[Proposal] New progressive strategy for US politics

[Nova Andromeda]

-Unless you've been lurking under a rock at SDnet, you should be aware of the dismal state of the progressive agenda in the U.S.A.
1. Health care appears to be a give away to the insurance companies with Zero cost control and virtually no real reform.
2. The bailout of the banks has been nothing more than robbery of the U.S. tax payer.
3. Real reform of banking and finance in general appears to be dead.
4. Climate legislation also appears to be a gift to industry and generally worthless.
5. I don't know much about the stimulus package, but I do know it does things like spend 27B on highways vs. 8B on rail. There are also a lot of gifts to the military.
6. The handling of the economy seems to be in the hands of all the old school morons who wrecked it in the first place (see J's posts to get a better idea about this).
... The list just goes on and on...


-These problems are caused by a number of factors such as: an uninformed population, uniformed/misinformed politicians, utterly spineless Democrats, the insane Republican base and it politicians (see birthers, death panels, prode conservative terroists, etc.), a news media virtually owned by converatives, etc.

-My solution is this: Forget about trying to pass anything national unless you absolutely must. Instead, move to a regional strategy. For healthcare, this would mean creating a single payer or gov. option via a coalition of liberal northeastern and western states. These states would also create regulations, taxes, etc. to fix the healthcare system. Laws to prevent people from states outside the coalition from leaching from the new system would also be needed (perhaps a long term residency requirement and a buy-in if you move from out of state). This strategy could be applied to many problems such as: public transportation, energy, enviroment, social services, etc. It could also be applied to climate change, but that would be like Europe going ahead with climate change laws while China, the U.S.A., and India did nothing (i.e., severely hampered).

On the federal level, new 'states rights' laws would be passed to remove any federal hurdles (I don't currently know of any) to this plan. In addition, federal taxes would be cut dramatically to allow for a shift of the overall tax burden to state taxes. I'd also love to see laws passed to pay off the national debt (let the conservatives decide what to cut after the federal taxes are gutted ). Since this new strategy plays to the U.S.A. populations bias toward less taxes, small government, and state's rights it seems like it would be much easier pass the required federal laws. In addition, all the changes that average conservatives hate would not be forced on them thus removing the primary obstical to reform.


Note: this idea is a work in progress.


No, I have no problem with letting conservative America turn itself into a 3rd world hell hole. Better to cut your loses than be dragged down and drowned by dead weight.

[Patrick Degan]

-My solution is this: Forget about trying to pass anything national unless you absolutely must. Instead, move to a regional strategy. For healthcare, this would mean creating a single payer or gov. option via a coalition of liberal northeastern and western states. These states would also create regulations, taxes, etc. to fix the healthcare system. Laws to prevent people from states outside the coalition from leaching from the new system would also be needed (perhaps a long term residency requirement and a buy-in if you move from out of state). This strategy could be applied to many problems such as: public transportation, energy, enviroment, social services, etc. It could also be applied to climate change, but that would be like Europe going ahead with climate change laws while China, the U.S.A., and India did nothing (i.e., severely hampered).

And this is made to apply nationwide... how, exactly? BTW, you are aware of the clause in the U.S. Constitution which forbids the states to enter into coalitions of their own, aren't you?

On the federal level, new 'states rights' laws would be passed to remove any federal hurdles (I don't currently know of any) to this plan. In addition, federal taxes would be cut dramatically to allow for a shift of the overall tax burden to state taxes. I'd also love to see laws passed to pay off the national debt (let the conservatives decide what to cut after the federal taxes are gutted ). Since this new strategy plays to the U.S.A. populations bias toward less taxes, small government, and state's rights it seems like it would be much easier pass the required federal laws. In addition, all the changes that average conservatives hate would not be forced on them thus removing the primary obstical to reform.

In other words, doing the conservatives' work for them and completing the dismantling of the Federal safety net with no guarantee that the divided states' own plans will either be applicable nationwide or result in a uniform set of standards, nor have a guarantee of receiving adequate funding. How brilliant.

Note: this idea is a work in progress.

So was the maiden voyage of the Titanic.

No, I have no problem with letting conservative America turn itself into a 3rd world hell hole. Better to cut your loses than be dragged down and drowned by dead weight.

—which will happen a lot faster under this half-assed "plan" of yours and also help to disunify the United States, since it will create populations which literally have no stake in the welfare of millions of their fellow citizens.

[Samuel]

BTW, you are aware of the clause in the U.S. Constitution which forbids the states to enter into coalitions of their own, aren't you?

... The Western Climate Initiative seems darn close to doing that.

http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/

[Patrick Degan]

BTW, you are aware of the clause in the U.S. Constitution which forbids the states to enter into coalitions of their own, aren't you?

... The Western Climate Initiative seems darn close to doing that.

http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/

And there is, in fact, already a lawsuit, Indeck Corinth v. Patterson, wending its way through the courts regarding a similar setup of several eastern states on those grounds. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this challenge for a multitude of reasons.

[Guardsman Bass]

-My solution is this: Forget about trying to pass anything national unless you absolutely must. Instead, move to a regional strategy. For healthcare, this would mean creating a single payer or gov. option via a coalition of liberal northeastern and western states. These states would also create regulations, taxes, etc. to fix the healthcare system. Laws to prevent people from states outside the coalition from leaching from the new system would also be needed (perhaps a long term residency requirement and a buy-in if you move from out of state).

That's certainly possible, and several states actually have tried doing their own form of universal health care (although most such plans seem to look like the one Massachusetts is running right). That would also bear some similarities to the origins of the Canadian health care system, where you had Saskatchewan taking steps towards universal care under Tommy Douglas before the Canadian federal government started to intervene and promote the system.

I'd argue that the Democrats and progressive groups really ought to be doing both - promoting universal health care at the national level while also fighting the ground battle state-by-state.

On the federal level, new 'states rights' laws would be passed to remove any federal hurdles (I don't currently know of any) to this plan. In addition, federal taxes would be cut dramatically to allow for a shift of the overall tax burden to state taxes. I'd also love to see laws passed to pay off the national debt (let the conservatives decide what to cut after the federal taxes are gutted ). Since this new strategy plays to the U.S.A. populations bias toward less taxes, small government, and state's rights it seems like it would be much easier pass the required federal laws. In addition, all the changes that average conservatives hate would not be forced on them thus removing the primary obstical to reform.

Keep in mind that if you actually managed to do this (good luck with that) and shift the burden heavily down to the state level, you're probably going to end up with some severe disparities in livelihoods and programs from state to state, particularly as some states are heavily dependent on federal funding.

No, I have no problem with letting conservative America turn itself into a 3rd world hell hole. Better to cut your loses than be dragged down and drowned by dead weight.

The problem with that is that state-level problems often don't stay at the state-level.

[Duckie]

In this thread, a man advocates retreating from no-man's land to defend his capital because they had already won a desperate battle at the capital beforehand so now he feels more confident about fighting a battle there again. His idea is to let the army march across no man's land and see if it runs out of food or pillages too much and provokes an uprising, since they will assuredly not use their newfound resources and industry to siege the capital, nor will the loss of terrain impact what people think of the nation and cause a political crisis.

This is a terrible plan. "We like winning all the time, so let's reduce our efforts to a subset of what they were before to increase our Kill/Death ratio".

[Nova Andromeda]

BTW, you are aware of the clause in the U.S. Constitution which forbids the states to enter into coalitions of their own, aren't you?

You are going to have to spell out this objection since states enter into all sorts of agreements with each other. My proposal only requires that the more liberal states cooperate and coordiante to enact the progressive agenda in their states. It does not necessarily require a coalition on par w/ the EU framework.

Regarding the "Compact Clause", the supreme court only objects when the: “combination tending to the increase of political power in the tates, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”

Furthermore, the consitution isn't worth the paper it's written on when something as fundamental as habeas corpus can and is ignored at will.

In other words, doing the conservatives' work for them and completing the dismantling of the Federal safety net with no guarantee that the divided states' own plans will either be applicable nationwide or result in a uniform set of standards, nor have a guarantee of receiving adequate funding. How brilliant.

It's what they want. Why should the progressive agenda be gutted (as it is now) in some futile attempt to work around the conservatives? The whole idea is to conceed the federal (i.e., nationwide) plan because it hasn't worked and all the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change the fact that it stands little chance of working for the foreseeable future. Until a federal option actually has a real chance (i.e., the conservative states aren't run by insane crazies and surrendercrats grow a spine), the liberal states would implement the progressive agenda on a state level based on a mutually agreed upon set of standards.

... also help to disunify the United States, since it will create populations which literally have no stake in the welfare of millions of their fellow citizens.

1. The United States already IS FUCKING DIVIDED!!!
2. Backup your idiotic claim that progressives in the liberal states will no longer give a shit about their fellow citizens despite all evidence to the contrary.

And there is, in fact, already a lawsuit, Indeck Corinth v. Patterson, wending its way through the courts regarding a similar setup of several eastern states on those grounds. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this challenge for a multitude of reasons.

Your own link suggests this lawsuit stands little chance. In addition, congress could simply give its approval and gut most of the lawsuit.

I'd argue that the Democrats and progressive groups really ought to be doing both - promoting universal health care at the national level while also fighting the ground battle state-by-state.

Okay, I agree that promoting both methods is a good idea (unless it significantly undercuts implementation of the state plans).

Keep in mind that if you actually managed to do this (good luck with that) and shift the burden heavily down to the state level, you're probably going to end up with some severe disparities in livelihoods and programs from state to state, particularly as some states are heavily dependent on federal funding.

Currently, federal money is largely wasted on debt financing, the military, broken systems like medicare & social security, gifts to conservative states, etc. The idea is to coordinate the programs of various liberal states (this would include funding for social services). Livelihoods may well get worse in conservative states, but the progressives have been fighting to improve that for ages. The losing fight to do things at a national level has meant the people in liberal states have suffered greatly from a lack of reasonable social services like healthcare. It's far past time to try something else.

I haven't found an easy comparison, but here are some sources for the spending/revenue per capita by state:

Census: federal spending by state.
Wiki on Federal tax by state.

[Samuel]

Furthermore, the consitution isn't worth the paper it's written on when something as fundamental as habeas corpus can and is ignored at will.

Actually habeas corpus is specifically allowed to be ignored in certain cases.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Currently, federal money is largely wasted on debt financing, the military, broken systems like medicare & social security, gifts to conservative states, etc. The idea is to coordinate the programs of various liberal states (this would include funding for social services).

The "gifts" to conservative states tend to be money to help pay for social programs. Like education, road construction and the like. As for debt financing...

You really don't want to see the US government default. It is up there with China invading Taiwan as things that would really fuck with the global economy.

[Aeolus]

And this is made to apply nationwide... how, exactly? BTW, you are aware of the clause in the U.S. Constitution which forbids the states to enter into coalitions of their own, aren't you?

This is not true. many states have compacts with each other

[Nova Andromeda]

Furthermore, the consitution isn't worth the paper it's written on when something as fundamental as habeas corpus can and is ignored at will.

Actually habeas corpus is specifically allowed to be ignored in certain cases.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

We have not been invaded and there is no rebellion.

Currently, federal money is largely wasted on debt financing, the military, broken systems like medicare & social security, gifts to conservative states, etc. The idea is to coordinate the programs of various liberal states (this would include funding for social services).

The "gifts" to conservative states tend to be money to help pay for social programs. Like education, road construction and the like. As for debt financing...

You really don't want to see the US government default. It is up there with China invading Taiwan as things that would really fuck with the global economy.

First, the people living in conservative states don't support social services and if they do there would be nothing stopping them from raising taxes and funding those services. Second, you misunderstand me. I'm suggesting that the federal taxes be used to do things like pay off the debt and lower taxes. Military spending would be cut and social services would be shifted to the states (over a reasonable length of time so that states have the time to fill the gap as they see fit - in the case of the liberal states, I suggest coordinated implementation of the progressive agenda). I agree a federal default would be very bad.

[Wing Commander MAD]

The OP seems to indicate that spending 27 billion on the interstate highway system and only 8 billion on rail is somehow bad. You do realize that the U.S. is far to spread out (at least in its current incarnation) to really use rail as a primary means of transporting goods . I don't even want to imagine the amount of new rail that would have to be laid to cover a fraction of the cargo transported currently on the interstate highway system, to say nothing of the environmental damage that would result from laying the rail. The only reason that long houl trucking overtook rail transport of goods is due to the fact that it obviously must be cheaper to do. I certainly don't see businesses being willing to incurr additional expense in transport of their goods and I can only imagine the initial investment cost of setting up a rail system that would ultimately prove cheaper for transporting goods (if it would even be possible) long distances throughout the country. Furthermore, there are plenty of communities in areas served by businesses like Wal-Mart, Sears, etc. that rely on trucking to stay supplied that wouldn't warrant having a rail stop. The best you could hope for is a series of major distribution centers through out each state connected by rail, with the remainder of the distance covered by trucking. That is of course pretty much the system we have now, more or less to my knowledge. Unfortunately, the US is far too spread out for systems that might work in Europe to be emulated here. I believe Mike once made the comment about being amused by the fact that he could travel a certain distance and still be in the same province whereas in Europe he'd have crossed multiple countries. The US is in pretty much the same condition (although we have far more internal political subdivisions that Canada), made worse by the fact the the United States's population is far more spread out than that of Canada due to the lower altitude and generally more favorable climates. Like it or not the Interstate Highway System and state highway systems are currently far more important to the function of the country than rail is, and that simply will not change unless the countries population distribution drastically changes.

I also have to question the idea of basically abondoning large swaths of the country to what would undoubtly end up reverting to Guilded Age conditions. I am really not certain that using a scorched earth policy for internal politics is in the nations best interest in the long run. Furthermore, what are the northeast and northwest going to do when they are faced with essentially millions of refugees seeking to enter them after the rest of the country essentially collaspes under a purely capitalistic system into a society of the ultral wealthy few and the dirt poor masses?

[Nova Andromeda]

The OP seems to indicate that spending 27 billion on the interstate highway system and only 8 billion on rail is somehow bad. You do realize that the U.S. is far to spread out (at least in its current incarnation) to really use rail as a primary means of transporting goods . I don't even want to imagine the amount of new rail that would have to be laid to cover a fraction of the cargo transported currently on the interstate highway system, to say nothing of the environmental damage that would result from laying the rail. The only reason that long houl trucking overtook rail transport of goods is due to the fact that it obviously must be cheaper to do. I certainly don't see businesses being willing to incurr additional expense in transport of their goods and I can only imagine the initial investment cost of setting up a rail system that would ultimately prove cheaper for transporting goods (if it would even be possible) long distances throughout the country. Furthermore, there are plenty of communities in areas served by businesses like Wal-Mart, Sears, etc. that rely on trucking to stay supplied that wouldn't warrant having a rail stop. The best you could hope for is a series of major distribution centers through out each state connected by rail, with the remainder of the distance covered by trucking. That is of course pretty much the system we have now, more or less to my knowledge. Unfortunately, the US is far too spread out for systems that might work in Europe to be emulated here. I believe Mike once made the comment about being amused by the fact that he could travel a certain distance and still be in the same province whereas in Europe he'd have crossed multiple countries. The US is in pretty much the same condition (although we have far more internal political subdivisions that Canada), made worse by the fact the the United States's population is far more spread out than that of Canada due to the lower altitude and generally more favorable climates. Like it or not the Interstate Highway System and state highway systems are currently far more important to the function of the country than rail is, and that simply will not change unless the countries population distribution drastically changes.

Why don't you back up your ridiculous assertions with evidence. The highway system relies on massive government subsidies and cheap energy. If you subsidized the highway system, mass transit, rail, air, etc. at the same level either the highway system would take a massive hit or everything else would see massive increases in funding. While the rest of the developed world is reaping the benefits of mass transit the U.S. is stuck with an expensive and inefficient highway system. Even China is moving toward high speed rail and mass transit.

I also have to question the idea of basically abondoning large swaths of the country to what would undoubtly end up reverting to Guilded Age conditions. I am really not certain that using a scorched earth policy for internal politics is in the nations best interest in the long run. Furthermore, what are the northeast and northwest going to do when they are faced with essentially millions of refugees seeking to enter them after the rest of the country essentially collaspes under a purely capitalistic system into a society of the ultral wealthy few and the dirt poor masses?

A. The rest of country wouldn't be abandoned. The rest of us just wouldn't wait for their permission to move forward.
B. What makes you so sure that the those poor masses will be anything other than the nationalistic fundamentalist xenophoes they are today? There are plenty of dirt poor masses in the conservatives states already and I don't see them causing a migration problem.

[Patrick Degan]

BTW, you are aware of the clause in the U.S. Constitution which forbids the states to enter into coalitions of their own, aren't you?

You are going to have to spell out this objection since states enter into all sorts of agreements with each other. My proposal only requires that the more liberal states cooperate and coordiante to enact the progressive agenda in their states. It does not necessarily require a coalition on par w/ the EU framework.

Regarding the "Compact Clause", the supreme court only objects when the: “combination tending to the increase of political power in the tates, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”

I have spelled it out, and so has the Constitution. This agreement goes a bit beyond the usual arrangements for water sharing or interstate transactions and is involving negotiated agreements between state governments and the governments of foreign provinces of another soverign nation.

Furthermore, the consitution isn't worth the paper it's written on when something as fundamental as habeas corpus can and is ignored at will.

Except habeas corpus is not simply "ignored at will", since those who do violate it still have to twist arguments in legal knots to try to justify the action. We have not gotten to the point where the executive rules through tyrannical force-majeur and you fucking well know it.

In other words, doing the conservatives' work for them and completing the dismantling of the Federal safety net with no guarantee that the divided states' own plans will either be applicable nationwide or result in a uniform set of standards, nor have a guarantee of receiving adequate funding. How brilliant.

It's what they want. Why should the progressive agenda be gutted (as it is now) in some futile attempt to work around the conservatives? The whole idea is to conceed the federal (i.e., nationwide) plan because it hasn't worked and all the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change the fact that it stands little chance of working for the foreseeable future. Until a federal option actually has a real chance (i.e., the conservative states aren't run by insane crazies and surrendercrats grow a spine), the liberal states would implement the progressive agenda on a state level based on a mutually agreed upon set of standards.

I see you didn't even bother to think before hitting the reply button. The progressives cannot succeed in the long run if they already concede ground they still hold and allow their initiatives to be divided along state lines. Politics is a very fluid dynamic and there is no guarantee that states that are liberal now will remain liberal in the long run: as any study of the history of the farm belt states —once the bastion of progressivism— can attest. By not fighting along national lines, as conservatives do, you make it easier for them to employ divide-and-conquer strategies, which is how they pulled off the Gingrich revolution back in 1994. It is your proposal which is wishful thinking.

... also help to disunify the United States, since it will create populations which literally have no stake in the welfare of millions of their fellow citizens.

1. The United States already IS FUCKING DIVIDED!!!

2. Backup your idiotic claim that progressives in the liberal states will no longer give a shit about their fellow citizens despite all evidence to the contrary.

1. No, shitwit, the United States is not "already FUCKING DIVIDED" —Americans still recognise the political unity of the country as a whole even with the present ideological conflicts, which are milder than those which once used to rage in previous periods of history.

2. Take your strawman and shove it up your ass, you dishonest, cherry-picking little fuck. To restore the full statement which you edited for your own convenience:

No, I have no problem with letting conservative America turn itself into a 3rd world hell hole. Better to cut your loses than be dragged down and drowned by dead weight.

—which will happen a lot faster under this half-assed "plan" of yours and also help to disunify the United States, since it will create populations which literally have no stake in the welfare of millions of their fellow citizens.

And there's you already proving the point —by your own words. The practical consequence of your half-assed plan involves abandoning millions of Americans to their fates if they live in conservative-dominated regions, and this includes whatever number of liberal progressive citizens living in those regions. Ideologically, it widens the gap between conservative and liberal beyond what it already is at now —with conservatives seeing this development as confirmation of their own warped worldview. Culturally, over time, it will end up with a people who no longer see themselves as part of a unified nation. And in terms of your strawman, well, you being the supposedly liberal progressive chap that you claim to be are quite obviously willing to cease giving a shit about millions of your fellow citizens as it is.

And there is, in fact, already a lawsuit, Indeck Corinth v. Paterson, wending its way through the courts regarding a similar setup of several eastern states on those grounds. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this challenge for a multitude of reasons.

Your own link suggests this lawsuit stands little chance. In addition, congress could simply give its approval and gut most of the lawsuit.

Not quite: the analysis said that two of Indeck's claims regarding due process are on shaky ground but the article does not at all say that the lawsuit in whole is on such shaky ground. It also examined two constitutional claims which were not part of Indeck's lawsuit and which they did not make but which other industry advocates have tried to advance. And yes, Congress could moot the issues by legislative action, which is not under dispute here.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I know I don't fully get the way modern politics is going, but is someone attempting some form of "Humour" with this? If so I'm a misenthrope, these people in politics these days seem to be down right Sociopathic....

[Wing Commander MAD]

The OP seems to indicate that spending 27 billion on the interstate highway system and only 8 billion on rail is somehow bad. You do realize that the U.S. is far to spread out (at least in its current incarnation) to really use rail as a primary means of transporting goods . I don't even want to imagine the amount of new rail that would have to be laid to cover a fraction of the cargo transported currently on the interstate highway system, to say nothing of the environmental damage that would result from laying the rail. The only reason that long houl trucking overtook rail transport of goods is due to the fact that it obviously must be cheaper to do. I certainly don't see businesses being willing to incurr additional expense in transport of their goods and I can only imagine the initial investment cost of setting up a rail system that would ultimately prove cheaper for transporting goods (if it would even be possible) long distances throughout the country. Furthermore, there are plenty of communities in areas served by businesses like Wal-Mart, Sears, etc. that rely on trucking to stay supplied that wouldn't warrant having a rail stop. The best you could hope for is a series of major distribution centers through out each state connected by rail, with the remainder of the distance covered by trucking. That is of course pretty much the system we have now, more or less to my knowledge. Unfortunately, the US is far too spread out for systems that might work in Europe to be emulated here. I believe Mike once made the comment about being amused by the fact that he could travel a certain distance and still be in the same province whereas in Europe he'd have crossed multiple countries. The US is in pretty much the same condition (although we have far more internal political subdivisions that Canada), made worse by the fact the the United States's population is far more spread out than that of Canada due to the lower altitude and generally more favorable climates. Like it or not the Interstate Highway System and state highway systems are currently far more important to the function of the country than rail is, and that simply will not change unless the countries population distribution drastically changes.

Why don't you back up your ridiculous assertions with evidence. The highway system relies on massive government subsidies and cheap energy. If you subsidized the highway system, mass transit, rail, air, etc. at the same level either the highway system would take a massive hit or everything else would see massive increases in funding. While the rest of the developed world is reaping the benefits of mass transit the U.S. is stuck with an expensive and inefficient highway system. Even China is moving toward high speed rail and mass transit.

I also have to question the idea of basically abondoning large swaths of the country to what would undoubtly end up reverting to Guilded Age conditions. I am really not certain that using a scorched earth policy for internal politics is in the nations best interest in the long run. Furthermore, what are the northeast and northwest going to do when they are faced with essentially millions of refugees seeking to enter them after the rest of the country essentially collaspes under a purely capitalistic system into a society of the ultral wealthy few and the dirt poor masses?

A. The rest of country wouldn't be abandoned. The rest of us just wouldn't wait for their permission to move forward.
B. What makes you so sure that the those poor masses will be anything other than the nationalistic fundamentalist xenophoes they are today? There are plenty of dirt poor masses in the conservatives states already and I don't see them causing a migration problem.

I'll make a point to look up some info, may take a few days though.

[Vympel]

Campaign finance reform. Who do you work for? Whoever pays you. The entire US political system is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. It's not even hidden. It's just brazen.

[Stargate Nerd]

Campaign finance reform. Who do you work for? Whoever pays you. The entire US political system is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. It's not even hidden. It's just brazen.

This. Does any other Western Democracy allow this form of corruption in such a blatant fashion?

Also, maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

[Lusankya]

I'm not sure, but I suspect that the lack of party unity in the US would facilitate the corruption. In countries where crossing the floor is rare, you'd have to buy out just about half of a party in order to guarantee that your interests would be served, whereas in the US where representatives switch sides like leaves fluttering in the autumn wind, all you'd have to do is buy off enough politicians to block the bill.

Westminster democracies also have things like Question Time which would allow the opposition to grill a member of the government mercilessly if it was found that they had compromising campaign contributions.

[Junghalli]

I'll make a point to look up some info, may take a few days though.

Well, offhand (and I'll admit this is backed up by no research whatsoever) I'd think fundamentally changing the nature of the country's transportation infrastructure is just inherently going to cost more than keeping the present system running, at least in the short term. It's the cost of maintaining and perhaps expanding something that already exists and is robust vs the cost of tearing it up and replacing it with something totally new, or expanding things that are less robust at present. In the long term we'll need some alternative to oil although the degree of change that involves depends on what that alternative ends up being.

[Nova Andromeda]

Your own link suggests this lawsuit stands little chance. In addition, congress could simply give its approval and gut most of the lawsuit.

Not quite: the analysis said that two of Indeck's claims regarding due process are on shaky ground but the article does not at all say that the lawsuit in whole is on such shaky ground. It also examined two constitutional claims which were not part of Indeck's lawsuit and which they did not make but which other industry advocates have tried to advance. And yes, Congress could moot the issues by legislative action, which is not under dispute here.

Well if you agree that Congress could moot the issue then you agree there is no serious legal obstical to my proposal.

And there's you already proving the point —by your own words. The practical consequence of your half-assed plan involves abandoning millions of Americans to their fates if they live in conservative-dominated regions, and this includes whatever number of liberal progressive citizens living in those regions.

1. It's what the populations for those states want (in many cases overwhelmingly).
2. Those populations have to choice to: A. support the Federal initiatives, B. move to a liberal state, or C. have their state join the progressive state plans.
3. Employing a Federal plan only strategy means that all the progressives in the U.S. must live with things as they are until we win at the Federal level. We've been losing at this for DECADES. Our best chance was with Obama, but that has been a horrible disappointment. You might wish continue to suffer the privations of the conservative agenda for the foreseeable future, but why should the rest of us?
4. Both a Federal strategy and the strategy I propose can be pursued at the same time.

Ideologically, it widens the gap between conservative and liberal beyond what it already is at now —with conservatives seeing this development as confirmation of their own warped worldview. Culturally, over time, it will end up with a people who no longer see themselves as part of a unified nation.

Conservatives bring semi-automatic weapons to protest against the president while spouting lines about shedding the blood of tyrants. Their lies are utterly absurd and bear no resemblence to reality (see birthers, death panels, etc.) and are supported at the highest level of conservative. I fail to see any middle ground or how my proposal makes these things worse. On the other hand, indulging their delusions by treating them seriously only gives them national legitimacy.

And in terms of your strawman, well, you being the supposedly liberal progressive chap that you claim to be are quite obviously willing to cease giving a shit about millions of your fellow citizens as it is.

Your absurd slander is worthy of Faux News really. The conservative's success in gutting the progressive agenda at the Federal level has forced people like me to chose between helping them against their wishes and helping ourselves! That's entirely different than just letting them rot for no reason.

[Nova Andromeda]

Campaign finance reform. Who do you work for? Whoever pays you. The entire US political system is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. It's not even hidden. It's just brazen.

This might work if you could get it passed, but all efforts on this front have met with utter failure. Even if you did get it passed, you still face irrational conservative ideology which is no small obstical in the U.S.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

-My solution is this: Forget about trying to pass anything national unless you absolutely must. Instead, move to a regional strategy. For healthcare, this would mean creating a single payer or gov. option via a coalition of liberal northeastern and western states. These states would also create regulations, taxes, etc. to fix the healthcare system. Laws to prevent people from states outside the coalition from leaching from the new system would also be needed (perhaps a long term residency requirement and a buy-in if you move from out of state). This strategy could be applied to many problems such as: public transportation, energy, enviroment, social services, etc. It could also be applied to climate change, but that would be like Europe going ahead with climate change laws while China, the U.S.A., and India did nothing (i.e., severely hampered).

Your solution is best described as "LOL-bertarianism, ahoy!" At worst, it can be described as "sheer lunacy." Note that the two are synonyms. Only a true LOL-bertarian would seriously propose abandoning millions of Americans to their fate just so religious fruitcakes and wealthy businessmen "progressive" Americans can get their way.

On the federal level, new 'states rights' laws would be passed to remove any federal hurdles (I don't currently know of any) to this plan. In addition, federal taxes would be cut dramatically to allow for a shift of the overall tax burden to state taxes. I'd also love to see laws passed to pay off the national debt (let the conservatives decide what to cut after the federal taxes are gutted :twisted:). Since this new strategy plays to the U.S.A. populations bias toward less taxes, small government, and state's rights it seems like it would be much easier pass the required federal laws. In addition, all the changes that average conservatives hate would not be forced on them thus removing the primary obstical to reform.

At best, this would ultimately create a United States that resembles the one out of my The Seventy-Niners story. At worst, it would create the new Confederate States of America. Or, maybe, Africa.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Campaign finance reform. Who do you work for? Whoever pays you. The entire US political system is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. It's not even hidden. It's just brazen.

This might work if you could get it passed, but all efforts on this front have met with utter failure. Even if you did get it passed, you still face irrational conservative ideology which is no small obstical in the U.S.

It is no small obstacle, but it may not be critical in the short run. The problem seems largely that the representatives of the Democratic party are bought by corporate interests that by their nature are more sympathetic to current Conservative causes in America than their constituents are. If you removed that incentive, the party may become much more responsive to progressive tendencies in the party and voting public at large, which seem underrepresented at high levels in government despite the nominal overwhelming Democratic majority. I think there are enough voters sympathetic to reforming health care and other "liberal" causes that they would be able to significantly influence policy if they really had the ear of their representatives. After that the sheer effectiveness of policy (hopefully) will sway the mindless middle away from overly Conservative sympathies and allow education to slowly erode the idiotic ideologies. This is something of a best-case scenario, though, barring a transhuman AI developing a massive anti-stupidity device and deploying it on the public.

[Patrick Degan]

And there's you already proving the point —by your own words. The practical consequence of your half-assed plan involves abandoning millions of Americans to their fates if they live in conservative-dominated regions, and this includes whatever number of liberal progressive citizens living in those regions.

1. It's what the populations for those states want (in many cases overwhelmingly).

So... if they wanted to, say, make slavery legal, that would be a reason for letting them do it? Because they want it? You're proposing the return of the broken doctrine of popular soverignty.

2. Those populations have to choice to: A. support the Federal initiatives, B. move to a liberal state, or C. have their state join the progressive state plans.

I'd ask if you were really that naive, but you make it increasingly evident that you are. Do you really have any fucking idea how expensive an interstate move is for people? And what if there are no jobs where they want to move to? And if their state is controlled by conservatives, exactly how do they bring about their state "joining the other progressive state plans"?

3. Employing a Federal plan only strategy means that all the progressives in the U.S. must live with things as they are until we win at the Federal level. We've been losing at this for DECADES. Our best chance was with Obama, but that has been a horrible disappointment. You might wish continue to suffer the privations of the conservative agenda for the foreseeable future, but why should the rest of us?

Progressives have been losing at this for decades BECAUSE they stopped trying to win nationally. They adopted your half-assed plan of waging little battles all over the place and kept getting their asses kicked.

4. Both a Federal strategy and the strategy I propose can be pursued at the same time.

I see the entire concept of "divided focus" is beyond your grasp.

Ideologically, it widens the gap between conservative and liberal beyond what it already is at now —with conservatives seeing this development as confirmation of their own warped worldview. Culturally, over time, it will end up with a people who no longer see themselves as part of a unified nation.

Conservatives bring semi-automatic weapons to protest against the president while spouting lines about shedding the blood of tyrants. Their lies are utterly absurd and bear no resemblence to reality (see birthers, death panels, etc.) and are supported at the highest level of conservative. I fail to see any middle ground or how my proposal makes these things worse. On the other hand, indulging their delusions by treating them seriously only gives them national legitimacy.

Nice little Black/White fallacy you've got there.

And in terms of your strawman, well, you being the supposedly liberal progressive chap that you claim to be are quite obviously willing to cease giving a shit about millions of your fellow citizens as it is.

Your absurd slander is worthy of Faux News really.

Mere babble. Ignore.

The conservative's success in gutting the progressive agenda at the Federal level has forced people like me to chose between helping them against their wishes and helping ourselves! That's entirely different than just letting them rot for no reason.

How, exactly? It still amounts to essentially abandoning millions of your fellow citizens to their fates —including the ones on the progressive side who won't have a national movement to back them up under the strategy you propose here.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Here is some data I've found:

• 1. Productivity of rail has more that doubled while, long distance trucking only has increased in productivity by about 37% in the period from 1987-2006. here
  2. Charges for shipping by rail grew by about 10%, while trucking increased by only about 4% from 2005-2006. here
  3. As of 2006 trucking consumes 38 billion gallons of fuel annually, while rail freight consumes only 4.2 billion gallons. Keep in mind howerver that the amount of freight shipped by rail is far lower that that by trucking (see below) and an increase in the amount transported by rail will definitely see a corresponding increase in fuel consumption. here
  4. Truck shipping accounted for 12,691 million tons in domestic transport, while rail accounted for 1,872 million tons. here
  5. There appears to be roughly 210,000 route miles of interstate and National Highway System roadways as of 2006, while there is only about 95,000 route miles of Class I rail. here

The main sources for my information are Freight Facts and Figures 2008 and 2006 Conditions and Performance Report.

Taking into account the fuel burned by trucking compared to rail transport and the amount of cargo each carried. It would appear that trucking utilizes roughly 2.99 gallons of fuel per ton of cargo, while rail uses roughly 2.24 gallons of fuel per ton of cargo. This makes rail roughly 25% more efficient in amount of cargo moved per gallon of fuel burned. Note however, that the numbers for for frieght are from domestic only (excluding import and export) and fuel is total burned in all methods of transport (domestic, import, export). It shouldn't change the number significantly, as the domestic transport accounts for about 98% of trucking freight and roughly 92% of rail freight.

I am willing to concede the point and agree that rail is more efficient than trucking (provided I did the math right). My main concerns would be in the cost required to increase rail transportation to a point where it can largly replace long distance trucking and the maintenance costs involved. I am also unsure how rail maintenance compares to highway maintenance in terms of manpower required. It could cause large scale unemployment if the numbers would differ significantly and large portions of the current highway system were abandoned in favor of rail (I have no idea if this would eventually happen or not).