libthink

Member since 3 years ago

Badges

• Top Contributor

Powered by BadgeFarm

13 ideas posted

33 comments 189 votes

1580 points View the Leaderboard

libthink is a member of:

Activity Stream

Ideas contributed by libthink

• I agree

  109 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Issues: Domestic »

  Answering Questions About Impeachment

  The question of impeachment is the most popular question listed so far, repeated in endless variations. At this writing it is the question with ...more »

  The question of impeachment is the most popular question listed so far, repeated in endless variations. At this writing it is the question with the most votes.

  However, most Democratic politicians dismiss this question in various ways. Before you do that, I'd like you to read http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Framed:_Impeaching_President_Bush_and_Vice_President_Cheney, which lists most of the objections to impeachment and why they are invalid. Please don't tell us an answer that has already been repudiated.

  For example, any number of people have said that "It won't happen!" Or, variations thereof. It's nice that these people have an opinion, but an opinion doesn't qualify as fact. In fact, it WILL happen. There, I've said it so it must be true!

  Right.

  A lot of people think it's too late. It's too near the election and too close to the time for Bush to step down. Take a look at the frame and see if you don't agree that it will never be too late to impeach Bush/Cheney. I don't care if they are cold in their graves, it will not be too late. Because this is about future Presidents and administrations every bit as much as it's about the current one. We cannot afford for them to be unaccountable to the people.

  The question behind this is simple: We want you to change your mind. Is there any possibility of that happening or are we wasting our time?

  Because, if we are wasting our time, then you are really of no further use to us and we should go on. If your mind is closed and you won't consider what we want, then we need to replace you in November and find someone who will do what we want. Nothing personal, it's just that we can't let you stand in our way of holding admitted, arrogant criminals responsible for their crimes.

  Are you willing to reopen this question and put impeachment back on the table, so that we can get to the bottom of what these people have done and hold them accountable for their actions?

  « less full details »

  3 comments

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  113 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Issues: Technology »

  Reducing Carbon for Shipping

  Madam Speaker, Shipping goods to the U.S. from foreign ports is a very significant source of carbon dioxide as ships generally use diesel for ...more »

  Madam Speaker,

  Shipping goods to the U.S. from foreign ports is a very significant source of carbon dioxide as ships generally use diesel for power. It dumps millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. Would you consider introducing a bill in the House to put a carbon tax on all such transport into the United States to reduce this problem and encourage domestic production of goods, which do not need to be shipped thousands of miles to market?

  « less full details »

  Add your comment

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  121 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Issues: Domestic »

  Eliminating the Profit Motive from Government

  Madam Speaker, In recent years we've seen many government services outsourced in whole or in part. (We call this "piratizing" them, because ...more »

  Madam Speaker,

  In recent years we've seen many government services outsourced in whole or in part. (We call this "piratizing" them, because it amounts to stealing from the government coffers.) The Bandits claim that this makes services cheaper. Of course, the "savings" are illusory and the companies providing these services then add on a profit, making the result as expensive or more so than the same services done by a government agency.

  So far, much of this increased expense has been hidden because the private companies don't provide the same quality of service. Will you make sure that any government service that is performed by a private entity conform to the following rules:

  (1) It should be subject to the same audit and sunshine statutes as the government agency that employs it or that it replaces. In particular, all business transactions it has should be open to government auditors.

  (2) It should provide the same opportunities for unionization as the agency that employs it or that it replaces. If that agency is unionized, then the subcontractor should automatically be unionized.

  (3) It should provide the same healthcare and pension rights to employees that the federal government does.

  (4) Profits should be limited to a maximum of 10% over operating costs, a fair profit for a guaranteed business opportunity.

  (5) All whistleblower laws that apply to the federal government should automatically apply to service companies.

  (6) All subcontractors and their subcontractors, recursively, should employ only people entitled to work in the U.S.

  Are you willing to personally put forth legislation that sets these standards for future contracts and phase out any existing contract that doesn't conform to them over the next five years? (BTW, there should be no exception for defense contractors.)

  « less full details »

  1 comment

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  47 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Issues: Domestic »

  The Economy

  John McCain famously said that he had a lot to learn about the economy. Apparently, he's a Rhodes Scholar compared to Congress when it comes ...more »

  John McCain famously said that he had a lot to learn about the economy. Apparently, he's a Rhodes Scholar compared to Congress when it comes to the topic. Congress throughout the Bush Administration has channeled increasing amounts of money to the least productive segment of society: the super-rich.

  The Republicans keep harping on cutting taxes, but the truth is that if you have trouble paying your taxes it's no longer because taxes are too high--it's because your income is too low.

  At what point will Democrats in Congress hire one or more experts on the economy and put their financial house in order? Just as a thought, why don't you require that all future spending for military operations be paid for out of current funds, rather than leaving this to someone's children to take care of?

  Taxes ought to be apportioned so that the pain is spread evenly. That would mean that each person would be giving up some share of their discretionary income in proportion to how much they earned and how much they had. Since the bulk of the American people have no discretionary income left, we are wondering why those who do are left off the tax hook.

  Which brings up the minimum wage. Why is there a discrepancy between the minimum wage in most of the country and the living wage (the wage that would cover all necessary spending including funds for retirement and healthcare), with the living wage coming out on the losing end? Based on the size of the minimum wage and the way taxes are apportioned we suspect that most people in the country aren't represented in Congress.

  Are you personally willing to offer a bill that would redress this situation? If not, why not and which one of your fellow representatives should we turn to?

  « less full details »

  1 comment

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  146 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Issues: Domestic »

  A Competitive Healthcare System

  Madam Speaker, The healthcare system of the country has become uncompetitive in the world market. As you must know, we spend about 1.5% of GDP ...more »

  Madam Speaker,

  The healthcare system of the country has become uncompetitive in the world market. As you must know, we spend about 1.5% of GDP on healthcare services, but still have tens of millions without health insurance, leaving them to fend for themselves. Hundreds of thousands of families have gone into bankruptcy due to health problems. In most advanced countries, healthcare costs less than 1% of GDP and everyone is effectively covered. Healthcare costs are often shifted to companies, leaving their products at a competitive disadvantage on the world market.

  The only real solution to this is a one-payer system, similar to the British system. This kind of system has been proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and others in Congress, yet it never seems to get to a vote. Will you use the power of your office as Speaker to make sure that this is thoroughly discussed in Congress and at least one single-payer proposal makes it to a vote?

  « less full details »

  6 comments

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  90 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Governing Philosophy/Process »

  Constitutional Rights

  Madam Speaker, The Constitution has taken a beating under the Bush Administration, but we get the impression that Democratic politicians are ...more »

  Madam Speaker,

  The Constitution has taken a beating under the Bush Administration, but we get the impression that Democratic politicians are cowards on these issues. Whenever some problem or perceived problem comes up, the default answer seems to be to take away constitutional rights.

  This is lazy thinking. Who do you know that has taken any serious look at how to preserve our rights to privacy and freedom from government invasion of our lives while still seeing to legitimate law enforcement and national security interests? The answer always seems to be how much we can cut corners on our rights or how much we can compromise away.

  It's time someone took a look at the problem from the viewpoint of modern methods and technologies to determine how to take care of those security needs while enhancing and maintaining our rights to privacy and personal integrity.

  Will you personally make sure that Congress starts the process of looking for ways to enhance our rights as individual citizens? This should be a task force or a committee assignment to go look at the architecture of the security apparatus and recommend ways to make it conform more closely with the spirit and intent of the First, Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Ninth Amendment, and generally the philosophy of Western Civilization on the rights of individuals and minorities?

  « less full details »

  1 comment

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  72 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Elections/Strategy »

  Halting Bad Policy

  Madam Speaker, You aren't fooling anyone by telling us you don't have the votes. Most of us have some notion of how Congress passes a bill, ...more »

  Madam Speaker,

  You aren't fooling anyone by telling us you don't have the votes. Most of us have some notion of how Congress passes a bill, and we fully well know that as Speaker you have many means at your disposal to shape those bills or stop them completely. Every bill that's come to the floor has at least your tacit approval. Therefore, we hold you fully responsible for all of those bills, including money spent to fund the war (after the American people all but demanded that you put an end to it).

  We aren't joking when we tell you that we want you to stop passing bills that favor the Republicans, the Bush Administration, large corporations and sometimes foreign governments over the interests of the United States.

  Will you promise that in the waning days of the Bush Administration that you will use all your powers of office to stop any bill that favors large money interests, the White House, or our Republican friends over the American people?

  And, will you specifically refrain from bringing up any more bills, like S. 2248 (the FISA amendment bill) that are intended to be divisive among Democrats until after a new (Obama) administration takes office in January next year?

  « less full details »

  1 comment

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  93 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Issues: Domestic »

  Family Planning

  Madam Speaker, In 1968, Paul Ehrlich released "The Population Bomb" about the dangers of overpopulation. Since that time population has doubled ...more »

  Madam Speaker,

  In 1968, Paul Ehrlich released "The Population Bomb" about the dangers of overpopulation. Since that time population has doubled while the federal government has all but ignored the problem. Studies indicate that the sustainable population of the U.S. is about 200 million persons and the sustainable population of the earth is about 2 billion. Overpopulation makes environmental problems, such as global warming, much worse, and energy policy all but unworkable. Yet, the U.S. does little either domestically or internationally to sponsor family planning.

  Will you sponsor legislation to put meaningful resources into family planning at both the national and international levels? In particular, will you put into law revocation of the global gag rule? Will you sponsor legislation to end "abstinence-only" programs, which are recipes for causing unwanted pregnancies, from all federal programs?

  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Current_amount_of_overpopulation)

  « less full details »

  2 comments

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  -6 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Governing Philosophy/Process »

  Are You a Liberal?

  In the past few decades, conservatives have vilified the word "liberal" and bombarded candidates with attacks on their "liberal elite" policies. ...more »

  In the past few decades, conservatives have vilified the word "liberal" and bombarded candidates with attacks on their "liberal elite" policies. Yet, polls show that when Americans are asked for their opinions on most important issues, they identify with the liberal position most of the time, sometimes by sizable majorities. The Democratic Party platform consists of liberal positions. Virtually all of the important values to Democrats are liberal values of fairness, sustainability and consistency. Liberals value pure American ideals of liberty, equality and privacy. Yet, many Democratic politicians cower and run away from being called "liberal".

  John Kennedy stated for all the world that he was a liberal, when he said:

  "...if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'" (http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html)

  Your opponents have certainly labeled you a liberal. Are you a liberal? And, if you are not a liberal, how do you fit into the Democratic Party?

  « less full details »

  1 comment

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  90 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Issues: Domestic »

  Limiting the Military-Industrial Complex

  Madam Speaker, Without regard to the extra money spend on war operations authorized in war supplementals, the U.S. military budget is approximately ...more »

  Madam Speaker,

  Without regard to the extra money spend on war operations authorized in war supplementals, the U.S. military budget is approximately that of the next fourteen (14) largest military budgets in the world. Would you support a 5X limit, which would limit military spending (other than war appropriations) to the combined estimated next five largest budgets? If we are fighting the next five largest countries in the world, then probably we are on the wrong side.

  In addition, would you support mothballing one half of the defense R&D, currently estimate at $70 billion per year, and move those funds to war operations in order to reduce borrowing for the war? It seems like we could cut out programs, such as nukes in space, until the war ends. While R&D is important for the economy as well as the military, in times when money is short it makes sense to spend it prudently.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  62 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Issues: Domestic »

  The Dollar

  Madam Speaker, As a result of foreign borrowing for the War in Iraq and poor economic policies that have undermined the fundamentals of the ...more »

  Madam Speaker,

  As a result of foreign borrowing for the War in Iraq and poor economic policies that have undermined the fundamentals of the economy, the dollar has dropped about 50% against other currencies in the past couple of years. The true inflation rate is the official domestic inflation rate plus the drop in the dollar.

  Will you personally offer legislation that implements a war tax to cover any additional war supplementals so that they are revenue neutral? Such a war tax should tax those with incomes over $1 million per year and those with property in excess of $10 million net worth. By taxing the people who most gain from the war, you can shorten it. Ending the excessive war borrowing would strengthen the dollar, and a strong economy is our best defense in a world of global trade.

  « less full details »

  2 comments

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  36 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Issues: Domestic »

  Global Trade

  Madam Speaker, Global trade deals have ruined the fundamentals of the nation's economy by encouraging people to borrow so that they can buy ...more »

  Madam Speaker,

  Global trade deals have ruined the fundamentals of the nation's economy by encouraging people to borrow so that they can buy cheap goods from foreign countries. As a result, the U.S. has lost about one quarter of the manufacturing capacity it had at its peak and many people now earn minimum wage at wealth-distributing jobs. To bring wealth-creating jobs back to the U.S. we need a level playing field. Will you personally sponsor legislation in the House to force all companies selling goods here to show that they are:

  (1) Paying workers our domestic minimum wage for creating those goods?

  (2) Producing those goods under the same environmental standards are we have in the U.S.?

  (3) Have and enforce the same workplace standards we have, especially workplace health and safety standards?

  These requirements will need to be implemented over a period of time that allows industry to respond. So, getting this done right away should be a top priority.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

• I agree

  28 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Elections/Strategy »

  Making Deals With the American People

  Madam Speaker, We were told when Congress failed to put limits on Iraq spending that Democrats had made a deal with the White House over this, ...more »

  Madam Speaker, We were told when Congress failed to put limits on Iraq spending that Democrats had made a deal with the White House over this, and we were told that Steny Hoyer had come up with a deal with the White House (and Republicans) over FISA (which turned out to be a deal mainly to put political pressure on the courts to bail out the telecoms). When will you start making your deals with the American people and let the Bush White House go fish?

  « less full details »

  Add your comment

  Submitted by libthink 3 years ago

Displaying all 13 Ideas