I would really like to see a primary opponent against Obama.
(Anthony Wiener would be okay with me)
Not to take over the party, or split the vote, but to show Obama and his corporate buddies how many people are disgusted with his record.

We know how Obama negotiates--he rolls over.
If he sees how large his opposition really is he'll fold like a poorly constructed house of flimsy cards.

Obama doesn't really roll over...he just knows his role. Obama believes in the stuff he's doing, especially helping out corporations and illegally assassinating peeps.

Real change = let voters control federal budget.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but that would be a disaster. Voters don't have the foggiest idea how to allocate a federal budget.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Real change = let voters control federal budget.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Real change = let voters control federal budget.


Voters are stupid sheep swayed to and fro easier then a swing in the wind.

>> ^heropsycho:

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but that would be a disaster. Voters don't have the foggiest idea how to allocate a federal budget.
>> ^Edgeman2112:
Real change = let voters control federal budget.



No flames here.
That's what I thought when I read that.
"Voters" includes some pretty stupid people (Faux Noise Zombies).

>> ^heropsycho:

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but that would be a disaster. Voters don't have the foggiest idea how to allocate a federal budget.
>> ^Edgeman2112:
Real change = let voters control federal budget.



Congress has had a century of generally poor track record, so let's give it a try.

And that's actually beside the point. The entire lobbying industry would collapse overnight since the concentration of money in Washington is vanished. 300 people controlling money vs. ~200 million voters? Lobbyist buying power will be completely decimated.

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.

You completely, utterly lack any historical perspective. No civilization on the planet prospered as well as the US did in the last century. I'm not crediting Congress for it all, but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role. Just because debts were run doesn't mean they made poor decisions.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.

I'm sorry, but no. I'd take even the foolish budgetary decisions of the last 10 years than allow the general public to allocate the federal budget. They're clueless.

I think this whole video is premised on part of the problem with how Obama ran his 2008 campaign. Basically, he allowed himself to become a vessel for every progressive to fill with their hopes and dreams.

Like Cenk says here, Obama said, in these exact words, "I don't want to just play the game better, I want to change how politics works."

Cenk seemed to think that translated into "I promise I will end corporate influence over politics, and utterly break the back of the Republican party so they can't stop us from implementing every aspect of the progressive agenda."

Obama never really disabused people from this notion -- he never said "no no, that's wrong, here's what I really mean" and those chickens are coming home to roost now.

As someone who listened carefully to what Obama actually said in the boring parts of his speeches, and read his books, I can say Cenk just misunderstood.

See, Obama thought he was going to "change how politics worked" by essentially accepting all the Republican counter-proposals from history. He thought we didn't have health care because liberals were too fixated on single-payer, when even Romneycare would be a massive improvement to our healthcare system. He thought we didn't have carbon controls because he thought liberals were too gung-ho for carbon taxes, and rejecting the Republican idea of cap & trade.

So basically, his big idea was that the progressive agenda could finally be implemented, by just selling the Republican solutions to the issues liberals care about to liberals. And by and large, he succeeded in that part of his plan.

The problem he ran into, and still seems to have not fully come to grips with, is that Republicans never really proposed those because they wanted to solve the problems with health care or global warming, they just wanted to use those plans as a cover for their obstruction of more liberal legislation. They never really believed in individual mandates or carbon offsets, they just needed to present those ideas because they needed to pretend (at least in earlier decades), like they only objected to the way Democrats were addressing those problems, and not objecting to the problem being addressed at all.

Now, of course, America has largely been brainwashed through decades of conservative-dominated media, and they no longer feel the need to pretend to give a shit about issues, and can just go straight for the outright denial of the problem itself. Oh, and they also have no problem lying to people about where these policy prescriptions really came from: their own party.

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.