Anyone out there feel as if neither party works for them?

[bUU]

This is the manner in which Sanders differentiates between which of the two imperfect political parties should prevail in a specific issue, when that's the bottom-line choice:

Moral Issue

In America today, the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the financial wealth of America. The bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent.
In America today, one family, the Walton family of Walmart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent, while the top 400 individuals in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of the nation – over 150 million people.
In terms of income, the top 1 percent earns more income than the bottom 50 percent, while the wealthiest 16,000 Americans, who make more than $10 million a year (the top 0.01 percent), saw their income increase by nearly a third from 2011 to 2012.
According to the most recent study, from 2009 to 2012, 95 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent. Meanwhile, since 1999, median family income declined by more than $5,000 after adjusting for inflation.
Today, a record-breaking 46.5 million people live in poverty in the United States. At 21.8 percent, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. One out of four kids in this country now lives in a family that receives food stamps.
Poverty among seniors is growing. Over 9 percent of seniors lived in poverty last year, higher than in 2009. More American seniors were living in poverty last year than in 1972.
In recent years, while median family income has declined and poverty has increased, the number of millionaires and billionaires has grown at an extraordinary rate. In 1996, there were 121 billionaires in this country. Today, there are 442.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/polls/...ome-inequality

In other words, he reviews what each is planning on doing, and judges based on how well each approach treats those most vulnerable in society.

[catherine]

This is the manner in which Sanders differentiates between which of the two imperfect political parties should prevail in a specific issue, when that's the bottom-line choice:http://www.sanders.senate.gov/polls/...ome-inequality

In other words, he reviews what each is planning on doing, and judges based on how well each approach treats those most vulnerable in society.

Yes. Works for me.

[Spartana]

Hmmm, have you ever tried to fire an incompetent government employee? At least politicians are subject to the whims of the electorate.

Well we could at least TRY to fire them. Might be better than trying to impeach them (and how well does that work Mr. "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton) to get them out. But them we'd need an oversight committee to do that and hire a replacement. Of course the true problem is that each and every little Bill and issue that comes along would have to be voted on by all Americans. That would be a pain. But then, right now with a two party system it probably takes much longer to pass (or not pass) a Bill anyways. Right now it's like if you and Peggy were the only ones who got to decide what gets passed :-)!

[Alan]

Well we could at least TRY to fire them.

I was referring to the ballot box. House members serve 2 year terms. It would be easier to replace them all every two years than to try to fire half the number of federal workers in twice the time.

Right now it's like if you and Peggy were the only ones who got to decide what gets passed :-)!

Ha, if Peggy had to agree with me, nothing would ever get accomplished, but I'm thinking that might be a very good thing.

[Spartana]

I was referring to the ballot box. House members serve 2 year terms. It would be easier to replace them all every two years than to try to fire half the number of federal workers in twice the time.
Ha, if Peggy had to agree with me, nothing would ever get accomplished, but I'm thinking that might be a very good thing.

Hmmm.. sounds familiar Mr. and Ms. House and Senate :-)! Of course we could just do away with Congress all together (Off With Their Heads!) and replace it with a direct vote from the people. Let the people represent themselves directly. Tally computer votes on all issues and send them to the future Robo-Prez to enact. No more two party system, No more any party system. Ok now who's living in fantasy Land. Just imagining all the endless details of administering such a thing is scary. And then there is the constitutionality of every issue - although I guess you could still have a SCOTUS to oversee that.

[catherine]

Here is a Princeton study that talks about how our democracy has been usurped by the wealthy elites. "Of the people"? Certainly--once upon a time. "By the people"? Not anymore. "For the people"? Only if it's in the best interest of the corporate oligarchs.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...nger-democracy

[ApatheticNoMore]

Here is a Princeton study that talks about how our democracy has been usurped by the wealthy elites. "Of the people"? Certainly--once upon a time. "By the people"? Not anymore.

Well if there was any golden age it was certainly brief. Once upon a time when? When african americans couldn't vote? When women couldn't' vote? (that's less than 100 years there). Of course I guess voting means no representation anyway so a benign dictatorship that better represented one might be preferable, don't think that's likely though.

[bUU]

We can point to a time when things changed from "things improving more than things degrading more" to "things degrading more than things improving more". As strange as it may seem, that probably happened sometime before the 1980s. So much has improved since, but so much has degraded since, too.

[gimmethesimplelife]

We can point to a time when things changed from "things improving more than things degrading more" to "things degrading more than things improving more". As strange as it may seem, that probably happened sometime before the 1980s. So much has improved since, but so much has degraded since, too.

This rings so true to me, especially as a gay man. It blows me away sometimes that there are 17 - 17!!!!! - states in which I can legally marry another man at the moment, and that I can file as married on Federal income taxes and that gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military. Further stunning are youtube videos of Navy men and women departing their boats and meeting and kissing their partners in plain public view with no fear. Amazing. I never thought I'd live to see such a thing. On a bus here in Phoenix a few weeks ago there were two guys sitting in the back kissing to the point where my reaction was honestly - get a room for crying out loud - same reaction I'd have if it had been a man and a woman kissing that passionately and intensely on a public bus. But I was also floored that no one said a word. This is not the same world I grew up in in regards to this issue. Not at all. So there is certainly some good.

Then when I look at things economic, there's been much sliding backwards, and I don't have the faith that we will be sliding forwards to that life that some had once again. Can the planet even sustain it if we could? So socially, I do see some great progress, economically, not so much.

Something I think of posting this is my mothers second husband she married in the 80's. I never met a man more redneck in my life and certainly a graduate of the John Wayne school of how to deal with whatever life throws your way. Those familiar with me might guess how well the two of us got along. I'm glad in a humane kind of way that he has since passed, as the idea of a black man as the President of the United States and the idea of gay marriage being legal in his home state of Iowa may have been enough to do him in anyway. These two concepts he just could not have dealt with period. But I thank him now that I have the wisdom of the middle aged - I learned from his bigotry to stand up for myself and to call injustice for what it is and have never looked back since learning this. I have him to thank for pushing me to this. Rob

[catherine]

We can point to a time when things changed from "things improving more than things degrading more" to "things degrading more than things improving more". As strange as it may seem, that probably happened sometime before the 1980s. So much has improved since, but so much has degraded since, too.

Well said. Not quite "It was the best of times; it was the worst of time," but similar. The 80s does seem like some line of demarcation--the Reagan Era certainly did start wheels turning in many different directions.