My radical approach to fix the economy and country.

[white_wolf]

I've already posted my moderate proposal to fix the economy, so here is my radical solution. 1. The nationalization of all industries that are key to the common good. These should include, but not be limited to, all energy industries,natural resource industries, and the healthcare industry and the defense industry. Control of the factories and other business shall be turned over to the workers who shall operate them as co-ops. The top tax bracket shall be at 90% for those making over a million dollars in profits a year. There shall be a 100% tariff on all goods produced outside our borders. Education shall be fully state funded for all people in this country. We should also pass the Dream Act to provide a path to citizenship for all undocumented workers. We shall cut the military budget by at least 50% and end all the foreign wars and close our oversea bases. We should also institute proportional representation so that people actually have a choice in elections, instead of the lesser of two evils, we have been forced to put up with it. Let me know what you all think, I'll answer any questions.

[izquierdista]

1. Defense industry, nationalize it too!

One reason for its growth is contracting it all out to private capitalist businesses.

[white_wolf]

2. Fixed.

That one should be so obvious, I don't know how it slipped by me.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Every social democracy...

...in Western Europe had #1, in whole or in part, for most of the fifties, sixties, and seventies, executed in part, and the rest as the platform of one, or several, of its major parties.

And right across the board, from Spain to Germany, from Italy to Ireland, they've been walking #1 back ever since the early eighties.

Why?

They've got more vibrant left-wing traditions than we do.
Major labour/socialist parties that can and do win nationally
With the exception of the UK, they don't have strict first-past-the-post parliamentary systems, so there's usually a lot more voter choice.
They've got much shorter campaign seasons, making campaigns much less expensive.
In most cases campaign expenditure is much more strictly limited than it ever has been here.

[Common Sense Party]

5. Heh. Yeah, I can still remember when I

believed in Santa Claus.

[white_wolf]

12. Defeatism is never helpful.

[northoftheborder]

6. The military used to be a government run and funded effort for our defense. It should be....

.....changed back to its original organization, get rid of the privatization of any of it. would save a ton. I agree all essential services to the people should be run by the people through their elected government, not an uncontrolled corporation whose only reason to exist is to make profit for someone. All transportation, utilities, military, government services run by government entities. I don't agree that all industry and healthcare should become government run. Healthcare insurance or fees run by government - yes, with private entities as providers, however.

[AndyTiedye]

7. A Couple of Things re Getting There from Here

You probably want to phase in that 100% tariff, doubling the price of nearly everything overnight would have quite an impact on people.
Most things simply are not made in the USA anymore, and some things (like oil) we don't produce enough of for our own needs.
It will take some time to restart production of many of these things in the US, and it is unlikely that we will ever be
self-sufficient w.r.t. oil.

Nationalization of all those industries would require compensation of stockholders. Otherwise it violates the Constitution.
The majority of stockholders are not evil billionaires. Some are just trying to have some retirement income.

In the particular case of oil, many of the actual assets are owned by the government already and leased to the companies.
The government is under no obligation to make or renew these leases, and they can also cancel them in the case of gross
negligence or other violations. BP comes to mind here. We cannot nationalize BP, as it is a foreign company. We have
more than adequate grounds for canceling their leases. Any landlord would cancel the lease of such a destructive tenant!

[white_wolf]

9. Thanks for the feedback.

I agree that the tariffs would have to happen gradually. We would of course have to compensate shareholders, but I think in the long run it would be well worth the cost.

[lutherj]

8. Shut down Wall Street and shut down the credit industry. All corporate

enterprise to be owned by the employees and run on a non-profit basis. If it's not worth doing on a non-profit basis, then it is waste of resources and a mere get-rich gimmick for a few fat-assed rich guys, living off the labor of the people. The people should be working for their own welfare and the common good. We as a species can no longer afford this kind of childishness. It's killing the planet.

Totally agree with your "radical" agenda, which is not really radical. The bullshit we put up with now is what is radical. I think that we will inevitably move toward this kind of society. Either we will transition toward it, or collapse into it.

[white_wolf]

11. I vote for transformation. Much less painful than collapse.

[lutherj]

13. Agreed. (Like your sig line, by the way.) nt

[RegieRocker]

10. I wished it were so but alas I can only dream/

[MineralMan]

14. A simple question: What process would lead to this?

If you can answer that, you have a plan. If you cannot, you do not.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. The only thing I would add

is public financing of elections. If we get the money out of elections that would go a long way towards electing PEOPLE instead of millionaires.

Good plan. I don't disagree with any of it.

[SDuderstadt]

16. That is not a plan...

it's just a bunch of unrealistic, disjointed goals.

[cali]

18. not to mention tyrannical goals.

[socialist_n_TN]

19. Like the capitalist system is not tyrannical

Money controls our government and the ones with the most money have almost total control. Good luck getting anything accomplished for the people with that kind of dynamic going on.

Anyway, he said it was his "radical" solution.

[cali]

20. Of course it is. but I'd rather not replace one tyranny with another

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Well in order to fix it..........

the capitalists have to be marginalized. Otherwise, they'll just keep on doing what they do, buying elections and influence. And since they've got most of the wealth (and are working hard to get the REST of it) how do you propose to marginalize their influence?

Since I'm a Marxist (albeit a heretical one), I vote dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course, MY version of the proletariate includes anybody who's NOT one of the wealthy capitalists.

[cali]

27. Glad to answer that. Publicly funded elections

take the money out of the process completely. now that's not going to be easy and it's not going to happen overnight, and we've had some serious setbacks lately, but that's the only way I can see to achieve a fair system. And it makes lobbying much more about petitioning the government rather than buying off pols.

And I have no faith in the so called proletariat- and btw you version of the proletariat is not an accurate one. You can't just decide that words mean what you want them too.

[socialist_n_TN]

29. I said I was a heretical Marxist......

And I agree with taking money out of the process entirely. I would also take away their influence in society. Because even if you take away their influence in politics, as long as they can DIRECTLY influence society, they can influence politics too.

The capitalist class needs to have the boot of the worker CONTINUOUSLY pressed on it's throat BARELY allowing it to breathe. THAT'S the only way I'll trust them, totally cowed and terrified.

[cali]

32. ugh. nope. not with you. I want all boots off all throats

look, I'm with the op on raising the tax rates on those who make over a million a year to 90%- or thereabout, but here's the thing, I don't think that the "worker"- whoever that may be- is inherently any more noble than the capitalist. In fact, I believe that most workers if they had the bucks, would be no fucking different than most capitalists now. And I don't believe all business owners are "bad". And who is the capitalist class in your book?

[white_wolf]

33. If the workers can run the company democratically

as a co-op and vote for their managers,control what decisions are made, vote for their floor managers and CEOs if needed, than how is that tyranny? It seems like liberation to me.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Of course it would to someone with no...

practical business experience.

[cali]

37. not too many sterling examples of such.

human nature doesn't vary from class to class. Workers are no less subject to corruption once they have power than anyone else.

[white_wolf]

40. Human nature?

There is no "human nature." What we think of as human nature is a product of our environment. Hell,if anything capitalist greed is against human nature since mankind evolved to survive in groups and work together.

[cali]

44. codswallop. it's not nature v nurture. it's nature and nurture.

you're revealing a lack of knowledge here. oh, and greed is very much a part of human nature. When did it develop? very early on in human history.

[upi402]

62. Some DLC DCCC "Democrat" values are showing!

If you don't know who 'the worker' is... you have a lot of catching up to do. Or you are being specious.

[cali]

73. lol. what crapola

the op doesn't know who he's referencing when he uses the word worker/proletariat- he says it's everyone who's not a capitalist is a worker.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Good luck with that...

sounds perfectly dreamy.

[bluestate10]

91. You are wrong. Capitalism will be fixed when there are more capitalists

that have deeply ingrained human instincts toward their communities and employees of their companies. Instead of railing to tear everything down, why don't you push for building a system that mirror your values. The Left will get nowhere trying to seize businesses, you will have to eliminate people like me from the earth before you have the remote-test prayer of success. The Left is better served working with like minded moderates to fix problems that exist with capitalism and income taxation in the US.

[bluestate10]

93. Have you ever sat among people of equal power and tried to decide where to go for dinner?

So you think an even larger number of equals can run a company, or a town, or a region, or a state, or the nation? The reason why the ideas of the extreme left get bashed, even by politically sympathetic liberals and moderates, is those ideas are caustically simplistic and impossible to achieve.

[white_wolf]

30. How is it tyrannical?

Giving control to the workers and not CEOs seems like freedom to me. A lot of European countries have heavy nationalization. I guess you've bought into the Right-wing myth that capitalism=freedom.

[cali]

36. actually, there is no European country with the type of nationalization

that you're suggesting in your op. And I believe in a mixed economy with some industry nationalized- energy extraction, for one. And why should the workers own a business that someone built with their own ideas and initiative and labor? That's not to say that employees aren't a vital part of it and those employees should be compensated fairly for their labor. I know too many small business owners who have worked their asses off and put it all on the line to believe that. I'm going to give you links and ask you which of these companies should be turned over to be controlled by the workers and why. These are local businesses in the area where I live.

http://www.highmowingseeds.com/

http://www.jasperhillfarm.com/

http://www.petesgreens.com/

http://www.vermontsoy.com/index.html

http://www.seventhgeneration.com/about

[white_wolf]

39. I don't really have too much of a problem with small businesses, but what about these examples

Wal-mart,Target,Food-City,Microsoft,Nike,fast food in general, and so many other large corporations. The CEOs didn't build those companies and they don't work hard, that is a right-wing myth. The CEOs and major shareholders are the real parasites, leeching off the labor of the workers.

[cali]

43. so once a business reaches a certain size, it should be seized

and handed over to the workers? How does that work? What size? You say you don't have "too much of a problem with small businesses, implying that you have some problems with small business ownership, what are they?

And some CEOs do indeed work hard. It's absurd to make such a blanket statement. And yes, some CEOs absolutely built their companies- Nike is actually an example of that. So is Ben and Jerry's- now not owned by them. And no, all shareholders are not parasites. Tens of millions of Americans are shareholders through IRAs. Surely you're not saying they're all parasites.

Look, I don't know what the answer is re Wal-Mart. I have a strong dislike of the company, its practices and its owners. More effective anti-trust might be a place to start. Same with microsoft. As for fast food, I think most are franchises.

[bluestate10]

97. Wrong again.

Sam Walton started Walmart as a country store after he returned from was as a soldier and needed work. Bill Gates started Microsoft with a couple of other people, three sole risk takers. The CEO of Nike started the company by molding rubber shoe bottoms in homemade contraptions and sewing on the tops. Have those companies become bastardized? Yes, they have. But the way to fix that is to start competitor adhere to the fundamental principles that each of the founders of the companies listed had when they were struggling nobodies. A well rounded modern capitalist realize that he or she are one part of a larger whole, with responsibilities to society and employees.

[upi402]

63. Much of our former party has bought the line

Lost the plot.

[cali]

81. I just actually think and come to my own conclusions rooted

in a synthesis of history, psychology and the facts on the ground. try it sometime instead of just spewing stale canned rhetoric.

[bluestate10]

98. I am stunned how the people that correctly rail red faced that trickle down

theory is bullshit that failed long ago, cling to the notion that businesses that owners worked and sacrificed long and hard to develop should be taken away and that workers would be better off. The near child-like innocent and total detachment from reality required to buy into such a concept is a wonder to behold.

[upi402]

100. a Little balance restored, that's all

i sure do understand what you're talking about and agree 100%

but even reagan's george Schultz said that unions are necessary to balance power in capitalism.

that was another day. he'd be pilloried in this party now for that

[upi402]

117. fail

clueless

[bluestate10]

94. You are dead wrong. Many european countries have social democracies.

A state which the ideas and urges of the left will make impossible to get to in the US.

[Cleita]

55. Yes, we can't have any of that socialist tyranny,

which our species is genetically wired for. :-(

[cali]

104. good grief what claptrap. you're actually claiming we're genetically wired

for a political system? ack. Not into science, are you? And no, I don't want to replace the tyranny of capitalism run amok with the idiot fucking tyranny that the op is proposing- which btw, is not socialist, it's much closer to trotskyism.

[white_wolf]

108. Trotskyism is a type of communism which is a type of socialism.

[Cleita]

114. Apparently, you don't read any papers in

anthropology which say the opposite. Before you declare any claptrap do some research.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

17. the post of a very young person

and some very, very bad ideas in amidst a couple of good ones.

[socialist_n_TN]

21. Geez, HOW condescending..........

I'm NOT a young person and I agree with it.

If ideas like this are not out there then you have what we've had since Reagan, compromises between the right and the batshit crazy right. Which leads to EXTREMELY popular, moderate ideas (taxing the rich, keeping Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Securtiy off the chopping block, cutting the DoD, etc.) being marginalized as EXTREME left wing ideas and taken off the table immediately or not even put ON the table. EVEN THOUGH THOSE IDEAS ARE POPULAR WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION.

Fucking "moderates" talk a good game, but when it comes to supporting things that might actually GET moderate position enacted, you claim it's impossible and not worth support. What's worse, you claim that we might as well not even TALK about it BECAUSE they're impossible. That leads the discussion farther and farther rightwards.

How far will you take it? A "pragmatic moderate" would ban discussion about these types of positions as a "compromise" with the fascists who would want to ARREST anybody who discusses it.

[SDuderstadt]

22. The last part of your post is...

merely one strawman argument after another strung together.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[socialist_n_TN]

25. Ideas like the OP have long been put out there......

By who? On the DU message board? I can agree with you there. But in the general political discussion? So where, outside of DU and like sites, is the discussion of the Progressive Congressional Caucus budget?

BTW, I didn't make a judgement about you personally. I said "moderates". I didn't say you were a moderate, although I thought your condescending reply seemed to imply that. No you didn't say we shouldn't talk about it. You just implied that they were immature ideas that could only be believed by naive young and inexperienced people. So you didn't say we SHOULDN'T discuss it, you just implied that it wasn't WORTH discussing. However, by all means believe what you will.

I'm nearly 60 years old and just because I don't expect to see socialism in my lifetime, doesn't mean that I can't still BELIEVE in socialism philosophically.

As to being a liberal, I remember what SDS said about liberals. As I recall it went something like this:

The fascists will shoot you.
The conservatives will cheer them on.
The moderates will watch your execution on TV.
And the liberals will cry over your grave. In the dark when no one can see them.

[bluestate10]

99. nt.

:D

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Good start. I would add the following: fully-paid maternity\paternity leave for

the first two years of a child's life with guarantee of right to return to same or similar position. Full government funding of child day care from age 2-5. (My two measures would unlock a lot of potential that is currently being stunted for lack of vision.)

[white_wolf]

31. Good idea.

This hits on something I've noticed a lot. Conservatives love to talk about how family is breaking down because woman aren't staying home with the kids, first of all, why does it have to be the mother, can't the father stay home? Secondly it is kind of hard to be able to stay home with your child if both parents have to work to make ends meet, Typical Right wing,find a problem, but offer no solution to it.

[coalition_unwilling]

38. Conservatives are reprehensible and hypocritical on all

matters relating to children, starting with being pro-life and anti-abortion but only until the children are out of the womb, at which point the children can sink or swim (and "let God sort it out," according to Conservative dogma).

Conservatives should not even have a seat at the table to discuss these issues, as they don't really care about children except insofar as they provide a lever by which to control (mostly poor) women.

The point is that raising children is at least as important to a society's health as running a bank or a hedge fund and thus should be treated like a job with full compensation and without any ill effects to the parent who takes that job for the first two all-important years of a child's early development.

I'll bet killing just one B1 Stealth bomber could pay for both of my proposals. If more money is needed, kill a second B1 Stealth bomber. I mean, really, how many B1 Stealth bombers does an advanced capitalist-imperialist society really need? :)

[white_wolf]

41. You think the stealth bombers are bad?

I heard on the news(I think it was Rachel Maddow) That we have a fleet of F-22 fighter and they have never once been used in combat, they are just sitting there.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Please document that n/t

[white_wolf]

46. Here is a link showing they have never been used:

http://www.slate.com/id/2212034/

[SDuderstadt]

50. You're leaving a little bit out there...

and they have been "used" (for example, in the intercept of Russian aircraft), despite your claim.

[Cleita]

45. Your ideas are much like mine and should be

considered an ultimate goal. However, getting it to happen will take steps. The first step I would take is to change the national philosophy of our citizens from the model of fierce competition for money and power, that we now have, to one of cooperativeness and a communal approach to life, much like a tribal society would function. The tribe may have a leader or chief but the council of members make the decisions. All food production and other endeavors are shared. The able bodied who produce most of the food and goods during their productive years, make sure the children, elderly and disabled among them share in the bounty equally.

[white_wolf]

47. It would be a long process, sure, but it could be done.

First we need a few basic reforms to our political system. 1. proportional representation. 2. A ban on all private money in elections. 3. Eisenhower tax rates for the wealthy 3. A maximum wage law, I think 200 times the lowest paid employee in a company.

[Cleita]

49. Unfortunately, your basic reforms will be a Herculean

task and we will need a hero for a leader to inspire the people to do so. So far I'm not seeing anyone on the horizon up to the task.

[SDuderstadt]

51. We already have proportional representation in...

the House. The Senate was designed to be a check and balance on the House.

Checks and balances are hallmarks of our political system and are not going away soon.

[white_wolf]

52. Nice job on having no clue what proportional representation is.

We do not have proportional representation in the House, we have it based on population,but our electoral system is still First-Past-The-Post. Proportional representation is where a party gets seated based on the % of votes it gets in elections. If a party gets 5% of the vote than it gets to 5% of the seats in the legislate. So next time, actually have a clue what you are talking about before you say stuff.

[SDuderstadt]

54. I do have a clue...

Sometimes phrases have multiple meanings. Your lack of clarity is no one's fault but your own.

If you meant party-proportional representation, you should have simply said so, rather than leave it to the reader to try to figure out what you meant, dude.

[white_wolf]

58. No, your ignorance is no one's fault but your own.

Oh, I just checked Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com, neither hold your view. Just because you don't know what a word means, that doesn't give you the right to redefine it. Just admit you are wrong and move on.

[SDuderstadt]

61. You've got to be kidding....

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

Be more precise next time.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

57. Apparently the design is flawed. We

need at the very least proportional or a parliamentarian House of Representatives, or even better yet, a true democracy where every citizen spends two years of their lives in the House just like doing jury duty. There would be no need for elections and bribery by lobbyist then.

[SDuderstadt]

65. The House has 435 members...

The U.S. has 300 million people. Do the math.

It's a monumentally bad idea.

[Cleita]

67. You love those straw men to make the conversation

into something it isn't, don't you.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Show me the strawman...

it was YOUR idea that all citizens serve a two year house term. I am asking how that's even possible.

[Cleita]

77. It's possible because people will be picked by

lottery to represent their district just like jury duty. Considering that terms are two years and the average lifetime of a person is 75 years, the odds improve of being selected as you get older. Sure many will never be picked, just like for jury duty many are never picked. Many may be excused because they are needed by family or many of the various reasons people can beg off of jury duty. But the randomness of the selection insures that all political positions will be represented in the House when it convenes and when the citizen has done his duty, he goes home. There will be new representatives in the next session and that would prevent the likes of a Newt Gingrich or John Boehner making a career out of passing our favors and earmarks to their bribers.

Oh, your question about the straw man? You made me explain something that wasn't part of the original discussion, thereby derailing it off on to another tangent. Not very nice of you.

[SDuderstadt]

82. People will be picked by lottery to serve in the House?

Another monumentally bad idea.

And, you still don't know what a strawman argument is.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

87. You don't know what it is or you wouldn't use it or

those red herrings you throw out all the time.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Then point to any strawman argument...

I have made, or any red herring, for that matter.

Take your time.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

68. that's just bizarre

and a horrendous idea. yikes.

[Cleita]

86. So I guess it's preferable to have a House of

Representatives that represent global interests and evangelical churches and who are taking bribes from lobbyists the minute they take office. Your choice and no doubt you will reap what you sow.

[cali]

105. uh, no. did I say that? No, of course not. thanks for your lovely example of

a crudely constructed strawman, dear.

It's not either/or- except in limited little minds. duh.


damn. see my tag line.

Oh, and how the fuck do you think it would work, having hundreds of millions of people all serving 2 years in the House.

Not big on math either, are you.

beyond absurd.

[Cleita]

113. Because hundreds of millions would not serve anymore

than they do today. There also would not be hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars spent on candidates to run for office. However, the selection that would serve would be picked randomly making a better sampling to represent the real people of a district. No math is needed. Also, there are the myriad of smaller governments in states, counties and municipalities who could use a body of ordinary citizens to serve the interests of the rest, so that exponentially increases the chances of serving. So you see, if you had thought this out before jumping to conclusions and calling my ideas absurd, it's very workable.

Any way you have always been a negative person. I'm not trying to call you on this. It just comes through on your posts, many of which are very informative and I appreciate that in you. It's probably your personality and your nature and there is nothing wrong with it. It just must be very hard for you to face each day with all the obstacles you must set in your way every day. Just try thinking of a better world for a change. It's very uplifting.

[cali]

56. want to bet on that?

no way it's going to happen. first of all, you'd have to change the flippin' constitution is order to institute proportional representation. That's a near impossibility right there. Look, I know it's a lot easier to propose pie in the sky stuff than to actually get your ass in gear and work LOCALLY which is where change really begins.

what you are proposing is wholly unrealistic and we've got urgent REAL things we need to focus on- like saving Medicare and Social Security and getting rid of the teabaggers in state legislatures.

As Pema Chodron says:

Start where you are.

[Cleita]

59. Well, I guess if we can't dream, we can't get it done.

If our founding fathers had the same dour and sour view of the possible, we would still be a British colony, or maybe Canadian, which now that I think about it, isn't the worst thing in the world.

[cali]

64. not so. the founding fathers were, by and large, exceedingly hard headed

and practical men. Reality may be unpleasant but there is no way that what the op is proposing will come to be without the near complete collapse of our society. not to mention that this isn't 1776 and the world is a far more complex place.

[Cleita]

70. They had a plan for an outcome and they may not

have practiced it in their lifetimes, but they had a plan for an equal and democratic America, not the fascist/corporate state we have now, to result from their plan. I agree with the complexity of the world today, which is why I have advocated for another Constitutional convention to update the document. If I remember correctly you thought that was a bad idea too.

[cali]

74. no they didn't. they had a plan for white men of property.

[Cleita]

83. Yes, they did but some of their writings indicated

that they expected it to cover more and more citizens as time went on. The flaw was is that they had no way of seeing where industry and technology would go. Their vision was for a rural America. Their blue print for the Constitution and Bill of Rights was taken from the Iroquois League.

[cali]

90. please link to those writings.

there's very little that indicates that the founding fathers had the intent to include women as full citizens. and their blue print for the Constitution and the bill of rights was the Enlightenment as well as the influence of the Iroquois League.

[Cleita]

95. I really don't have time to do that. You have Google.

Find them yourself. Thom Hartmann reads a lot of stuff about the intent of the founding fathers from their writings on his show and that's where I heard much of it. I hope you listen to him and he has your Senator Bernie Sanders on for an hour on Friday mornings who also explains a lot of this as well.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

102. sorry, no. there's very little written by those men that

supports your claims. Not even in John Adams letters to Abigail. The historical record does not contain writings that demonstrate that the founding fathers placed much importance on the rights of anyone but those like themselves.

[white_wolf]

103. The writings of Thomas Paine are very radical

and he supported woman, hell in Agrarian Justice he questions the whole premise of private property.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Dude...

Thomas Paine was not one of the Founders and did not sign either the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution.

Take an American History class.

[white_wolf]

107. Wow. So Thomas Paine isn't considered a founding father now?

That statement is so easy to disprove: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine It calls him a Founding Father and since you linked to Wikipedia in another part of this thread, you should have no trouble accepting it. Oh, and my professor has referred to Paine as a Founding Father, do you suddenly know more than someone who holds a PhD?

[SDuderstadt]

109. Dude...

Did Paine sign either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?

Hint: no.

As far as the Ph.D. angle, Jerome Corsi has one. Does that make what he writes true?

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

101. And the best way to do that is start on a community level and build up. nt

[Dappleganger]

48. Once again, you'd have my vote!

The only things I would add would be a nation-wide ban on lobbying, as well as turning NASA and all of their resources into a giant energy-solutions think-tank to completely transform our energy requirement needs.

[Zorra]

53. Some great ideas.

Did you plagiarize something I wrote a long time ago?;-)

(I know you didn't; but I'm sure I wrote it almost word for word probably more than once a long time ago)

IMO, the only way we can bring about something like this is through direct action. Most likely action sparked at the right time and place after many more repeated insults and injustices by the plutarchs until even moderates wake up and refuse to take it anymore.

Ain't no way in Peoria that the plutarchs would let anything like this happen through the political process.

And after this occurs, we have another big problem: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Robespierres, Stalins, and Hamiltons abound, and they are ruthless, and destructive to a fledgling democracy.

Not negating your OP, I am sure that you are aware of the ramifications of and problems in instituting a socialist government.

I kind of like how Chavez works, but Venezuela is a much different world than the US.

[Cleita]

60. These ideas have been around since we sat around

a campfire eating the mammoth brought down by a cooperative hunting party, who then brought the meat back to camp for everyone in the tribe to share. Civilization gave us a class society of haves and have nots. We need to adapt our original way of doing things cooperatively into our civilization.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

75. Or, far more recently, eating buffalo. Agreed once again, Cleita.

How we get back there is a real problem.

[white_wolf]

71. We would have to be very careful of men like the ones you mentioned.

I too, am watching Chavez with interest. Things in Venezuela were a lot worse before he came along, than even the U.S is now. I hope we don't have to get to that point before we realize we need to change things, but it may have to come to that. As for watching the watchers, the movement must be democratic in all aspects. The leaders must be held accountable and corruption can't be tolerated, if they show signs of lust for power, they must be voted recalled immediately. This is where I break with Leninist theory, I do not trust at all the idea of a Vanguard, when you give power to a small group, that group turns into one man, a dictator. Trotsky summed up my fears well: "In inner-party politics, these methods lead, as we shall yet see, to this: the party organization substitutes itself for the party, the central committee substitutes itself for the organization, and, finally, a ''dictator'' substitutes himself for the central committee."

[Zorra]

78. Yep. That's what I'm talkin' about. And Chavez,

that awful dangerous socialist, just got

Venezuela to Use Oil Revenues in Socio-Economic Investments

Caracas - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced an executive decree for increasing the socio-economic investments from the current high prices of oil, which exceed $100 USD per barrel.

It is about a special contribution to the internal revenue due to the exorbitant price of the hydrocarbons, said the president in an interview with Venezolana de Television on Thursday evening.

According to Chavez, the law establishes an additional contribution to the National Development Fund (Fonden) when the cost of oil exceeds 70 USD per barrel.

If the price of a barrel of oil is between 70 and 90 USD, the contribution will be 80 percent, which will reach 90 percent if the price is over $90 UDS and less than $100 USD, Chavez noted.

http://www.insidecostarica.com/dailynews/2011/april/23/latinamerica11042301.htm

Maybe our President will do the same sometime soon!

Or not.
:(

[white_wolf]

79. Well, if the Right is going to call him a socialist or communist

he might as well act like it.

[Cleita]

85. I lived in South America and what Chavez is doing is

to break the grip the North Americans and British have on the economies of South America, which is why he is so hated by the Americans and by the rich upper classes of Venezuela, who up until him, have controlled all the oil, money and other resources there. I don't always care for his methods but iconoclasts often are flawed characters. Socialism and communism in South America has always appealed to the working classes there, so any leader who needs them for his base and support will always go there.

[Zorra]

115. It appears that he has considerably improved

many basic conditions for many Venezuelans.

And, IMO, in today's neoliberal globalist economic world, any leader determined to maintain national sovereignty for his country has to take semi-authoritarian steps in certain areas in order to keep foreign economic exploiters from planting and fomenting outside dissent with their wealth, in order to topple the government and establish or re-establish control of that country in order to exploit and profit from that country's resources and subjugate the populace for their own purposes.

Nobody's perfect; hopefully Chavez will continue to be at least a reasonably good leader for Venezuela.

[Cleita]

116. He is and many of these countries are mainly

made up of indigenous peoples, who have been downtrodden by the European conquerors and exploited by them. They are used to the concept of a strong leader who takes care of him. I admire Chavez for getting the job done even if it's not to the liking of the would be USA oil overlords. I believe this is why he was friendly with Ghaddafi because he too tried to keep the global oil cartels we are involved with from taking Libyan oil. The difference is that Ghaddafi is not interested in the welfare of his people like Chavez is and I hope he rethinks this friendship.

[bluestate10]

80. As usual.

I like most of these ideas from you;

"The top tax bracket shall be at 90% for those making over a million dollars in profits a year. There shall be a 100% tariff on all goods produced outside our borders. Education shall be fully state funded for all people in this country. We should also pass the Dream Act to provide a path to citizenship for all undocumented workers. We shall cut the military budget by at least 50% and end all the foreign wars and close our oversea bases."

I can live with all of them and think each would do a world of good toward building an economically stable, just society.

I don't like your idea of nationalization at all. That has been tried before in europe, south america, russia. All instances failed and the countries involved rushed back to privately owned business. I know that some on DU hate the term, but business is better run by informed capitalists that understand and value their role as a part of an integrated society. I wish that more progressives would take risks and start businesses to provide services like health insurance, green energy development and sales and environmental clean up services. But if DU is any gauge, that won't happen, the desire of progressives is to forcefully take in response to perceived wrongs. There certainly are wrongs in modern capitalism, but increasing the number of wrongs will not solve problems that everyday working men and women face.

[FormerDittoHead]

92. Here's my fix - BAN POLITICAL ADVERTING ON FCC-LICENSED STATIONS AND CABLE Co's.

TV and Radio stations account for THE VAST MAJORITY of campaign spending.

Having an FCC license is a PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT. Having a license makes one subject to any number of regulations, including what they can't advertise (cigarettes for starters).

Cable companies are regulated as well.

Eliminate the need for broadcast advertising, and you've eliminated a big chunk of a prospective candidate's need for BIG MONEY.

Provide some equal air-time for all balloted candidates.

Oh, and BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

[former9thward]

111. I notice you said the top tax bracket would be 90% of "profits".

Does this mean salary? Would actors.actresses/sports figures have 90% of their income taken? If not why not? Do you think they would continue if that happened?