Author Topic: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism  (Read 285837 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53642
    • View Profile
Mussolini 1932
« Reply #700 on: November 15, 2019, 10:20:29 PM »
Full paragraph: THE ABSOLUTE PRIMACY OF THE STATE
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as " ethical ".
- Benito Mussolini
THE FASCIST TOTALITARIAN VISION OF THE FUTURE.
THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM (1932)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13928
    • View Profile
Measuring the Impact of 20 Years of Socialism in Venezuela
« Reply #701 on: December 02, 2019, 08:00:14 AM »
This is NOT a story only about Venzuela; these are the policies being proposed here and everywhere.  I understand that Chavez cheated in his elections and that "observers" like then Sec of State Colin Powell and former Pres Jimmy Carter failed us and them, but the central problem in Venezuela comes from the fact that these failed ideas still have attraction to too many people in too many places, including American universities where truth should be taught. 

In a nutshell, confiscating from the capitalists and giving to the government and the people fails the people it purports to help.  The system doesn't work.  I don't know how to shout any louder or clearer, capitalism require capital and capitalists.  We need more people involved in it, not fewer.  The freedom of people and freedom in markets leads to some successes that can be unseemly and seem 'unfair', but all the alternatives are far worse.

Socialism-Lite = failure-lite.  In today's world might be Buttigieg instead of Warren.   Why choose that?  Choose prosperity which increases opportunity for all.  It's that simple and examples are there to be seen around the world and throughout hisotry.
----------------------
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2019/12/01/measuring-the-impact-of-20-years-of-socialism-in-venezuela/

Measuring the Impact of 20 Years of Socialism in Venezuela
December 1, 2019 by Dan Mitchell

Fifty years ago, Venezuela was ranked #10 for economic liberty and enjoyed the highest living standards in Latin America

Today, the nation is an economic disaster. Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro deserve much of the blame. Their socialist policies have dropped Venezuela to last place according to Economic Freedom of the World.

Predictably, this has resulted in horrific suffering.  And it’s going from bad to worse.  In ways that are unimaginable for those of us living in civilized nations.

For instance, the Associated Press reports that grave-robbing is now a problem in the country.

Even the dead aren’t safe in Maracaibo, a sweltering, suffering city in Venezuela. Thieves have broken into some of the vaults and coffins in El Cuadrado cemetery since late last year, stealing ornaments and sometimes items from corpses as the country sinks to new depths of deprivation. “Starting eight months ago, they even took the gold teeth of the dead,” said José Antonio Ferrer, who is in charge of the cemetery, where a prominent doctor, a university director and other local luminaries are buried. Much of Venezuela is in a state of decay and abandonment, brought on by shortages of things that people need the most: cash, food, water, medicine, power, gasoline. …Many who have the means leave, joining an exodus of more than 4 million Venezuelans who have left the country in recent years. …Some people sift through trash, scavenge for food.

And hyper-inflation is creating a barter economy according to the AP.

…the economy is in such shambles that drivers are now paying for fill-ups with a little food, a candy bar or just a cigarette. Bartering at the pump has taken off as hyperinflation makes Venezuela’s paper currency, the bolivar, hard to find and renders some denominations all but worthless, so that nobody will accept them. Without cash in their wallets, drivers often hand gas station attendants a bag of rice, cooking oil or whatever is within reach. …This barter system…is just another symptom of bedlam in Venezuela. …The International Monetary Fund says inflation is expected to hit a staggering 200,000% this year. Venezuela dropped five zeros from its currency last year in a futile attempt to keep up with inflation. …Venezuela, which sits atop the world’s largest oil reserves, was once rich. But the economy has fallen into ruin because of what critics say has been two decades of corruption and mismanagement under socialist rule.

Mary O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal points out that the poor are being hurt the most.

the gap in living standards between the haves and the have-nots is wider than ever. It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Economic equality is the socialists’ Holy Grail. People are poor, the logic goes, because the rich have too much. Ergo, all it takes to end poverty is the use of state coercion to distribute economic gains evenly. …Tell that to the Venezuelan poor. Not only have their numbers increased under socialism, but the suffering among the most vulnerable has grown more intense. …Venezuela now experiences recurring blackouts and brownouts… in the “ranchos,”…residents now make “lamps” out of mayonnaise jars, diesel taken from vehicles, and pieces of cloth. One local described it to the reporter as going back to “prehistoric” times. With water, sanitation and other public services, the story is the same. …the have-nots are at Mr. Maduro’s mercy.

College students also are suffering, as reported by the Union Journal.

…5 youngsters had fainted and two of them have been whisked away in an ambulance. The faintings on the major college have turn into a daily prevalence as a result of so many college students come to class with out consuming breakfast, or dinner the evening earlier than. In different faculties, youngsters wish to know if there’s any meals earlier than they resolve whether or not to go in… Venezuela’s devastating six-year financial disaster is hollowing out the varsity system… Starvation is simply one of many many issues chipping away at them now. Thousands and thousands of Venezuelans have fled the nation in recent times, depleting the ranks of scholars and academics alike. …Many colleges are shuttering within the once-wealthy nation as malnourished youngsters and academics who earn nearly nothing abandon lecture rooms to scratch out a residing on the streets or flee overseas. It’s a significant embarrassment for the self-proclaimed Socialist authorities.

In a column for the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof shares some sad observations about the consequences of Venezuelan socialism.

This country is a kleptocracy ruled incompetently by thugs who are turning a prosperous oil-exporting nation into a failed state sliding toward starvation. …Serrano, 21, lives in the impoverished, violent slum of La Dolorita, where I met her. The baby was fading from malnutrition in May, so she frantically sought medical help — but three hospitals turned the baby away, saying there were no beds available, no doctors and no supplies. …Daisha…died at home that night. …President Nicolás Maduro’s brutal socialist government is primarily responsible for the suffering, and there are steps Maduro could take to save children’s lives, if he wanted to. …Venezuela may now be sliding toward collapse and mass starvation, while fragmenting into local control by various armed groups. Outbreaks of malaria, diphtheria and measles are spreading, and infant mortality appears to have doubled since 2008.

By the way, Kristof argues that sanctions imposed by Obama and Trump are making a bad situation worse.

That’s true, but it doesn’t change the fact that Venezuela’s awful government deserves the overwhelming share of the blame.

Let’s measure how the people of Venezuela have suffered. Here are the per-capita GDP numbers since Chavez took power in 1999. There’s volatility in the data, presumably because of changes in oil prices. But the trend is unmistakably negative.



The bottom line is that Venezuela’s living standards have collapsed by about 50 percent since the socialists took over.

That makes Greece seem like an economic powerhouse by comparison.

Let’s close, though, by comparing Venezuela to Latin America’s most market-oriented nation.

As you can see, per-capita economic output in Chile (in blue) has soared while per-capita GDP in Venezuela (in red) has collapsed.



In other words, free markets and small government are the right recipe if the goal is broadly shared prosperity.

P.S. I’ve explained on many occasions that lower-income people in Chile have been the biggest beneficiaries of pro-market reforms.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13928
    • View Profile
The Case Against Socialism, John Stossel, Rand Paul
« Reply #704 on: December 18, 2019, 03:43:52 PM »
We need to keep making this case better and better until no one with reason supports socialism.
------------------------------
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2019/12/18/the-case-against-socialism-n2558162
Sen. Rand Paul just wrote a book, "The Case Against Socialism."

I thought that case was already decided, since socialist countries failed so spectacularly.

But the idea hasn't died, especially amongst the young.

"Hitler's socialism, Stalin's socialism, Mao's socialism. You would think people would have recognized it by now," says Paul in my latest video.

Paul echoes Orwell in likening socialism to "a boot stamping on the human face forever" and warning that it always leads to violence and corruption.

"You would think that when your economy gets to the point where people are eating their pets," says Paul, contemplating the quick descent of once-rich Venezuela, "people might have second thoughts about what system they've chosen."

That's a reference to the fact that Venezuelans have lost weight because food is so hard to find.

"Contrast that with (the country's) 'Dear Leader' Maduro, who's probably gained 50 pounds," Paul observes. "It really sums up socialism. There's still a well-fed top 1%; they just happen to be the government or cronies or friends of the government."

Naturally, American socialists say our socialism will be different.

"When I talk about democratic socialism," says Sen. Bernie Sanders, "I'm not looking at Venezuela. I'm not looking at Cuba. I'm looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden."

Paul responds, "They all wind up saying, 'The kinder, gentler socialism that we want is Scandinavia ... democratic socialism.' So we do a big chunk of the book about Scandinavia."

Paul's book is different from other politicians' books. Instead of repeating platitudes, he and his co-author did actual research, concluding, "It's not true that the Scandinavian countries are socialist."

Scandinavia did try socialist policies years ago but then turned away from socialism. They privatized industries and repealed regulations.

Denmark's prime minister even came to America and refuted Sanders' claims, pointing out that "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy."

In fact, in rankings of economic freedom, Scandinavian countries are near the top.

"They have private property, private stock exchanges," says Paul. "We learned that, actually, Bernie is too much of a socialist for Scandinavia!"

Scandinavia did keep some socialist policies, like government-run health care. The media claim that's why Swedes live longer, but Paul says: "This is the trick of statistics. You can say, 'The Swedes live longer, and they have socialized medicine!' Yet if you look hard at the statistics, it started way before socialized medicine."

Scandinavians already lived longer 60 years ago, and they also had lower rates of poverty. That's because of Scandinavian culture's emphasis on self-reliance and hard work. Paul reminded me of an anecdote about economist Milton Friedman.

"This Swedish economist comes up to him and says, 'In Sweden, we have no poverty!' Friedman responds, 'Yeah, in America, we have no poverty among Swedish Americans!'"

In fact, Swedes have 50% higher living standards in the U.S. than when they stay in Sweden. Danish Americans, too. Socialism can't take the credit.

But the most important argument against socialism is that it crushes freedom.

Socialists get elected by promising fairness and equality, but Paul points out: "The only way you can enforce those things is to have an equality police or a fairness police, and ultimately they show up with truncheons. ... The best kind of socialist leader ends up having to be ruthless because you can't be a kinder, gentler socialist leader and get the property."

By contrast, capitalism largely lets individuals make their own choices.

"It's a direct democracy every day," says Paul. "You vote either for Walmart or you vote for Target. You vote with your feet, with your wallet. People who succeed are the people who get the most votes, which are dollars. And as long as there's no coercion, seems to me that that would be the most just way of distributing a nation's economy."

It's not perfect, but look at the track record of the alternative, says Paul: "Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Maduro. It doesn't work."


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53642
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53642
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53642
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53642
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11959
    • View Profile
swedish ex prime minister

Bernie Trotsky's response:

" i was talking about Denmark!"   :wink:

(in reality china ussr cuba etc.)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53642
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53642
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13928
    • View Profile
Socialism: The Failed Idea that Never Dies, Kristian Niemietz
« Reply #713 on: September 08, 2020, 06:39:47 AM »
We can't just call it socialism.  That term has better than 50% popularity within some important voting groups.  We have to explain what's wrong with it, why it doesn't work.  I call it denial of science, denial of math and denial of history, and that still doesn't persuade white, college educated young people.  Some black people are starting to see that the free money promised from the social programs doesn't begin to match the real money of free market prosperity available to anyone who wants to try - if your government will let you.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/why-socialism-failed-idea-never-dies/?fbclid=IwAR1gRSUfcnXt00En0OO6VVYYAkfRsAKHPS0DqyHOP0xVXCNE9UmtWjbl0yE

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.

The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.

More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.

Venezuela – “Socialism of the 21st Century”
The latest example of socialism’s failings is Venezuela, which just a few years ago was being hailed by leading intellectuals and left-wing politicians as a model for “Socialism of the 21st Century.” At a demonstration in commemoration of Hugo Chávez in London in March 2013, for example, current British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said:

Chávez… showed us that there is a different, and a better way of doing things. It’s called socialism… In his death, we will march on, to that better, just, peaceful and hopeful world. (p. 239)

And even as late as June 2015, when the failure of the socialist experiment in Venezuela was already evident, Corbyn repeated:

When we celebrate – and it is a cause for celebration – the achievements of Venezuela, in jobs, in housing, in health, in education, but above all, its role in the whole world as a completely different place, then we do that because we recognize what they have achieved, and how they’re trying to achieve it. (p. 246)

Just a few weeks later, he enthusiastically declared that “the Bolivarian revolution is in full swing and is providing inspiration across a whole continent.” Venezuela was praised as a successful counter-model to “neo-liberal policies.” (p. 247)

Praises of Stalin
Niemietz shows that even mass murderers such as Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong were enthusiastically celebrated by leading intellectuals of their time. These intellectuals were not outsiders but renowned writers and scholars, as Niemietz demonstrates with numerous examples. Even the concentration camps in the Soviet Union, the Gulags, were admired:

They were presented as places of rehabilitation, not punishment, where inmates were given a chance to engage in useful activities, while reflecting upon their mistakes.

A then-well-known American writer explained:

The labor camps have won high reputation throughout the Soviet Union as places where tens of thousands of men have been reclaimed. (p. 72)

Even journalists and intellectuals who didn’t completely turn a blind eye to the regime’s crimes found arguments to justify what was happening:

But – to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs and the Bolshevist leaders are just as indifferent to the casualties that may be involved in their drive toward socialization as any General during the World War who ordered a costly attack. (p. 80)

These sentences were written by The New York Times’ Moscow correspondent, who was head of the newspaper’s office in the Russian capital from 1922 to 1936.

Niemietz concedes that some socialist intellectuals did criticize the Soviet Union. But for many, their antipathy was the result of using utopian standards as a yardstick for judging real-world systems – utopian fantasies that no system in the world would have been able to live up to.

If one’s idea of socialism demands the immediate abolition of the police, the army, the court system, the prison system, etc., if it requires people to voluntarily give up money, private property, exchange, etc., and if one does not accept any compromises, halfway measures or phase-in periods, then yes, such a person would not have been seduced by Leninism. But this is simply because they would have set the bar impossibly high. A lot of early socialist critics of the Soviet Union fall into this category. (p. 98)

Adulation for Mao
Many Western intellectuals were enthusiastic in their support for Mao Zedong and his cultural revolution despite the 45 million lives lost during socialism’s greatest experiment – the Great Leap Forward – at the end of the 1950s alone. After Mao’s death, when Deng Xiaoping’s reform policies liberated hundreds of millions of Chinese from bitter poverty, these same intellectuals were nowhere near as enthusiastic about China as they had been in Mao’s day.

Just as ironically, the enthusiasm of Western intellectuals for China began to fade when the most murderous period was over… Western intellectuals had lavishly heaped praise on China when millions of Chinese people were starving or worked to death in forced labour camps. But when a programme of relative liberalisation lifted millions of people out of poverty, those intellectuals were conspicuous by their silence. Market-based reform programmes, no matter how successful, will never inspire pilgrimages. (p. 110-111)

Even the North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and the murderous Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia found admirers among Western intellectuals, as Niemietz demonstrates in two chapters of his book. And that’s not to mention Cuba and Che Guevara, who became a pop icon in the West.

When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.

Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.

Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.

In the author’s place, I would have dealt explicitly with “democratic socialism,” which has also always failed miserably. After all, the policies pursued by socialists in Great Britain and some high-profile members of the Democratic Party in the United States, namely very high taxation on the rich and a high level of state regulation of the economy, has certainly also been seen before in democratic countries, including Sweden and Great Britain in the 1970s. But even these experiments, despite not ending in totalitarian rule or even mass murder, were catastrophic for the economy and led to stubborn declines in prosperity.

Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)

This is an incredible book and should be compulsory reading at schools and universities, where today the song sung by anti-capitalists reigns supreme. Niemietz argues with intellectual authority as he weighs, differentiates, and marshals a wealth of historical evidence in support of his thesis. No other author has so far managed to so convincingly explain why socialism has nevertheless continued to remain so attractive to this day despite the sharp lessons of bitter historical experience.

In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.
----
This article was originally published on FEE.org.
https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-is-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13928
    • View Profile
Communism, Socialism, PJ O'Rourke, why millennials adore socialism
« Reply #714 on: September 13, 2020, 07:09:27 AM »
Lots of edge and insight here.  Probably not a tone that persuades.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/12/pj-orourke-this-is-why-millennials-adore-socialism/


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11959
    • View Profile
crony capitalism
« Reply #715 on: October 03, 2020, 09:03:38 AM »
whether from the right or left
I just hate this stuff

just so unfair:

Pelosi Feinstein style insider connections:
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/kushner-companies-freddie-mac-786-million-terms-111315311.html

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13928
    • View Profile
Correction, crony big-governmentism.  It has nothing to do with capitalism which involves free market risk and everything to do with government power dictating results.

I hate it too.  It is something where the far right and the far left can agree. Worst offenders are the 'centrists'.  When they brag about getting things done with public-private partnerships, cringe, run, hide.

See: 1. New London CT took people's homes against their will for a government preferred use which was a parking lot for Pfizer to make viagara.  Project failed.
2. Solyndra, etc. Bankrupt.

It's bad policy, it's immoral and it's cheating to have the refs side with a team. Everyone else loses. It violates equal protection under the law.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2020, 10:55:03 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13928
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialis
« Reply #717 on: January 10, 2021, 08:36:25 AM »
They stole our language.  I warned it was coming when they infiltrated my industry with "affordable housing".

Affordable housing, in reality, is when a person or family, works, saves, invests, then buys or builds a home they can afford.  It's not rocket science; it's freedom, free enterprise, and free will.  Then one day the emerging powers within the Fascist, Leftist, Media, Academia Complex designated that simple and innocent term to mean the opposite.  'Affordable Housing' became the industry of federally subsidized public paid programs forcing their way beyond just inner cities and into all neighborhoods, the suburbs and all communities through HUD, Section 8 and a thousand other programs.  Not just nothing to do with being able to afford all the costs of your house, but to mean exactly the opposite.

So it wasn't surprising that Obamacare became the affordable care act, that minimum wage bans the hiring of hiring of people whose entry level work skills are worth less.  Smart Growth means government planned and controlled.  Peaceful protests can burn a thousand buildings.  Voter suppression is when you ask the voter to identify him or herself. Opposing any of it means you are racist.

Now, if your number one focus is to make certain elections are legal, honest, accurate and fairly administered according to the rules set by the state legislatures as required by the constitution, and want variances from that investigated, you are "undermining democracy". 

[Profanity omitted for how I feel about this.]

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13928
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism
« Reply #718 on: January 13, 2021, 10:34:24 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13928
    • View Profile
Pompeo equates 'wokeness' with totalitarianism
« Reply #719 on: January 21, 2021, 06:15:28 PM »
Was he not supposed to say that out loud?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/534892-us-secretary-of-state-on-last-day-in-office-equates-wokeness-with

US secretary of State on last day in office equates 'wokeness' with totalitarianism

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on his final full day in office said that “wokeness” is equivalent with totalitarianism, and that “multiculturalism” is not “who America is.”

“Woke-ism, multiculturalism, all the -isms — they're not who America is. They distort our glorious founding and what this country is all about. Our enemies stoke these divisions because they know they make us weaker,” Pompeo tweeted in what appeared to be a parting shot at the left as he leaves office.

Pompeo, whose ancestors came to the U.S. from Italy, also reupped a past statement saying “Censorship, wokeness, political correctness, it all points in one direction – authoritarianism, cloaked as moral righteousness.”

Woke-ism, multiculturalism, all the -isms — they're not who America is. They distort our glorious founding and what this country is all about. Our enemies stoke these divisions because they know they make us weaker. pic.twitter.com/Mu97xCgxfS

— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 19, 2021


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11959
    • View Profile
why waste time DC for statehood
« Reply #720 on: January 23, 2021, 04:48:38 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/01/22/d-c-mayor-bowser-dem-led-house-senate-will-pass-d-c-statehood-bring-it-to-bidens-desk/

I am thinking this will eventually go to SCOTUS after Biden, the divider, will sing it.

Is this clearly NOT Constitutional ?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/21/opinion/constitution-says-no-dc-statehood/

So effectively the 20th largest city should get 2 senators -  come on man , look at the Constitution



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53642
    • View Profile
Camel's nose in the tent for UBI
« Reply #723 on: March 03, 2021, 07:14:27 AM »
Universal basic income is about to arrive in America. Congressional Democrats’ $1.9 trillion stimulus bill provides for no-strings attached checks, limited only to parents of children under 18. This UBI for parents is billed as pandemic relief, but its real purpose is to put a stake in the heart of work-based welfare reform.

Supporters blandly describe their plan as “Child Tax Credit improvements for 2021.” It would replace today’s annual child tax credit, which tops out at $2,000, with more-generous “child allowances,” payable monthly. Those allowances are federal payments of $3,600 (or $300 a month) for each child under 6 and $3,000 ($250 a month) for older children. The current credit increases with income from work; the new one would provide the same large payments to all.

Under the guise of pandemic relief, the federal government would give a nonworking single parent with two preschool-age children and one in grade school $850 a month. This would come on top of other government benefits, including $680 a month in food stamps, amounting to $18,360 in combined annual income. That’s the equivalent, without accounting for taxes, of working 28 hours a week at $12.50 an hour. On top of that, the family would receive health insurance from Medicaid, and it may also receive housing and child-care assistance. Government benefits to nonworking households that are this generous are bound to reduce employment.

The bill would provide the new benefit for only one year, but the Washington Post reports that “congressional Democrats and White House officials have said they would push for the policy to be made permanent later in the year.”


Under current law, federal cash assistance to poor families flows through state social-services agencies, which require recipients to work, look for work, or at least engage in some activity designed to help them become employed. UBI for parents is designed to circumvent these requirements. If enacted it will more than double the government-provided cash assistance to households headed by single mothers, creating a perverse incentive for the unmarried poor to have more children. That would lead to more poverty, not less.


Unlike existing benefits, UBI for parents also avoids efforts to seek and collect child-support payments from parents who don’t live with their kids. That’s unfortunate, because efforts to collect child support have led to increased income for families in need and greater emotional connection between absent dads and their children.

If all this sounds vaguely familiar, it should. Sending monthly checks to nonworking parents was exactly how welfare used to work until 1996, when President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, for which Sen. Joe Biden voted. That law requires parents to work or train in exchange for welfare benefits and offered additional child care and other support to help them go to work.

Once UBI for parents is here, calls for UBI for everyone will follow. Democrats’ stimulus bill already includes more checks for adults (and their children), so the mechanics are in place. Last year then- Sen. Kamala Harris introduced legislation calling for $2,000 monthly “pandemic” payments per adult and up to three children. If such a scheme ever started, it would be politically difficult to shut off, despite its high cost.

Some conservatives and libertarians have argued for UBI, but only as a replacement for the rest of the welfare state. That is most definitely not what the Democrats are proposing—they want the UBI, and food stamps and Medicaid and all of the rest.

After the 1996 welfare reform, child poverty declined as single mothers increasingly worked and received benefits that supplemented their earnings. This combination of work plus aid made work pay, as Mr. Clinton used to say, and it allowed people to have the dignity that comes with earning one’s own living. Monthly welfare benefits with no expectation of work would reduce employment and earnings, establish lifelong government dependency for millions of Americans, and increase unwed childbearing. Democratic lawmakers may be happy to pave the way for UBI and finally reverse what Congress and Mr. Clinton did in 1996. It’s a bad bargain for everyone else.

Mr. Doar is president of the American Enterprise Institute. He served as commissioner of social services in New York City, 2007-14. Mr. Weidinger is a resident fellow in poverty studies at AEI and a former deputy staff director of the House Ways and Means Committee.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11959
    • View Profile
UBI what a disaster and just plain umb
« Reply #724 on: March 03, 2021, 09:00:16 AM »
reward people not to work
and for having babies they cannot afford

this is not fair to those that do work
and only have children they can afford

but that never matters to Democrats

why do we have to sit here and have it stuck to us
repeatedly till we bleed dry