Right wingers who were previously opposed to gay marriage have now "evolved" and support the initiative. The same conservatives who opposed a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants are now saying they're in favor. Did logic and reason change the collective GOP Mind?
Public opinion is what changed. How do Americans feel about cutting tax loopholes? How do they feel about Medicare and Social Security? Socially, elected officials listen to the public. But, why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise what Americans want? Why is any tinkering of taxes forbidden?
Robert Reich (Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, and former Labor Secretary) explains why money is the priority, not American favor.
Support The Point for FREE by doing your Amazon shopping through this link (bookmark it!) http://www.amazon.com/?tag=townsquaretyt-20
He states "90% support universal background checks" then shows a chart that doesn't show that at all, there are background checks at gunshows, almost all sales at gunshows are by FFL dealers, all FFL dealers are required to do a background check currently by federal law.
After looking it up and looking past the "scum" part. You do have a point.
Lower trade walls in I-Nations to "compete" on a international level with "slaves" from India and China is never a good idea if saving jobs nationally is the goal.
Robert Reich is a NeoLiberal (privitaice everything, deregulation, free trade etc) and did/dose still promote/defend NAFTA.
Cheaper gods dosent really matter if the unemployment rate risks going over 10% and people cant afford to buy stuff.
I find it funny that Robert Reich never mentions that he was the chief architect behind NAFTA, which absolutely devastated the middle class by outsourcing good paying union jobs to third world countries. You wanna know why our democracy is failing on economic issues? It's because of neoliberal scum like Robert Reich.
You are the one that has no clue,they never tried to "buy him out" he did not like that they would not let him tell stories the way he saw it and wanted to tell him what to say.My comment until proven different stands.
Yup, they destroyed the unions of MI, made it a desolate wasteland, moved jobs to the south with low wages, and then created NAFTA to send more factories to Mexico. Good Job, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush jr.
and that's all included in the economic part. We are winning on social issues like weed and gay marriage, and it is obvious that this is what he is talking about. Stop picking an argument where there isn't any
The President can't make this happen - Congress must. However, Presidents are just as well (or more so) rewarded by the current system as any other elected official. I would be interested to hear any other suggestions you have to get the people who profit by money in politics to vote to take it out. The ONLY remedy I can see is to vote them out until they act.
No dude he's not talking about social programs where money is involved in the least. We're talking about social issues that really have little or no financial gain for someone.
It's very easy to push an issue through that speaks about a right that is being denied to someone, and where there is no opposition money-wise. Those can be won with the people changing their minds with polls showing the swing of it.
So many politicians changing their "views". These issues mean nothing to them money-wise.
How do you suggest we do that? I made one suggestion as to how. Simply saying it in all caps doesn't do anything. I'm not MAKING this complicated, it is complicated. We have a situation where the people who make the rules regarding money in politics have great incentive NOT to do that, and little incentive to do it. Only if we can get voters to make this a top priority can it happen.
I agree. The problem is that the people who would have to make this happen are the same people profiting by the status quo. I would join a movement (even though I hate 1 issue voting) to vote against anyone who does not support drastic campaign finance reform. A couple of election cycles with a majority of legislators losing their jobs is the only way to make this happen. However, I suspect FOX and others would convince enough sheep to fight this.
Might I also say, that a Democracy doesn't function well when you have a highly misinformed general populace. When 60% of the voting populace can't even name a single supreme court justice, or that a large percentage of Americans wouldn't even pass their own citizenship test, we have a conflict of the two (Democracy & Information).
Politicians in the United States of American, as in dictatorships, don't have any or at least very little incentive to represent the people of the country. Don‘t get me wrong, the U.S.A. is not a dictatorship, it‘s just a completely broken representative democracy where the represented have become the politicians themselves and the wealthy they rely on.
Well, 93% of the nation agrees with background checks, but you don't see politicians flocking to the idea of stronger gun regulations, now do you? We have to understand it isn't reason, societal views or the tides of history that drives these politicians, no. What makes these politicians do the dirty things that they do, is the same thing that gets the strippers down at "Wandas'" dancing...money. We get money out of politics, and everything will begin to progress for the better.
In short, no meaningful political effort to reform our economy can take effect without first getting money out of politics. In a true democracy it should be that one person gets one vote. Organizations, like corporations, with a vast amount of cash, can subvert this democratic process by exercising influence that no single voter can hope to exert.
Ultimately the real solution here is to remember the lesson of Tragedy of the Commons. This is commonly told with a well-known example of a common field that cows destroy with overgrazing. This is commonly thought of as a resource morality play, but what is commonly overlooked is who actually benefits the most from having better fences and regulations. Of course the answer is those with cows. The rich are hurting themselves most by not properly fencing govt simply because they have the most!
The supreme Court has ruled that money has free speech rights, so legislation can't get rid of big money. Perhaps underground campaigns to garner write in vote might work, I don't know. I have other suggestions that aren't violent at all, but may be labeled as terrorism.
Unfortunately, Fox News and the wordsmiths of the Republican party have poisoned the well of so many conservative voters that it will take generations to get true conservatism back on the right. For the time being, it appears that the Democrats are effectively filling that roll with the president at the helm.
How can you be condescending and ignorant at the same time? A constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy. Do you think people are advocating for a direct democracy with no rule of law or protection of civil liberties?
Just wait until the gap between the "haves" and "have not's" grows to a point where those who listen to huge corporations are voted "out." Big money can help them fund their campaigns. But what if campaigns no longer bring in votes. It might take a while, but those elected officials who listen to "big money" will be discarded like garbage by the public.
Giving an established path to foreign workers further de-powers low or under employed workers, who then have to compete against people who have other tax law structures and can work for less.
legalizing undocumented workers is a corporate issue, and isn't about families being split (which is only a side issue) its about devaluing american workers even more and leveraging these slave wages as the next "minimum" wage that we have to compete against.
I would love to see public a public opinion poll on whether 2+2=4. Unfortunately, not everything is a matter of a vote. Can we simply alter the the dynamics of supply and demand by having a vote on it? No. This means that you have to bend to economic realities because it will not bend for you. Please understand that if certain concepts like supply and demand are taken to be "laws" then there will necessarily have to be consequences that flow from them. If they are not laws then state your case.
Naw it's much more simple than that. Social issues require little work and people have things to hide behind. When it comes to non-social issues the matter of facts get involved and people are afraid to look stupid. People do not read enough to understand complex issues so the are forced to accept what they are told. I was a student intern in a lab and one day I shut down my older "co-workers" on health care and the economy and they make sure to never discuss politics when I was around.
Worker rights are also social issues. In that area USA is failing and has been since they 80s. With less than 20% of Americans being Unionized anyone living there should not expect average jobs to become better paid.
Actually background checks do tinker with big moneyed interests. Thats why it did not pass. If a universal background check were enacted, Gun manufacturers would naturally make less money. But you are right about immigration and gay marriage. Same thing with marijuana. A majority support its legalization, but it will remain illegal because of the financial interests of private prisons who have a stranglehold on Washington.
I wont pretend to know about politics well except for the very basics,but why do republicans hate democrats so much?The history of republican forms of governments have failed,perfect examples are Rome and Germany.
Economic changes to make things more equal would cut into our legislator's personal money, and they would rather ruin the middle and lower classes and not take a reduction in their already excessive income. They do not understand that continuing as it is would ruin the economy of our country - those without spendable income cannot buy. This is Econ 101 and our government has failed for over 20 years and is continuing to fail.
So how the hell are we supposed to get moneyed interest out of politics when they have more political clout than the majority? Elections are won based on how much money a candidate can raise, so we get the option of voting for someone who promises change but doesn't keep the promise or voting for somebody who promises more of the same and does keep the promise.
Mr. Reich love your work. However, please stop calling it a democracy, why would you spread this fallacy? I can also sum up why social issues are coming to light more often for the people.
It's because of the economy. When things are bad, people start to take notice of issues they before ignored. Social issues being first on the list.
The economy comes last because we have less power there because of the same reasons you talk about.
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.