Is this platform too far left for today?

[Jackpine Radical]

. . . A Federal appropriation if 50 bln for immediate relief for those in need, to supplement State and local appropriations.

. . . A Federal appropriationof 100 bln for public works and roads, reforestation, slum clearance, and decent homes for the workers, by Federal Government, States, and cities. . . .

. . . The 6-hour day and the 5-day week without a reduction of wages. . . .

. . . A compulsory system of unemployment compensation with adequate benefits, based on contributions by the Government and by employers.

. . . Old-age pensions for men and women 60 years of age and over.

. . . Health and maternity insurance.

. . . Improved systems of workmen's compensation and accident insurance.

. . . The abolition of child labor.

. . . Government aid to farmers and small-home owners to protect them against mortgage foreclosures and a moratorium on sales for nonpayment of taxes by destitute farmers and unemployed workers.

. . . Adequate minimum wage laws. . . .

. . . Increased Federal and State subsidies to road building and educational and social services for rural communities. . . .

. . . Proportional representation.

. . . Direct election of the President and Vice President.

. . . The initiative and referendum. . . .

. . . Abolition of the power of the Supreme Court to pass upon the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress. . . .

. . . Federal legislation to enforce the first amendment to the Constitution so as to guarantee freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and to penalize officials who interfere with the civil rights of citizens.

. . . The abolition of injunctions in labor disputes, the outlawing of "yellow-dog" contracts and the passing of laws enforcing the rights of workers to organize into unions. . . .

. . . Legislation protecting aliens from being excluded from this country or from citizenship or from being deported on account of their political, social, or economic beliefs, or on account of activities engaged in by them which are not illegal for citizens. . . .

The enforcement of constitutional guarantees of economic, political, and legal equality for the Negro.

The enactment and enforcement of drastic antilynching laws.

It was the Socialist platform of 1932 (I modernized the suggested appropriations for welfare & gov't work programs).

The only particular problem I personally have with it is the thing about the Supreme Court being unable to "pass upon the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress. . . ." Despite
the obvious excesses of the present Court, I do think we need protections against some potentially insane future Congress.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Sounds good to me,

and I'm sad at how little progress we've made on achieving many of those goals in the last 80 years or so.

[hobbit709]

2. The 1956 Republican Party platform was to the left of the 2008 and 2012 Democratic Party platforms.

[upaloopa]

3. Who earns the money to pay for all of this?

I see a number of OPs with these ideas.
The problem I see is that you are only looking at one side of the coin.
Even in the days before money there was trade. You gave something in return for what you got. Whether it was a material thing or your labor you gave an agreed amount for what was given to you, again an agreed to amount.
Today we have money. Money substitutes for the thing you give in exchange for what you receive. The money has to hold some value or it would not be accepted as payment. Since we sort of agree on what it's worth is we can price any number of things relative to the value of the money used to pay for things.
The money in the OP has to have an agreed upon value. That value used to be gold but it was impractical to use gold.
If money is given out by the government simply by printing it it loses some of it's value. That is because the more there is of it the more a person will want in exchange for the goods or services it is traded for. As more money is demanded in exchange for the goods the unit of money, say a dollar, loses it's buying power.
In foreign exchange also the dollar loses value as more and more are required for foreign goods and services.

It is easy to just deny all if this as I see OPs doing. The idea is not left nor is it conservative. It shows a basic lack of
understanding of economics.
The most left leaning persons with economics training would reject the idea.
Yet it is a big hit here on DU which leads me to the conclusion that we on this board are no more intelligent than the average person.
If this were such a good idea Krugman would have told us so my now.

[leftstreet]

4. Who earns the money to pay for F16s and tanks?

I can't believe anyone seriously asks this question

500+ billion allotted for 2015 just for basic DOD spending

[upaloopa]

5. It is not the same thing. In the case of F16

the government is exchanging dollars for planes. The money is spent or traded to defense companies for something. In case of the OP there is no exchange.
It is simple if you look at it closely.

[leftstreet]

6. Godz forbid we let people exchange money for food and shelter

No doubt the CEO of Boeing is keeping the economy afloat

[upaloopa]

7. Why is it so hard to understand what I said?

Is it our poor education system or something? Anyone my age ,68, was taught basic economics.

[snooper2]

8. They still teach basic economics in school, some people don't think things through

Like the whole, hey, look at all the empty homes out there...

Just give them to the homeless!

[leftstreet]

9. It's not. You asked who would earn the money

I asked who's earning it now?


Then, as can always be predicted, you changed the subject

You don't need a superior education in 'basic economics' to ask and/or answer that question

[upaloopa]

10. I did not change the subject.

You answer a question with a question designed to support the OP idea. I said the idea is not realistic. And I gave reasons why. I am not here to give you support for your idea which makes no sense.
That is just the same mechanics gunners use in their posts.

[leftstreet]

11. Oh gee, okay sorry. Let's try again

Why isn't it 'realistic' to let the people who EARN the money PROFIT from the money they earn?

[Jackpine Radical]

13. But it's putting money into things that don't directly contribute

to the general welfare.

Build a public new rail system or Internet with public employees, & you end up with a lot of jobs and the with an infrastructure that is ready for the next century.

Build a tank or, worse, an F-35 or a littoral combat ship the Navy doesn't want, & you provide some jobs but no particular public good.

But of course there will be another cycle of job creation to build the missiles and bombs to blow up the tanks that we paid to build & gave to the Iraqi Army, who let them be acquired by our avowed enemy, who are in turn buying captive journalists from Syrian insurgents, whom we are providing with military support in their own ongoing battle against someone else we don't like.

And now we're about to send military ground combat forces back in to Iraq to bring them democracy, Goddamit, once and for fuckin' all!

In the case of the OP, the money goes to the strengthening, and perhaps reshaping, of the social contract among the members of this society.

[DanTex]

12. Presumably the money comes from general taxation, as it does for any other government spending.