The next President of the United States...

[kentuck]

..will promise to do away with all corporate loopholes in the tax laws and will vow to raise the top tax rates back to those of the Clinton Administration.

Also, he/she will end the senseless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world and will cut the Defense budget back to the level of the post-Cold War period.

He/She will promise to secure the Social Security system for future generations by keeping the same rate but doing away with the limit on which this tax is paid.

The military industrial complex must be dismantled as well as the corporate welfare system.

We will make treaties with all nations or island/states that permit corporations to hide their monies in their banks. We will pay them whatever is needed to make sure this law is obeyed. Violators will be seriously prosecuted with jail time, no less than 5 years. American corporations will finally pay their fair share of taxes.

We will improve the present healthcare system, with a single payer or buy-in option for Medicare.

Also, he/she will request that the minimum wage be raised $2 dollars per hour and that employers in this nation return to the days where they shared their productivity with their employees. The disrespect for workers will no longer be tolerated.

So yo think that is impossible?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. nt

[DJ13]

2. ..will promise

And then once elected make countless excuses why he never tried to do any of it.

[Jmaxfie1]

My thoughts exactly. n/t

[arcane1]

7. edit, wrong location

[inna]

13. ...and actually did exactly the opposite

[Drale]

3. So the next president will be a Marxist?

I'm sorry while all those things are great, its probably not going to happen.

[kentuck]

4. A Marxist?

Hardly.

A Democrat.

[arcane1]

8. Marxist? Really?

I see no Marxism in the OP.

[arcane1]

5. If only...

Though the most a president could do is ask for those things, but no congress in my lifetime would ever let such bills land on his/her desks.

Plus, any prez who makes substantial progress on pretty much ANY of those fronts will end up with a bullet in their head :(

[damntexdem]

6. I think it somewhat possible that the next prez will promise these things while a candidate.

Fulfill the promises? I don't know.

[TaylorWatts]

9. The next president of the United States will be Walmart Inc

[JoePhilly]

10. Yes, impossible.

If you had numbered them ...

#1 ... too isolationist. It suggests that we also must leave the UN and NATO.

#2 ... sure worth a shot, but the President can't do that alone, and given the current state of the left, if he can't do it in 1.5 years, he'll be called a liar.

#3 ... nice platitude. But folks who work for the MIC and in other corporations (regular folks, not CEOs) will want more specifics about exactly how you plan to dismantle such things and still ensure their employment.

#4 ... I don't see how you do this ... those other nations make lots of money doing what they do, you'll have to be willing to pay them MORE that the corporations do. What is the incentive for those countries to join such treaties?

#5 ... Congress won't let you.

#7 ... "request that the minimum wage be increased"???? REQUEST? BEG CONGRESS?

[bluestate10]

15. Thanks Joe. You shot rightful holes in an immeasurably unrealistic OP.

The Left need to become realistic. If the Left insists on the behavior that is being shown in full display on DU, there will be a progressive President of the USA one hundred years after hell is frozen over. But if the Left gains balance and realize that a move toward a progressive national policy happens in small steps, with each step being validated, the Left may well see their ideal President within ten election cycles. The Left is so intent on busting up President Obama for every perceived wrong that it can't see that that action pushes progressive causes further backward.

[kentuck]

16. What is realistic for you?

And you don't have to be afraid of stepping on the toes of the present President.

[JoePhilly]

31. Since my response helped create this line ... here is how I see it.

There is a difference between an ideologically desired outcome, and a practically achievable outcome.

And so ... you and I might AGREE that ending all wars is an ideological goal. Yet we may differ on how and when that can be achieved. Humans have been killing each other for thousands of years. I agree it's dumb. If we all agreed to stop doing it, the world becomes a much better place. But that's not where human civilization is yet. And no US President can mandate that. I am just old enough to remember elementary school drills in which we hid under the desk for a nuclear attack. And we had 9/11. The notion that the US backs out of the UN or NATO does not, at this time, work.

You kind of unintentionally recognize this when you say that the President should "request" the minimum wage be increased 2 dollars. Why did you not have him demand it?

If he can demand health care for all, why can't he demand a $2 increase in the minimum wage? Because neither is something the President can demand, or promise. The structure of our government precludes it.

MY view ... the ideological positions play an important role in setting a direction. An ultimate goal. A target. But they do not, and can not dictate tactics.

At times we (ideologically) see these goals as orthogonal, that the achievement of one has nothing to do with another. But that is not realistic. They are all intertwined. Which means that you may may more or less progress on some relative to others. And, to even do that, you may also lose ground on some.

Many of the debates on DU seem to assume that these issues, the tactics, the end goals, are all independent.

Realistically speaking, they are not. And the structure of our government (3 co-equal branches) ensures that.

[kentuck]

34. I think the President has to espouse these goals...

in order to enlighten the people to their own expectations. In the end, it is up to the people, who they elect to Congress, the Senate, and the White House. If the people have no idea of the possibilities, we will end up deeper and deeper in a hole. Look how hard they had to work to get the little bit of healthcare reform we got... It can be done if they want to do it. A lot of excuses can be made that it isn't realistic, etc.

[JoePhilly]

36. He has ... and because he can't deliver them all in 1.5 years ...

apparently, he's awful.

Honestly, its bad enough that we expect him to obtain unrealistic ideological goals in half a term.

And yet we apparently also want him to ENLIGHTEN the people too.

As for the "little" HCR ... rather than make what we did not get an anchor to tie around his legs ... why not use those as the next TARGET.

That is the difference between complaining about not getting to the ideological end point right away, and making sustained progress towards it.

Is it a goal, or an anchor?

[kentuck]

37. I think you exaggerate a little defensively.

Small steps are good if everything is hunky-dory. Now is a time for giant steps. Big ideas to counter the Republican Tea Baggers. It is easy to argue for moderation. It is difficult to get the people behind you but you must try.

[JoePhilly]

Right.

Bill and Hillary got no HCR ... Obama got some.

If Obama got NONE, he'd be attacked for that too.

Either we move forward, or we complain about why we haven't moved to the end yet.

BTW ... I'm not arguing for moderation, I'm arguing for realistic thinking.

The Blue Dogs were NEVER, NEVER, NEVER going to support single payer or a public option. And no amount of bully pulpit was going to change that reality.

The EASY argument is the one you make. If only he did X, we would have obtained more.

Monday morning quarterbacks get to see every play, from every angle AFTER they happen.

[kentuck]

42. Makes you wonder how they ever passed Medicare...?

..or Social Security, don't it? First, they did not discount the idea as unrealistic.

[JoePhilly]

46. Probably because they had the votes.

You are comparing Apples to Automobiles.

Those had a shot at passing with some bipartisan support. The current GOP is now in 100% total lock step.

If you don't see that, I'm not sure where we go.

[kentuck]

47. My question is :

Why?

[JTFrog]

58. Well the leftist critics of the New Deal said those programs didn't go far enough.

That FDR had sent socialism out the door on a stretcher... They criticized him for not doing enough for older Americans. They said he wasn't doing enough to to curb the power of bankers....

Any of that sound familiar?

We are a nation that can't see past instant gratification.

[derby378]

40. Time for a little exposition on "the long view"

The compromise HCR bill that Obama signed into law enslaves all Americans to the insurance companies. There is no public option, no single-payer, no Medicare For All. Starting in 2014, all of us walk around with the corporate logo for UnitedHealthcare, BCBS, Tenet, Wellpoint, or Aetna tattooed on our foreheads with a little barcode at the base of our skulls.

The failure of healthcare reform in America drove many people away from the polls in November, leaving our Democratic candidates vulnerable to the Koch brothers and their teabagger minions.

Now our government is facing another shutdown, one that will probably cripple whatever economic recovery may or may not exist. The teabaggers will demand that women's health care be slashed and NPR and Sesame Street be axed before they open the doors to Capitol Hill again.

Yeah, the compromise bill that Obama signed is an anchor. The only reason many Democrats don't agree with that sentiment is that they haven't read the fine print yet.

Moral of the story: You want to secure "the long view," you do not settle for baby steps. You go big, or you go home.

[JoePhilly]

49. Ever hear of Roe V Wade?

Using your logic, the GOP should have GONE HOME long ago.

They had Bush, the Supreme Court and both houses of congress. Yet they were unable to over turn it.

Did they "GO HOME"? Give up?

Nope. They scramble for every fucking inch.

They are patient. We are not. They take the long view. We have the attention span of a fruit fly.

And that is why we lose.

[derby378]

56. You're missing the point...

Roe v. Wade was the legislative equivalent of a tectonic shift - it brought real change to the sort of health care that women could legally get in America, and it did so by stating that women were human beings, too.

The Republicans will howl about it, yes, but they'll never get rid of it completely. For poor people? Yeah, they might. But there are too many Republican legislators with daughters who might get raped or have a "lost weekend" in Cancun where it will be incumbent upon the daughters to "take care of business" so as not to besmirch either their family name or their own aspirations to Congress or both.

Roe v. Wade was a tectonic shift. The health insurance bill? At best, baby steps in a game of Achilles vs. the tortoise.

My premise still stands.

[Possumpoint]

11. The Changes Proposed

Don't fall on the President! They must come from and be approved by Congress. So long as we continue to select from candidates submitted by the DuoPoly we will not see change. Neither one is interested in surrendering their power to the other or any outside parties. They are sure interested in continuation of the status quo. Both parties are bought and paid for.

[kentuck]

12. In fact, it all falls on we, the people...

Unless we demand it, it will never get done. How do you think the Repubs are going to cut $9 trillion dollars from the debt? Why do you think they propose it? Because they don't believe it? We have no more high goals or aims. We may as well give up if this is the best we can do. Surely we can do better? Or is our job just to keep the Republicans at bay??

[bluestate10]

18. STOP!!!

Demanding and put on good shoe leather. Convince your neighbors and townspeople. Find and support local candidates that share your view, fight for their election to local state and national office. Demanding in the caustic environment that the nation is in will get you exactly one ounce of shit, if you are one of the lucky ones. Before teabaggers became the craze, I watched the first wave of them, the ones that were truly concerned about spending and not social issues, standing in freezing cold rain with signs. While they may agree with some of their views, many of those teabaggers are surely disgusted by how their cause has been hijacked. The challenge of democrats, in particular far left ones like you is to harness genuine concerns that people that are real patriots, not the Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich kind, have about government. Harness that concern and turn it into concrete policy that makes the nation better. You may find some of those very teabaggers highly supportive if you come forward with clear headed, achievable policy initiatives.

[kentuck]

19. "...clear headed, achievable policy initiatives."

Like what??

[bluestate10]

39. Like.

An imperfect but real health care reform. It is a start, not the end goal. Like a law that make pay parity for women more likely. Like preventing the country from going into a financial depression that would have destroyed lives of working class and poor americans, imperfect but real policies that bring people that are gay to the level that straights enjoy. As JoePhilly so elegantly delineated in his response to your earlier challenge, not path to progress is without stalls and outright setbacks. But progress, even slow is no less progress. I don't disagree that progressive policies are best for the country, what I do disagree with is going for all is big policy changes is a strategy that has a chance to work.

[blindpig]

14. Yup

No one with that agenda makes it to the finals. Our elections are a matter of money, purposefully so, which means they are owned by the capitalists.

The landscape will need change mightily before a candidate who is not a capitalists tool can be elected.

[bluestate10]

20. The first change you must make to get politician elected that you

admire is get rid of the distorted view that all capitalists are bad. Or, keep spouting off that mantra and become even more irrelevant. My view is that the solution is to grab the reigns of capitalism and turn it into a force that serves humankind instead of mostly fattening already fat pockets.

[kentuck]

21. What's wrong with demanding fairness from the capitalist system?

What's wrong with sharing in the productivity that you help create?

[bluestate10]

55. I agree with you. The best capitalists share profits with workers,

there simply is not enough of them. I advocate increasing their number to the extent where they push out selfish capitalists. With the exception to embracing marxism, we are not terribly far apart in the objective that you stated.

[inna]

26. sorry, not everyone is in love with your beloved capitalism. wake up and smell reality, dude.

[bluestate10]

51. The shoe is better on the other foot. Capitalism can be reformed.

your beloved marxism is DOA. Thanks for your suggestion, but I will pass. I want to make positive change in the world, not be pushed into irrelevance.

[inna]

60. excuse me, exactly what "suggestion" are you referring to?

long day

[blindpig]

67. Reforms of capitalism are ephemeral

As long as the capitalists have the mean they are compelled by the nature of the system to maximize their interests. Is not the fate of Trustbusting and the New Deal evidence enough?

Marxism DOA? Hardly, just napping, the inevitable over-reach of the capitalists makes the necessity plainer every day.

[inna]

44. "become even more irrelevant" - lol, pure projection on your part

[kentuck]

17. The Repubs are saying cut the top rate to 25%.

How do you counter that? What do you offer? Cut it to 30%?

[bluestate10]

24. No.

You explain clearly and analytically why cutting the rate for the rich is a horribly bad idea and will victimize working people. At the same time, you show discipline in spending public funds, every expenditure must meet it's intended purpose. I am a supporter of President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but one area that I fault them in is their failure to clearly articulate why republican budget proposals and both unfair and insane, and will accomplish nothing but dig the nation's financial hole deeper.

[kentuck]

29. Do tax rates need to be increased on the wealthy?

Or are we pretty good shape right now if we "show discipline in spending public funds, every expenditure must meet it's intended purpose"?

[bluestate10]

57. Increase marginal tax rates on the wealthy to where they should be.

The rich on a percentage basis pay nearly the same rate as lower income tax payers, that parity is obscene and insulting to any notion of fairness. Once more taxes are collected, each dollar must be spent ethically, no graft, programs must meet their stated objectives or be reformed or canceled.

[davidthegnome]

22. No, I don't think it's possible at all..

Not in my lifetime - and I'm still pretty young, at 27. I just don't think you can throw off corporate power. It's way too deeply entrenched. As much as I wish we could or would... I'm not even sure it's possible.

[kentuck]

25. How sad.

You believe the corporations are unbeatable.

[davidthegnome]

54. IMO, it's a choice of flavors at this point

Corporate D or corporate R. Corporate D is a little better, so I'll go with corporate D. What am I going to do? What are you going to do? We're going to demand our government reps kick to the curb the people who fund their campaigns and give them huge rewards? Not bloody likely.

That's just how I see it - short of physical violence, there's no way - and I'm just not willing to go that far. Too many innocent people would be hurt. Government just sucks, it's corrupt and it will always be corrupt, there is so much money in the system and so much reliance upon that money that if anyone truly challenged it... I mean REALLY challenged it, they wouldn't last long at all.

[robcon]

23. I think the next president would have to rule by decree to get these things done.

The president cannot write laws... he/she only sign, or not sign, what Congress has passed.

[kentuck]

27. How did he convince Congress to pass the healthcare bill?

Could he not do that in other areas, also?

[OhioChick]

28. No....

We have a corporate owned government regardless of party.

In order for all that you mentioned to happen, people will need to rise up.

[kentuck]

30. I would agree with that...

But I'm not sure we would want to start here at DU? They seem pretty negative and pessimistic about changing anything for the better.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raksha]

33. K & R - but I wonder how long my rec will last before someone cancels it out.

30 seconds?

No, it's NOT impossible at all. What makes it (apparently) impossible is everyone telling everyone else it's some idealistic pipe dream. But it's what the majority of Americans WANT, so there is no actual reason why it can't happen except for the relentless de-motivating psy-ops about "political realities."

That's the message I took away from Joanne Kloppenburg's come-from-behind challenge to David Prosser, who got 99.5% of the votes the last time he was up for re-election.

Anything is possible if enough people want it badly enough.

[kentuck]

35. Thanks Raksha...

I think you are right on.

[Raksha]

41. Wow...it's up to 3 recs already! Amazing.

Looks like I started a trend. :)

[fascisthunter]

38. of course it's possible.. those who aren't brainwashed by Mainstream media

so many have been suckered into believing the garbage spewed by corporate media... so to them all, it's impossible. People need to think outside of the box.

[spanone]

43. no. because the corporations pick the president and they won't allow it.

[BOG PERSON]

45. no

and if he/she tries the office of president will become largely ceremonial. which still might not be such a bad outcome, in the long run.

[Fire1]

48. Too progressive. It'll never happen. They can campaign

on it but it won't happen.

[anneboleyn]

50. Yes. Unfortunately. I love the ideas in the op but I think you are right

It does seem a crime though that these ideas would not appeal to the majority of voters. I don't know why I should be but I continue to be amazed by how people vote against their own best interests.

[Fire1]

53. That is a mystery for the ages. n/t

[TNLib]

52. That sounds like all the thing Obama promised

or I guess I was just dreaming that.

[WinkyDink]

59. No way. Next up: Jebbie.

[Imagevision]

61. The next President of the United States will allow big business continue to run government

just like all the rest, Obama, classic example.

[in_cog_ni_to]

62. You got my vote! Kentuck for President!

:bounce:

[bluestate10]

63. Vote Kentuck in as President.

Then watch him cut deal after deal to keep government running. Solve the problem locally, will local races at all levels including for the US Congress. The President, even Kentuck, can't do squat unless that President has enough votes in Congress to get bills approved.

[BlueIris]

64. So the next POTUS will do the bare minimum?

Gee, thanks, Next POTUS. Since I'm pretty sure I know who you are, (and I'm not telling) I'm expecting much better from you.

[Keith Bee]

65. I'm pretty sure Santa Claus isn't a citizen

Hey, you think the Birthers are going bonkers now...

[treestar]

70. +1

:yourock:

[Arkana]

66. I'm assuming that the next President will also abolish Congress

because unless he or she has OVERWHELMING liberal Democratic control of both houses there is no way all of this happens.

[ncteechur]

68. Unless you've got a magic wand to make all republicans disappear, it ain't happening.

[treestar]

69. You forgot to provide for the next Congress

and the next set of voters.

The President of the US is not all powerful. That is a good thing.