“Every American adult should immediately receive $1,000 to help ensure families and workers can meet their short-term obligations and increase spending in the economy”
Mitt knows there is an Infinite supply of dirty socialist money when the Republicans want to spend it. The only time you ever have to worry what something costs or who is going to pay for it is when “those people” may get some benefit that republicans do not think they deserve.
I fully support doing this. As well as fully funding the other services that will be needed. This is exactly the type of crisis where government needs to step up. But let’s not ignore the fact the in 2012, when a Democratic candidate was in the Whitehouse Romney was totally ok with letting Detroit Go Bankrupt because there is never money for those people. Our wars. Our natural disasters. Our industries. Our people.
All the current discussion about Coronavirus bailouts for hotels, hospitality, skittish markets and the energy sector reminded me of this chart from a few weeks back.
Trump’s signature domestic policy is a big government socialist wall built on confiscated private property just like Khrushchev built. His signature economic policy is tax payer funded subsidies to guarantee equality of outcome for farmers hurt by his anti-market policies. Nothing about that should surprise you, the GOP has made it perfectly clear that this is an endless supply of dirty socialist money for the demographic that votes for, fights for and funds the campaigns of the Republican party. Everyone else can drop dead.
If you have trouble understanding the process that leads the GOP to defend 19 billion for farmers to not sell food while cutting 2.5 billion in food stamps for people who would like to buy food then just think back to these core narratives of the 2016 campaign:
Poor white people in the rust belt are poor because of Mexicans and China and bad trade deals. They need a person to put them first and act on their behalf to correct this injustice that others have done to them. People who disagree with this are commies/hate America/are out of touch elites.
Poor people of color in urban areas are poor because they are lazy and have a bad culture, they have a victim mentality. They need to learn to take care of themselves, stop claiming victim status and expecting other to fix their problems. People who disagree with this are suffering from white guilt/being politically correct/are SJWs.
So it doesn’t count as socialism if the people getting the redistribution are white Republican voters in red states. Or industries that fund Republican campaigns. And as sure as the sun sets in the west; every time a tornado, hurricane or flooding ravages a deep red state you can count on the same GOP that blocked money for injured 9/11 first responders to trip all over themselves to air drop money into rural white communities to make them all whole again.
Republicans love socialism. For themselves. Everyone else can drop dead.
The important thing to remember here is that Canadian drugs aren’t cheaper because they went on a medical vacation to Canada. They are cheaper because Canadian socialized medicine works.
Americans have been traveling to Canada for drugs like insulin when the cost is too high to obtain them in the U.S. This plan would ostensibly make it easier for Americans to obtain cheaper drugs without having to cross the border.
O’Reilly and Dobbs were saying that Obama should be taking more coercive action than he’s taking. Against whom? Oil companies. Both O’Reilly and Dobbs emphasized that U.S. oil companies don’t own the oil they think they own. Who owns it? We do, according to O’Reilly and Dobbs. And not we, as in you and me, but we, as in the U.S. government. Dobbs advocated “jaw-boning” oil companies into charging lower prices. He also advocated some kind of government slush trust fund that the oil companies would fund with a special tax. Both O’Reilly and Dobbs got upset about oil companies exporting gasoline. So, based on this and other O’Reilly/Dobbs pronouncements, exports of oil products are bad, exports of other products are good, and imports of almost everything are bad. They must have a very interesting economic model.
Henderson is being just a little unfair to O’Reilly. But other than that, this is just too good not to share.
Of course, it was inevitable. As soon as Warren Buffett came out and publically said that the super-rich, like himself, should be taxed more, knee-jerk, reactionary right wingers were going to throw the “S” word at him.
It is a laughable notion – one of the most successful traders in history wants to march America towards communism. His critics seem to be completely thrown by the fact that Buffett, gasp, has a conscience.
this is the recovery conservatives say they want. The balance of economic activity is shifting away from the public sector and toward the private sector. So why is it that we have people running around the country—not just ignorant grassroots folks or talk show entrepreneurs, but billionaire political organizers like David Koch—screaming about incipient socialism?
I think this has something to do with the odd definitions of socialism that are taking hold on the right. It’s no longer about state ownership of the means of production. Now the acknowledgement of the existence of public goods or any form of social insurance is declared socialism.
The Spanish saw socialism in simple economic terms, as a belief that governments had to oversee large programs of social improvement – such as land reform and the wresting of education from the hands of the church to secular institutions – while leaving small business to the entrepreneurs. Socialists argued that a small minority shouldn’t own the majority of the wealth, and social welfare should be the aim of government. The anarchists were modern ascetics: no booze, no tobacco, no infidelity. Their rallying cry was that no official should be paid or have his power enhanced due to his position. And the fascists – unlike their German and Italian counterparts – were the army of the right fueled by strict loyalty to the church. They defined themselves by their traditional values and strong religious commitments.
With his father’s passing, young Paul collected Social Security benefits until age 18, which he put away for college. To make ends meet, Paul’s mother returned to school to study interior design. His siblings were off at college. Ryan remembers this difficult time bringing him and his mother closer.
See how that worked? Congressman Paul Ryan loses his father at age 16, and Social Security steps up to ease the burden. Of course, his mother also received Social Security benefits as his father’s surviving spouse.
Seems like it was such a great hammock for Ryan that he just doesn’t want anyone else to share it.
It is almost the height of insanity of bureaucracy to have the EPA regulating something that is emitted by all living things.
As Joe points out, this argument says that we should adopt an equally laissez-faire attitude toward sewage.
But hey, there was a time when conservatives did, in fact, argue for doing nothing about effluent of any kind. In the years leading up to the Great Stink of 1858, which finally got the British to build a London sewer system, The Economisteditorialized against any such foolish notion (pdf):
suffering and evil are nature’s admonitions—they cannot be got rid of.
Or, to put it (almost) in the modern vernacular, stuff happens.