hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 10:40 am
@snood,
Quote:
She immediately swiveled and focused on all the foul language they've accepted from the "president". She said HIS words actually have the power to effect the lives of people, and Congresswoman Talib's don't.

I wish I'd thought to say that!
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 10:41 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I only use "progressive" because it is widely used by others. I mostly label myself as a liberal, of the FDR New Deal stripe.

Words have specific meanings, so don't get too hung up on who calls themselves what.

Liberal refers to doing things freely. It can refer to liberal spending (spending freely) or liberal morality/behavior (living beyond the constraints of traditional morality).

Leftist refers to political opposition, to going against the establishment.

Socialist refers to superficially distinct but interconnected aspects of politics. The most commonly understood meaning has to do with redistributing/expanding the means of consumption (money) from rich to poor. They call this 'expanding the middle-class' or 'closing the gap between rich and poor.' It's the Robin Hood aspect of socialism.

The other aspect of socialism is more what is referred to as 'national socialism' in the WWII era. It is the overpowering of independence to subjugate individuals and larger social entities like corporations and entire nations/states to collective service. It goes beyond the social ethic of individuals independently making moral choices to help others and it pushes people to become minions of social pressures. This is why there is such strong group-think facilitated by media culture, academia, etc. It is about achieving mind-control at the social level instead of the individual level.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 10:58 am
@hightor,
Having a word to describe what’s important to me politically is a good thing. I don’t mind being referred to as a liberal, but some people call Nancy Pelosi that—and I don’t want to have what’s important to me mixed up in her neoliberal bullshit.

An example of reduced progressive tribalism is the blistering ass whipping I see on Twitter today. All the progressives I know are really happy about the new diverse group sworn in this week, and excessively pleased that several new members are progressives (refuse to take corporate payoffs, primarily to continue enabling Big Oil to wreck the planet and enabling Big Pharma to kill off regular Americans by making healthcare inaccessible.)

So, if we were tribal, we’d be avoiding the fact that several of these new progressives voted for Pelosi’s Machiavellian PayGo, but thousands of progressive Americans are actively holding them to account for that vote.

Thinking critically about and responding to each vote is, to me, the polar opposite of making excuses for everything ‘your side’ does.

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 10:59 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:


Quote:
They are holding their representatives to a high threshold of accountability and calling them to explain their votes instead of making excuses for them.

Making the members toe some sort of ideological line?

Damn right. They need to serve the interests of those who pay them.

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/Submit
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of republicanism"
synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; More

Ethics, morals, principles.

Healthcare is a human right.
Save my planet.
Serve the people.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 11:00 am
Most politicians have to be prodded like stubborn donkeys if they are to keep moving at all.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 11:31 am
@Lash,
I guess what I'm concerned about is the tendency of ideologically motivated people to look at every situation as an opportunity to employ a pre-existing ideological prescription. I don't think reality is constructed that way.

(And I thought Pelosi's comment was masterful — it has nothing to do with her corrupt ideology or political shortcomings; it was a clever way of confronting and neutralizing hypocritical criticism and mock indignation.)
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 11:37 am
@livinglava,
National "socialism" has nothing to do with Socialism as commonly understood. It was an attempt to cash in on the popularity of socialist political philosophy which had a large following among the working classes at the time.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 11:44 am
@hightor,
You must be talking about Tlaib’s comment. I think it’s laughable that profanity captured everyone’s attention, Pelosi gets points for a reasonable response, while sinking a knife into the fetus of M4A.

PayGo is people’s austerity, which translates to ‘we the lawmaker elites get what we want, we serve corporations and our rich friends who donate to our endless re-election campaigns, while, sorry peons, you and your children die because you can’t afford $1300. a month for your diabetes medication.’

People are becoming violently pissed about this. I don’t understand anyone who’s not violently pissed about this. I’m becoming violently pissed about those who aren’t violently pissed about this.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 12:05 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
PayGo is people’s austerity, which translates to ‘we the lawmaker elites get what we want, we serve corporations and our rich friends who donate to our endless re-election campaigns, while, sorry peons, you and your children die because you can’t afford $1300. a month for your diabetes medication.’

I think PayGo, or something like it, could be the key to cutting defense spending. Instead of liberals being attacked for "budget-busting out-of-control spending" people would be presented with a choice: "Do you want improved social programs, infrastructure, education, and healthcare? Or do you want to chase radical Muslims around the barren hills of Afghanistan?"
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 12:47 pm
@hightor,
That's exactly what Republicans and certain Dems want you to think. That's how these people buy anything they want under Republican control and then strangle social programs when Dems are in control.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 12:52 pm
@hightor,
The key to cutting defense spending is cutting defense spending. They’re all in line for that military money gravy train. Watch.

I have developed a basic opinion of you - as we all do of each other here - that you are relatively thoughtful and not nearly as agenda-driven as most. I don’t generally think of you as naive either, but dude, when’s the last time you had a voice in social or military spending?

PayGo is austerity specifically on the backs of an exponentially growing lower class that is FED UP. Strikes are next.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 01:09 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
I think PayGo, or something like it, could be the key to cutting defense spending. Instead of liberals being attacked for "budget-busting out-of-control spending" people would be presented with a choice: "Do you want improved social programs, infrastructure, education, and healthcare? Or do you want to chase radical Muslims around the barren hills of Afghanistan?"
Americans don't want to be massacred or enslaved by the bad guys. We'd rather the government protect us from such dangers.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 01:12 pm
Pelosi asked if she supports Black Lives Matter. Instead of a simple yes:

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1081400163992780800


MSNBC

Verified account

@MSNBC

Speaker Pelosi on Black Lives Matter:

"I support the recognition that black lives matter, for sure, and I have incorporated that in many of my statements. All lives matter... we really have to redress past grievances in terms of how we addressed the African-American community."
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 01:18 pm
@edgarblythe,
It’s so transparent when you just look.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 01:20 pm
@edgarblythe,
Dog whistle...
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 01:40 pm
Cenk Uygur

@cenkuygur

The establishment loves @SpeakerPelosi as much as the country dislikes her. Their need to give her over the top compliments is nearly maniacal & totally unjustified. I think @SenSchumer is just as ineffective but he doesn't get the same kind of fanboy treatment from the press.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 02:14 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
That's how these people buy anything they want under Republican control and then strangle social programs when Dems are in control.

And how do the Republicans obtain control? Basically by persistently and effectively attacking Dems for "wasteful spending" and "high taxes" — with a few social barbs thrown in. So the task for the Democrats is to convince a majority of the electorate that excessive reliance on militarism is the biggest example of wasteful spending. But that's not easy. For one thing, USAmericans profess to love their soldiers (they didn't back when I was a conscript) so critics of war have to be careful to somehow exempt combat forces from any denigration or blame. And they love their goddamned military bases and defense spending whereby our socialist government props up regional economies with liberal government spending and corporate welfare. I don't think we're going to overturn this regime with one or two presidential elections, no matter who gets in. Not with the depth of the division we see today on multiple fronts. This is why I think ideas like PayGo, imperfect as they are, shouldn't be spurned so quickly but instead turned back on the Republicans.

Lash wrote:
I don’t generally think of you as naive either, but dude, when’s the last time you had a voice in social or military spending?

In a representative democracy, dude, I don't expect to have a direct voice in those sorts of decisions. But my congressional district finally threw out the former carpetbagging lackey of Wall Street and put in someone who has vowed to fight for social spending.
Quote:
Strikes are next.

Strikes in the public sector can be effective but only when the public is sympathetic. I don't see industrial strikes and walkouts ever being done anymore on an effective scale. But what I would like to see is action coming from a different quarter — the consumer. Or, specifically in this case, the non-consumer. I'd like to see well-organized and carefully planned consumer boycotts of selected products and services. That's right, Comcast, I'm talking about you. (Just an example.) I suspect that research would reveal connections between companies manufacturing consumer goods and larger corporations which bid for defense contracts, the same way the drug companies have their tentacles spread throughout the economy. Expose them. Embarrass them. Don't buy their products. Make them change their ways. Hell, I don't have much use for P.E.T.A. but they actually had a positive effect on McDonald's. There's a lesson there. Maybe we need an "Unhappy War" campaign.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 02:17 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Pelosi asked if she supports Black Lives Matter.

Litmus test.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 02:32 pm
@edgarblythe,
Hightor, this is the story of who invented Paygo and what the objectives were and still are.

edgarblythe wrote:

Get ready to see it on your TV. The GOP is about to kick back into Two Santa Clauses mode and restart the scam they’ve been running since Reagan.

It’ll predictably begin in the first week or two of January, probably first on “Meet the Press” and other Sunday shows that feature “serious thinkers” and only rarely challenge Republicans. It’ll simultaneously roll out on Fox, on right-wing hate radio, and in the conservative media.

And there are more than a few “Third Way” Democrats eager to go along with it.

At its core, the strategy is simple and elegant: When Republicans are in power, run up as much debt as possible, mostly by borrowing and giving that cash to the Republican donor class through tax cuts and corporate subsidies; when Democrats have political power, Republicans suddenly become hysterical about the debt and demand that Dems keep taxes low while cutting social spending.

If successful, not only will Republicans (and corporate-funded Dems) block any genuinely progressive spending legislation in 2019 or 2020, but they’ll prevent any possibility of debt-free college, Medicare for All, or a Green New Deal in the entire next presidential term, clear through 2024 or beyond.

For this remarkably successful 38-year-long GOP head-fake strategy, you can thank a guy named Jude Wanniski.

Odds are you’ve never heard of Jude, but without him Reagan never would have become a “successful” president, Republicans only rarely would have taken control of the House or Senate, and neither George Bush would have been president.

It all began in 1964, when Barry Goldwater went down to ignominious and massive defeat. Most Republicans felt doomed, among them the then-28-year-old Wanniski. They had to come up with a new message, he knew, instead of just “drugs are bad,” “school segregation is good,” and “Democrats are communists.”

But what? The GOP seemed totally out of ideas. They floated a series of initiatives through the ’60s, mostly previewing Nixon’s “War on Drugs” and their anti-Soviet rhetoric, but nothing caught fire.

Then came 1974, as Nixon went down in flames even harder than Goldwater had, and Ford would soon follow: Jude Wanniski decided he’d had enough.

It’s the Gift Economy, Stupid

Wanniski concluded that if the GOP was to have a new message, it would have to be all about the economy.

The problem for the GOP was that the Democrats, since FDR, had gotten to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks—both programs of the New Deal—as well as when their “big government” projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built, giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers.

From the 1930s to the time Wanniski wrote his opus magnum in the Wall Street Journal, Democrats—who almost continuously controlled the House of Representatives where all taxing and spending must originate—kept high taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things. This kept the national debt in decline, and kept working people happy (working-class wages were steadily going up, in fact faster than the wages of CEOs).

The net effect of these entirely reasonable policies was that the Democrats seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for poor and working-class voters. Or, as Wanniski noted, Santa Clauses.

Americans loved it, Wanniski knew. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, calling for cuts to Social Security, blocking infrastructure or cutting aid to education, they lost elections.

So Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics—which had operated on Adam Smith’s simple consumer-demand-driven equation for seven thousand years—on its head.

Supply-Side Economics

In 1974 he invented a new phrase—“supply-side economics”—and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn’t because people had money and bought things with it but, instead, because wealthy people made things available for sale. And the way to increase “stuff,” he theorized, was to give big tax cuts to corporations and rich “investors.”

In 1976, he rolled out to the Republican Party (through the Wall Street Journal) his “Two Santa Clauses” theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next 30-plus years.

Democrats, he said, had been able to be “Santa Clauses” by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Social Security, child tax credits, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food and housing assistance, subsidies of college education (student loans were largely unheard of in 1980), infrastructure, new schools and hospitals, airports and Amtrak—the list went on and on. And voters loved all that stuff.

Republicans, Wanniski said, had to come up with their own Santa Claus strategy, or they’d never seriously hold power again.

It was simple, really.

When Republicans are in power, they should be “tax-cut Santas.” Cut taxes radically, and thus drive up the national debt, without ever talking much about the debt (this latter part wasn’t in the article but was adopted later by the GOP).

When Democrats take power, though, everything changes. Republicans should scream so loud about the national debt that they’d intimidate Democrats into shooting their own Santa Claus by cutting all those benefits the American people so loved.

It was a twofer.

If the GOP could pull it off with sufficient discipline—and in the late ’70s and early ’80s their billionaire donors threw big money into think tanks and PR machines to make it happen and keep it going—the American people would always think of the Republicans as the tax-cut Santas, and the Democrats as the scrooges who were trying to keep “average voters” from having their share of the tax-cut toys under the tree.

Horse and Sparrow Economics

This new idea of “trickle-down economics” wasn’t actually new; in the late 19th century it was called “horse and sparrow economics,” on the theory that if one fed more oats to the horses, there’d be more undigested grain left over in the horse poop for the sparrows to eat. (Seriously!) But the “supply side” marketing was pure 20th-century Madison Avenue.

At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept to build a strong economy, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, he drew on his napkin, revenue to the government would magically go up!

Neither concept made any sense—and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies—but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.

Wanniski, Laffer, Stephen Moore and their billionaire backers convinced the Reagan campaign to embrace supply-side economics in the 1980 election, and George Herbert Walker Bush—like most Republicans of the time—was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting “Voodoo Economics,” said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski’s supply-side and Laffer’s tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we’d face disaster.

But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell the scam of supply-side economics, and use it to get Republicans elected.

Two Santa Clauses Wins

And it has worked.

The last two presidents to present balanced budgets to Congress (and get them passed) were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Clinton famously “ended welfare as we know it,” radically cutting back on LBJ’s Great Society programs that had nearly cut in half the U.S. poverty rate in the 1960s and ’70s.

While Obama was able to get through an initial stimulus in 2009 (Republicans were as panicked as Democrats), even his signature Affordable Care Act had to be revenue-neutral, or even cut the deficit, to get it through Congress.

Sunday Show Hosts

Following their Two Santa Clauses script, the GOP was talking debt, debt, debt on nearly every Sunday show, every week, for all of Obama’s eight years.

Of course, these same commentators were silent when Republican presidents were in office, and the Sunday hosts seemed oddly amnesiac.

Reagan, Bush, Bush (and now Trump) all—every one of them—proposed and signed budgets that massively increased the national debt, year after year, relentlessly.

And during their GOP presidencies, like today (until the Dems take control of the House), the “conservative” pundits mostly kept quiet about the debt, focusing instead on feigned outrage over seemingly irrelevant things like the coming “gun confiscation,” the “War on Christmas,” inner-city violence (by black people), and the “immigration crisis” that involved brown people.

Meanwhile, out of sight of the American public, the nation’s total debt grew so high that whenever the Democrats took power, the Sunday-show Republicans started screaming about the “unsustainable debt!!!”

Like Pavlov and his dog, average people would freak out and join the Republicans in demanding that Democrats “cut all that spending!”

And with the cuts, Republicans knew, the Democrats would be shooting their own Santa Clauses.

Year after year, it worked brilliantly.

Wanniski Declares Victory

Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton in 1999, in particular the “Gingrich Revolution” of 1994, Wanniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part:

“We of course should be indebted to Art Laffer for all time for his Curve… But as the primary political theoretician of the supply-side camp, I began arguing for the ‘Two Santa Claus Theory’ in 1974. If the Democrats are going to play Santa Claus by promoting more spending, the Republicans can never beat them by promoting less spending. They have to promise tax cuts…”

Ed Crane, then-president of the libertarian CATO Institute, noted in a memo that year:

“When Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, Vin Weber, Connie Mack and the rest discovered Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, they thought they’d died and gone to heaven. In supply-side economics they found a philosophy that gave them a free pass out of the debate over the proper role of government. Just cut taxes and grow the economy: government will shrink as a percentage of GDP, even if you [Republicans] don’t cut spending.”

The result, in addition to several Republicans winning the presidency, is clear. Today’s national debt is almost entirely the invention of the Republican Party, using Laffer and Wanniski’s strategy.*

If you’re seeing the pattern here, it’s because it’s obvious. Republicans pour on the tax cuts and spending increases, year after year, whenever they have the power to do so, to intentionally inflate the national debt.

When a Democratic president is in office, however, or even (like 2019) when Democrats control part or all of Congress and want to go big, the Republicans in on this long con scream about the debt on every show, every day.

When Jude Wanniski died, conservative George Gilder celebrated the genius of his Two Santa Claus theory in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:

“…Jude’s charismatic focus on the tax on capital gains redeemed the fiscal policies of four administrations. … He audaciously defied all the Buffetteers of the trade gap, the moldy figs of the Phillips Curve, the chic traders in money and principle, even the stultifying pillows of the Nobel Prize.”

And, indeed, Wanniski’s Two Santa Claus theory defied every tenet of rational economics, including those put forward by Nobel Prize winners.

In simple reality, his tax cuts for the rich did what they have always done over the past 100 years: they initiated a bubble economy that would let the very wealthy skim the cream off the top just before the ceiling crashed in on working people.

Will It Work Again?

The Republicans got what they wanted from Wanniski’s work. They held power for nearly 40 years, skimmed trillions of dollars out of the economy, gutted organized labor, and packed the Supreme Court and the entire federal court system.

Best of all, though, for the Two Santa Claus GOP, the years since 1981 have left such a massive national debt that some misguided “conservative” Democrats will again be clamoring to shoot Santa with cuts to education, infrastructure, health care, and other social programs.

The Two Santa Claus theory isn’t dead, and starting any day now we’ll see the Republicans crank up their debt hysteria. It’s as predictable as the seasons.

Hopefully, though, this time Democrats will point out the massive fraud perpetrated by the GOP since 1981, and begin talking about Two Santa Clauses in the media.

If they don’t, and enough “Third Way” and “New Dem” Democrats get on board with the “deficit hawks” to drag down the New Deal progressives, get ready for the second Trump term.

*For wonks who want the numbers:

The national debt, right now, at about 100 percent of GDP, is large, and servicing that debt costs us hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could find better uses.

That said, though, it’s nowhere near as high as it was after World War II, when we paid it down by raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and stimulating the economy with direct-benefit-to-workers programs including infrastructure, union jobs, free college education (the GI Bill), and building a social safety net. We could easily do it again.

For perspective, the national debt first began to explode in the 20th century in the first years of World War II, going from post-Great Depression 48 percent of GDP in 1942 to 70 percent of GDP in 1943.

It hit a peak of 119 percent of GDP in 1946, much higher than today, the first year after the war.

Truman and Eisenhower paid down more than half the national debt, but not by cutting spending. They left in place FDR’s 91 percent top marginal tax rate, with corporate taxes paying about a third of the total federal budget (they now pay about 9 percent).

Truman stimulated the economy with the GI Bill, sending over 7 million vets to college or journeyman training and helping them buy houses. Eisenhower got the debt down to a mere 60 percent of GDP with the stimulus of a national highway system infrastructure program (while, like Truman, keeping taxes high).

Jimmy Carter got the debt-to-GDP ratio went down to 31 percent.

When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, the nation’s debt was a mere $908 billion. He nearly tripled it, to $2.6 trillion, all while talking about the importance of a balanced-budget amendment and the vital role of “fiscal responsibility.”

And then he rolled out supply-side Reaganomics, with the national debt hitting 50 percent in 1989 with Reagan’s last budget, and exploding up to 64 percent in 1993, the last George H.W. Bush budget year.

Clinton came into office, raised taxes on the rich, and lowered the national debt to 55 percent of GDP in 2000 and 2001.

When George W. Bush came into office, Bill Clinton handed him a budget on the edge of surplus; if Bush had done nothing we would have reduced large percentages of the national debt during Bush’s next eight years.

Instead, following Wanniski’s model, Bush put two multi-trillion-dollar illegal wars and a massive trillion-dollar tax cut for the rich on the nation’s credit card, not only massively jacking the debt but crashing the economy.

Thus, the next president—Obama—had to engage in more deficit spending (in the face of Republican refusal to raise taxes on the rich and corporations), further increasing the debt. And Republicans blocked him from raising taxes.

Trump, of course, made his own $1.5 trillion addition to the national debt, and also massively increased military spending, so that next year our nation’s debt is projected to equal 108 percent of GDP or $22.7 trillion, getting us close to post-WWII levels.

Cue the deficit hawks and concern trolls.

This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/gops-successful-scam-reboot/?fbclid=IwAR1-0-OXXlNUM7oIDJIp_tmZmBDlkb1mvH8UgDCgyH242y2si3smmsRCwI4
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 03:14 pm
@edgarblythe,
I like Hartmann. I don't disagree with his account. But I still don't see why quasi-austerity can't be turned back around and used against the Republicans. I think this would have been pressed earlier had we not gotten ourselves into the endless war mentality after 9/11. As soon as it's politically viable the Dems should start to demand cuts in defense spending. But first we need to see if Trump is really going to cut the number of forces overseas.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.31 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 11:31:12