Will Obama or Hillary give any signal at any time that they agree with any of this?

[papau]

Insanity is often defined as repeating past actions over and over and expecting different results. So the employment based pension system and health care system is collapsing as employers take advantage of the media's 50 year dump on union's success in killing much of the union power to control corporations in this country, and are moving to make their workers fund their own health care via HSA accounts and to fund the majority of their own pension 401k benefits.

Perhaps it is time for change. Perhaps it is time to move from an income tax where the rich buy themselves academics to justify not taxing the 90% of their income that is investment income, and move to funding fund government via a world-wide asset taxon those owning US assets or doing business in the US, with offsets for foriegn asset taxes paid on foriegn assets. Perhaps it is time to mandate health care via a pay-or-play health insurance system where employers can cover their own employees in private plans or pay taxes into an expanded version of Medicare that will cover everyone else, an idea that seems likely to be pushed in the next January unvieling of the EPI's report on a suggested economic policy for the Democrats. Indeed the likely suggestion by EPI to move to a retirement system in which employers can either offer their employees real - not cash balance - defined benefit final salary pensions or pay into a system administered by Social Security might be a better solution to the corporations newly found desire to end defined benefit plans for their employees to save money for larger CEO pay packages. Perhaps all our trade treaties should be rewritten, kissing the corporate approved WTO good buy, to include tight enforceable labor standards so jobs are more likely to stay in the United States

The rich have used and continue to use our infrastructure paid for via middle class taxes and under-priced labor, from schools to law to defense to roads, to create their wealth while they push public policies supported by a media tthat hey solely control. The result has been that the super rich now take and keep more and more of the economic pie. Right wing billionaire interference in the body politic via chicanery has varied from Murdoch making Fox Cable News the voice of the RNC and Richard Mellon Scaife funding liars so as to keep constant fake scandals going during the Clinton years, all to be cleared later by the special procecutor, until they could get a peak at his sex life, - - to Howard Ahmanson taking time off from his crusade to get a death penalty passed for being gay, and funding one (ES&S) of the two electronic voting companies (The other is Diebold, Inc whose CEO Walden O'Dell said he guaranteed Bush a win in Ohio in 04 and produced the winning votes that can't be verified). Those direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting systems that record votes by means of an electronic display machines that can never be audited, which now control the majority of our vote "counting", together with GOP voter suppression of non-GOP voters, are the reason most folks feel the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections were stolen by the GOP. Perhaps we should nor feel too much sympathy for these super rich after all since they got the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts. Perhaps in the next go round we should target them for higher taxes and their corporations for mandated pension and health costs.

As Hillary Clinton has said: "The Rich Are Getting Richer, Everybody Else Is Marching In Place''

If the Democrats win Control of both Houses again and gain the Presidency, will our elected leaders have the spine to begin the deconstruction of the Corporate Welfare State, beginning with media monopolies and with a return to the Fairness Doctrine whose continuation Reagan veto'd in 87. Or will will our leaders expect us to be satisfied with minor reforms like a bit of re-regulation here and there? Will our leaders try to balance the budget without returning to the Clinton tax rates for those making over $100,000 a year? Will they tell us Social Security should continue to be funded by a limited to wage tax that is apllied to only the first $97,500 in 2007, so as to not hurt the rich. Will they reject the idea of funding Social Security via a tax rate on income (a tax rate applied to wages and investment with no cap, which even with the large income credits producing massive benefit checks to billionaires, would allow the "payroll" tax rate to drop 2 percentage points - a massive tax cut for the non-rich).

Are we a democracy where the people, respecting all the rights in the Constitution, can remove the "person status" of corporations under the law, to disallow certain corporate behavior, making the penalty for violation forfieture of all assets to the state? Can we make illegal the anti-social actions of the super-rich, and set the fines for those anti-social actions of the super rich at the massively large level required to stop such illegal anti-social behavior?

Will Obama or Hillary give any signal at any time that they agree with any of this?

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Obama draws on his organizer roots alot so, I'd think he is not big on corporations

Go to his website and read about it in the issues page. he addresses things like this.

[papau]

3. Well I read the issues page and researched the claims - and conclude there's little specific there

There is absolutely no economic program or medical program - the only focus seems to have been energy except for some very good, but very small, bills introduced with GOP sponsors brought on by including tax credits for business.

"Strengthening America Overseas" does not touch on trade - "just" foreign policy goals and the "Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation" that was passed that is only drips of State department aid to countries that put their small arms and light weapons where they are not susceptible to theft or illegal transfer. The program actually already existed and Obama's bill increase its funding from 6.5 million a year to 20 million a year.


"Plan to End the Iraq War" is the same as Hillary and indeed the rest of the party. Obama a few weeks ago - January 2007 - introduced a bill to commence redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 with a residual force remaining - just as in Hillary's, and many other's, proposal.


"Cleaning Up Washington's Culture of Corruption" has no specific legislative goals but does note that the Democratic Party Ethics legislation that was assembled by Senator Reid had in it provisions that Feingold/Obama pushed for: full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists; an end to subsidized travel on corporate jets; full disclosure of who is sponsoring earmarks; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying shops; and much tighter disclosure requirements for political contributions that lobbyists "bundle.", and that the Coburn/Obama “Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,” provides $3 million a year for 5 years to create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.


"Meeting America's Energy Needs" discusses the unpassed Obama-Lugar-Biden Fuel Economy Reform Act that mandates a 4% a year increase in fleet fuel economy, getting to the current Japanese already achieved 40 mpg level in perhaps 20 years. He also suggested paying the auto companies to invest in fuel eff. improvements via a subsidy for their health care costs. He also endorsed letting "market forces" direct alternative fuel development with his contribution being a law mandating a carbon content reduction in 2015 fuels. He endorsed the massively polluting coal conversion (now no longer featured on his site but "clean coal" is mentioned once), and helped pass a bill with Jim Talent that pushes tax credits for pumps to be deployed that can handle E85 gasoline and provides $40 million over 5 years for research to develop an alternative fuel hybrid (which was being demo'd a year before the bill - but he does call for "commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years". There are the unpassed Cochran/Obama mandated bio diesel use in 2015, the profit tax on oil companies that is a requirement they invest in installing E85 pumps, and Harkin/Lugar/Obama American Fuels Act that is Harkin's wet dream for corn sales - and which is mentioned separately on the web page despite it being a rehash of the other programs above with slightly different tax credits. Obama apparently sells tax credits to the GOP in order to get GOP support for alternative fuel legislation.


"Honoring Our Veterans" is about many real, albeit small, help that he initiated and got passed for the vets.


"Improving Our Schools" is Pell grants from $4050 to $5100, plus tiny but good programs like a 20 school district pilot that would reward innovation in teaching techniques with money.


"Creating a Healthcare System that Works" - there is absolutely no plan described - and if some of the above stuff was tiny foot steps, these are minuscule - and indeed most deal with little steps done before his being a Senator.


Then there is "Protecting Our Homeland" which he supports, and "Strengthening Families and Communities" which he supports, and "Protecting the Right to Vote" which he supports, and "Reconciling Faith and Politics" which he supports - supporting while usually noting the Federal Government can do little.

[OHdem10]

2. They should be obligated to do this.

Only a guess, I would wager Obama to be more favorable to these
ideas. I am guessing from what I can pick up about Obama, he does
not have a big obligation to Business at this time.

HRC , can fool me too. She has business support, including
Wall Street. That DLC. Perhaps she can do like her husband
and work her way around the DLC. If Bill had listened to the
DLc he would have lost the election.

Here is problem. DLCers are for the most part Conservative
Democrats.
Economic Conservatism by its very nature and design in pursuit
of Capitalism actually creates a small ruling class at the top
then the rest of us. An elitist society. Conservatives like
this including some at DLC who have voiced this. For example
they are happy with the way our voting system is, Essentially
the "likely voters " in polls. About the upper third(if that
many) on socieconomic ladder. The rich and most highly educated
group. Al From makes no bones about it . He likes it this way.

I have been arguing that one/half the country does not vote
and we should expand our base and solidify our holdings
in the Senate and House. DLC including Bill Clinton were
not thrilled about this idea. I saw this with my own eyes
on C-Span. After all most of the people who do not vote are
poor so they think. I disagree--a lot of people feel abandoned
by the Democrats and do not vote. Yes, they are educated and
not poor.

It is the job of Democrats to make Capitalism fair. Yes, you
can help business. But be fair. As a Democrat you cannot
favor Business over your consituents. This is the PRO-Busines
Republican position. Liberals make Capitalism fair and palatablt
for the greater society.



I am not sure Hilary is as DLC (Conservative ) as Bill.
So I am in a wait and see pattern.

Either way they should give their position on your points.

[papau]

4. Thanks for the support for an issues discussion - If we have one it will be what

determines my vote at least.