Ending the Ronald Reagan Lie

[abandonconflict]

 

[Moldy]

By Jeffery Sachs of the Boston Globe

As they return from the July Fourth break, the Republican leadership is twisting in agony on the Obamacare repeal and it couldn’t happen to a more miserable bunch. President Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell have been trying to jam through a deeply unpopular and cruel piece of legislation, but for once the public is being heard over the lobbyists. And the public is shouting a loud and hopefully decisive “no.” But the problem is deeper than health care, and goes back to Ronald Reagan’s great lie.

Our current political travails can be traced to Reagan. In his jovial way, Reagan would quip, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” With his sneering disrespect for government, Reagan ushered in nearly four decades of tax cuts, deregulation, and rising inequality that now threaten to devour our future. Trump, Ryan, and McConnell are the scheming and vacuous politicians at the end of a long process of decline.

Aristotle invented the Western study of political science; in his view, politics was about the community expressing its common interests and promoting virtues among the citizenry. It was a vision the Founding Fathers well understood. Yet somehow that positive view became transposed in today’s right-wing political thought into the idea that government is inherently evil and must be vanquished.

It’s not hard to find the peculiar American roots of this extremist view. The country was born in a rebellion against a monarch. America’s great diversity led constantly to calls for limited government, especially from the slave-owning southern states that championed “states’ rights” to try to keep the federal government off their backs. Historians have been clear that the current wave of anti-federal sentiments emerged in the South and West in response to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Yet something more happened as well.

In the 1960s few Americans would have understood Reagan’s quip about government being terrifying. The federal government had won the war, developed the atomic bomb, put Americans into space, and built the greatest ribbons of highways in the world. The federal government had promoted dazzling technological breakthroughs in medicine, space, telecommunications, and other areas.

What changed was the marriage of anti-civil rights politics in the South, West, rural America, and the suburbs, with big money in politics. Presidential aspirants had always had their financial backers. But with the advent of expensive television ads, mass mailings, and big data, campaigns became expensive. Big campaign money flooded in and federal politics became the playground of billionaires.

And nobody played it better than David and Charles Koch. They played the long game. With their lavish funding of libertarian think tanks, advocacy groups, university departments, and political action committees, the Koch Brothers and their brethren (including Robert Mercer, Sheldon Adelson, and the late John Olin) bought the Republican Party and turned it into a radical antigovernment force. It’s be all and end all became tax cuts and deregulation.

The deregulation had one more crucial effect. It enabled the rise of “too big to fail” businesses, and their lobbies in four key sectors: Big Oil, Wall Street, Big Health, and Big Armaments. Antitrust became a dead letter. The billionaires successfully championed tax cuts, deregulation, and deregulated companies that became more influential than government itself, and that when necessary could call on the federal government to do their bidding.

The Democrats, of course, have their own watered-down version of the same phenomenon. Wall Street, for example, proved to be an equal-opportunity employer of politicians of both parties.

The stunning result is this: A small group of wealthy interests has hijacked the federal government, driving policies that are strongly against public opinion and the public good. Legislation is drafted in secret, pushed without deliberation, and if possible, adopted without regard for the voters. This is obviously the case with the Obamacare repeal, but it’s also true regarding climate change, environmental protection, tax cuts for the rich, antitrust enforcement, and foreign policy.

Obamacare repeal and the Trump agenda have exposed the big lie. Yes, the Koch Brothers have bought the Republican majority, but the policies they espouse, such as slashing health care coverage, are not the policies desired by the American people. We are therefore at a reckoning.

My own belief? We will soon swing back to an era of grass-roots democracy, led especially by young people, in which public activism will trump big money in politics. Stay tuned.

Some how the Citizens United verdict needs to be reversed, choke those prostitutes outta their cash cow and at the same time introduce term limits to all of the vampires. I don't mind government, just the fuck heads that ruin it for all.

 

[twostrokenut]

Who’s in your wallet.

too many politicians and corporate interests!

 

[Fogdog]

Some how the Citizens United verdict needs to be reversed, choke those prostitutes outta their cash cow and at the same time introduce term limits to all of the vampires. I don't mind government, just the fuck heads that ruin it for all.

hmmm

repeal CU would be a great thing

Introducing term limits is the same as saying you don't trust voters to choose correctly.

 

[twostrokenut]

hmmm

repeal CU would be a great thing

Introducing term limits is the same as saying you don't trust voters to choose correctly.

or it's like saying I want a sell by date on my food.

 

[Grandpapy]

hmmm

repeal CU would be a great thing

Introducing term limits is the same as saying you don't trust voters to choose correctly.

Perhaps, don’t trust the electoral collage to choose correctly ?

 

[Fogdog]

Perhaps, don’t trust the electoral collage to choose correctly ?

The president has a term limit,

The electoral college did what it was designed to do, which to is bias the presidential election towards states with small populations. I trust that will hold so long as there is an electoral college.

The argument is whether or not a person who lives in S Dakota for example should have a larger share of the presidential vote than somebody who lives in the state of New York. Some say they like the EC -- if not for the EC, smaller states would only see candidates waving through the windows of their jets as they fly over on the way to more populous states.

Then again, campaigns ignored S. Dakota anyway. Practically all attention was placed on a few states in 2016. The argument about it being a good thing to favor smaller states is bogus.

I don't like the EC but there isn't a need for an amendment to abolish it and all the machinations required to pass an amendment. There is another way to disable this archaic method of choosing president: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

When enough states affirm this measure the EC would become moot.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

The president has a term limit,

The electoral college did what it was designed to do, which to is bias the presidential election towards states with small populations. I trust that will hold so long as there is an electoral college.

The argument is whether or not a person who lives in S Dakota for example should have a larger share of the presidential vote than somebody who lives in the state of New York. Personally, I don't like the EC but also recognize if not for the EC, smaller states would only see candidates waving through the windows of their jets as the fly over on the way to more populous states.

Then again, campaigns ignored S. Dakota anyway. Practically all attention was placed on a few states in 2016. The argument about it being a good thing to favor smaller states is bogus.

I don't like the EC but there isn't a need for an amendment to abolish it and all the machinations required to pass an amendment. There is another way to disable this archaic method of choosing president: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

When enough states affirm this measure the EC would become moot.

The EC blows. It was also put in because they thought if everyone was drunk and picked the wrong guy, they could 'fix' it.

Obviously, that didn't work last December.

99% of people see the candidates on TV only. They disrupt traffic when they come in person. And, the majority already know who they're going to vote for.

Campaigns are for 10%-15% of vote. The undecided swingers and flip floppers.

 

[ttystikk]

Some how the Citizens United verdict needs to be reversed, choke those prostitutes outta their cash cow and at the same time introduce term limits to all of the vampires. I don't mind government, just the fuck heads that ruin it for all.

That's why I've been telling people to vote for Progressive candidates who refuse to take corporate campaign donations.

The Democratic Shill contingent here would have you believe that 'Democrats will save us!' but their own actions say otherwise. Check this thread I posted today;
https://www.rollitup.org/t/house-votes-to-overturn-cfpb-mandatory-arbitration-ban.945878/#post-13684206

 

[_gresh_]

That's why I've been telling people to vote for Progressive candidates who refuse to take corporate campaign donations.

The Democratic Shill contingent here would have you believe that 'Democrats will save us!' but their own actions say otherwise; check the thread I posted today;

Which one? You have like 6 separate copy and paste threads on the board right now

 

[Grandpapy]

The president has a term limit,

The electoral college did what it was designed to do, which to is bias the presidential election towards states with small populations. I trust that will hold so long as there is an electoral college.

The argument is whether or not a person who lives in S Dakota for example should have a larger share of the presidential vote than somebody who lives in the state of New York. Some say they like the EC -- if not for the EC, smaller states would only see candidates waving through the windows of their jets as they fly over on the way to more populous states.

Then again, campaigns ignored S. Dakota anyway. Practically all attention was placed on a few states in 2016. The argument about it being a good thing to favor smaller states is bogus.

I don't like the EC but there isn't a need for an amendment to abolish it and all the machinations required to pass an amendment. There is another way to disable this archaic method of choosing president: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

When enough states affirm this measure the EC would become moot.

Sea Level in SD shouldn’t be a problem for a few hundred more years…

I understand the pro’s and cons of the EC, it just didn’t work out for me this time.

 

[ttystikk]

hmmm

repeal CU would be a great thing

Introducing term limits is the same as saying you don't trust voters to choose correctly.

I don't trust either the Republicans or the Democrats to choose correctly, can we mandate term limits for THEM?

 

[ttystikk]

Perhaps, don’t trust the electoral collage to choose correctly ?

How about don't trust 'Super Delegates' to choose for us correctly? We could start there...

 

[ttystikk]

Sea Level in SD shouldn’t be a problem for a few hundred more years…

I understand the pro’s and cons of the EC, it just didn’t work out for me this time.

Frankly, the debate over the electoral college is something of a red herring; what's really needed is a way for voters to have more choices on all the ballots to begin with, not just Presidential races.

 

[ttystikk]

Who’s in your wallet.

Look up the economics term, 'rent seeking' and all will become clear.

The best business models are those that force revenue from the 'customer'.

The American People are being turned into modern day sharecroppers.

As long as the show in Washington is convincing, we'll be suckered into thinking our votes for one party or the other actually matter.

 

[ttystikk]

Which one? You have like 6 separate copy and paste threads on the board right now

What's your real reason for following me around and constantly shit posting?

You're obviously a (Buck) sock and obviously a Buck lapdog, I'm just wondering what's in it for you?

Are all of you THAT terrified of someone with a different point of view that you can't have an honest discussion?

Or do you just know I'm right and so you'll do whatever you can to bury the message?

 

[Fogdog]

I don't trust either the Republicans or the Democrats to choose correctly, can we mandate term limits for THEM?

Democracy 2.0: Bernitocracy*

Vote like a Bernocrat* or stay home because you aren't qualified.
*sponsored by the Freedom Partners Action Fund

 

[_gresh_]

What's your real reason for following me around and constantly shit posting?

You're obviously a (Buck) sock and obviously a Buck lapdog, I'm just wondering what's in it for you?

Are all of you THAT terrified of someone with a different point of view that you can't have an honest discussion?

Or do you just know I'm right and so you'll do whatever you can to bury the message?

Oh so now you are going to try and talk to me like a human being? After insulting me all morning yesterday and today? I don't owe you an explanation for shit. Go back to your copy and paste spam, Bernie Ballwasher. Pada will be along shortly to give you some pity likes.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

As long as the show in Washington is convincing, we'll be suckered into thinking our votes for one party or the other actually matter.

It still matters. You don't have to be completely happy about either, but one will generally be a better choice.

You can't deny that. You vote. So you're picking somebody over somebody else.
You must have a reason for it, right?

 

[Fogdog]

Which one? You have like 6 separate copy and paste threads on the board right now

Bernocrats* need their own forum to prevent people who can't decide for themselves what's in their best interests from polluting pure Bernietocracy*.
*sponsored by the Freedom Partners Action Fund