I’ve spoken to hundreds of voters in “flyover country.” Socialism is an easy sell.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Kentucky voters are ready for a bold progressive agenda.
On a bitterly cold day in late January, I knocked on the door of a home in Louisville, Kentucky’s Camp Taylor neighborhood. I was running for state representative in a Democratic primary and was spreading the word about my candidacy. Camp Taylor was an interesting community politically: It was full of registered Democrats who hadn’t been turning up to vote in recent elections.
A woman in her 50s came to the door and peeked through the curtain at me. “Hi,” I said. “I’m Richard Becker and I’m running for state representative!” She turned the deadbolt and opened the door.
“I just wanted to stop by and introduce myself and find out what issues—” I was interrupted by a voice from further in the house. “I want to know if you’re gonna fight for people like me!” a woman’s voice said from the couch.
“That’s my daughter,” the woman said. “She got hurt in an accident and can’t walk very well anymore.”
“And now this governor thinks I should have to go to work to get my health care? I can’t even walk to the bathroom without help!” the younger woman cried out, referring, presumably, to Gov. Matt Bevin’s plans to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients.
“I don’t know what to say,” I said. “And I don’t know what to tell you other than I will fight for you. Fighting Gov. Bevin’s Medicaid work requirements and fighting for universal—”
“What we need is single-payer health care!” the mother interrupted.
“I couldn’t agree more,” I said. I stopped by that house twice more before the end of the campaign, and by Election Day, they had placed one of my signs in their yard.
![ROzOwUGo_400x400[1].jpg](https://thenewstalkers.com/upimg/image/upimg_file/29687/384 "ROzOwUGo_400x400[1].jpg")
It’s a district that is overwhelmingly Democratic by voter registration numbers, but like many communities across the South, the Democrats here don’t necessarily always vote with their party. The district went for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary by a margin of 53 percent to 45 percent. In the general election, Hillary Clinton won the district with just 54 percent of the vote, or 9,554 votes, out of a total of more than 18,000 Democrats. Many of the registered Democrats in this part of town voted for Donald Trump.
I knocked on hundreds of doors. While I didn’t win my race — I finished second in a three-way primary — through my conversations, I heard over and over again that Louisville voters were tired of timidity, incrementalism, and equivocation. They craved boldness and candidates who will not only fight for them but with them on issues that affect their lives: truly universal health care, free college tuition, combatting income inequality, and restoring and strengthening workers’ rights.
The popularity of the teacher strikes show that “red” states are ready for progressivism
I ran for the state legislature in the shadow of an intensely controversial legislative session that saw right-wing Gov. Bevin ram through so-called “pension reform,” gutting retirement benefits for public employees. Apparently startled by the backlash to his proposals, Bevin lobbed vitriolic insults at teachers and other public employees, calling them “selfish,” “thuggish,” and “ignorant and uninformed.”
Bevin’s push to make cuts to public employee retirement benefits came as teacher strikes swept the country, from West Virginia to Colorado. Inspired by their fellow educators across the country and angry over Bevin’s insults, Kentucky’s teachers shut down their schools for several days earlier this year and rallied in Frankfort, the capital.
To stand, as I did, on the steps of the Kentucky State Capitol amidst a sea of red — striking teachers, marching en masse on the legislature, wore red to symbolize solidarity (“Wear Red for Ed[ucation]”) — underscored one of the values we had set out to uphold on the campaign: that an organized working class is the most powerful political force you’ll find.
Across Kentucky, the potency of the teachers’ movement persists, with record numbers of educators running for office, and one teacher, R. Travis Brenda, even defeating an incumbent, House majority leader Jonathan Shell, in a Republican primary. Brenda ran on a pro-pension, pro-public education platform. This uprising echoed in red states across the country is proof of a nationwide working-class awakening.
Voters are fed up with a political class that defends its corporate masters and spits in the faces of working-class people. An overwhelming majority of voters, 77 percent, want to see the influence of money in politics curbed, while establishment politicians of both parties continue accepting campaign checks from big business.
Democrats need to reach out to people disengaged with the political system
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s stunning victory over establishment Democrat Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th District primary this year set off the latest iteration of Democratic Party hand-wringing over the future of the party. Establishment Democrats across America wasted no time in admonishing the left to know its place and discounting Ocasio-Cortez’s success as an aberration and a product of her deep-blue district. This political earthquake, they assured us, was most certainly not indicative of any broader political trend.
But to see the potential of progressive politics, even in supposedly moderate states, we need only look to the success of candidates like Virginia’s Lee Carter, a 31-year old former Marine who ran for the House of Delegates in 2017 as an open socialist against an entrenched Republican incumbent — and won. Or, obviously, Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign, which saw victories in Rust Belt states across the Midwest, including Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and West Virginia.
Further, polling suggests that progressive or even “socialist” policy prescriptions actually enjoy considerable support among voters, with Americans supporting a federal jobs guarantee by a margin of 52 percent to 29 percent.
With only 23 percent of voters casting a ballot in the 2018 Kentucky primaries for both parties, progressives within the party have a real opportunity to expand the voter pool by offering a message that draws people into the political process. The Democratic Party can win by attracting non-voters who are disengaged from a political system and bought and paid for by corporate America — and by embracing the next generation of political leadership, a generation that by all accounts is more progressive than their parents on almost every issue.
Although I didn’t win my bid for public office, the issues I ran on — Medicare-for-all, restoring and strengthening workers’ rights, and free college tuition — resonated overwhelmingly with the voters I spoke with. I earned the endorsements of sitting members of the Kentucky General Assembly and more than a dozen local labor unions. Not bad for someone campaigning on an openly left-wing platform in a supposedly centrist city.
The question today is: Will the party continue to circle the wagons around more corporate-friendly, “mainstream” candidates, or will it welcome and support truly progressive candidates who will fight for the working class?
How Democrats choose to answer the call of my generation will likely determine whether the party goes the way of the Whigs — drifting away into history as a failed political party — or if it can secure majority status once again. If and when the party chooses to open itself up to more progressive elements and ideas, you can bet there will be millions of us ready to help realize that vision.
Richard Becker is a union organizer, millennial, and political activist in Louisville, Kentucky. He ran for state representative in Kentucky’s 35th District in the May 2018 primary election.
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
Yeah... that should resonate...
They want more social democracy . They want more statist redistribution of wealth. They call this 'socialism'.
The fundamental economic system of a nation does not have to change from capitalism to socialism (nor will it!) for a government to produce more public programs funded by taxation (and - horribly - more debt). By this confused view of socialism, the USA has be ' doing socialism ' in a very significant way since FDR.
Oh, indeed. But the left has spent far too much effort running and hiding every time some idiot shouted "Socialism!!!"
It's a smarter tactic to confront the word. Associate it with policies the 90% of the public approves. Wash away the stigma. Get out of the right's semantic trap.
Then when someone says, "But that's not really Socialism!", the answer is, "Whatever we call it, it's a good idea, right?"
The widespread confusion about this concept bugs me. And these bizarre notions have been (and continue to be) stubbornly perpetuated for decades. The term should be abolished - it no longer has semantic value.
There are some people who use the abuse of language as a weapon. Frank Luntz institutionalized the practice within the Republican party. Thus the bugaboo that they have made of "socialism". They repeat incessantly that "socialism is evil" and that "Democrats are socialists".
So while I agree that we'd all be better off to never again use the word, I doubt that the right will willingly abandon such a handy weapon.
That Luntz turd is an evil little genius isn't he?
When Stephen Colbert still had the Colbert Report - he interviewed this guy. It was hilarious! When he first started out - he said something like - "Welcome to the show Frank". Luntz said - 'that's Dr. Luntz' and then Stephen said again - "Welcome to the Show Frank"
'He graduated from Hall High School, graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in history and political science from the University of Pennsylvania, and received a doctorate in politics from Oxford University.[9]
From Wikipedia: 'Luntz has appeared as a consultant or panel member on a number of television news shows, including The Colbert Report, . . - this is incorrect, he was a guest on the show, nothing else.
You may be certain that Luntz's Wikipedia page says... very little...
What do they mean by a jobs guarantee?
I definitely would like for American to get out from under its corporate overlords and we need new blood in the Democratic Party....get rid of the old, tired, establishment that are corporate shills (like the Clintons!)
I waffle over free college only because who pays for it? And does that include vocational schools?
Oh....for sure lower taxes on those of us who work
The idea its that everyone should have a job, with the government as employer-of-last-resort.
Krugman ran the numbers about a week ago (after what's-her-name's primary victory), and found that even in a pessimistic context, the program would cost less than the GOP tax cut last year.
What kind of jobs would the gov't be giving people?
I tend to worry about the national debt.
Whatever they're competent at. Works projects, if there's nothing better (like the WPA during the Depression).
Well, our infrastructure needs a good refurbishing.
Do you really think there are tons of heavy-equipment operators unemployed? or engineers?
You're right to worry. (Always remember that a deficit can be corrected by raising revenue, as well as by lowering spending.)
Let's think about this a moment. If someone doesn't have a job, do we let them starve? I certainly hope not. Do we just give them money (or food stamps)? There are doubts about the wisdom of that.
So the idea here is to use that same money as salary for productive work. The collectivity gets value in return for its assistance.
Not everyone wants to work.
What happens if the govt. needs to fire one of these people?
Do we shuffle them from govt. job to govt. job?
Exactly.
Please don't expect any Replies from me, as long as you persist in asking closed, leading questions.
Please don't expect any Replies from me, as long as you persist in asking closed, leading questions.
EVERY question to you is closed because you simply don't like the questions and have no idea how to answer them.
That's okay.
What do you propose to do with people who simply refuse to work, or work so poorly that no one in their right mind would actually pay them for that work?
I never expect anything from you, which is why I am never disappointed with your attempts at replies.
Please don't expect any Replies from me, as long as you persist in asking closed, leading questions.
Please don't expect any Replies from me, as long as you persist in asking closed, leading questions.
I read the same the first 3 times or so you posted it.
Don't worry, I don't expect anything from you.
Least of all debate!
Carry on!
It will cost the taxpayers billions.
I am confident that some will demand "living wages" for every govt. job--no matter what the job is. And then those folks will unionize and you won't ever get rid of them!
And the unions will donate to Democrats and lobby for more money and benefits at taxpayer expense.
Where did you see that?
heck, the left is damned near apopletic over work requirements for any aid now!
It's a valid question. Also, you can't just generate things to do out of thin air. You have someone with 0 job skills what do you have them do? Pick up litter?
Like you posted......Pick up litter. Unless even that has a some obscure needed skill we don't know about yet. Maybe a "Study" is warranted ?
Some people simply don't want to work. As far as liter picking up, sure, anyone almost can do that. But these are the same folks who say illegal aliens are the only ones willing to take jobs like that.
I don't have a problem with work requirements for entitlements as long as the person receiving the entitlements is able-bodied and isn't burdened with taking care of small children. Makes no sense to make a mother with toddlers go to work when the cost of the childcare will more than likely exceed any wage offset she may earn.
How about having the govt. train some to be daycare workers? Pay those workers and force the mothers and fathers of the kids in that daycare to get jobs.
So what do you do with people who refuse to work? There are too many who would refuse to do anything. Why would they work when they have been given free stuff for so long? Not saying it's everyone but there is quite a bit of people like that
edit. In theory I like the idea. I just think it's got more flaws than people realize
Whom are the ones that refuse to work ?
Language is interesting. You use the word "entitlement". If a person is "entitled" to something, then they have a right to it. They "have title".
But somehow, people don't have a right to their "entitlement".
Why does an heir get an inheritance? They have done nothing to deserve it. Are they "entitled"?
All very... strange...
Food, shelter, comfort....are we not "entitled" to these things?
What else should we call SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid? Benefits? I don't think that word is appropriate, either.
University studies are free in many countries. (Lodging and food, not so much... so the total experience isn't free.)
The budget problem in America isn't that the government spends too much (although the military budget is ridiculously high) but that the government doesn't have enough revenue.
Meanwhile, the ultra-rich are getting ever richer... and fast. They could and should pay for higher education for all who make the grade.
Then who's gonna scrub their toilets?
Because the previous owner who has passed away wanted him/her to have it .The government array took it "share" when it was acquired. The government derrserves it even less than you think the heir does .
I'd like to see them labeled "rights".
Exactly the government is supposed to being working for us not us working for the benefit of the government.
Undocumented immigrants. Same as now.
And why should that matter?
Because it’s their money not the governments.
It was his property. He should be able to do what he want to with it. The government does note serve it at all
He's dead!
It was kinda a joke, Bob.
So was my answer...
so? He let his wishes be know prior to his death.
Quite a few on welfare currently. Are you denying there wouldn't be people who would refuse to work? You have to have consequences in a system like that. Why would someone work if you are willing to give them enough to begin with that they wouldn't need to work? If I was going to get a roof, food, and utilities doing nothing why would I take a govt job picking up litter when I'll be fine sitting at home playing Xbox all day?
ok
So?
He's dead. Gone. He doesn't own anything anymore.
Because you are a healthy human being able to stand on your feet for 8 hours a day and since I didn't allow my 20 year old son to do that, I sure as hell aren't gonna let YOU do that. Sound reasonable?
But his estate lives on and his will should be honored. It isn’t always possible to get all of our assets into trusts before we kick the bucket.
So they're all dead beats ?
"Why would someone work if you are willing to give them enough to begin "
That's more a Liberal Push.
Why?
bit you allow that now. There are people that abuse they system with nonreprocussions. So in this hypothetical scenario where everyone is given jobs.... what are the consequences for refusing to work?
I didn't say they were all deadbeats. I said it was naive to believe that there aren't any. There would be people who would weigh working at all Vs doing nothing and still being provided enough to survive. If we are going to hypothetical this scenario I think it is a valid question
Once we get rid of all the brown illegals someone will need to pick the tomatoes.
We will have machines to do that in the near future.
Oh, probably the kind that only illegal immigrants would do....farm work, landscaping, construction, housekeeping, kitchen help, sweeping the streets.
Mow the Massa's lawn.....
No wonder my maters are always bruised.....
You don't get your bennies.
BTW, the you in my scenario was the general you, not you specifically. And I don't allow deadbeats in my house. My son was forced to get a job and I threw my brother out of my house. You still think I would allow it today?
FMC was working on machines like that when I worked for them almost 40 years ago
Lower taxes on people who actually work.....gee, then why all the fuss over Trump's tax cuts?
Seems like some want us to become a socialist country.
I bet some veterans are turning over in their graves.
We are are one in part.
In PART.
Some seem to wish it was 100%
And some are wishing for 100% fascist or authoritarian.
I am sure there a few thinking that way, but luckily they are so few it isn't even worth worrying about.
There are more Republicans in Congress and the Executive branch than you are apparently aware of.
So which one of those Republicans has openly called for fascism or authoritarianism? I can name several democrats who have openly called for socialism.
Please do name them, also please show which version of socialism they are calling for.
POTUS has already suggested denying due process to asylum seekers and gun owners. If you don't believe me I will be happy to attach the YouTube videos of him saying that.
And there are more loons than I thought possible on here, too!
Bernie Sanders...he wants everything given for free.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez- Democratic Socialist..same as Bernie
That's only 2 that have openly admitted to it. The rest will never admit it because they know they would lose their seats.
Here are 2 left wing publications that admit that Democrats are socialists now.
Watsername Shults could not tell Chris Matthews what the difference between Democrats and Socialists is, and she was given a few days reprieve, then asked again by Chuck Todd...still would not answer.
Even Obama has been linked to the Democratic Socialists of America
Now, it is your turn to list Republicans that have admitted to authoritarian or fascist agendas.
Anything else?
Wow, showing you ignorance. Maybe you better define which version of socialism you're talking about. This differences are huge and not entirely similar to each other.
You can't change what Socialism is by putting "Democratic" in front of it. There are plenty. (Bernie and the gang).
Why don't you make it a multiple choice and I may participate in answering it?
All versions of socialism end up the same. The government makes everyone the same, collects all wealth, and distributes it amongst the population. In the end, those with the most will eventually run out of money. Then who will pay your way?
I notice you still have not named those Republicans that have openly called for authoritative or facist governments. You simply deflected to "different kinds of socialism" to sway from your failed comments.
Some have been told WHAT to think, but not WHY!
Wow, dealing with ignorance.
So 'socialism' to you means government redistributing wealth to form a purely egalitarian society? Do you truly believe this is what people who call themselves socialists are advocating?
Do you think 'socialists' seek to literally destroy all motivation to work hard and produce (i.e. kill ambition) yet have a functioning society??
I would be interested to review the body of work that leads you to think this is what socialism means.
Tu quoque ( / tj uː ˈ k w oʊ k w i , t uː ˈ k w oʊ k w eɪ / ; [1] Latin for "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Sanders advocated social democracy yet self-labels 'Democratic Socialist'. He should have dropped the label because his message had nothing to do with Democratic Socialism; Sanders had no intent on changing the economic system of the USA from capitalism. Social democracy is a variant of capitalism and exists at various levels in most every nation (including the USA). Democratic socialism is an entirely different system in which the productive resources are controlled collectively through democratic processes rather than by a minority. IMO Democratic socialism has no chance of going into effect in any major nation in any of our lifetimes. Such a radical change to the socio-economic/political system would be a result of evolution and an active, informed electorate is essential.
Yes
See Venezuela and Cuba for representation.
Hello????
Are you going to name those Republicans that have openly called for authoritarian or fascist governments.
My guess is no.
Distinguish between authoritarian rule (aka dictators) using labels as propaganda while implementing something entirely different from the actual evolution of a system that is not based on capitalism. Venezuela expropriated businesses and other properties and attempted to run a command economy. The people were not in economic control (socialism) - the state held the control and the economic system remained as a variant of capitalism. Venezuela implemented a social democracy (still capitalism yet approaching state capitalism) that was also borderline fascist.
Do you actually think that USA socialists are calling for the government to expropriate private property (most notably businesses) and take over the US economy (an economy that would -by definition- remain capitalist)?
Did Hitler call for the creation of the Gestapo in 1933? Of course not. Would be dictators use dog-whistle words which their Unthinking Faithful TM will understand but which remains opaque to the majority who would be horrified if they understood.
NT is rife with these dog-whistle words... but if I point them out to you, I'll be dinged for skirting the CoC. That doesn't matter, though, as I am quite certain that you will understand them perfectly...
I have already answered your question. Socialism is the ideology to take from the rich and distribute it to everyone else and I gave you 2 examples. You can try all you want to believe there are "different" factions of socialism, but in the end, every form of socialism in this world that has been tried has failed. It will be no different with whatever version you want to make up.
I didn't ask for words, I asked for names. I understand you want to hide behind the CoC because you have no way to back up your bs. It's OK...you can go away now.
I love it when you libs can't answer questions posed to them so they try and send in reinforcements, and those reinforcements can't or won't answer the same question.
Did you guys get your talking points from Debbie Watsername Shultz?
Hey, man, that list is coming soon! They said it and everyone knows they don't EVER say anything that can't be backed up by at least 3 credible sources, right?
Right?
LMAO!
No it is not.
That is called redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth does not require collective (the public) control over the productive resources of the economy (socialism). It occurs quite frequently in socio-economic systems based on capitalism.
The closest operational system to redistribution of wealth is social democracy - a variant of capitalism. This is quite popular in Europe and we have a weaker form of it in play in the USA.
Seems to me your understanding of socialism is based on slogans and catch phrases. That is about as far as most people go for some inexplicable reason. Why so many people stubbornly insist that they understand this complex area based on slogans they have heard and clearly not based on study of the subject matter is quite an interesting question.
By the way, do you really think that wealth was redistributed to 'everyone else' in Venezuela? The wealth was expropriated by the authoritarian state and mis-managed (horribly) in its attempt to implement a command economy (nothing even remotely close to socialism). Similarly, do you think the people of the former USSR actually had wealth 'redistributed' to them? (The former USSR is the most common poor exemplar for 'socialism'.)
Also, by the way, redistribution of wealth is an insane notion that could never possibly work as an economic system. No 'thinker' in his / her right mind would propose an economic system based on the Robin Hood philosophy. Pick a better misunderstanding.
Nope...you're wrong. Socialism is nothing more than redistribution. You can put lipstick on it, put it in a prom dress , then try and get that dress off, and call it whatever name you want, but it is still redistribution, the official determination of socialism.
I swear it gets aggravating when one of them make a claim, continuously deflects, never answers question posed after their own question is answered, then sends in reinforcements that can't or won't answer the same questions. The least they can do is send someone worthy of debate and not one of the flunkies.
Well, that IS their "A" team!
Most of the clowns aren't worth getting too worked up over.
Redistribution of wealth occurs in pretty much every nation of interest. Including the USA. What sources do you use to come to the belief that redistribution of wealth is what distinguishes socialism from capitalism?
The actual distinction is economic control. Capitalism = minority control over productive resources of an economy whereas socialism = majority (collective) control over same. ( Very oversimplified but just trying to get the most basic idea across. )
Use a dictionary. That is wrong.
I have no problem with you bieng mistaken... but if I were you I wouldn't try to look like an ignoramus...
Jobs guarantee sounds more like a waste of money when unemployment is so low.
Hey--let's spend billions to fix a non-existent problem!
Socialism is great if you don’t like toilet paper or eating food. Look at how happy the people of Venezuela are in their socialist paradise.
Yea, but they haven't told us which version yet. I want a list of the different versions so I can have something to choose from.
"I’ve spoken to hundreds of voters in “flyover country.”
Only 299,999,700 folks to go.
So who would pay for these pie-in-the-sky dreams?
Based on history, our descendants will continue to pay for our mismanagement since they are saddled with our mounting debt.
Just put a serious tax on those who can pay without the slightest difficulty.
Problem solved.
Not really Bob. Without an effective mechanism for managing money, our government will fail to put the taxes to proper use. Taxation sans effective management of revenue is detrimental.
And what happens when you run out of their money?
Why do you presume that the government cannot manage money?
Do you have data? I've never seen anything persuasive.
All big bureaucracies have problems, but I've never seen anything to prove that government is any worse than other bureaucracies.
64 years of watching it screwed up just about everything.
Don't worry. The rich will always be rich.
My goodness! You've seen everything the government has done, for over sixty years?
Amazing.
Untrue.
I have seen more than enough .
Does this somehow prove that the government cannot manage money?
Bob. Please. If you are of the opinion that the tax revenues of the USA have been effectively managed by our government then there is no real point to discussing this. I am truly shocked that anyone would find a $21+ trillion debt with no real hope of paying it off to not be an indictment of atrocious fiscal mismanagement.
IOW, I could certainly accept such crazy debt if it had been applied in a manner that would ensure it was repaid. That is, investments with future returns. Not the case. Not even close. This debt is an ever-increasing burden for future generations and we keep piling it on because people somehow believe the government is effectively managing money.
I guess that it depends on the perimeter of "government". You're obviously right about fiscal mismanagement, but that's Congress and the budget process, not operational mismanagement by the Executive branch. Your 21 trillion are a choice by the Congress, and more precisely the Republican House of Representatives.
Right. Under Democratic leadership, no debt was ever accrued, right?
BOTH parties SUCK at money management.
And when the Republicans announced a plan to cut spending and balance the budget in nine years guess who were the most vocal opponents to getting this runaway spending under control. Every time the Republicans propose budget cuts they face strong opposition from the Dems. Remember how Obama claimed the sky was falling as a result of sequestration.
And yet, we somehow survived those cuts which were to be the end for us!
I sense a whole lot of jealousy.
No.
Nice chart.
Might be nice to know what it is supposed to show us.
Anyone can put colored graph lines and a few names on paper.
B.F.D.
Right so why not embrace socialism, increase the national debt at a rate Obama even higher than Obama did (more than all other presidents combined) and and really screw them over?/s
I agree. The government is a terrible manager of money and this is just one of the reasons why socialism always fails.
What does socialism (collective control over the productive resources of an economy) have to do with national debt? By 'socialism' you must be thinking of offering public services funded by taxation. That is known as 'social democracy' - a variant of capitalism.
Other than conflating 'government managing money' with 'socialism' I would generally agree with you.
No, this proves Congress DOES manage money--BADLY.
That's if they play their cards right and become really good friends with Bernie. He'll probably let them stay at one of his vacation homes occasionally.
Let me add...
The alternative to government is anarchy... soon followed by "rule by the strongest". "Strong" is only randomly associated with wise, so we have had many unwise rulers and only a few wise ones.
"Government" is no one. It is an administrative entity that executes decisions. So... who makes those decisions? In America today, it is the ultra-rich. The Koch brothers. Rupert Murdoch. Rex Tillerson, before he foolishly changed jobs. ...
The Republican Party today is utterly subservient to those ultra-rich. Everything it does is to their benefit. Not to the benefit of the nation at large.
As the nation's economy was pulling out of the 2008 crash, there came a time to begin ratcheting up taxes - notably on those who have the means to pay taxes without pain - in order to reduce the debt that had (quite correctly) ballooned when there was a need to kickstart the economy. That's basic Keynes, and simple good sense.
Instead, the Republican Congress did the opposite, passing a huge tax cut that favored almost exclusively the ultra-rich, while adding greatly to the deficit. Exactly the opposite of what every sensible economist was recommending...
So...
Is "government" to blame for this blatant fiscal mismanagement??
So our government are mindless bots who we should not be blamed for fiscal mismanagement because they are subservient to aristocracy?
I think I will continue to blame Congress, the Executive Branch and all government officials capable of making decisions since they choose to abide by the wishes of lobbyists and donors.
Yes. But I am happy to expand the domain of blame if you wish. The electorate, by the way, is also to blame. But the focal point remains on Congress.
That's just "both sides do it" intellectual laziness. And it is not true :
Surplus/deficit:
The record is very clear. One party is somewhat fiscally responsible, the other not at all.
Bullshit on 'intellectual laziness' - I did not make any points dealing with partisanship. Do not reframe my argument into a partisan strawman.
My point has always been about government over many decades (since FDR). The management of money is constitutionally the role of Congress.
"America is responsible for its fiscal irresponsibility."
That statement is true... but pretty much pointless.
It's pointless to speak of any problem and then avoid examining the "why" of it.
"The government is fiscally irresponsible" is no more accurate than "America is...". Perhaps less accurate in that most people think of the Executive branch when they hear "government", and "The Executive branch is fiscally irresponsible" is nonsensical.
So...
"The government mismanages..." is true, but misleading.
"Congress mismanages,,," is better, but also misleading.
"The Republican party mismanages..." is true, and not misleading.
That's not "partisan". It's straightforward reality. Avoiding agreeing is avoiding reality.
I did not make that statement. I focused on Congress. Your reply style reads as though you are rebutting statements I made.
No it is not. Since FDR, our government has taken on an increasingly greater role in socio-economic issues. Congress is the epicenter for this. The actual effects are a result of government in general executing its priorities. It is naive to think that the effect of decisions made by one Congress end when the next Congress begins. It is all tied together and in complex ways spanning various durations. So look at the performance of government over time, forget the partisan politics, and assess the effectiveness.
I did not say you did.
My post was about misleading generalizations.
If X is responsible for something, then it is accurate to say "X is responsible".
If X is responsible for something, then the set (X,Y) is also responsible for that something. It is not false to say "(X,Y) is responsible", but it is less true than "X is responsible".
If X is responsible for something, then the set (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) is also responsible for that something. Saying "(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) is responsible" is not totally false, but the truth has been swamped and is no longer discernible.
"Both sides do it" is not totally false, but the truth has been swamped and is no longer discernible.
Why are you explaining this to me?
Because saying "the government is responsible" is akin to saying "(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) is responsible". There is a little bit of truth, but swamped by irrelevant dross.
Let's try something else. Do you consider the US government, based on the facts evidenced since FDR, to have managed its resources well? Does its performance over that duration meet with your satisfaction? Or are you going to dodge the question entirely and say ... well gee I cannot say because it is all so complicated and there is more at play than just the government (but the Republicans surely are the key problem) ... .
I have little patience when you use these tactics Bob.
Are you now doing the "I will give both the questions and the answers" gig? I have little patience when you use these tactics TiG.
--
That's a terrible question, TiG! Complex , closed and loaded . I expect better from you.
What are "the government's resources"? What are the criteria for "well-managed"? Is "the government" responsible for what it does or is it a puppet for something else?
C'mon, TiG... We know how this works. If we want a conversation on a complex topic, we need to take the time, and start with the basics.
Here are a few tidbits:
"The government" (President Hoover and the Federal Reserve) screwed up royally when the Depression hit.
"The government" (the military) managed the nation's economy quite brilliantly during WWII.
"The government" (Ike) got the deficit headed in the right direction, and later Presidents/Federal Reserves/Congresses continued until... Reagan, who blew it up.
Is there a conclusion to be drawn about "government"? Or do we observe that "government" is a puppet, deciding nothing .
Later.
No hurry.
I love how conservatives in KY voted for governor Bevins in part on his promise to get rid of Obamacare........but then after the election they were outraged to learn that their beloved KYnect health care was going away.
The latest news is that thanks to Bevins and the GOP about 500,000 more low-income folks are losing their dental and vision coverage.
Good if they want coverage they can pay for it themselves rather than trying to stick others with their bills.
The funny part is that those dimwitted conservatives will almost certainly vote for Bevins and Trump again despite the fact that it's literally killing them.
No the ones that vote for Bevin and Trump are the millions that don't want to get stuck paying other peoples bills.
Socialism is only an easy sell to lazy people. I don't know anyone that has worked their ass off starting a business that is a fan of socialism.
Seems to me if socialism is such an easy sell, the guy would have actually WON.
People are tired of only having 2 choices in elections because only the major 2 parties have any chance financially of ever winning.
By expanding one party's platform to include more social programs for the people is an easy sell but branding it as "socialism" is not going to be accepted even by many who may agree with the policies.
Push the policies and not the branding and then it can win.
Kentucky has not seen anything beneficial out of McConnell or Manchin or their governor. When people get really desperate and fed up they will buy another candidate with social policies instead of the same old crap Manchin (D), and McConnell (R) have handed them.
Yea they are tired of only having 2 choices but too stupid to do anything about it. Even when we had the 2 must unlikable candidates in history a third party still couldn't get 5%
People are still convinced if they don't vote for the duopoly they are throwing their vote away.
Of all the ologies and isms, Socialism on paper is the most appealing from a human standpoint, the only fly in the ointment is that once you involve humans with all their foibles the whole thing comes off the rails.
R-I-g-h-t----otherwise, socialism is almost perfect!
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!
Well it holds true to my basic theorem, anything we seem to put our finger into no matter how noble the effort fails at some point.
The storm has passed...
The Umpire has called an end to the rain-delay. The game may begin again.