HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » SusanCalvin » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

SusanCalvin

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jan 28, 2014, 12:49 PM
Number of posts: 6,592

Journal Archives

I have formulated an opinion about the TPP

I think President Obama has been convinced, or threatened, that the world economy will crash without it. And that that must be kept secret from us peons, or the mere rumor will crash it.

I don't think he is a bad man. As a matter of fact, I'd like to hug his neck and thank him for a number of things.

One thing I do know - corporations have too much power.

I am sorry that she was bullied while she was overweight,

But I don't see how this reaction to that is useful.

If it's for her vanity or whatever, that's her right, but I have my right to my opinion of it.

Edited to add that I grew up in the Kennedy fitness years and loathed the coercion aspect. It's why I hate most exercise to this day, and get my back up at the mere implication of "jock."

Thoughts regarding "middle America"

Surprising numbers of white working-class voters will support the Democratic agendaóif Democrats promise to reform the government that would carry it out.


Another good idea from Washington Monthly - actually, I think this idea would work for everybody!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2015/features/the_average_joes_proviso055824.php?page=all

These voters, as we shall see, are open to an expansive Democratic economic agendaóto more benefits for child care and higher education, to tax hikes on the wealthy, to investment in infrastructure spending, and to economic policies that lead employers to boost salaries for middle- and working-class Americans, especially women. Yet they are only ready to listen when they think that Democrats understand their deeply held belief that politics has been corrupted and government has failed. Championing reform of government and the political process is the price of admission with these voters. These white working-class and downscale voters are acutely conscious of the growing role of big money in politics and of a government that works for the 1 percent, not them.


These findings came out of innovative research conducted in partnership with Page Gardnerís Womenís Voices Women Vote Action Fund and David Donnellyís Every Voice.

In recent years, too many Democrats have presumed that the white working class is out of the partyís reach and that talk of reforming government and the political process simply does not move voters. My contention is that both of those presumptions are wrong. An agenda of reform is the key to Democrats winning the greater share of white working-class and unmarried women votes that will give the party the majorities it needs to govern.

A new campaign finance idea - I like it.

Rep. John Sarbanes (not *that* Sarbanes - that's his father), D-Maryland.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2015/ten_miles_square/the_monthly_interview_john_sar055931.php?page=all

I wasn't able to get all the details into four paragraphs, although I tried my best - please, go read the whole thing!

Among other things, he tells the story (not excerpted here) of how he tried something similar on his own hook two cycles ago, and how that worked out.

The bill is designed to shift the attention of candidates away from big money and toward everyday citizens and small donors. In order to do that, you have to be able to generate enough funding from small donors that itís actually worthwhile for a candidate to turn away from PACs, big-money donors, and special interests.


Right now the small donor cannot be heard by the candidate. The signal is not strong enough. In fact, if you looked at a map of the United States, you would see coverage coming out of the Manhattans of the world and the Marin Counties of the world, but there would be whole parts of the country that would be completely dark, which is where a lot of America lives but canít be heard. Give them a tax credit, bring a six-to-one match of public dollars in behind it, and now when they call the candidate and say, ďCan you hear me?Ē the candidate says, ďNot only can I hear you, stay where you are and Iíll be there in the next twenty minutes.Ē


Itís not about limiting speech. Itís about adding speech for people who donít have it. The limiting, if itís done, is done voluntarily by a candidate in order to qualify for the public funding option, but nothing is being imposed on anybody. A candidate can choose to raise money in the current system. We give them an option of someplace else to turn.


But thereís no overall expenditure cap for the candidate. You can still continue to raise private dollars as long as you stay under the $1,000-per-donor limit. In that respect itís different from a lot of the state and local analogs to this bill, which limit your expenditures if you get public financing. We realize that if we imposed that kind of regime on members of Congress, none of them would participate, because if you have the prospect of outside money coming at you, you canít tie your hands with an expenditure cap.




DNC using Bernie (again)

Clicked on the MJ article link from here about the homeschool "how your abuse can benefit you" checklist. (Disgusting, BTW.)

What popped up but a DNC ad - are you ready to vote for a real progressive like Bernie or Hillary? With mug shots.

My middle finger reflex was activated. I almost dropped the Kindle. (Wouldn't have seen the ad on my laptop.)

Yeah, they're supposed to support all Democrats. Yeah, I'm convinced they lean toward corporate Democrats. So sue me.

Hillary? "Real progressive"? Riiiiiiiiiight......
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19