This is the year of change in our political spectrum. At least that is the word that is used.
I am a skeptic and politicians use words to get elected, make empty promises they do not intend to keep, and leave those of us who have believed in them, disillusioned.
The main political parties are soon going to have their respective conventions and to help make change a reality I think I can come up with 30 ideas of change.
My criteria will be:
1) Will the implementation of the idea cause or create a climate of positive change for our country. At least my idea of positive change, open for discussion?
2) Will the idea help or benefit the majority of the people in the USA. Is the idea good for the country?
Because the Republicans are so far to the right and the Democrats are so far to the left my ideas will not please everyone. But if everyone can look at the idea and determine if the idea benefits the majority of the people then political dogma needs to be left at the door.
Remember CHANGE is the buzzword and to change at some point compromise is needed. Maybe political compromise will be the first idea.
So the questions that will need to be asked are:
1) Is the idea feasible?
2) Is the idea a change or will promote a change?
3) Can the idea be made better?
4) Will the idea help the country for the long term?
12 comments:
I'm still a strong Democrat, despite recent disillusionments, because the ideas that past Dem presidents (and Dem-controlled Congresses) implemented made a positive difference in the lives of the majority of the people. Unlike republicans.
One need only hold FDR up as an example of a Dem president in positive action. (But, to be fair, WWII speeded up his progress.) Yet few people know that Truman almost single-handedly tackled WWII war-profiteering by corporations while he was in Congress.
Except for Nixon's EPA, I challenge anyone to name a bill or program pushed by the GOP that helped all or most of us -- rather than the few that don't need Congress's help.
So I look forward to seeing new ideas that can bring positive change. And Mr.Obama had better deliver! Otherwise, we could have yet another one-term Dem...
My suggestion: pry health care from the greedy hands of for-profit insurance companies.
Another: Make medical are a basic human right, available to everyone. Let no one die because they couldn't afford care.
Another: Begin a debate on population. Procreation is not a guaranteed right -- merely a vain and selfish choice.
I suggest that Mr.Obama appoint Al Gore to a newly-created cabinet post (Environment?).
And put Howard Dean at Health & Human Services. While governor of Vermont, he had some (wildly!) innovative ideas about quality healthcare (after all, if the republicans hated them, how could they be bad?).
I'll check back later. (And thanks for opening this up for debate!)
Ooops! I forgot the one thing that will facilitate the rest: break up the media consolidation. Let's pull Rupert Murdoch's teeth and repeal Bill Clinton's odious "Media Reform".
Caveat emptor: If a republican says "reform", they only mean "destroy, subvert or deconstruct".
Every. Single. Time.
The Democratic Party is not nearly as far to the left as they should be. Sure, there are liberal elements, but we'll never see them make it to the nomination. The Republicans keep moving right and the Democrats follow their lead. Disappointing to say the least.
I have voted Democratic, Republican and Independent. I may have voted for Mickey Mouse once, but I vote every single time.
The Republicans have entrenched themselves in so many conservative wedge issues, that the Democrats have taken similar stands on other issues.
Compromise and debate does not take place, Man Coulter is an example of the name calling that is what is happening.
Some trolls, neocons start each sentence with the Liberal, Communist, Socialist Hippie etc etc before a point is even made. So how can debate/discussion take place?
Change? This change is not what we need.
If a republican says "reform", they only mean "destroy, subvert or deconstruct".
The word "reform" can be replaced with "bring democracy" and mean the same thing to a republican.
For me, it seems that the word "change" that is being thrown around so loosely means "I change my mind"...like Obama being a supporter of Palestine for so long, even going to speak at Palestinian events, etc. and then now taking such a pro-Israel stance and for both parties this should be a concern because where does he stand on this, really?
His "godliness" concerns me, too. If he is being real and not just saying these things to get elected, then he is no different than a fundie for not keeping his faith to himself. But then at the same time he says he supports religious freedom for believers and non-believers, alike. But then he states strongly that faith plays a big role in the running of our government and he talks to Jeebus every day. So, for me it seems like status quo and he isn't going to change anything and is as big of a flip-flopper as any of them. So, we are taking a chance and after watching him over the past several years since before he became senator, he changes positions with the wind.
However, with McSame, we know for certain we will get more of the same and that definitely is NOT what we want.
Star, exactly so. We are left with only two choices: Obama or McClown. And we are truly fucked if JM is elected.
Now, let's revisit the oxymoronic "corporate responsibility". Some time back, I read an excellent essay on corporate taxes. Basically, the premise is: Raise CorpTax to 40%, close all loopholes and deductions, and aggressively prosecute tax deadbeats. Then give them tax incentives to act responsibly, such as treating labor with respect, in their paychecks and working condition, and acknowedging the obvious: a worker is more than just a strong back -- s/he is human and has a family whose needs must be met to an extent that s/he isn't overstressed. Such as being aware and proactive on environmental issues. Such as providing mechanisms for workers to advance through educational and professional experience. (Personally, I'd insist that CEOs narrow the pay gap, which in the 1950s was 10:1 but is now approaching 500:1!)
In other words: being ethical and inclusive.
Any thoughts?
It is a global economy. If you cannot justify CEO money how can you justify our wages as compared to others that make less than a $1 per day?
If you cannot justify CEO money how can you justify our wages as compared to others that make less than a $1 per day?
In comparison to the money CEOs make, we make peanuts.
Yes, I can justify the difference. That's progress.
But instead of keeping whole continents poor, we should be pushing for equity. As of now, we just exploit the gap and call it "free trade", not fair-trade.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it seem to you that the Conservatives *snark* want to keep Africa impoverished, over-populated, uneducated, and decimated by AIDS? Does that serve their purposes well? That's what I think.
Of course, my hubby says that OUR economy will collapse if there was true global parity. That if we were all earning well but paying higher prices (that WalMart et.al have kept artificially low), we'd all be broke. That our built-in product obsolescence would choke us to death. (He thinks in glooms-day scenarios that are grimmer than mine!)
OOC, what do think could be done with the money that the FatCats are getting -- but don't deserve?
And how much money is too much? To them, it's just monopoly money; to us, money is real. And getting scarcer.
Let me make my last point with a quote from Welcome to Potterville blog:
Did you know that 15 of the worst CEO’s, meaning those who’d been forcibly “retired” by the companies they’d failed, bailed out with a grand total of $1,022,000,000 in executive compensation this year? And that almost half of that money accounted for just the three biggest golden parachutes? That was CNBC’s finding after SEC disclosures about 2007’s 15 highest CEO buyouts.
Not only are these upholstered ticks and leeches handsomely rewarded for doing their level-headed best to tank the companies they were lured into taking over, they’re even spared the indignity of having their bloated compensation packages uncharitably labeled as “severance pay” because that would suggest that they were shitcanned and we can’t have that, now can we?
I’m sure that the tens of millions of people who will lose their unheated homes in the coming years will at least be comforted by the distinction that Home Depot’s former CEO’s $209,000,000 golden parachute wasn’t actually severance pay at all but an illogical, unjustified executive compensation for wreaking financial terrorism on an amazingly naïve corporation.
'Nuff said...
Naomi:
Companies are in business to make profits. If the CEO's make less then there would be more profits. More profits could mean better benefits or wages for the workers. Could also mean more money for the shareholders.
I learned in a physics class many years ago that if everyone in the world had our level of living there would not be enough resources to do that.
Could that be why everything is going up? The old supply and Demand economics curve.
After my husband made his points, I got to thinking "what system should replace capitalism?" And "what will our lives be like?"
I drifted into a socialist mindset for a coupla minutes. But after a nap, I was back to normal...
OOC, I have no earthy idea what's coming. And at my age, I won't ever see it. I say we let the youngsters pick out the world they want -- it'll be where they have to live, when all is said and done.
Post a Comment