A political reality check.

[kentuck]

How difficult would it be to break up the "big banks"?

How difficult would it be to raise taxes on the wealthy?

How difficult would it be to break the corporate chokehold on America?

How difficult would it be to cut the bloated defense industry?

These are all goals that the left talks about but is it unrealistic to expect any of these things to happen? In our form of government, it is not easy to accomplish even the most necessary tasks.

What would need to happen to see the above become reality?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. In the foreseeable future which is all a reasonable person can purport to see

How difficult would it be to break up the "big banks"? Unlikely

How difficult would it be to raise taxes on the wealthy? Likely

How difficult would it be to break the corporate chokehold on America? Unlikely

How difficult would it be to cut the bloated defense industry? Unlikely

What would need to happen to see the above become reality?

Get filibuster proof majorities and hope those majorities are all of one voice.

[djean111]

2. Here is another reality check - what will happen if we do not even try?

More of the same. And we would be compliant and accepting. No thanks.

[kentuck]

4. I agree.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

20. I'm confused. Didn't Obama get obstructed on almost everything?

That's kind of a meme here among his supporters. This forced him to make concessions even before "negotiating." With this in mind, a best case scenario would be stalemate.

What would change really look like? Getting nothing (that's our current return on policy making) but conceding nothing.

Anyway, to your OP

I agree as well: not trying to make change will produce more of the same.

Now I'll go a step further. The deals made between Obama Admin and Wall Street were back deal and didn't involve criminal prosecutions. A new admin, a Sanders Admin, would bring criminal charges against the bankster and Wall Street profiteers. We've never seen this, so these stories just came and went, settlements only amounted to a slap on the/cost of doing business, and it was business as usual after the dog and pony show left town.

Yeah, a new admin committed to prosecute white collar criminals would kick things in motion.

[jwirr]

5. Absolutely. I am very afraid that the answer to the last question may actually be: another Great

Depression. But I am not sure even that would do it. It could swing either way. We were just fortunate that FDR did not champion the rich instead of the people.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. In my view ...

all of these would/have been VERY, VERY, VERY difficult, because it would require a societal cultural change.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. And if we don't find some way to make that change,

we're all gonna Me-First ourselves into death.

[onecaliberal]

7. The more important question is what will become

Of this country and her people if we don't accomplish those things or even try?
#ThirdWorldCountry

[Bjorn Against]

8. Here are some things people were told about political realism in the past

We will always have slavery.

Women will never be able to vote.

Unions will never win a 40 hour work week.

Gays will never be allowed to marry.

The government will never provide any form of Social Security.

Whenever anyone tries to tell us about political reality we need to remember that our reality is often changed by people who refuse to allow anyone to tell them that they are being unrealistic.

[MaggieD]

9. Very difficult

Because republicans control every branch of federal government except the presidency.

You asked for a reality check. That's reality.

[kentuck]

10. To make changes to future realities...

We must make changes to present realities.

If we continue to vote the same way, we cannot expect anything to change, in my opinion.

[MaggieD]

11. You're surprised rethugs are in charge....

When supposed Democrats spend half their lives tearing down other Democrats?

I'm not.

[kentuck]

13. I'm not surprised Republicans are in charge...

But I don't think it is because some Democrats "spend half their lives tearing down other Democrats".

I do think many Democrats spend a lot of time trying to get other Democrats to see the error of their ways.

I think liberal Democrats have been too conciliatory with the moderate Democrats usually in charge of the Party. They have mistakingly agreed to go along with policies that are contradictory to progress for our country. They have gone along simply to maintain some temporary political power that has no political influence or has a negative impact on the people as a whole.

There is not enough distinction drawn between the two Parties, in my opinion, and that is why Republicans are in charge. Some Democrats simply cannot accept corporate control of our country and other Democrats do not seem to have a problem with it?

[MaggieD]

14. Well let's put it this way....

If so-called liberals spend the two years between elections loudly proclaiming our candidates suck we shouldn't be surprised when people don't vote for them. At least I'm not.

In fact it's gotten so bad our so-called liberals are even parroting the exact crap that the right says about Democrats. The right has actually co-opted these folks to do their bidding. And that is fucked up.

[kentuck]

15. Yeah, liberals really suck.

Why can't we all be happy Republicans? Why do these "fools" keep rocking the boat? Can't they see we are on the right track?

[MaggieD]

16. The ones that bash Democrats do

I hold them in the same esteem I hold republicans.

[Bjorn Against]

18. You are bashing Democrats

Those liberals you are tearing down are not Republicans.

[MaggieD]

26. People that spend their life bashing...

Our Democratic candidates and parroting right wing talking points are not "Democrats" to me. And there is no reason for us to pretend they are, IMO.

[MaggieD]

27. Well they sound like happy republicans....

....when the purists parrot right wing talking points. It's not about rocking or not rocking the boat. Keyboard commandos that spend their days repeating the shit republicans say are not helping to create positive change. They are just parroting right wing talking points.

[Bjorn Against]

17. For someone who says you don't like seeing attacks on Democrats...

You sure seem to spend a lot of time attacking liberal Democrats.

[MaggieD]

19. Which of the purists here....

.... Are running for office? None. Because they don't actually do anything except tear down our candidates.

[Bjorn Against]

23. You don't have to run for office to be a Democrat

You are the one that is insisting on purity here, you seem to be suggesting that if people express their disagreements with certain Democratic candidates then they are not real Democrats.

Are you running for office? If the answer is no then I assume you must not consider yourself a Democrat if that is your qualifier for determining whether or not someone is a Democrat.

[MaggieD]

24. If people are going to parrot....

.... Right wing talking points, and use sources such as Fox News, Townhall, etc, why should I consider them Democrats? Hell, half of them will tell you they are NOT Democrats.

As for me, I've spent my adult life supporting Democrats, and liberal policies. I've worked within the system and seen for myself how the purists prevent positive change. I'm not going to post anything identifying here because there are lots of nutballs on the Internet. However, although I've not been a candidate I've led groups that have gotten things done. Absolutely.

And I've never found it necessary to bellow derogatory things about Democratic candidates to do that.

[workinclasszero]

21. This country will make no forward progress

until the republican party/teabaggers/religious right dies. Its happening slowly but surely.

But as they shrink and become marginalized, their radicalism will become more and more insane. I'm hoping for a split between the teahaddists and the wall street wing of the thug party myself.

When that happens the republican party goes into the dustbin/toilet of history where it belongs.

[RiverLover]

22. Warren tried in 2013 with her "21st Century Glass-Steagall Act" bill which breaks up the banks

like they were until Clinton signed the repeal of FDR's Glass-Steagall right before leaving office...

But it didn't get enough votes.

So we just need to elect a congress that will support it & a non-conservative president to sign it.

Having a president who is truly progressive once elected and not just playing progressive to win votes is the hard part.

Congress passed the Glass Steagall Act in 1933 to separate risky investment banking from ordinary commercial banking. And for half a century, the banking system was stable and our middle class grew stronger.

But in the 1980s, the federal regulators started reinterpreting the laws to break down the divide between regular banking and Wall Street risk-taking, and in 1999, Congress repealed Glass Steagall altogether. Wall Street had spent 66 years and millions of dollars lobbying for repeal, and, eventually, the big banks won.

I've joined forces with Senators John McCain, Maria Cantwell, and Angus King to introduce the 21st Century Glass Steagall Act of 2013 to reinstate and modernize core banking protections.

Our new 21st Century Glass Steagall Act once again separates traditional banks from riskier financial services. And since banking has become much more complicated since the first bill was written in 1933, we’ve updated the law to include new activities and leave no room for regulatory interpretations that water down the rules.

The bill will give a five year transition period for financial institutions to split their business practices into distinct entities – shrinking their size, taking an important step toward ending “Too Big to Fail” once and for all, and minimizing the risk of future bailouts.

http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/glass-steagall

[riqster]

30. Agreedd. Until we elect enough non-repubs nothing good will happen.

We need big honkin' majorities like FDR had if we expect FDR style results.

[RiverLover]

34. There were also "far-sighted" republicans in FDR's congress. "Progessive" Republicans even~

The New Deal wasn’t just a product of Democratic super-majorities. Principled legislators in both parties were willing to work together to revive the economy.

The true conservative seeks to protect the system of private property and free enterprise by correcting such injustices and inequalities as arise from it. The most serious threat to our institutions comes from those who refuse to face the need for change. Liberalism becomes the protection for the far-sighted conservative. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe’s recent announcement that she has decided to leave the Senate because of partisan gridlock is being widely viewed on both sides of the aisle as further confirmation — as if we needed it — of just how dysfunctional our political process has become. In good health and likely to win if she were to run, Senator Snowe said she had to consider how productive an additional term would be given the “polarized environment” in Congress. In light of this, and in light of the fact that she does not expect the intense partisanship of recent years to change over the short term, she reluctantly decided not to seek re-election. Her fellow senator, Republican Susan Collins of Maine, remarked that she is “devastated” by the news, while Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont called her decision a real loss, noting that he misses the days when “Republicans and Democrats worked together” for the good of the country.

Partisanship has been part of America’s political process from the beginning. Why, then, is today’s partisanship so much more destructive than in the past? The answer may lie in the makeup of the parties themselves. Many Americans, for example, assume that Franklin Roosevelt was able to get through such landmark pieces of legislation as the Social Security Act or the National Labor Relations Act because the Democrats held huge majorities in both houses of Congress. But the truth is that many of FDR’s harshest critics came from the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, while some of his strongest supporters were progressive Republicans.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/bipartisanship-made-new-deal-possible

Those days with sane rethugs who stood for people are long gone!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

25. The next admin won't have this advantage: Obama's quid pro quo on raising taxes

One of Obama's greater achievements was raising taxes on the wealthy.

Reality check

In his first months in office, Obama wrote $trillions to bailout the banksters and Wall Street. In return, he got his tax hike through. The lack of a redistribution of wealth since the tax increases bares this out: the payoff was more than enough in compensation for the concession.

The next administration won't have such a "bargaining chip" to offer the billionaires and their minions.


I think that's known as 3-D chess around here.

[Maedhros]

28. Here's the political reality:

This country is like a bus, speeding toward a cliff, and we're arguing about who should drive.

One potential driver wants to change the radio station and maybe let up on the throttle just a bit

Another potential driver wants to steer away from the cliff.

Even if the power steering has given out, we have to at least try and change the direction of the bus.

[seabeyond]

29. all you have to do is look to obama yrs and how hard it was. see what happened to bill he passed

to try and barely set limits on wallstreet? and see what congress has done with it.

the dems have not totally ignored these issues. and they did not get far.

reality i think is addressing the nation about power of states, the gerrymandering that controls the house and partially the senate.

[moondust]

31. As long as many Americans seem to believe

that their most important goal in life is to become filthy rich, aren't they likely to keep supporting the antidemocratic forces of soulless greed and corruption they hope will lead to that outcome--and to Hell with everything else? (May also apply to Britons judging by their election results. )

[seabeyond]

33. i think we have to address state power and gerrymandering to really get the support.

we need state law more along the line of state of washington. more states on board. to help the expectation of every day people across the nation and an example of its success.

but also the state laws that are effecting us as a nation, that is dragging us down, by repug.

we overlooked the states, and we continue at our determent.

[Exilednight]

35. The first and third could have been accomplished during the

Mortgage meltdown with no congressional approval. If the goverent had let the banks fail, then government agencies could have taken ownership of the banks and could have broken them apart and sold them off in pieces to smaller local banks.