Dartfordian1
23769
1067
55
Aug 14, 2025 11:07 AM
Dartfordian1
23769
1067
55
TaiPan87
Capping the salary is a bad idea. Right now the pay is so low in Congress that most legitimate, qualified people can't take the job. If you are a smart Doctor, Engineer, Software Developer, etc, your family can't afford to have their income cut by 30-70%. (Remember, being a member is expensive; you need a second residence, travel, etc).
DrankTooMuchMead
Outlaw lobbying (corruption)
RetiredLaserMan
Don't forget to add limiting campaign contributions, no more buying an election!
cdlong
Churches should be treated like any other non-profits (assuming they are, if not, treat them like any other business). Audited periodically, taxed as appropriate, etc. Want to be treated as a non-profit? Prove it.
Noahbalboa82
I love this... Not reacting to the evil happening, but promoting a progressive program. Notice that everything here helps all people, not just white Christians?
semperknight
None of this is going to mean a god damn thing unless you deal with the reality that America has NEVER been a free country. It's always been a civil oligarchy. Everything you listed is supported by this system. At least TALK about it. No one is. Not even Bernie Sanders, John Oliver, AOC, etc. Even they are just using the system to pay the bills; not calling for it to be overthrown.
BearableBear
Oligarchies posing as democracies.
CyberneticWhelk
Also require all elected officials to completely divest from investment and business ownership. Require them relinquish all board positions. Hold board members liable for crimes committed by the company.
SaintSleepyWeasel
Gerrymandering has been made illegal multiple times. The Supreme Court keeps killing it because you can't "prove," Gerrymandering. I do not believe this, this is what historically has happened.
OgzOman
We need our tax dollars to start working for the people, not churches and billionaires and corporations
mixiekins
and military spending, whooboy everything else pales in comparison to what's attributed (be it rightfully or fraudulently) to military budgeting line items.
bro02tc
Yes to all of this the no stocks while in congress will be the hardest to pass
Tolocamp
Ban short term stocks trading alltogether. They were never intendet to be an "asset" that can be traded like any other commodity. They were meant to open up the opportunity to raise money to start a company and to share ownership, to partake in the profits of a company.
So you buy stocks ? Great ! Now you have to keep them. A year, maybe 6 months minimum. Speculation on stocks got us morons like Elon. It made monster like Bezos and Thiel so powerful. No quick trading, no speculation anymore.
JackingMeHoff
An Independent Ethics Committee for SCOTUS AND Congress. Independent being voter elected and not overseen by any government agency, particularly the WH. If a SCOTUS judge or Congressperson bends or breaks the law, goes outside of their oath of office they can be impeached by the committee. jmo
LordHosk
Some of those are possible. some of those would require constitutional amendments which would require the participation of a lot of states that aren't gonna participate.
1,2,7 on the left, and 1-4 and 6 on the right are all achievable but difficult. (left) 3-4 are constitutional and aren't changing. 5 *** already has the *** it requires. 6 is a idea it was always only followed by choice. (right 5) would require taxing all non-profits/charities as they are all tax exempt under the same rules.
poscduke
Overturning a Supreme Court decision (#1) could only be done by a constitutional Ammendment or by changing the justices enough to issue a new ruling
fluffybaer55
Stop sending billions in weapons and Aid to a foreign country which is using American tax dollars to continue its racist Apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Stop supporting countries that commit war crimes by bombing hospital,churches, killing Doctors, killing over 220 journalists, starving unarmed civilians, killing 40k civilians and children.
Stop supporting countries which are killing poor starving civilians who are waiting in line for food.
Fuck politicians for supporting genocide.
yqpqfrdp625772
Capping congressional salary at 1.5x median income of the district means only rich people would be able to afford to actually be congress people from poor districts. I understand the sentiment, but it’s a horrible idea.
BigVag
That's a good start
naomiMoonBeast
How about we also codify the end of slavery and that LGBT people have rights because they're human beings better education system the Republicans behind bars
mindstorm8191
I can agree with that. Prisoners who work should be paid minimum wage, not the pittance they get right now.
And prisoners shouldn't be stripped of the right to vote, even while incarcerated. They are still people with a brain in their heads, and have needs as much as anyone else.
naomiMoonBeast
I agree I mean yeah you're in prison because you did something wrong most of the time It should be a rehabilitation center not a death sentence
Callynd
Capping Congressional pay at 1.5x the median salary is a great way to only let rich people run for office. That's a disastrous policy and completely out of step with the rest of what is in this image.
gotigs
This. Hell, I say pay them more so that bribes mean less. Also, build some luxurious housing for them and provide private transportation and a free cafeteria staffed by Michelin star chefs - take away any and all excuses. On the flip side add term limits, set a maximum age, install ranked choice voting, eliminate gerrymandering, create required town hall type constituent meetings, and, most important, ban large (and corporate) campaign donations.
Micro2112
Term limits for Congress too
PineappleLoopsBroether
Presidents can’t be older than 65…
Micro2112
And ranked choice voting
Callynd
Term Limits wouldn't get rid of MTG or Boebert or any of the crazies who have only been in for a few terms. The problem is the people in the slots, not how long they've been there.
zechor
The crazies will be kicked out as soon as we pass ranked choice voting.
ballsoutflyer
If this is what you want, then get involved. Run for office. https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1YzZvMXlycXlseHV5bHRmOTc1ZXRzYzQxbmFuajJia2ZkYnYxYWNxeSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/L8j8ItHbumPO8/200w.webp
zechor
Been there, tried it, and will try again. However I need to point out that it sucks. It's time consuming, frustrating, expensive, and without major backers it is nearly impossible to win given our current political rules unless you first get in with the "elites" of one of the big parties. If you do get in with the elites of one of the big parties they will continue to prevent the above from even being voted on unless it is already guaranteed they won't pass.
mindstorm8191
Then we gotta work on the landscape of political campaigns. How often do people research candidates before an election? Do you know anything about those running, other than word of mouth or those who have posted ads?
We need people to want to research candidates, before they reach the polls. We then need to provide them with facts about candidates. Political discussion is such taboo in this country... we need to change that
zechor
Sure, but the candidates have to first get through the primaries where the democrats regularly stop those who want the above posted things. If they do get elected and then push for the above (at least when the dems have a chance of passing them) then those reps are sidelined and pushed out whenever possible.
Political discussion won't fix that. Ranked choice voting will.
mondeca
The Fairness Doctrine won't fix media. It never regulated cable news, and showing "both sides" still sucks. There's not a second side to climate change, vaccines, anti-bigotry, etc.
There are cultural problems here with no quick solution.
Dartfordian1
Established fact like climate science and addressing mental health issues to improve crime should not be and need not be a left or right issue as far as a ‘fairness doctrine’ goes. Fact is fact and a new broadcast media regulator would have to safeguard that. Part of its job would be to call out politicians who outright lie, which should help push the extremists out of the mainstream again. The fairness angle would apply to responsible politicians and reasonable political debate.
Dartfordian1
It should have included cable news and would have to if it’s revived.
yqpqfrdp625772
You’d have to change the first amendment to bring back the fairness doctrine. It was only allowed bc there’s only a limited amount of usable radiation spectrum to broadcast on, and as soon as cable became prominent, the fairness doctrine became unconstitutional. Your argument about “provable facts” is a judgment call. Just look at trump’s review of the Smithsonian for “approved history” and you can see how problematic it is.
WoodORama
We are way past due for a number of amendments.
yqpqfrdp625772
Agreed, especially something that fixes citizens united.
Callynd
The federal government doesn't own the cables that cable is sent on. It does own the airwaves that broadcast TV uses. It has less ability to regulate cable because of that lack of ownership. It's a thing that can be overcome with regulation, but it's not a thing you can just ignore.
Dartfordian1
Absolutely it would need regulation. And never mind all that corporations get 1st Amendment rights either. That has to change too.
SandyTentaclez
The only way you would be able to achieve such changes is by... removing neigh everyone who currently has anything to say. But dont let that stop you. ... didnt stop the French.
SomeDetroitGuy
The Fairness Doctrine was VERY bad policy. Forcing the media to pretend that there are exactly two sides with equal weight in every news story and situation is disastrous. It actively promotes anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, racists, homophobic bigots and others who have no logical or moral standing by giving their ideas equal weight to the truth. It's a horrible, horrible idea and progressives should be actively against it.
unluckyandbored
Instead, news organizations need to TELL THE TRUTH.
mixiekins
this! perhaps it would be more useful to regulate editorial takes out of baseline news, because the issue I see time qnd time again is people giving their own takes which dilute (or outright replace) the delivery of pure hard facts.
cearn
How about not with "equal weight", but with "weight equal to the solid evidence supporting it" ?
Dartfordian1
It had plenty of good points. It kept things civil and much fairer than now. In Europe, public broadcasters manage fine in countries with multiple significant parties. As for things like climate change, yes they give some time to deniers because they need to report what notable public figures say, but the organisations themselves take the science as gospel. It can be a tricky act and mistakes can be made but it’s an overwhelmingly better system than allowing bias and misinformation.
iynque
Doesn’t the fairness doctrine *require* the broadcast of misinformation in such cases?
Dartfordian1
Not in Europe. It only governs opinions, not facts. Facts are facts. Denying reality is not fact and doesn’t need to be given equal weight as if it were an 'alternative fact'
gsynth
Giving equal talking time to political parties is not the same as giving equal talking time to opposite ideas.
Irishtrailrunner
Dems need to organize and come together.
DriveByShitting
They have no idea how to unfortunately. There are no politicians that give a shit about any of us. Dems are only just slightly left of Repubes, it's just that they are smoother talkers and less blunt.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
For them to do this, they need the votes. And they need people voted in who are willing to do this. It starts with the voters. US voters haven't given Dems the power to make sweeping change. They *have* given Republicans the power. That's why the US is in the state it's in.
IchtacaSebonhera
Dems would never oppose the functioning of the republican party, because the republican party is the only thing that ever makes the democratic one look good by comparison.
They were never the good guys saving you, they always played a deliberate game of give-and-take with the enemy to keep themselves in money and part-time power.
Cresset
Uniparty
RandomQuack
Vote progressive.
IchtacaSebonhera
The principle of "democratic liberal" and "social progressive" are almost mutually exclusive. Even the compromise social democrats offer is flawed, and relies on capitalist and colonialist hegemonies ceding crumbs rather than achieving any form of actual power for the working class.
Progressives running on a democrat ticket will always have to make sacrifices to "play ball", because democrats never compromise with the left. You can see exactly this going on with Zohran Mamdani right now.
ongabonga
If only...
knupauger
... Liberal US voters had it in n them to resist and fight back. But all they are good for is memes is and social media commentary about "will a third party finally step by in and fight the fight for us?". I hate to tell you that no judge, manager, super hero or Luigi will step in, end the nightmare and lead you to a happy ending in a dramatic motion. You will have to do that yourself, and it will take decades of your lives.
zechor
Only if... we have to get ranked choice voting before either party will seriously consider any of these.
TheEvenPrez
Is only. Either we fight this or we accept we live in a dictatorship that will eventually collapse into a shattered union
DaftFrench
You lot already accepted it. Decades ago.
MatrimBloodyCauthon
Piss off, doomer.
TheEvenPrez
cool, see you in the internment camps
DaftFrench
I dont live there, fortunately. I do hope I am wrong, but it would be beyond optimism to think that.
rfleming1080
Most of the dems don't even support half this shit or they would have done it when they last had control of Congress and the Senate.
schrodingerscatfood
Tax all churches, especially for assets. Sitting on a huge pile of cash or stock ain’t right. $265 billion (Mormons) not used is bad for society.
[deleted]
[deleted]
KillingTlme
Churches also buy up a ton of land and hold it as a transferable asset for when they get caught diddling kids.
SiriSinger
Most churches are really small and wouldn’t exist if taxed like a business. They have no product to sell and are nonprofits like food shelves for good reason, relying on donations alone.l and often in red. My church isn’t sitting on a pile of anything. Many aren’t.
TheBeastlyBeauty
They'll figure it out, or cease to exist. In the end, no real loss
idrinkcheapbeer
By that logic, small businesses shouldn't pay taxes either. I say fuck them. Pay taxes on ALL monetary donations made to ALL religious organizations. Even the smallest parishes have a pastor driving a cadillac or a mercedes.
SiriSinger
No they don’t. I don’t know where you are getting this but it’s not reality.
idrinkcheapbeer
It's 100% reality. I'm sorry you refuse to even consider the possibility. I've never seen a priest, a pastor or a rabbi in a beater.
SiriSinger
I say this because I am a pastor and so are my friends and we don’t have great cars or rich bank accounts . Sorry you only see the negatives which are real but not absolute.
textilelover
If they are in the red they may well get taxes back. Tax them like a not for profit business. They put out as much as they take in, either in philanthropy or salaries, and they don't pay taxes. They start accumulating wealth, they pay taxes.
BeKindToOthers
broaden this to all religious entities
WoeToHice
Can you explain the difference for those of us who aren't sure what it is?
Bubble181
Religious orders, mosques, temples, etc.
IAmTheBadW01f
Specify a minimum percentage of revenue applied to direct community benefit, including food, housing, healthcare. Open to additions on that list. Any entity, church, charity, etc. that doesn't meet that is immediately taxed. Why limit it to churches when there are plenty of other tax exempt entities that don't actually help people.
yqpqfrdp625772
Do you read a bunch of Stephenson or is your username just a common joke?u
WoeToHice
Let's just say I consider myself a stupendous badass, because everyone and everything that isn't a stupendous badass is dead. ;)
LordHosk
What is the difference between a religious entity and a charity, since the tax code puts them in the same position.
If a homeless shelter offers free spiritual books, are they a religious entity?
Sikhs run soup kitchens based on a tenant of their faith requiring Langar, or selfless service promoting equity in the community. Does that mean they have to be taxed?
Remmon1
Look at actions. Are those Sikhs actively promoting their religion or are they just using that charity to provide people free food? The former is a religious organisation regardless of the charity they're doing, the latter is not regardless of the motives behind it.
As soon as you bring any kind of religious rules or preaching on the recipients of your charity you're running a religious organisation not a charity.
nclu
Special carve outs make everything too messy. Just implement a broad based Land Value Tax and a wealth tax on stock ownership.
evaunit117
Man my, Georgism!
nclu
dtallen243
If the charity is run/operated by a religious entity then it is taxed.
LordHosk
So we set up a two tiered charity system in this country where religious ones are taxed? I think the first amendment might be an issue with that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Seems like punishing charities simply for freely exercising their religion would be a big no no.
You can choose which charity work you like and which you don't because of the beliefs of the founder, but the government can't.
dtallen243
In my experience charities ran by religious organizations push their religion on those they are helping and deny aid from those that don't want to follow their beliefs. Freedom of religion should also mean freedom olfrom religion. I have no problem w/ perso al belief but organized religion is a cancer
BeKindToOthers
based on your quote, taxation doesn't "prohibit" the exercise of any entity. Taxes are not bans nor dictate what is or isn't permitted.
It is simply a levy on profits, with some carveouts. If the organization chooses not to operate, that's their choice, but the government would still give them the green light.
TheEvenPrez
In short: eliminate anyone's ability to use economic power to gain political power
SilverHornet
And that is exactly why none of it will ever be allowed to occur. Voting is unfortunately a rigged game you are allowed to pretend to play to stop you actually changing anything.
gumol
well besides enforcing a requirement for congressmen to be independently wealthy or taking bribes
SilverHornet
Repaying legitimate expenses is a matter independant of salary, but yes, median is a nice idea but realistically too low.
MeanMisterClean
Like that's ever gonna happen. Y'all keep bickering between who's left or who's right, blue vs red... It won't matter who's in charge, they will be paid for by the same people in both cases. You know who has the money to pay your politicians? The billionaires. Do you think the billionaires will let your politicians bring them down? Even if it's Kamala, AOC, or anyone else? They will never do that. The average american is gonna be fucked and poor forever, no matter who is in charge.
SilverHornet
I mean, yes but no. 'just as bad as each other' is how the mess gets worse and believe me it still can. The system is fucked BUT in theory we should be trying to take the least wrong options so that later, we have other even less wrong options, and eventually the correct options. Whether voting can do that though, is a different debate.
TheEvenPrez
If men weren't afraid to fight kings we wouldn't have a country
unsneakyLurker
Thajurriesexcuesed
Fuck off!
coastalfoundhound
While there may be some truth to this, the compromises that would have to be made will be a lot better than anything in recent memory.
WoodORama
Pack it up, boys. If baldy here says it's never gonna happen, we may as well quit. No use trying now. /s-obviously. Ligma.
MeanMisterClean
I mean I'd love to see y'all try, but you've never tried before. What makes you think you're gonna be able to start trying now?
WoodORama
Dude, I'm in my mid 50s and I've been out here trying since the first time I voted. I'll never quit trying. And no one else should either. We cannot accept the state of the country now, or ever for that matter. Even in good times we can always be better.
MeanMisterClean
Go get 'em brother. I'm rootin'