If Democrats win a veto-proof majority in 2018, what should they do with it?

[yurbud]

They should do something bold or they won't have it for long.

Also, they would own whatever does or doesn't get done in terms of legislation, just as Republicans own every stupid ass thing they are doing now.

It would also be great optics to emasculate Trump.

[Orsino]

1. Tax the goddamned rich.

Cut taxes on the middle class slightly, and more on the working poor.
Restore CHIP.
Restore ObamaCare mandate.
So the GOP can steal all these things back when the billionaires and MSM throw elections back to the Republicans.

[former9thward]

21. Just curious.

What federal taxes do the "working poor" pay? What taxes would you like to see reduced?

[TrollBuster9090]

40. The Payroll Tax, and the Medicare Tax for a start.

The Payroll Tax is a perfect example of a regressive tax, where the richer you are, the smaller a percentage of your income you pay. Everybody who earns a salary pays 6.2% payroll tax, up to a MAXIMUM $118K, and then it ceases to increase. So, if you earn $118 thousand, you pay $7316 in payroll taxes (6.2%). If you earn $118 MILLION, you still pay $7316 in payroll taxes (0.0062%). The very definition of a regressive tax.

[former9thward]

59. So the payroll tax, which pays social security, should be eliminated or reduced?

The reason it is capped is that the benefits are capped. If you raise the cap then the benefits would raise for the wealthy and the system would become more unsustainable than it is now.

[Orsino]

70. For those who can't afford it, yeah.

Raise the cap, but adjust rates.

[TrollBuster9090]

71. Nope, that's a Republican talking point.

I'm suggesting lowering the rate, and broadening the base. (Ironically, that's also a Republican talking point.) The rate would be lowered, and the cap removed. The idea that the payment amount is capped because the benefit amount is capped is just a fallacious talking point. The talking point that, if you raise the payment cap you'll also have to raise the benefit cap for the wealthy is also false.

The SS pension was meant to provide a minimum retirement income, but we all make a proportional sacrifice from our income to support the program. That's true of all the income levels between $1 and $100,000. Why should that principle cease to be valid once you go over $100,000 in income? There doesn't have to be a proportional quid pro quo between what you pay in and what you get out. That's not true of any other public service. Wealthy people pay more in income and property taxes, but that doesn't mean more money will be spent on their kids when they're in school, relative to the kids of their neighbor, who paid less. Nor do you pay more in taxes, depending on how many kids you have. Everybody pays a roughly equal proportion of their income or property value, regardless of how heavily they use the service. It also doesn't mean more police will come to your house if you get robbed, you have a nicer road to drive on if you paid more in taxes than your neighbors, or a bigger Seal team will be sent to rescue you if you're kidnapped while vacationing overseas.

One of the other common arguments for the cap is that wealthy people are less likely to need or use the pension when they retire. First, that may not necessarily be true. There's no guarantee that a wealthy person won't go broke,which happens sometimes. But again, public programs never work that way. People who don't have kids still pay for schools, people who've never been sick (and don't 'intend' to be sick) still pay for health insurance, people whose houses have never caught fire still pay for firefighters, and pacifists still pay for the Army. In all cases the payment is made proportional to your income and wealth, rather than your use of the service, or what you think you're 'entitled' to use because of the amount you paid into the program.

[MichMan]

81. Social Security has always beeen claimed to be an insurance program and not a tax

The main selling point is that everyone collects and the more you contribute, the larger the benefit. While not proportional, this has always been one of the foundations of the system and one reason it is supported by the vast majority of citizens across all income levels. That is why people are saying if you increase the cap you also need to increase the benefit amount.

If you decouple the benefit amount from the amount paid in via FICA, there is a big risk that it is seen as a welfare program and not as insurance undermining support for the program

[TrollBuster9090]

84. If It's Not A Tax, Why Is It Paid For By The "Payroll Tax?"

"That is why people are saying if you increase the cap you also need to increase the benefit amount."

I disagree. People are repeating a talking point designed to scare people away from the idea of removing the cap. The talking point creates a false dichotomy, where you (appear) to have only two choices:

1. Either you let the wealthiest Americans off the hook for paying their fare share into the country's most important SOCIAL program (hence the name Social Security). This causes the program to be chronically underfunded, and allows 'conservatives' to blather about how it will go broke in 20 years unless we CUT benefits, Or...

2. Remove the cap on payments AND the cap on benefits, and have the social security trust fund paying for two of David Koch's Lear jets; causing it to go bust TOMORROW.

But again, that's a false dichotomy, designed to scare people. No EFFECTIVE social program works that way. Lousy, crony-capitalism programs, that make extensive use of user fees and surcharges do. And conservatives tend to like those types of programs because they are less of a tax burden on the wealthy.

"There is a big risk that it is seen as a welfare program and not as insurance undermining support for the program."

Again, I disagree. Frank Luntz's genius not withstanding, changing the name of America's most popular social programs is not going to undermine them. Social Security and Medicare (which are linked, so that you can't opt out of one without opting out of both) are the third rail of American politics (touch it and die) for a reason. Because they're used by ALMOST everybody. Especially the middle class. They're not programs that are just targeted to the poor, and which cynical politicians can turn people against by using racist dog whistle tactics. "Welfare," "Unemployment," "Disability"...sure. Those programs are obviously for losers, and you can easily use the politics of resentment to undermine them. But I'm pretty sure you could change the name of Social Security to "Free money for old losers" and it wouldn't erode public support for the program.

Regardless of what you call those programs, they're universally loved by everybody EXCEPT the handful of people who are seriously wealthy enough that they'd never need them. And those people that are wealthy enough to never need to use Medicare or Social Security resent having to pay for them. Resent having to pay for things that other people need, but they don't.

[gristy]

102. Yes. Agree with everything you say.

If you decouple the benefit amount from the amount paid in via FICA, it would be seen as a welfare program and not as insurance undermining support for the program

[EarlG]

2. I wonder if they'll even need a veto-proof majority

Trump doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would die on the hill of GOP orthodoxy if he's the last Republican standing in DC. I think he's more likely to sign whatever is put in front of him as long as he thinks it will make him look good.

That's assuming he's not in prison by then of course.

[avebury]

5. If you take money out of his wallet,

he will veto the bill. He doesn't care about anything else but he does care about people trying to deny him his wealth.

[Cary]

54. I was wondering that too

#fakepresident is also irrational and lawless and has not expressed any ambition beyond pleasing Putin and his affected base. So who knows?

[underthematrix]

3. Repeal #GOPTaxScam

MedicareforAll
Massive Infrastructure Bill with 21st century training and education programming
Free two year community college
Gunsense regulation

We must elect Democrats whose donors are the middle and working class
Reward ethical, well educated, competent, mentally fit candidates with the heart of a public servant with our vote.

[onetexan]

79. second that

But is that possible? And likely?

[MichMan]

4. Any of these would be a good start

1) $20 per hour minimum wage

2) Single payer

3) Lower retirement age to 55

4) Raise corporate tax rate to 45%

5) Reparations for slavery ; 50k tax free to every single descendant

6) Top marginal rate of 75% to all income above 500k

[yurbud]

23. I wouldn't even say lower retirement age to 55 but instead, offer golden parachutes

When unemployment climbs above a certain point, which would also stabilize the economy overall.

The problem is that would be bad for a certain part of Wall Streets business which thrives on booms and busts.

[Baconator]

30. Holy shit.. #5

Those are all nuts except maybe #2 but that one is particularly ridiculous.

[ClarendonDem]

38. Yup

[bearsfootball516]

39. Agreed. I thought the same thing, but didnt want to say it lol

[MichMan]

45. What amount would you think is adequate?

John Conyers introduced a reparations bill every single year. Now that he is gone, what other politicians are going to take up the cause to atone for slavery?

Maybe $50k is not feasible, but what is? AA voters are some of our most reliable supporters. They were promised 40 acres and a mule.I figured 50k was the present value.

[Baconator]

65. $0.00...

The idea that Ben "Grain in the pyramids' Carson, among countless others, deserves $50k because of his great great great great grandfather is stupidly ridiculous.

We aren't buying votes...

[yurbud]

116. It's more like grandfather...

Until the Civil Rights movement, African Americans didn't have access to some of the programs that lifted whites out of abject poverty.

To get the votes of Southern Democrats for Social Security, it had to exclude domestic and farm workers, jobs done mostly by blacks at the time.

Something similar happened with the first GI Bill that helped a lot of veterans go to college and buy homes. It was administered by the states, so black GI's had to ask the local racist white politician for what he risked his life to earn, and they said no most of the time.

And of course, the wealth created by the labor of slaves has been passed done to generations of descendants of plantation owners and bankers.

If you found out some of the richest people in Germany's family fortune came from pulling the gold fillings out of Holocaust victims, you might think it's reasonable to give some or all of it back to descendants of the victims.

Maybe instead of reparations from our tax money, it should come from some forensic accounting to figure out where the wealth created by slaves ended up.

[TrollBuster9090]

72. Ironically, none of those USED to be considered radical (with a caveat for #5)

The fact that all of those things are now considered radical is a testament to the success of how far the plutocrat propaganda machine has pushed the Overton Window to the right. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)

The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. If it had been continuously adjusted for inflation since 1968, I think it would be something like $16/hr. The minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, as should the SS pension. The SS pension would be tricky, of course, because it comes from a fund. But indexing the minimum wage to inflation is easy. There are those who claim that indexing ANYTHING to inflation actually CAUSES inflation, but they're overstating their case. Many things CONTRIBUTE to inflation, but the minimum wage is a very minor one.

Regarding the top income tax rate, it was 90% when Kennedy came into office and lowered it to about 75%. Due to all the loopholes and deductions, nobody actually paid that much. My idea would be to have the top income tax rate relatively high, but then allow deductions for home improvements, employing people (deductions based on how many people you employ full time...servants, etc.), and make deductions for things that actually stimulate the economy. Charging a lower tax rate for doing things with your money that stimulate the economy was the original idea behind lowering the Capital Gains rate to 15%. It was never meant to be 'equitable.' It was a Faustian bargain, where the rich were allowed to pay a lower tax rate, if they did something that was considered to be stimulatory (investing it) with their 'spare' money. In 1981 that made sense, because the idea of investing in international corporations was rare. Now, investing your money in Chinese corporations that are dedicated to driving American corporations out of business is common place; as is stashing your money in tax havens in the Bahamas. So, this policy needs to be revisited.

Finally, point 5--Reparations for slavery. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION was meant to be the CHEAP way of addressing that injustice. People who attack and destroy affirmative action programs are just inviting this argument. Better to have affirmative action programs, and say they're meant as redress for America's Original Sin.

[yurbud]

117. One easy way to stabilize unemployment is golden handshakes

to encourage people to retire earlier when unemployment goes up.

[sarisataka]

7. Mathematically impossible nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

29. BE lucky to get a simple majority given the KGB will be actively preventing votes from being cast

and counted along with unconstitutional gerrymandering still in place.

[Tiggeroshii]

8. Not possible

Even if we win special elections in arkansas and arizona (if they happen) the most seats we would have in the Senate is 59. And thats assuming we win every senate seat that is up next year. Veto proof would need 66 which wouldnt be possible until 2020.

[Demsrule86]

9. Another poster showed me this is not possible until 20...the numbers don't work.

[yurbud]

24. What policy proposal should Democrats make assuming they have a free hand?

Too much stuff is pre-compromised to get GOP votes or not piss off the wealthy, but the point of this is stating clear goals so the public knows what we stand for.

[Eliot Rosewater]

35. If it were me I would first focus on making sure everyone we know vote for ANY democrat

on the ballot in November.

I dont care if it is Satan him or herself.

[Demsrule86]

62. First save the Dreamers and Chip...then address Obamacare with a public option...anyone who has

and area where they have little choice in health care...gets to go on Medicare. Investigate the shit out of Trump and the GOP Congress as well...those f'ing traitors have much to answer for...get rid of the tax bill before it ruins our economy...next let's have a major infrastructure bill and let's fund trains like in Europe as well...Also, lets get rid of the pernicious laws that allow Black voters to be discriminated against...national registry for police and try violent cops in federal court. Some stimulus that would encourage jobs here at home would be nice too...a manufacturing plan of some sort.

[GallopingGhost]

10. The first thing

is for every single Democratic congressperson to get it out of their head that they are going to *work* with Republicans. If any proof at all is needed that the cons don't give a flying fuck about anything but their own authoritarian rule, look at the current government.

[TheDebbieDee]

11. If Dems were to win veto-proof majorities

in the house and senate next year, we'd only find out who all the conservadems are on the first veto-override attempt...

When you need their votes the most, that's when you find out that they are closet republicans!

[dsc]

12. It is mathematically impossible for them to have one

We have 49 Senate seats and thus need 18 seats to get to 67. There are only 8 seats currently held by the GOP which are up. 49 + 8 = 57 which is less than 67. It is mathematically impossible for us to get a veto proof majority in the Senate this time.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. If the GOP continues like this, they may lose safe seats.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. Democrats won't win a veto-proof majority in 2018

Even under the most optimistic circumstances, it *can't* happen, unfortunately. The upside, however, is that Trump/GOP would *have* to deal with Democrats to pass anything in Congress and Democrats can obstruct his nominations and derail his agenda in Congress.

[yurbud]

28. pick a date. It's more about what you would do without obstruction.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

69. Here's my wishlist then (in no particular order):

1. Election Integrity/Voting Law Reform (fix VRA)
2. Enact into law all of the Obama-era regulations Trump has gutted
3. Repeal Congressional Review Act
4. Enact ACA fixes and enhancements (especially to prevent so much executive branch meddling)
5. Repeal Tax Bill just passed by Congress
6. Study/Enact Congressional reforms that prevent rampant obstructionism that Republicans have been using (esp. in terms of SCOTUS appointments, which shouldn't be able to be blocked/withheld like with Garland)
7. Restore full CHIP funding
8. Enact DACA & comprehensive immigration reform previously passed by Senate but blocked by House in 2013.
9. Repeal Trump's "Travel Bans"

Those are all I can think of off the top of my head.

[Freddie]

15. A fantasy

2020 - we win the White House, Congress and 60+ in the Senate.
Between the election and inauguration we write legislation. Health care for all. Fair taxes. Anti-discrimination and equal rights. Reproductive rights. Whatever else is on our wish list. On the day after inauguration, the legislation passes without a single Republican vote.

[yurbud]

32. voting rights too

[NCDem777]

16. Whatever we do

be as mean as they are. We'll "moral high ground" ourselves to death. When they go low, we go in the gutter

[yurbud]

27. I actually don't think we have to. We just have to stop lying about their bad behavior

and worrying that if we accurately describe them, they will be less likely to do business with us.

It is better to propose and try to pass good policy that get Republican votes on half-assed ones.

[karynnj]

17. Completely impossible - only a third of the Senate seats are up each election

There is no way we can get to having 67 Senators!

[Calista241]

18. This is impossible. There are only 8 Republicans up for re-election in 2018.

So unless a bunch plan to retire or die off in the next year, this plan is SOL.

[Tiggeroshii]

19. So far the max is 59 if McCain and Cotton's seats are open next year.

Which is still 7 short of a veto proof majority.

[onenote]

20. As others have pointed out, you are asking about something that is impossible

In the Senate, it's mathematically impossible.
In the House, it's practically impossible since it would require the Democrats to pick up 97 seats and, with gerrymandering, that's just not in the cards.

[yurbud]

25. Republicans say clearly what they want even when the odds look impossible

then when they get the levers of power, they go all out to get it.

The only problem is, it screws us.

Democrats often skip a crucial part of negotiation: the "this is what I actually want" phase and go straight to "this is what I think those assholes on the other side will accept."

MAKE Republicans say no to the ideal before you propose something crappier. Or work around them. That is what ultimately had to happen with healthcare reform anyway.

[onenote]

46. Fine. Just don't pretend that we have a veto proof majority or can get one in 2018.

That's not a question of the "odds" looking impossible. It's a mathematical fact.

[yurbud]

49. change it to "at any point in the future" and then answer

[Volaris]

22. Publicly-Funded Elections Tax. Everybodys in, nobodys out, and Election Day is a Federal Holiday.

The only reason the GOP get to keep winning and doing shit like this tax bill, is because of people like the Koch's. Take that cashflow away, replace it with something FAIR TO ALL PLAYERS, and require them to win on that level field with reasoned arguments, and that party will be electorally destroyed in ONE Presidential cycle. AND REPUBLICANS FUCKING KNOW IT.

Publicly Funded Elections via National Tax. Everything else will follow in due course.

[Baconator]

26. I don't think that's mathematically possible...

... And certainly not realistic.

Congress may pass bills by simple majority votes. If the president vetoes a bill, Congress may override the veto by a two-thirds supermajority of both houses. A treaty may be ratified by a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate.

[brooklynite]

31. They won't...

It'll be enough to win back majorities. Even in a wave election, taking 2/3 of the Senate isn't realistic.

[scheming daemons]

37. Not only is it unrealistic, it is mathematically impossible.

Dems hold 49 seats..... and only 9 GOP seats are up for re-election in 2018.


Best we can do is 58.

[BigDemVoter]

33. Repeal the Tax Scam. . . . Reverse Citizens United by whatever means necessary.

Impeach Pussy Grabber. . . . Impeach Clarence Thomas. . . . Prosecute ALL involved in the treasonous Russian affair.

Arrest Jeff Sessions for contempt of Congress and send him to jail.

Remove Gorsuch from the Supreme Court, as he was unlawfully placed there.

And the list goes on and on. . . .

[yurbud]

50. I think the other justices should just prank Gorsuch until he resigns

[yurbud]

34. I would throw in repeal Taft-Hartley & enact card check for union membership

[scheming daemons]

36. We can't get to 67 Senate seats in 2018... there are only 9 GOP seats up. Best we can do is 58.

[TrollBuster9090]

41. To "payback" the people who've paid the GOP to cut taxes for billionairs for a generation

The first thing I'd do is reinstate the Estate Tax as follows:

1. (FAMILY RUN FARMS worth less than $5 million are exempt, specifically to remove the GOP's bullshit talking point.)

2. Estates worth more than $1 million are taxed at a rate of 20%

3. Estates worth more than 5 million are taxed at a rate of 30%

4. ESTATES WORTH MORE THAN $1 billion are taxed at a rate of 50%

5. ESTATES WORTH MORE THAN $10 billion are taxed at a rate of 75%. We'll specifically call that one THE TRUMP TAX.

Next:
--Reduce the payroll tax to 3%, and REMOVE THE F-ING PAYROLL TAX CAP. If you earn $10 million per year, you STILL pay 3%.

--Tax everybody 1% of their income, and use the money to bring in Medicare for All.

--Obviously, remove the Carried Interest loophole.

--Remove all deductions for incomes over 1 million per year

--Re-write the business tax code so that the top rate is 30%, and remove all deductions except for a deduction where your corporate taxes are reduced proportional to the number of people you employ. (For example, companies that employ more than 50 people can deduct 20% of all salaries less than $70,000. Larger companies can deduct a smaller proportion of salaries, but the taxes they pay will still be proportional to the number of people they employ.)

--Finally, ELIMINATE ALL BUSINESS TAX for CO-OP companies that are owned by their employees. CO-OP companies are the wave of the future.

[Thunderbeast]

42. Just a dream.....but....

Restore the progressive tax structure.
Re-establish National Monuments
Kill drilling in ANWR.
Cut Pentagon budget by 1/3 to start.
Restore State, EPA, DHS and other agencies.
Single Payer healthcare funded from progressive income tax....not payroll tax.
Impeach Gorsuch.
Statehood for Puerto Rico and District of Columbia.

Then...on the second day.....

[MyNameGoesHere]

43. Imprison republicans

Anything else is a waste of time.

[Marengo]

91. Imprison people for political orientation? Just politicians, or all registered GOPers?

[MyNameGoesHere]

93. Sure why not.

If they supported a president that collides with a nation bent on destroying us, then God yes. Off to jail for them.

[Marengo]

110. If thats the case, you may be on the wrong discussion board. Perhap you would feel more at home...

Wherever fascists congregate online.

[ClarendonDem]

112. Yup

Proposing removing Republicans from office is bad enough, but placing someone in prison because you disagree with their political views is an idea that would warm the heart of Stalin, Kim Jong-un and every other despot.

[quartz007]

104. Wha....imprison half population?

Half of the Americans are not the enemy.
They did not steal your better paying jobs.
The real enemies are career politicians in pockets
of their ultra-rich mega donors who have out-
sourced manufacturing jobs abroad.

[DesertRat]

44. Overturn this horrible tax bill. nt

[Willie Pep]

115. I agree that should be the first priority.

I think it would be doable even if we have a lot of Blue Dogs in Congress because this tax bill is very unpopular and I think even conservative Democrats would feel safe enough to vote to repeal the tax bill.

[WhiteTara]

47. Repeal Citizen's United. nt

[eShirl]

48. make FDR and Johnson look like amateurs

just ram everything through since that's congress works now

[RussBLib]

51. A lot, but they won't

Democrats have been nothing but timid for as long as I've been alive.

[guillaumeb]

52. They should issue a 15,000 page position paper,

which the media will ignore, and follow up for a call foe renewed bi-partisanship to solve the problems that the GOP created.

And if they win the Presidency in 2020, they should follow Obama's lead and say we need to look forward and forget about Trump's crimes.

[yurbud]

56. I said what SHOULD they do not what WILL they do...

[guillaumeb]

61. Nice response!!!!!!!!!!

But speculative fiction is not my strong point.

[yurbud]

57. the mere thought of having a clear path is unpalatable to centrists

How can you triangulate and blame the GOP when there are too few of them to make it credible?

[Chasstev365]

53. Arrest the Koch Brothers!

[clementine613]

96. Congress doesn't have the power to arrest or charge anyone with a crime.

Bills of Attainder are, IIRC, specifically outlawed by the Constitution.

[Chasstev365]

98. I know! Just a frustration.....

[MFM008]

55. IMPEACH

his stupid fat greedy squinty ass

[SoCalMusicLover]

58. They're Going To Pick Up 18 Seats & Lose None?

I'd be overjoyed if that happened, but how likely is it really?

I can see gaining the majority, but 18 Senate Seats?

[Demsrule86]

63. It has happened before.

[0rganism]

92. only 8 Republican senate seats up in 2018

winning 18 under these circumstances would be quite the trick

[shanny]

60. Pass sweeping changes to the tax code, the healthcare system,

funding for higher education, voting rights etc etc etc.* IOW BIG changes, not 2 degree course corrections.

Doesn't matter if the pResident signs it, let him veto popular bills in front of Dawg and everybody; let the RePukes fight tooth and nail. Let them, and see what happens next.

*also too: pass laws requiring all Presidents to submit to mental health examinations, release tax returns, explicitly divest themselves of ALL BUSINESSES etc etc. Make a law that Presidents can be indicted in office etc etc etc--in short all the laws we never thought we would need, until cheeto

[yurbud]

118. EXACTLY. Trumps veto would be the positive equivalent of LBJ's smear on an opponent...

LBJ told an aide to spread a rumor that an opponent had sex with animals, and the aide said, "But, sir, it isn't true!"

and LBJ said, "I know that. I just want to see him publicly deny it."

Democrats seem to forget this bit of optics whenever they hold Congress and Republicans have the White House.

[Casprings]

64. They won't.

Not in the Senate (67 votes) or house (291), so this is a problem we don't have to worry about.

[Lil Missy]

66. Impeach the orange jackass and rescind the tax giveaway.

[yurbud]

67. I approve this message.

[Lil Missy]

82. LOL!

[Orrex]

68. For God's sake, I hope that they vote to keep their powder dry!

[ileus]

73. Some type of gun ban.

[librechik]

74. Medicare for all, ERA, and repeal Citizens United.replace with Publicly Financed Elections

[Matthew28]

75. Here is what I'd do to start

1. Impeach Trump and Pence
2. Install the new speaker of the house as president
3. Single payer healthcare for all Americans
4. Free college
5. A few Trillion dollars for infrastructure and jobs bill

[pangaia]

76. The list of destructive things that have been done must be endless.

I just hope SOMEBODY(IES) is/are keeping track..

[KPN]

77. How about we focus on winning a

majority first and not taking that for granted. We took Hillary's presidency for granted somewhat. How'd that turn out.

[yurbud]

87. How do you think you get there? By focusing on the horserace?

[KPN]

88. I think we get there FIRST by being engaged in the party locally and in groups like Indivisible,

Our Revolution, MoveON, etc., doing what each of us can to "resist", contributing what each of us can contribute --- whatever and however big or small that is. And by asking every single person we hear complain about anything going on with or under this administration, or anything they don't like or think is liberal enough in our current society or Party "What are you doing to help change that? What do you think you might be able to do to help change that? Here's what I'm doing. We need your help. We need your involvement." By inviting them to local Democratic Party meetings. All of those things.

And SECOND, by working hard to get out the vote in 2018 (for both the primaries and the GE) and likewise 2020.

And FINALLY, by staying engaged routinely after the elections and when Democrats are in control, by staying on top of our party's elected officials, holding them accountable en masse -- and yes, primarying them if they don't live up to expectations they set for their constituents during their campaign.

[yurbud]

89. We got here because there was one more step left out--making sure Dems we elect do

what we elected them to do.

If they had done that instead of letting Wall St. off the hook, continuing the bailout with no strings attached, mostly continuing Bush foreign policy (apart from very positive moves on Cuba and Iran), continuing the privatization of public education, not even trying on card check for labor...

Healthcare reform was an improvement. But it was hard not to notice that it was an improvement that bent over backwards to preserve a role for private, for profit insurance that they do not deserve. Their execs are the real "death panels" the right went on and on about. And no one believes it was about saving insurance workers jobs. A lot of them would be needed to run a public system too. It was about preserving insurance company and exec donations, or at least not getting them diverted to righties who wouldn't hesitate to put profits over people.

People notice that shit. And though they might vote for you because you are better than the alternative, they are not going to donate as much money or pound the pavement when the best they can expect in return is a slower erosion of their standard of living than under Republicans.

And no amount of shaming and browbeating people is going to make people think Democrats did better than that when they see what's going on in their own lives.

At some point, if the Democratic Party is to survive, the leaders need to eat some humble pie, cut off at least SOME areas of policy from the dictates of the already very wealthy, and take real, irreversible action to make life better for the rest of us.

[KPN]

90. Agreed -- right on!

I think I said that in my response: "and holding them accountable en masse -- and yes, primarying them if they don't live up to expectations they set for their constituents during their campaign."

I'll tell you though, it's great to see others like you saying the same thing here. The Democratic Party needs to step up and stand for the principles it stood for during the FDR era ... or it will go the way of the GOP -- splitting into two or more parties ultimately.

I think we need new leaders. Schumer and Pelosi don't have the cachet required to lead millennials or economic/labor progressives, or the moxie/communication style it takes in today's 24 hour news cycle/digital media world to "fight" rightwingers and right-wing talking points effectively.

[sofa king]

78. Revoke citizenship from everyone who played with the Russians.

Then put 'em on a boat and beach it off of Vladivostok.

[onetexan]

80. Ditto

[JonLP24]

83. Impeach

[Tiggeroshii]

94. If we get to 58, which 9 republicans can we get to vote for conviction

[Codeine]

85. Throw the One Ring into Mount Doom?

I mean, as long as we're discussing impossible fantasies for no real purpose. . .

[MyNameGoesHere]

86. Crush them, crush them, crush them

Crush them into oblivion. There is no other answer to curing a cancer. Crush them at every turn. Destroy that party forever. Crush them.

[lame54]

95. New tax code and healthcare and then...

Build. Massive Obama statue outside Trump's window

[clementine613]

97. If we get veto-proof (2/3) of Congress?? Start by expelling every Rethug

1. Kick every Rethug out of Congress
2. Impeach and remove Trump and Pence from office
3. Impeach Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch and remove them from office as well.

[ClarendonDem]

101. None of that is possible

Or constitutional, or anything that I'd support.

[clementine613]

105. You're wrong...

Each House of Congress can expel any member based on 2/3 vote.
The President, Vice President and any Justices of SCOTUS can be impeached with a majority of the House and removed from office with 2/3 of the Senate.

So, if we have a veto-proof majority in Congress (which is 2/3), we can do all those things.

[ClarendonDem]

111. What are the grounds for impeaching every Republican member of the House and Senate

And impeaching any Supreme Court justice (who "shall hold their offices during good behavior&quot ? America isn't a banana republic (or Russia under Stalin) where we remove someone from office simply because we disagree with their political views. I'm assuming you aren't seriously proposing that Democrats unilaterally remove from office legally elected Republicans.

[clementine613]

114. You Don't Need A Reason

The Constitution gives each House the right to expel a member with a 2/3 vote. No reason need be given.

The President, VP and SCOTUS judges can be removed for "high crimes and misdemeanors" which, the Rethugs have shown us, can be anything Congress decides it is.

[jmowreader]

99. Sorry, but it's not possible to win that kind of majority in 2018

These GOP Senators are up for election in 2018:
John Barrasso (WY)
Bob Corker (TN)
Ted Cruz (TX)
Deb Fischer (NE)
Jeff Flake (AZ)
Orrin Hatch (UT)
Dean Heller (NV)
Roger Wicker (MS)

The rest of the class is either Democrats, DFL or Independents.

We currently have 49 Democrats & Independents - both the I's in the chamber caucus with us. There are 51 Republicans.

We know Corker is gone; he has pledged to retire after this term. Tennessee has elected Democrats to the Senate before, so there's always hope. Thanks to Alabama every Republican seat is now in play, but I'd say our best chances exist in Tennessee, Arizona and Nevada. If there was one seat I would really love to have, it's Texas.

If we run the table in November we're looking at 57 D-leaning senators.

[fescuerescue]

100. Outlaw the Trump organization

Pass a bill that makes owning stock or equity in the Trump organization a crime.

This will depower Trump. Without access to his money, he'll fold quickly.

Then single payer and restore tax rates to pre-tump.

Then reverse every single Trump EO and bill.

[quartz007]

103. Increase taxes on all rich people

making more than $250,000 per year, and distribute the proceeds to those individual tax payers making less than $50,000.

[clementine613]

107. I'm up for a 100% tax on those guys...

... maybe even 110% (force 'em to liquidate some of their stolen savings).

[quartz007]

113. Can't do that...

because the greedy rich is the reason I had good jobs.
The freaking middle class never offered me a good job.
But, the rich are definitely not taxed enough. And now
Trumpy's taxcut reduces the estate tax, so the ruling
class keeps power in perpetuity.

[duforsure]

106. Create

A department dedicated to cyber security against being attacked , our elections, and our infrastructure systems, ASAP.

[Persondem]

108. 1. Outlaw gerrymandering 2. End Citizens United. All other problems will then be fixable nt.

[duforsure]

109. Need to create...

A department dedicated to cyber security to protect all elections, and all infrastructure sectors, ASAP