Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Humanist Report"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Transcipt 2 of 3 - please upvote I want to get two more of his arguments. He continues by saying pro-abortion extremists get away with their rhetoric because they use euphemistic language to describe what abortion is. Now first and foremost think about the language he's using to reframe the debate itself.
He's saying that people who support abortion are not pro-choice, they're pro-abortion and I'm not just arguing based on semantics. Framing really matters and it's something that Republicans do all the time in order to win over support for their right-wing policies.
What he's doing is: he wants you to thank people in support of safe and legal abortions are - as he describes it - pro abortion, pro baby killing, as they would argue.
9:32 But let me ask you this Ben: 57 percent of Americans support safe and legal abortions. D you honestly believe that a majority of the country is pro murder of babies ? Do you honestly think that they don't have a nuanced view on this issue ? Maybe these people actually support legal abortions, because they realize that banning abortion won't necessarily reduce the number of abortions that women have. It would just increase the number of unsafe illegal abortions that they have.
Also if you really care about reducing the number of abortions, he can use his platform to actually fight the number of abortions that are being had. He could influence lawmakers like Donald Trump to support contraception. Expanding access to contraception. But instead individuals like Ben Shapiro and right-wingers - they don't want to expand access to contraception which is the one thing that actually would reduce abortions.
So I don't even believe that individuals like Steve King or Ben Shapiro are genuinely believing the bullshit they espouse on this. Because if they did, they would be doing things. They would be promoting policies that would restrict abortions - or not necessarily restrict abortions but limit the number of abortions.
If you want to stop abortion or limit abortions you advocate for contraception. But they don't want to do that, which tells you that they're not truly looking to limit the number of abortions. And it's because people like Ben Shapiro they're propagandists, they have an agenda. He shows you images of fetuses to tug at your heartstrings.
Once he establishes that there's human-like qualities here, he then establishes the precise point where life begins. Once he gets you there he says life begins at fertilization. He even makes the point that if we found a human embryo on another planet headlines would rightly scream "Human Life Found On Mars."
Now, think of how odd that argument is: because if we found any life on Mars - we would be over the moon if we found a flower on Mars. We would all collectively lose our minds if we found a gnat flying around on Mars. It would be absolutely a huge discovery. But does that mean that that wouldn't stop Ben Shapiro from swatting those motherfuckers away from his face or out of his food on earth ? Of course not !
So he's trying to make a value judgment in a really strange and quite frankly counterintuitive way.
12:04 Eventually he gets to the point in this segment where he just drops all the innuendo and he just outright says what he thinks. He says abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place the more brutal the procedure. So if aborting a 12 week old fetus is brutal, but killing a 20-week old fetus is even more brutal, than fully developed human beings and children must be the ultimate sin when they're killed for Ben Shapiro. As they not only feel pain unlike fetuses before 20 weeks but they're actually aware of their existence and want to live.
So I'm assuming that Ben Shapiro cares the most about children and adults, right ? Seeing that he has repeatedly referred to himself as someone whose quote pro-life. So when you actually accept the Ben Shapiro's argument and you take it to the next logical conclusion, you make that jump, then clearly if aborting a fetus is awful, then killing a fully formed adult or child has got to be the worst thing imaginable.
It's got to be at the top of Ben Shapiro's priorities. So I take it he speaks out against war all the time, right ? If he's pro-life like he claims he is, then he's not gonna pick and choose. He's gonna be consistently pro-life and speak out in favor of all lives that are lost unnecessarily and arbitrarily, right ?
Well, let's look at a particular war. Let's just look at Afghanistan for argument's sake the number of civilian casualties that resulted directly or indirectly from the Afghanistan war was anywhere between 100,000 and 350,000 lives. Did Ben Shapiro scream at the top of his lungs that this is unacceptable, this is murder ?
Actually no. This is what pro-life Ben Shapiro said about the Afghanistan war, quote:
"Enemy civilian casualties ? okay by me." and here's what he says specifically: "I'm getting really sick of people who whine about civilian casualties. Maybe I'm a hard-hearted guy, but when I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don't really care. In fact I would rather that the good guys use the Air Force to kill the bad guys even if that means some civilians get killed along the way. One American soldier is worth far more than an Afghan civilian."
This is the guy who tries to given us that he's pro-life. Ben Shapiro does not give a flying fuck about life. The only reason why he is against abortion is because he knows that this is a wedge issue that consistently keeps Evangelicals loyal to the Republican party. In seeing that he's a Republican party propagandist, then he's going to really try to hit home the point that abortion is murder.
Abortion is murder and murder is bad. But if murder is bad then why doesn't he care ? He literally said he doesn't care about civilian casualties. In fact the title of his article says: "Civilian casualties are okay by me" that's the guy who we're supposed to believe cares about life.
15:26 What is Ben Shapiro's say about the bomb that we gave to Saudi Arabia that hit a school bus and killed children in Yemen. What did he say about that ? Is that not an abomination to individuals like Steve King or Ben Shapiro ?
Now, look I know we're gonna say that article was published in 2002 but it's still up on Town Hall's website. He hasn't taken it down and he is still writing articles for Town Hall. He writes these opinion pieces and you'd think that if he moved away from that position and wanted to repudiate that view, that he would delete that article but it's still up. It's still getting clicks.
He doesn't care about life, he's not pro-life. When you call individuals like Ben Shapiro and Steve King pro-life then you are buying into their propagandist framing because people who are pro war cannot be pro-life. Being pro war and unapologetically in support of wars like Afghanistan, Iraq that's antithetical to being pro-life.
People like Ben Shapiro and Steve King don't care about life at all once life is born. They don't care about giving that life dignity or civil rights or civil liberties. They don't care if that life dies in wars. They don't care: These are not individuals who are pro-life. Calling them pro-life is the biggest joke ever.
Now, if you actually are one of the few individuals in the country that is consistent on this issue and you still are personally morally against abortion but you're also equally if not more outraged about war then I feel you, that's fine, I actually can respect that position. There can be disagreement on this issue and as I stated: People who are pro-choice some of them actually are morally against abortion, but they actually put facts of her feelings and they know that banning abortion wouldn't necessarily achieve their goal of limiting abortions.
Earlier this year I covered the so-called March for life where a bunch of right-wing evangelical Republicans supposedly marched for life and really this was just an anti-abortion protest. They didn't march to end wars, they marched to stop abortion.
1
-
1
-
I think the Establishment Democrats (and the people that FINANCE them) recognize menawhile that they cannot reign in Sanders or use him as a mascot - like they could contain Howard Dean for instance. Dean got some financial rewards and fell in line. - If Sanders would run as independent for 2020 - not even waisting time and money in a Democratic primary - he is likely to win the presidency. The 30,000 people events of 2016 are nothing - I think he could scare the shit out of Dems and Reps with events with 50,000 people or even more.
And he would for sure take away enough votes from the Dems that THEY would lose, and lose massively. That matters: the donors want weak Democrats, their role is to CONTAIN any Progressive movement , to keep them out of power. That used to work for decades. In 2016 they just about managed to avoid the catastrophe: the Sanders would be the nominee, and worse that he would win the presidency.
For that task - keeping the progressives down - the stream of money will remain intact no matter how the Dems will do at the ballots, except when they lose so catastrophically that they become obsolete for the Corporate interests. I guess they would then support a moderate Republican party or Libertarians.
As for now - the big shots (that make all of the party fall in line) will be taken care of, lost elections do not matter.
But if a LOT OF the lower ranks and generic representatives lose their seats, those disposable politicians (propped up with donor money when the party leadership gives them the nod) could end up with not being provided for (with cushy positions for ex-politicians).
They might come into a situation where it is better for them to vote for the interests of the people instead of being obedient to the party establishment - which are "bribed" by the donors to keep the rest of the party obedient.
Nina Turner is a rare case who seems to be confident that she will have a (political) future and who is CONTENT with a good but not excessive income. She works with The Real News now and apppears on a regular base (and I think she works for a Sanders asscoiated organization - fair enough she attracted the hostility of the Dems for supporting Sanders).
But I think she could make it back to politics and TRN gives her an additional platform and raises her profile (I recommend The Real News btw, also Larry Wilkerson for foreign policy and military issues).
Same with Sanders: A Senator has well over 100k per year (130 or something) plus benefits like good healthcare and a retirement plan. They have extra costs of course (living in their state AND in D.C. which is an expensive city).
So if you are content with that PAY, if you like the job as politician, and if the voters have your back (Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard), and you can be pretty sure you will be reelected even without the Big Money - then you can represent the people and you can vote your conscience.
Watch a Tulsi Gabbard town hall meeting (they put one online, it was in spring 2017 when other politicians were harrassed at town halls over healthcare). Now that was a pleasant event for everyone.
So even if Progessives would narrowly lose - the genie is out of the bottle anyway. - These are hard times for the donors and their stooges.
So it looks like the Corporate Dems are failing at the most important role the DONORS have assigned to them - and if Sanders runs in 2020 that amounts to a CATASTROPHE - for THEM.
Republicans are even better for the Corporate world than the Corporate Dems - but they cannot influence a growing Progressive movement - the Progressives will not listen to the GOP anyway. So here the Democratic Party comes into play. Luring the Progressives in with paying lip service, talking a good game, keeping them busy in "unity commitees", and "controlled opposition" and "controlled protest" - like the Women's March. Or bully them to fall in line or scare them with "have you seen the other guy".
And when it comes to ACTUAL influence in the party to use the rules and the bureaucraZy against them - while the party establishment generously bends the rule as they see fit. They use every underhanded trick they can, and ROAR in fake rage about alleged transgressions of the Progressives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The most important principle is GREED. I am not hyperbolic - maximum SHORT TERM profit (at all costs and be it human lifes) or the lowest price. It is encouraged to externalize COSTS and DAMAGES and make someone else pay for it (in money in health damage, future generations with climate change, the tax payer for a clean-up). - That is not a good driver to build a just society or a sustainable !!! economy on. Or to maintain peace.
It is profitable to exploit the fossil fuels that took millions of years to form. One could provide energy for a first world lifestyle, that would be a combination of saving energy with technology (costs for instance quality construction, insulation, more modest house sizes) people using a well set up mass transportation system.
Plus generating renewables (also more costs compared to plundering the foss fuels). But also JOBS and an increase in technology. and the U.S. would save on the military and war costs.
It is literally more profitable to squander the family silver, the heritage of mandkind. There will be a time when the next glaziation hits the globe (think hundred thousand years´,if humans still exist and have high technology the fossil fuels could help them to cope - that kind of climate change would come slowly.
The fossil fuels are a good raw material, but most is squandered with burning. for vehicles and energy generation that means an efficiency of under 25 % (the rest becomes heat and in most cases it cannot be used. They do that in Europe in power plants, if such heat can be used (heating and warm water for nearby settlements) the efficiency is driven up to over 60 %. Still not that good. and costs for technology and GOOD filters (the households have to be nearby)
There are physical limits to the efficieny of a combustion engine or a steam engine.
Capitalism is incapable to deal with the longterm necessity to change the business model - it would have been easy in the 1980s. or 1990s.
It will take massive government intervention. Again. (see 1929, 2008, ...)
the idea is that capitalsim has just to be "regulated" well. The incentives are strong, power and money accumulates - those who need to be restricted are in an excellent position to buy, bribe or intimidate the regulators. That is what happened in the past and now.
Capitalism started with the industrial revolution. They had plenty of time to became "tamed". Note that they showed ruthless behavior (like under the former systems of feudalism and slavery - mercantilims in some countries). It took a long time labor movement that was brutally oppressed, the conditions were horrible including for children. It took 2 World Wars to shake up the system enough for the upper class to give a few inches.
From the 1980s on they hit back and quite successfully.
btw the horrible conditions, the slavery on behalf of the almighty dollar still exists. They just do not exist IN the first world countries. people have not become more enlightened.
A system that PROMOTES greed and organizes the society around it (one driver of human nature but NOT the most important) will always have slaves and serfs - somewhere (Philippines, Bolivia ! not so long ago, Brazil, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, most African countries, India, ...)
1
-
The ruling class of Brazil, Boliva, Chile, Venezuela never tried to maintain the democracy / egality facade - they are more honest about their goals and their feeling of superiority. They hit back in recent years. Even though not one of the countries gave up on a mixed economy (many capitalists in the system) and not one strayed beyond what was done in the 1970s in Europe (nationalizing industries for instance in VZ - they had that in the UK or in Austria - after WW2).
Lula played nice with the rich of Brazil, and they benefitted from the booming economy, but the middle and upper class still resisted the ideas that the lower classes would show up in their malls and airports (finally able to afford that too). It got more expensive to hire a maid - they got other options. So the feudal order was disturbed.
(The white people in the South were also not doing poorly when they resisted minorities getting the vote in the 1960s - the economy is important but not the only source of fierce resentment).
Te U.S. capitalists are as pissed off that the poor were lifted out of poverty as the local oligarchs (when people get "uppity" and organize, they do not accept starvation wages and pollution or that foreign investors make the big bucks from their natural resources. also: Successful "socialism" could give the many poor in the U.S. bad ideas).
The U.S. and Latin American oligarchs can leverage the power of the CIA, the U.S. diplomacy and sanctions and U.S. military (open war).
See Smedley Butler War is a racket ...I was a gangster for capitalism.. Al Capone operated only in 3 districts I operated on 3 continents (regime change wars - he died before the end of WW2).
Koch brothers have interests in Venezueal, now Lithium in Bolivia, ....
Capitalism will always become crony - in the history of capitalism there was ONLY a 30 - 40 year period were the citizens had enough of the upper hand to make regulation work for them and ONLY in the developed nations. (1945 - early 1980 in the U.S., Europe was a little bit behind in the time line and the good times started later and lasted until the mid 1990s in Continental Europe (the "West"). The U.K. got neoliberalism and deindustrialization in the early 1980s with the U.S.
1
-
1
-
Where I live the employers and employees each pay 3,8 % of the gross wage (before deductions) with a cap (so in total the public non-profit insurance agency gets at the maximum appox 550 USD per month per employee). The rest of the budget for the public insurance ageny comes from government. That agency negotiates contracts with hospitals, doctors, pharma industry, ....
Every company no matter the size has to pay that. (Exception: monthly wage is below USD 580 approx - the typical student or mum stay at home job*).
And if you have 581 USD wage that means MANDATORY INSURANCE deductions - which give you full coverage (for the 44,16 USD you and the employer pay together per month ). Same treatment as people with a much higher wage, no unexpected costs later.
Contributions are according to the solidarity principle (stronger shoulders carry more weight) and free at the point of delivery
* one cannot live off that salary of 580 USD and usually those people have coverage elsewhere anyway - but they still have to contribute those 3,8 %. And for the employer there is no incentive to split a full employment to two 20 hour jobs for instance.
Coverage of dependents: students with parents, automatic coverage if you are jobless and searching for work or get inability pension, or for stay at home parents.
Students over 26 years have to get insurance extra, there are provisions BUT if you work a partime job that is over the minimum treshold you can get it cheaper that way.
I cannot imagine many scenarios where a person would have such a small wage and NOT be covered by other provisions anyway.
It was just an example for the solidarity idea behind the system.
The solidartiy and One Kind for AlL also makes the system very streamlined and cost-efficient. There is no bureacraZy necessary to decide who gets what treatment where (and if there are any co-payments etc.).
Or that you end up in the "wrong" hospital that has not contract with YOU insurer. They let the patients jump through many hoops. As long as the hospital is in the country you will be fine.
The doctors decide according to medical necessity and of course discuss options with the patients.
No talks to insurance companies. And either EVERY patient in a certain situation gets a certain treatment - or no one would.
No games to deny treatment to some patients.
The doctors do not know how high your wage is (that determines your contributions directely and indirectly via taxes) - nor do they care.
1
-
1
-
For real: Bill delivers the keynote speech ?? They are doing the Progressives a favor. They party establishment slights them at every opportunity - PROVING BEYOND DOUBT that they are beyond redemption. They are so addicted to the Big Donations - they just can't help themselves. And no doubt they hope that they can keep the money AND somewho pull off a narrow win. - They literally rely now on Trump being horrible to not be completely wiped out.
That strategy is cynical, disgustig, completely !!! irresponsible. (Climate change, war, tensions with Russia anyone ? Never mind the domestic situation that is not rosy either).
It gives one APPRECIATION of what FDR accomplished - and he DID have resistance within the party, make no mistake. Once he got the first unheard of economic measurements through, that improved his popularity - and gave him even more leverage.
People directly felt the effects (social security, minimum wage, unemployment benefits, the farmers were bailed out - dustbowl, later millions were being employed additionally to build infrastructure etc.).
And he circumvented the mainstream media (Newspapers mostly conservative, radio conservative leaning) and communicated his ideas and the upcoming action plan in "fireside talks". Like 1 hour radio speeches. They intentionally used simple language (very carefully crafted), they intended to appear somewhat informal, thus Fireside talks. He wanted people to UNDERSTAND what he was up to. and he did not leave the explanation to the newspapers.
The first fireside chat happened after the banks were closed down for a few days, they reset the banking system, closed banks or recapitalized others. 60 millions listened to that speech late in the evening. So he did reach the masses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Plutot - I disagree: Only Faux News ! has a relentless (if condescending) TV campaign against her - I hope she does not lose any sleep over that and has a thick skin - The audience that would potentially vote for her and other progressives (or even standard Democrats) does not watch Faux News (or take them seriously).
I wonder WHY they even bother to slam her. (well the advertisers = Big Donors told them). They are getting irrational - GOOD !
I think they try to rile up the base to come out against he crazy, dangerous Democrats (even worse that the standard Democrat)
So it is not the "War on Christmas", "Obama will take their guns, ..." "Death panels under ACA" ....
now it is dangerous millenials.
The only thing where she better make a strong argument is abolishing ICE. Which is used to paint Democrats as the party that wants unchecked immigration, preferably of the worst criminals.
For now they are leaning to the snide side (I love it when she is on TV it helps Republicans, she is so clueless, ...)
It is possible that they want to use AOC to increase turnout. Feinstein 2.0 so to speak. One redeeming quality of Sanders for the establishment is his age . AOC is YOUNG - they might have to live with her for a long time.
For now Faux News are more condescening, and since she is only one person, they cannot paint her as a grave danger. That would come if more Progressives are voted in.
Apart from that (higher turnout) it does not matter if default Republican voters cast their vote in a neutral manner or if they really, really detest AOC or the Democratic party The result is the same.
But there are so many non-voters, young people, voters who have given up - and they are worth the attention. Those people will likely watch the other networks (if they watch TV at all ) - where the interviews with AOC went well and she could make her case.
As for calcified Establishment Dems trying to lecture her about the rules in "their" club:
btw do they officially confirm that it is not about CONTENT and the ISSUES but how well one is liked with the collegues ? partisanship is clearly at work towards the other party (not let them have a success even if the idea would be good. So that is also at play WITHIN the party, unity, broad tent, etc.
Sounds more like "Mean Girls" to me.
I do not think that VOTERS care what these Corporate Dems say. They clearly do not care what the base thinks about Crowley trying to damage her race.
To be a success she must not introduce ANY bills. She must vote in the right way (think Patriot Act or Iraq - or MacCain in the last attempt to ditch ACA).
More like her in Congress and the 2nd war of Cheney/Bush could have been stopped in 2003.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Part 6 of 7 Of course the fiction is upheld that the communities do not have the budgets and the regular people don't have the money either - so the rich with a lot of money are allegedly NEEDED. Those who already are wealthy or rich have it also much easier to get loans at good conditions - so they can go into real estate and make profits from becoming the landlords that control a very important scarce resource - housing.
Those arguments - that the investors with money are essential - dissolve when you are aware that the loans they get for the real estate projects are 90 % created out of thin air. That society gives banks the legal privilege to do that. Fiat money functioned reasonably well to finance the expansion after WW2 - but even then it put those who had some or a lot at an advantage, and that advantage accumulates over time !
The banks do not need the money of rich people on savings accounts to be able to give out the loans for housing. Nor do we need the direct investment of rich people. Money is easily created - so why not give that power into the hands of the regular people to create the affordable NON-PROFIT housing that would be best FOR THEM.
Can't have that, can't we. - There is a reason the unwashed masses are not bothered with the information how Fiat Money works. The Great Financial Crisis and the internet helped to dispel the myths but the Corporate media, politicians, rich people continue the propaganda - so most voters still do not understand.
These housing projects would be non-profits. Preferably they are small so they stay grassroots, and they would be in the hand of a coop of renters (not even in the hand of cities - having control over affordable housing is so much power that it invariably leads to distortion, some corruption, nepotism). If a few houses and the people living there are in this together they become very protective of their house(s) - and very engaged. At that level people know each other and they do not get away with corruption.
There can be very modest interest rates or none on long term loans.. And the city/town can keep real estate prices reasonable when they require that no one can OWN real estate that is not a permanent resident.
The reason they don't do that is because it is highly lucrative for the ruling party and the mayor and aldermen to play nice with the "real estate developers". Interesting investment opportunities around 3 corners will be offered, family members employed, when they leave office they will get contracts and jobs.
New Zealand did something - but only when prices got out of control, now only citizens can own real estate (but a lot is already owned by foreigners who do not live and work in New Zealand, for them it is just a way to park their money).
Berlin did something to curb "real estate investment" from people not living there. I know that some smaller touristic regions in Austria require that you must have main residency to be able to own real estate (farmland or houses, apartments or land). So living nearby or being a citizen of Austria or the EU - it does not matter, you must live IN the village / town for the most part of the year or you have to rent.
Now the mayors and council there would be as easy to corrupt as everywhere else. But in these communities people know each other, and the mayor is not getting away with it. They do have the legal framework (by the federal government) so the voters there require that they must use it on behalf of the citizens.
There are some that successfully work around the rules, a celebrity buys a remote vintage farm house and everyone knows they do not live there year round - that is sometimes tolerated - but by and large it works. There is certainly not an influx of international investors that prices the people living and working there out of the "market".
Such provisions would keep the space available to build housing on - which is a major cost of the whole project in cities. Cities also could use eminent domain, or have very high local taxes. Every family would get a housing benefit that compensates them for the high tax (which would show up in rent as well), but the owners of luxury appartments (usually no one lives there) are stuck with the taxation which would be much higher for their units (value, space per unit).
If they do not live there permanently they do not get the housing benefit (it could be even in form of an alternative currency that must be used within a certain time and that pays for regular household expenditures). That would make holding on to real estate very unattractive for the international investor class. The revenue can be used by the city to invest in affordable housing and they could make sure that the CITY buys up those luxury apartments if they come on the market by the frustrated rich "investors". They could be adapted to offers space for more families. Or rented out to the affluent of the city. A lottery could help to keep things fair (else nepotism and corruption will flourish).
Applicants would have qualify by volunteering / community projects (if they are not disabled) - or they keep a family going without much help which is a community project in itself. To make sure the people getting in the really nice neighbourhoods have their ducks in a row, that they are able to function agreeably in a community / work place etc.
They just "gave" native Amercians housing in the reservations (but did nothing to change the SYSTEM). But the rug has been pulled out under the feet of these communities long ago and it is easier to destroy than to rebuild "the village" or "the tribe". Just giving them things or money does not make the community function or makes them capable to take good care of what they were given (when they did not have the luck to "have" when growing up. Incl. having parents that are not addicted, that is a major problems, often the grandparents raise many children - the offspring of their kids, or nephews and nieces).
having skin in the game, being part of creating and contributing to the community means that people can and will also function when they are gifted with affordable or free housing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Aerial ... I assume there are many TROLLS posing as "concerned" Democrats (or sneering Republicans). - I think the strategists (both parties) look at the high number of non-voters, many of them young - potential voters for New deal style candidates, progressives - and if they are establishment, and know their trade they are worried.
Even worse now a lof of crazy folks now campaign under "money of of politics" and how they do not take SuperPac money and ask for small donations. If THAT becomes a thing .....
the hysteria on Faux News is testimony to that PROFESSIONAL insight - although the crusade is masked with ridicule and sneering.
Her district is a safe Democratic seat, her message resonated well during the primary campaign. No doubt many are proud of her who have not even heard of her before the election (Our district made positive headlines, our girl on TV).
On all the other networks (apart from Faux News) she got a friendly reception and could explain her positions (The View, Colbert, The Daily Show, ...)
Her potential voters likely do not watch Faux News.
Moreover she would have an army of volunteers in fall if there is any danger of losing.
Grassroots candidates can win even in Tea Party country. I saw a video of a Kirsten Kennedy who became a progressive mayor in Minnesota, inspiring, 10 minutes.
DCCC Employee QUIT To Campaign For THIS Progressive
youtube.com/watch?v=VMEYWvlKqJU
Money out of politics, being against corruption, is a bestseller.
She runs now for Congress, and the DCCC forced one of their employees who also volunteered for her to chose between job and working for that grassroots campaign. Classy !
Let the Republicans be condescending.
The Democratic party will need to be taken over, the sell-out Republican Lites managed to lose 1000 seats since 2006 (under a Democratic president).
And they managed to lose against Trump. That is no samll feat.
That is NOT a party in good shape. They have obviously lost the base and are not in a position to lecture anyone about how to win elections.
Time for a New Deal 2.0
1
-
Part 4 of 7 Now the unwashed masses are not bothered with the information how money / money creation works. If the fiction is that the banks must have money so they can give out loans which is essential to fund homes and businesses and even consumer goods consumption - then they can make the claim how important it is that the government and the citizens "court" "capital" (capital in that case means money - the precise definition of capital is assets especialy the means of production, real estate, patents, plants - not only "money"). But when we hear that "capital" leaves a country (not really some numbers are changed in computers) or that "capital is a shy deer" it always refers to the legal concept of "money" (bank accounts, bonds, most of it government bonds).
That conflation is also intentional. It props up the deception that no investment in the real economy would be possible if the people that have lots of money do not invest, either directly or they deposit their fortunes with banks which then are able to give out loans.
Nope !
Patents, expertise, skilled work force, business connections etc. are important, or a knack for design, creativity, managment skills. These are needed to CREATE goods and services in the REAL ECONOMY.
MONEY IS EASILY CREATED - but it is essential that money creation is tied to the creation of REAL goods and services (that rule was obeyed until the 1970s).
Now imagine a country (the federal government) would directly create money to finance BOLD affordable housing projects. MMT (you can search).
Communities usually do not "have the money" for housing projects from traditional taxation - there we go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1