This year’s Democratic platform has the fingerprints of progressive movements all over it. A $15 minimum wage, a pathway to cannabis legalization, improvements to Social Security, police accountability, and financial reforms — including a tax on speculation — all make an appearance.
With Trump all but admitting that he was planted to assure Clinton victory in November and Clinton's bottomless corporate funded war chest to put Stein in a box and keep her there, all fronts where redistribution of wealth is making headway will be carpet bombed to oblivion during President Clinton's first hundred days.
Obama has done a good job starting the war against states' rights with his ACA prohibiting states from starting single payer and prohibiting states from requiring GMO labels. Part of Clinton's carpet bombing strategy includes feeding steroids to Obama's war on states' rights.
Short of Jill Stein winning in November perhaps cutting carbon and redistribution of wealth will need to wait for the next life, Jorge ?
I oppose states rights, but I love the carbon tax.
Although states rights can be used for 'good', historically it has been used to deny the rights of various groups and individuals.
In theory states rights is a neat little tool, but in practice it's been awful.
I also love a graduated income tax that takes from those most able to give and gives to those in need of help.
The top rate should be 70% on anyone whose income is above $1 million dollars per year.
Regardless of whether said income is from wage or salaried labor, or from investment income.
This is the only way to redistribute income more fairly.
Most important thing is to much reduce both annual emissions and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases as CO2 equivalent, since that now seems to be main driver of climate change. We need to much slow climate change before it has further effect on crop yields causing HUNGER for many both here and abroad. So tax CO2 emissions as much as possible where our earth observation satellites are able to locate and measure emissions. But also tax carbon content of carbon containing fuel bought by consumers as proxy for the emissions they will turn into. I suppose some portion of tax on emissions and fuel bought by small burners will have to go towards relieving poverty, since we do claim to be a progressive country. But also use much of the revenue to capture CO2 from both chimneys and ambient atmosphere and to make use of it for fracking hot rock reservoirs for enhanced geothermal systems, where since it is doing something useful, it will be watched to try to stop any escape.
"Historically", states' rights have cut both ways.
Most progressive legislation was first tested in states and became the wedge for federal legislation, including New Deal programs that FDR tested when he was Governor of New York.
Single payer is a classic example of cutting both ways. Saskatchewan started what became Canada's single payer system, whereas when California Governor Gray Davis was on the verge of approving California's single payer system that would have been the wedge for federal single payer, the oligarchs staged and financed Davis' recall (based on bogus power deregulation accusations). Arnold the terminator proceeded to twice veto California's single payer upon replacing Davis.
Progressives who dismiss states' rights do so at their own peril.
Wow! What a great idea! Don't you realize that it's likely too late now to halt continued warming--meaning that the "end may be near" for our species?
We disagree. Respectfully.
Not a big fan of the ACA subsidizing health insurance corporations, but I thought there were provisions that permitted states to set up single payer systems. I thought Vermont was on verge of doing so, before Gov. Shumlin backed off his pledge.
With states such as mine doing their best to be the decision-makers for local communities, I also like the idea of community rights and the rights of nature and the ordinances promoted by organizations like CELDF (Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund).
I'm in favor of carbon taxes, but, in the long run, if they are generating big revenues, it means they are not changing big behaviors––people are paying instead of changing. The real advantages to a successful carbon tax (where people change behavior instead of pay extra taxes) are to the environment and in building new opportunities for a new economy. In the short run, of course, when people are adapting, there will be a lot of money generated. Just don't count on it to level the economy––green jobs will do that.
Better do something fast. Record high temperatures are being reported in the Middle East. How is 129F? Heat index 140? And, "In coming decades, U.N. officials and climate scientists predict that the region’s mushrooming populations will face extreme water scarcity, temperatures almost too hot for human survival and other consequences of global warming." That region is stable now. It looks likes things could get even much worse.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
To Stop Climate Change, eat meat once a week or less, same for dairy!
If we want to heal our planet, we have to connect the dots on what humans are doing to our planet. The impact of meat and dairy is immense! And it is totally within our grasp! When we put vegetable at the end of our fork, we celebrate gardens, clean air, fertile soil, clean water, and a nurturing attitude! When we put meat on our fork, we are celebrating disease, death, suffering, destruction of our environment and violence. The choice is ours!
To have a direct and effective impact, millions of people need to move away from meat and dairy! There are plenty of very good meat and dairy alternatives available to help people transition away from zombie food!
What do you think?
The ACA does not prohibit states from starting their own single payer systems. Where do these repeated myths come from?
Colorado will have a single-payer referendum in November.
And who elected Arnold Schwarzenegger (and Ronnie Raygun before that)?
It is going to take a lot more than not eating meat. The most important single thing a typical USAn can do is end their dependence on daily use of a car. It can be done. But even that will not be enough.
What are you trying to say?
Forget that. The sprawl development pattern that is so common in the US makes that impossible for decades at least. The car situation can be solved by electric cars charged with energy from solar or wind. Politically it is almost impossible to ask people to give things up. What is needed for the most part is solutions that don't result in greenhouse gas emissions.
The comment included the statement that climate change is real but not really a crisis. Obviously that is nonsense. It is absolutely a crisis based on the science. Some scientists are even calling it an emergency because of a string of record-setting months of global temperature.
Some good news not heard because of Trump trash talk:
"Denise Grab, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity who filed the amicus brief in the refrigeration case, said that yesterday's decision provides "major support" for federal agencies to use the social cost of carbon as a policy tool.
"It is significant that the court resoundingly dismissed these challenges and found that the agency's approach was reasonable," Grab said. "This ruling will make it harder for opponents of climate action to justify spurious attacks against the social cost of carbon."
The premise, and a very clear set of guidelines how to achieve this was presented (3) years ago by Naomi Klein in This Changes Everything