recall their representatives, more term limits in Congress, and the right of the people to petition against mandates, which can result in an automatic mandated referendum solely up to a popular vote and not representatives;"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2315509

It's already being done in Venezuela.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. kick because it is so civil

[Robert Cooper]

33. Thank you, recommendations also welcome :-)

[elaineb]

37. Another kick for a civil discussion!

I wish I had more time now to contribute something meaningful, but I barely have time to READ this whole thread right now, although I hope to soon. But I'm kicking it because I hope this thread or ones like it have a long lifespan on DU, because we're never going to get our political goals accomplished if we can't work together and come to a consensus before November. It's not enough to say on the centrist side, "Hey, we've got the real power and the numbers, and so you'd better follow our lead if you want to see your goals accomplished", nor is it enough to say on the left (my own side) "Hey, your centrist tactics ain't working, or we would have won the last two presidential elections, and besides I'm not going to vote for anyone who doesn't vote for/against "x" issue." Well, I will still vote my conscience and my principles and not by the (D) or the (R) behind a candidate's name, but I won't be able to decide that before I know the candidate's stand on ALL the issues. There are certain touchstone issues to me and to many on the left, and maybe the party leadership will cater to them and maybe they won't. They're the ones who have to do the hard work of sussing out how the majority of Democrats and Independents really stand. And substantive discussions like this ought to help, if they pay attention to them. Thanks, Mr. Robert Cooper, proud Canadian, for knocking our American heads together a bit! ;-)

[Robert Cooper]

38. Thank you (just one more vote for the greatest page?)

I may have framed the debate, but I really think credit goes to the participants whose passions are stronger on this issue than mine. I think all of them deserve recognition for putting themselves on the line here, for the better understanding of all Democrats (and interested parties like swing voters).

Feel free to spread the word. This thread may be slow to build, but I think it will offer a very useful resource in the long-run.

And if we can all shake hands afterwards and thank one another... everyone benefits.

But on behalf of all here, thank you.

Hope to see you in here soon :-)

[elaineb]

39. Oops, I forgot

Sorry! ;-)

I guess I haven't gotten into the habit of doing that thar thang yet. Then too, the Greatest Page threads always seem to be the ones that 99.99999% of DU'ers are likely to have the exact same opinion on, and this doesn't strike me as one of those "feel-good" threads, but here's hoping it makes it to the front page somehow!

[Robert Cooper]

40. Thanks again :-)

I'll leave the question of the front page to the powers that be. But I think we can all appreciate getting more exposure for this discussion on the Greatest Page.

Thank you, Elaine :-)

[elaineb]

41. Let me clarify...

...when I say it doesn't seem like a "feel-good" thread, I don't mean to say that it's not valuable and important (it's both!), but that, unfortunately, it might make some here uncomfortable having to confront these issues or, indeed, to debate them at all. But I love substantive discussions based on facts and logic, and that makes it a feel-good thread for ME, anyway!

[Robert Cooper]

42. Understood...me too :-) nt

[Robert Cooper]

44. kick (for the evening crowd) nt

[Robert Cooper]

55. Just a quick update...

...Sorry I wasn't around more yesterday. Had a long-distance errand of mercy to run.

And I've spent some time reading the Dover - ID decision.

I'll catch up with the responses through the day, I promise.

[Goldensilence]

66. wow

I just wanted to say how amazed i am at the breadth of this discussion. At some point i would like to join in when i have the time to think my views out but lean towards more of what Don1 is speaking of. Thanks again and i look forward to seeing more of this.

[Robert Cooper]

67. Thank you...Mod willing, we'll be here for you :-) ...

...it is my hope we'll continue this till we've got every viewpoint on these issues or we're past the '06 election.

I look forward to you joining in.

[mdmc]

75. thanks for this thread.

I'm not sure which dem camp I'm in (although, Kucinich is God. Does he have a camp? The progressives? If that is a "camp", then I'm in it!), but I love the questions that you present. I would love to answer them as a political scientist. I am a progressive DNC Democrat. I am involved in local politics and progressive movements. And PEACE!

I think that I would like to answer each question individually.


1) What is my plan to restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act?

Honestly, restoring civil rights that were lost post 911 is a somewhat low priority issue at this time. My plan would be to address the most egregious use of powers and insist that these violations of the law cease. This administration is weak due to illegal prisons, torture, violations of international law, and poor diplomacy. Our efforts should focus on collaborating with international allies and complying with international bodies. America should play fair and we should not be above the law. Democratic party leaders need to express this.

The Patriot Act is unnecessary, unhelpful. Voting for or against this law has no real bearing on the fight against terror. So, if the patriot act is popular, vote for it. If it is recognized as a feel good, do nothing waste of energy, vote against it. I don't think that the progressive movement / democratic party is able to sway public perception of this bill.

Bottom line, fight the criminal actions of this administration, don't worry about big brother / patriot act. The truth (patriot act = lame) will catch up to us eventually.


(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;

Free trade is the only future, so stop thinking in the protectionist past. It is good for the world (creates economies, reduces poverty), but is very hard on the American working class (and the Democratic party, for fuck's sake!). This is capitalism at its finest. This is the world that we live in. It is very international.
Democrats should insist on using livable wage labor for all government contracts, and lobby heavily for additional funding specifically for this purpose. Democrats need to stress the importance of strong middle class purchasing power and the need to protect the sanctity and quality of human life.
This is a very hard question to answer, because unions = higher taxes, period. There is no way around it. We either need to suck it up and pitch our socialist ideal (that people should be able to earn a livable wage and eventually retire) to the masses, or pack it in - ANARCHY!. I'm not sure that the masses are ready to buy it (think of how many public school teachers are anti-union), but we need to pitch it.
Free trade should be the ultimate goal of the democratic party. Free trade that is fair.

(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA.

Stick with free trade. Fight for fairness. Remember, sovereign countries enter into these agreements. I say if Hugo Chavez (God Bless him!) wants America and Venezuela to enter into a trade agreement, then we should honor other countries ability to protect their own people.
We need to fight for fair trade, but we need to accept free trade. This would be my plan.

(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;

Yup, we need to fight this one. Again, this is all that we can do.

(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;

Democrats that voted for this should be shot. We need to fight this as well.

(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;

Nope. America, in for a penny, in for a pound. We are not going to get out of Iraq, and we are not going to nation build. Iraq needs to go through civil war, there is no way around it. Only a civil war will solidify power sufficiently to allow US withdrawal. Iraqi "Democracy" will never stabilize sufficiently to warrant withdrawal of forces. We will always be in Iraq.
We need to get the UN in. We need to get a multinational muslim coalition in and stabilize Iraq for the long term. We need to do what G.H.W.Bush did before Gulf War I. That should be the Democratic party plan for Iraq.
Since that ain't gonna happen, we need to get the fuck out. We need to coalition build, not nation build per se. We need to develop allies in the war on terror. That should be the democratic plan.
Iraq is a mess, we need to get out, then support a side in the civil war. We want a non secular Iraq, as opposed to an Islamic fundamentalist regime. Fuck! What a mess.

(so my plan is build diplomacy, and get out as soon as we can, then support a side (call the other side terrorist) in the civil war that would ensue. This war is a fucked up mess and this is the best that we are going to be able to do). We can always "be enemies" with the winner of the Iraq civil war, and invade again. We do that very well.

(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to
Welfare "Reform";

Look at Tommy Thompson's (oh my God, now I'm pitching pukes to DU!) original welfare reform bill. Nationalize it, find a way to pay for it. Clinton's 1996 version was smoke and mirrors.

(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;

The fuck if I know! Socialize medicine, find a way to pay for it.

(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;

Sorry, but the USA voteD(iebold) that wack job in, plus his cronies. They got the power! I say save the filibuster for when Bush is having senators pulled from the floor alla Saddam Hussein.

(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media
groups can have power, too;

God yes I agree.

(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

But that is where we get our money. We need to work with the corporations, and make them better partners.

Very good questions. I didn't read the other responses yet, so I will now. Peace.