What is the bottom line?

Yes, but my point about 80-20 was how it relates to the Congress and the laws they pass, not a presidential election. Let's not place too much importance on how a presidential election really effects us. It is the Congress that makes the laws we live under - tax laws, banking laws, criminal laws, health laws, welfare laws, laws that govern business, etc, and they decide where our money is spent. The role of the executive is to implement those laws. Do not underestimate the power of the Congress to directly affect our lives. I think Congress has far and away more power than any president to directly affect our lives. Even the president's ability to carry out war is limited by the War Powers Act of 1973 which was passed by who? Congress. All of the wars we are fighting right now against Islamic extremists could be ended by Congress any time they wanted to if they wanted to. When I mentioned 80-20 it was to point out that 80% of the electorate lives in the middle and lower classes, and there is something wrong in our democratic system when the laws passed by Congress do not favor the 80%. And the thing that is wrong is that Congress does not feel beholden to the 80%. They feel beholden to the 20%, or, probably more accurately, the top 5%. And this is directly and distinctly because reelection outweighs all considerations, and it is that tiny percentage that hold the keys to that reelection.

Good grief! You don't ask for much, do ya ...

I think most people know that the DNC did a number of things to promote Hillary and demote Bernie. And analysts have concluded that on a level playing field, Bernie would have won the vote. So pro-capitalist forces of the status quo stole the election.

Well capitalism is our system. A little further down in your comment, you said Bernie would not have ended capitalism. I agree with that. He wouldn't have had the power to end it, even if he wanted to. So I would just say that it was the pro-establishment, pro status quo people in the Democratic Party who, yes, stole the nomination.

Then it was Hillary against Trump and even then the Democrat got 3 million more votes than Trump. And Trump got votes from 29% of the voting-age public. That's all. That's who put him in the W.H.

I haven't done the math, but I would suspect that Hillary only got 30% of the voting age public. Had she won, that's who would have put her in office. That's the nature of an election, though. If you don't vote, you don't get a say.

Yet the electoral college said "to hell with the people and popular vote; we're going to select Trump". So Trump wasn't the more populate candidate either. It's hard to see a "people's choice" anywhere in that.

Well this goes to the debate over the Electoral College system versus a direct vote system. I actually have mixed emotions about that. But it has little to do with your OP which I think is a good question. I don't think the root cause of our nation's problems is the Electoral College.

Bernie certainly would not have ended capitalism. He said he was a "democratic socialist in the tradition of FDR". IOW he would have fought for reforms, and he listed them. But even then the "powers that be" said "no". They wanted someone who would go gang busters for major corporations and the wealthy corporate elite.

Hard to argue with that. Hillary was certainly Wall Street's man. Good god, she had taken a lot of money from them!

Why? What was so important about favoring that small section of the economy and population? Their power. Their money and the influence it buys and the campaigns it finances. They wanted the economy to continue going in the direction it's going with consolidations, mergers, monopoly, increasing wealth disparity, the diminution of democracy that increasing wealth disparity brings, and increasing poverty. But you think the economic system that brought us here and the wealth of the powerful are not the cause?

No, Kode, I don't. I believe that the disparities and inequities we see in this day and age are the symptom, not the cause. All of these things you speak of are a direct result of laws that allow them to happen. Now if 80% of the electorate is middle class and below, why are the representatives of the electorate allowing and enabling all of this?



I have to send you this in parts ... PF says my answer is too long, lol ...

 

Our state legislatures are composed of representatives elected by the people out of small districts within the state. In my relatively small state of Oregon there are no less than 60 representatives in the State House and 30 in the State Senate. This is a body that fairly represents the voters of the state. So it follows that their selection of the two Senators to the Congress would be representative of the will of the people. I would expect that those Senators would be in constant communication with the members of their state legislature with regard to legislation before the Congress. After all, that is who they would be beholden to.

You could never be 100% sure. But it would take away the need for a Senator to run a campaign, and that would eliminate an obvious source of corruption. The only thing a Senator would have to do would be to follow the wishes of his state legislature. If the political complexion of the state legislature changed, they could replace the Senators at the end of their terms with other people. But, in the meantime, those Senators would have no need to fundraise and no need to give political weight to lobbyists from all over the country from every different interest you can name. If they wanted to continue in the Senate, their interest would be in keeping their state legislatures happy with their votes.

We disagree here. I think the bottom line is with those who oversee the system. These things that you dislike and find wrong ... They're all legal. Why? Because those who are charge of making things legal or illegal want them that way. Therefore, they are the problem.

If there is a work-around, it is because some lawmaker put it there for them. Gotta have that reelection campaign donation, ya know ....

The way it is now, the bribery is perfectly legal. At least if a member of congress was willing to take a sack full of money for voting a certain way, that would be illegal.

Haha, see, I see it in reverse. Let me rewrite that ... Without a promise of a career in congress, the members would not be corrupted by those with enormous profits and wealth, and government would have no reason to do wrong. Sure ... we voters might make a mistake and occasionally elect someone who would take a sack of cash, but generally speaking, we wouldn't. With term limits, congressional service would be a high privilege and an honor, and it would attract people of like mind about serving.

Well, Kode, if the members of congress represented the middle class and below, they would probably "rein them in". By that I mean that our tax laws and banking laws and so forth would be geared to the welfare of the middle class. I think much of what you would like to see would happen if Congress represented its true constituency rather than the donor class. And if they were term limited, the donor class would have little influence over them anymore.

Oh yes, getting the 17th repealed and amending the Constitution to have term limits faces monumental barriers.

So I did some reading about these WSDE's. I have nothing against that if that's what people want to do. I wouldn't want the government to favor or oppose that kind of enterprise. I certainly would not want the government to tell businesses that they had to use that system, or that they couldn't use it. If there is to be a "broad establishment" of that sort of system, it must be established by private people who wish to use that system, not the government forcing it.

Yeah but this is the economic system that has created the highest standard of living in the world. It has built great cities and highway systems and transport systems. It creates so much food that we can literally give it away to needy countries. In some places we have to actually pay farmers not to produce any food because of - right - the glut of food. It is on its way to energy independence. It supported WW2 which happened on the other side of the world in Europe and the Pacific, and we won them both. No other nation on earth could have done that. We have the strongest military in the world. We make breakthroughs in medicine and in technology. When the settlers first arrived here in the 1600s, they could barely survive, but they scratched out survival. 400 years later, look at us now.

So I am not going to condemn the capitalist system or the profit motive. What I am saying, though, is that our laws ought to be biased in favor of the middle class and below for that is by far the largest piece of our society. And I say this from the perspective of being one in that 20%. My wife's and my income put us into the upper middle class, but I can well remember living paycheck to paycheck and running down the checkbook to nothing at the end of the month.

Well that's what I want to, and it lends itself to what I have said before ... that fundamentally we all want the same things.

Dunno. I'm sure I won't see it in my lifetime. But if it ever happens, it will transform our federal government.

Well now I'm just repeating myself, but I don't want you to think I'm not going point by point. So again, it's not the system; it's those overseeing it. It's government. Specifically, it's the Congress. They make the rules, and they are corrupted. And they may be corrupted because playing along is how you get reelected. Take the "reelection factor" out, and you transform Congress.

Not unless he was willing to go directly to the people and rally them. He would have to take on the entire Congress and ask the voters to vote them all out and replace them with members who would pass the amendment. If you think his relations with the Congress are bad now ....

I think he is less unhinged than he sounds at times. As I said before, though, there are things about his personality that I don't care for. I think he has found out that he cannot get things done by himself. But I do think the man is pretty much an open book. I think he really would like term limits, but he also wants changes in health care and taxes, and he can't just advocate firing the whole Congress and hope to get anything else done. I can only hope he revisits the issue in the future. Another big issue looming on the horizon over which Congress has a say is North Korea. So, as strongly as I feel about term limits, if I were the POTUS, I might just hold off on that for the time being.

If it works and if workers want to collectively own their own businesses, I have no problem with that. It's a free country, and if they want to create businesses on that model, I'm fine with that.

Not without someone leading the effort who could rally a groundswell of public support. "Permanent Washington" - the politicians, the beltway insiders, the mainstream media, and the economic elite - would all fight against it.

I think he has tried to keep his word. I think he's finding out that it is a lot harder than he thought it would be.

Woo hoo! Cheers!

 

Call this an observation.
The "Others not so fortunate" that is a common perception often doesn't allow for the persons ability to plan and work the plan. No question that there is a factor of luck in life, but most people depend on it far beyond what is rational. Success usually requires more than 80-90% from us. There are a great many pitfalls in life, and you only have to be careless or naive in small degrees to fall into them.

Before we invented all the great social ideas to save ourselves- we had fewer problems than we do now. That is because a great many of today's problems are effects of our great social ideas, that often create more problems than they solve.

While it is admirable to help your fellow man, for example- the same action and motive can do great harm. Here's how.

Let's take two kinds of people.
The first is an independent person- one who has taken care of his own and acted wisely but has some kind of misfortune, and is in trouble.This is a person which would do for himself, if he could. When we help this person, several good things happen: We feel good, proud of being there for others. The person we help feels good, it boosts his faith in his fellow man. That man will use the help to recover-and then he will pay it forward, and help others. That is a win-win relationship. That is also, a hand-up, helping a productive person get back on their feet.

The second is a dependent person- one who lacks the ambition or discipline to take care of his own, and instead seeks to get by. He will often feel resentment for those who have done better, and in many ways blame them for his not having done as well. He believes that he has been short-changed by society or god or the wealthy, and they owe him.
When we help this person- we prove that what he believes is right. We do owe him, proven by the fact we just made a payment.... which was late and inadequate. The bill he thinks he has against society is much larger, and he's looking for the rest of it. The person we help does not feel good. He takes the money, but he resents the way he has to get it. He resent the fact that he can't get along on his own. He does not feel good about us, nor himself. This is a lose-lose situation, we have "helped" that unproductive person to avoid having to become productive. We may tell ourselves we have done something good, but in fact we have enabled this person to continue to be dependent. If you understand what is happening- it's very difficult to reward yourself for it.

The difference in these people isn't physical, or racial, or even education- it's character values, work ethics, personal pride, self-respect. Some aren't raised with those things and that does make it harder- but any person can choose their own values. IF they are wise, they will choose values that will earn their own respect, and will live by them.

Personally- I enjoy giving the hand-up kind of help. I do my best to avoid the hand-out, because I believe it does only harm. However, socially- our government has become masters of the hand-out form of "help". We are paying a huge price for that far beyond the dollar cost, as it is destroying the fabric that makes a society healthy and strong. It is the reason we have generational welfare families. I have no choice but to fund that disaster with my tax dollars- I won't add to it voluntarily.

As to those that ask, "but how will these people survive?"
I don't have an answer that will be popular. I believe that the threshold where people decide that life is up to them, their responsibility, varies widely. Some never wanted it any other way- but some think that's not possible, and so long as someone else will carry them- they will seek to be carried. It is only when absolutely no option is left that they are willing to look to themselves for the answers.

I believe we have been cultivating dependence and the lack of personal responsibility progressively; that it is doing great harm to us- and too many people feel that it's some kind of righteous humanitarian thing to make others unable to stand on their own.

 

. . . . A foregone conclusion on your part, but there is no WE involved.

Although we share almost identical perspectives on individual issues, I cannot agree with your proposed solution. Incentives that inspire competition are important to progress, but we need a sincerely neutral "referee" (an incorruptible government) to call out fouls and enforce penalties.

We should try to eliminate corruption, but to eliminate every SOURCE of corruption would seriously compromise freedom.

 

Sorry. I should have been clearer. I meant I'd like you to comment on my "connections" between issues and the economic system as the cause of them. Again, sorry to waste your time. And I won't comment on your red-and-black replies because I really don't have much of any disagreement with any of it but the following....

-because of our economic system. Let's take one example just to be brief. We could discuss each of them, but let's consider healthcare.

It is widely acknowledged that the main reason the Republicans want to end Obamacare is to put a stop to the taxation it applies to the wealthy. they stand to save a huge amount of money if it's repealed. And they want the money. They are doing a variety of "odd" things to keep their profits and income high, since the truth is that the economy is not really doing very well for them right now, for specific reasons. But for example, they are merging in order to save money on duplication of expensive headquarters, services, labor, etc. In addition, to keep their incomes up many have obtained bank loans with off-shored accounts as collateral. They can't repatriate those funds without paying the tax, so they borrowed against it and can write off the interest cost. Meanwhile they used the loans to pay bonuses and to buy back corporate stock to boost stock prices for the benefit of major corporate shareholders. And BTW, note that this means that if and when those funds are repatriated, they will not be useable for expansion or to "create jobs" or for any capital expenditure. As collateral, it will have to be paid back to the banks to pay off the loans.

Another trick: like the loans against off-shored funds being used to buy back stock, corporations are using profits to do the same to boost CEO incomes.

So, the connection: Why is corporate stock and salaries so important? Well, imagine 2 or 3 businesses doing the same production and competing. The first one that doesn't keep stock prices up will fall out of favor with public stockholders including mutual funds, pensions, variable annuities, etc and they stock prices will plunge more, and the competitors will buy up the cheap stock in a hostile takeover or other strategic move to doom that company. And the company is then finished. So they HAVE TO seek maximum profit by any means possible including pumping up the stock with buy backs. The system requires it for survival. Capitalism forces it. It's how it works.

Ok, another one: The trend away from full-time employment to part-time employment is the same. Benefits are not required for part-timers, so corporations can save plenty by maximizing their part-time positions, and it damaged people and families. And it is because of what capitalism requires for survival.

They're all the same. Healthcare: maximization of profit conflicts with any possible interest in helping people obtain needed healthcare. Need I say more? The current push for "austerity" (which is what it is) whereby government cuts cuts cuts. It is said that government (Congress) has Social Security and Medicare in their sights. Like with healthcare, they will cut benefits to people in order to pay for tax breaks for corporations, and all because capitalism requires increasing profits to survive. Our form of economy has run its course and it's time to start thinking about what comes next.

 

So I researched a bit and found out that Obamacare imposes a 0.9% tax on earnings over $250,000 (married). So if that couple earned $350,000, that tax would be applied to $100,000 of their income. It would amount to $900. Now how important is $900 to a couple earning $350,000? It also imposes a 3.8% surcharge on investment income for couples earning $250,000. This would be $3.80 on every hundred dollars, leaving them with $96.20 out of each $100.00 earned from the investment. Now when all this money is collected, it's a lot of money. But to the individuals, it isn't really. So the O-care repeal is all about that $900? or that $3.80?

Shouldn't there be legislation that prevents a company from buying up all the stock of another company (unless that company consents)?

You may recall - I think we had a long discussion about it - that I have suggested a 3-legged health care system for Americans.
(1) Medicaid for the unemployed and unemployable
(2) Medicare for seniors 65+
(3) Employer-provided private insurance that covers workers and their families, including part time workers.

We already have 1 and 2. #3 would require legislation. Would #3 be good for low and middle income people? Of course it would. And, it wouldn't cost government anything. It would actually save the government money by reducing the number of people on Medicaid.

So why can't that happen, given that 80% of the people who elected our Congress are middle class and lower?

I think the reason it can't happen is that the cost would filter up to the highest levels of the business world, and those highest levels of the business world own Congress. And they own them because they pay into their reelection campaigns, and those members of congress want that money. So, the idea, of course, goes nowhere.

And once again, it goes nowhere because it is thrown away by career politicians who don't care about a good idea if their donor class isn't for it.

 

I think you trust too much here.

Well thee you are.

And corporations and the 400 richest people wouldn't find a way to sway politicians their way? I'm not so optimistic.

And what is the cause of those things being done? -the drive for profits and wealth. And I'm confident they will always find a way. Their survival depends on it.

And the politicians have the opportunity to make life simpler for themselves by eliminating their dialing for dollars and entertaining lobbyists by just stopping and relying on the public as Bernie did. But they don't. And the pressure of the system bubbling up from the economy of capitalism makes it all too easy for them to resist cleaning up their act.

What's to stop the corporate elite from finding ways to reward even short-timers with their term limits pending? Like they say, where there's a will, there's a way. We need to understand that politicians WANT to work with the corporate elite and grease each other's palms or businesses.

But we know who is more "persuasive" between the people and the corporate elite.

And it needs to prove itself. The change needs to be gradual to avoid unnecessary disasters. But current corporate laws make it very difficult to establish WSDEs in particular among all other types of co-ops. So new laws simplifying and streamlining the process are needed to put them on a level playing field.

Yes. Capitalism is an unprecedented powerhouse tht served the purpose very well. It provided enormous production to satisfy society's needs and wants. It make development of technology possible. It raised the standard of living for many of us. But now it is harming the standard of living of many. It is getting in the way of itself. It is becoming what all economic systems become when they have worn out their usefulness: predatory and harmful to its citizens.

Be aware that the one thing that is saving you from agreeing with me on this is your optimism that somebody, somewhere, someday, will somehow buck the tide successfully and change government, but what is pressing you to agree with me is an underlying worry that such a change will probably fail to materialize before this population is so poor, so downtrodden, so hopeless, and so crushed that they have nothing left to lose and will readily resort to violence to overthrow the government and execute the corporate elite. It's coming, but it would be a shame and a disaster because there would be no alternative built and ready to develop further, much like what happened in the USSR and China. That is why I am working to advance WSDEs.

Seth, what is the powerhouse that underlies every society? It's the economic system. That system, if it functions smoothly, provides the means for the survival of the society, the livelihood of its people, it makes all things possible from food and housing to space programs. And the government arises to preserve, protect, advance, and defend that economic system because that system is the heart of the nation. the government will do anything it can to keep the system healthy and robust. And that means keeping those who run the economy happy and humming. And that means mainly the corporate elite because they are the leading force "on the front". So government yields to top business powers. Government won't risk upsetting the economic system or the economy just to be "right" for the people or anyone. There will be no reining in of business. And so big business rules. That will not change. Government is not free to make big changes to the economy for the people. FDR could in the days when the corporate elite had not yet seen such a response from government. But since then the rich have been very methodical about strategies and preparations to make sure it will never happen again. To think otherwise is to think they are not smart.

So you do see that power is ultimately in the hands of the people when they are organized in some way.

He does what will benefit himself financially and that is about all.

 

What do you know about my proposed solution? Could you offer a few comments so I can be sure we're communicating effectively?

 

Yes, I'm still an optimist. And yes, I do think that power is in the hands of the people when they are organized in some way.

I think Bernie's campaign was a peaceful revolt, and I think Trump's campaign, and election, was also a peaceful revolt. Establishment politicians should stand up and take notice that the people think there is something wrong ... with them!

I'm not so sure about that.

I didn't debate you on every point in your reply because we've had a good talk, and I think we fleshed out our points well.

Seth

 

You denounce capitalism and openly subscribe to socialistic doctrines; am I impulsive to presume that you are advocating a departure from our current THEORETICAL economic philosophy???

 

Yes. But imagine the situation of someone in the top 0.01% with an income of $5 million. That $900 becomes $45,000 and with investment income of say $2 million more, the $3.80 becomes $76,000 for a total of $121,000. And some have incomes that are 100 times that or more. That seems to be who the Republican Congress is doing it for, -not to be partisan, but the Democrats aren't behind it. So I specified "Republicans".

There should be lots of legislation for many such things, right? But capitalism has them by the short hairs.

Yes, I remember that conversation. I'm not sure what my reply was, so I'll just comment again. And my thought is that private health insurance has been shown by many studies to cost significantly more to administer than national healthcare. And we can see this in the case of each and every other developed country. We pay 1/2 again as much as the most expensive other country (per capita) and twice as much as in Canada. So there is just no good win with any private insurance scheme. PLUS the insurance companies have shown a determination to figure ways to get around regulations; the purpose of such a business is in direct conflict with the first obligation of corporations as decided by the S.C. (profit); I, for one, do not care one bit for the annual task of sitting down to pore over different plans with different premiums, lifetime maximums, co-pays, deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, different in-patient vs. out-patient coverage, and drug coverage, all requiring me to predict what illnesses I will face and what coverage they will require. BUNK! As I believe most people feel, I just want to go to a doctor when I need to, or a hospital when I need to, and have it covered vary affordably without games and tricks.

What I think too many people fail to realize is that they have the ultimate political power and the government is very afraid of people learning that. But think what we could bring about if just 5% of the population would get out into the streets and town halls and DEMAND changes. That's all it would take. But without that, good luck getting anywhere.

Yes, and it would never be like that in the first place if it weren't for a system that allows people to become so obscenely wealthy that they can personally fund more pressure on politicians than the entire remainder of the population together can. Take away the ability to accumulate more wealth than they and their children could ever spend, and things will change. Yet so many oppose the estate tax. And that would be just the first step.

 

Very well. My parting comment then:
My desire is to see a peaceful, gradual expansion of worker-owned businesses which, with time and experience, could grow to encompass every industry, every product line, and eventually every business, and do this to solve problems and avoid a likely disastrous violent reaction from a desperate public one day. This being accomplished, then, by ending an economic system allowing accumulation of private profit.

Your desire:
I see your desire being to advocate and see a transition to a people-centered, people oriented government that somehow finds a way to allow private profiting to continue while "taming it" to be more "people-friendly" and responsive to our needs, thus avoiding a likely disastrous violent reaction from a desperate public one day.

But I gotta say, I also see you as being a socialist at your core; you just don't know it yet.

 

Well yes, it is easily seen that I am a socialist. And I do advocate a departure from our current ACTUAL economic system. But what do you believe my socialist doctrines/intentions to be? Do you think I want a revolution? An election? Or what?

 

Wouldn't it be much easier for YOU to explain your intentions or desired agenda than to keep me playing guessing games?

Kode, you're a good guy and I am NOT in any way condemning socialism OR your beliefs. . . . I only believe that the philosophy imbedded in our present system inspires more ambition and patriotism, and also allows us more freedom. . . . Unless restrained by the limitations of poverty.

Corruption is inherent in ALL politics. . . . But in a democracy it is OUR responsibility to correct that.

 

Well, realize that this is all about your post where you said "Although we share almost identical perspectives on individual issues, I cannot agree with your proposed solution."
And I think it would be rather strange for me to just say "My intentions and desires are __________"
I think it's much more appropriate to just ask you what you believe my intentions and desires are if your post is to communicate meaning to me. I just wanted clarification and to be sure your understandings are not total confusion or worse. Skip it if you like. It isn't worth any irritation.

 

Do you live in Portland?

 

It works every time it's tried.

People keeping more of their own money always works.

The government stealing the people's money and redistributing it never works.

 

There's a balance; the question is where is that balance.

And that "optimal" balance will change depending on how competent and responsible, and trustworthy, the government in question is at spending that money.

 

No, I live in Yamhill County.

 

Oh! Nice quiet country-town environment with great wineries.

I lived in Tigard but when I retired we moved to a nice small town too, -on the fringes of the small town that is. Best place we ever lived.

 

You seem to be in alignment with most popular liberal beliefs, but do you favor equal distribution of wealth, or merely reducing marginal differences?. . . . You have been rebutting my viewpoints without exposing your own, making it difficult to speculate.

 

I agree!

I escaped from the San Jose, CA, area 37 years ago and never looked back.

 

WTF?

If you honestly believe Trickle Down economics works, you truly don't know what you're talking about.

In fact, your second line betrays your ignorance, because our entire economic engine is built upon the premise of spending money, not keeping it.

 

Damn! That is beautiful country!!!

 

Great. Now we can clarify it.
A liberal, by definition, is essentially centrist. They occupy a place on the fence but lean gently leftward maybe. I'm fairly leftist and equal distribution of wealth wouldn't be quite accurate. The problem is the word "equal". I'd be more interested in eliminating extremes. And the only way I see of finally and permanently accomplishing that is to gradually eliminate the right to private profit by increasing and expanding worker-owned, worker-operated co-ops. Meanwhile I agree with national healthcare without fee-for-service. Put medical staff on salaries and make drug manufacturers non-profit.

I oppose privatizing most things, especially prisons, the post office, etc.
i support raising the minimum wage immediately to $10 and to $15 by 2023.
I'd like major legislation on guns.
I'd support the development of a plan to deal with climate change that requires at least 80% of participants be environmental experts like climatologists, glaciologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists and chemists, etc.
I'd support a major national effort to advance alternative energy, plus roads, bridges, and light rail.
I oppose these tax cuts for the rich and would like something like a new tax bracket of 40% on income over $300,000, and bracket of 60% on income over $500,000, and one of 80% on income over $1 million.
I'd support an estate tax of 50% on estate values exceeding something like $6 million.
I's support cutting the defense budget by 20% now and another 10% or more in 5 years, plus requiring defense department audits annually.
I would gather top teachers who are judge to be highly effective and experienced from every state and form an education department with them and have them determine curricula, teachers' pay scale, etc with some approval system.
Probably the first thing I'd like to see is the nationalization of banks.
Also an end to lobbying altogether, or at least cutting it to one lobbyist per industry.
An end to all business contribution to political campaigns and end all other sources and replace it all with an annual $5 income tax on everyone who files a tax return.

The above are not firm proposals, -just ideas.

Gosh, I didn't know I had so many things to list! ... AND THERE ARE MORE!!!
Maybe another time for those.