Forums

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

His father raised taxes and lost as a result. Jeb was a moderate, including on social issues.

Every GOP Congress tries to cut taxes and reduce govt. I'm not sure the first is wise, as it's always aimed to favor the top 1%. But reducing govt is a good thing.



Expanding safety nets and the fantasy of retraining obsolete workers are no fixes at all. Nearly as useless and counter-productive as protectionism.

Replacing safety nets and their administrative components with universal basic income, making the economic arguments for a single payer system (which are strong), and taxing rentier capitalists would good starts. Hillary was only planning to do the second. The first is anathema to any Democrat because it eliminates govt jobs. The third would piss off the people who fill her campaign coffers -- her owners.



That's a brash prediction. I think you'll be surprised how fast a subsequent administration can reverse the damage.


This kind of critique I can accept. Hank's "It's all on the third party voters!" shtick was getting old because it counters the facts you just cited. And yet he kept pummeling that dead horse...



All very reasonable. Similarly reasonable is to tell the other party to stop promising to take care of everybody in exchange for votes. Govt has limits.



The Trump Movement doesn't see it that way. They really believe they are saving the country's essential character. I thought it was all a posture by Congress to placate the base. Now I'm beginning to think it's contagious, and Congress has actually bought into the nativist message.

Sure. Whatever.

TM