Green New Deal is a disaster-in-waiting

Dec 2013
31,545
18,840
Beware of watermelons
#41
SCARY, SCARY SOCIALISM
Paul Krugman
on how Republicans are dusting off the socialist boogeyman.
New York Times
In 1961, America faced what conservatives considered a mortal threat: calls for a national health insurance program covering senior citizens. In an attempt to avert this awful fate, the American Medical Association launched what it called Operation Coffee Cup, a pioneering attempt at viral marketing.​

Here’s how it worked: Doctors’ wives (hey, it was 1961) were asked to invite their friends over and play them a recording in which Ronald Reagan explained that socialized medicine would destroy American freedom. The housewives, in turn, were supposed to write letters to Congress denouncing the menace of Medicare.​
Those Ronald Reagan recordings, if you haven’t heard them, are kind of amazing—in a sort of Joe McCarthy, holy s#!t way.

Over the course of several years in the late 50s and 60s, Reagan did a kind of extended road show, working on what amounted to a stage act for conservatism. He tried it out at factories, and at civic organizations, and at county fairs. And by the time he was ready to run for governor of California, he had the patter down well enough to make giving someone a dime for cup of coffee sound like high treason. When you think that Republicans today couldn’t go any lower, look up Reagan’s recordings and see where they started.
Obviously the strategy didn’t work; Medicare not only came into existence, but it became so popular that these days Republicans routinely (and falsely) accuse Democrats of planning to cut the program’s funding. But the strategy — claiming that any attempt to strengthen the social safety net or limit inequality will put us on a slippery slope to totalitarianism — endures.​
And so it was that Donald Trump, in his State of the Union address, briefly turned from his usual warnings about scary brown people to warnings about the threat from socialism.​
What do Trump’s people, or conservatives in general, mean by “socialism”? The answer is, it depends.​
Krugman gives a good baseline definition of what Republicans consider socialism now — which isn’t much different from the rant Reagan was selling fifty-some years ago. But don’t worry, by 2020 socialism will encompass breathing. Hey! Did you pay for that air, commie?

Socialism is the state controlling the means of production.

Socialized medicine is compulsory, state controlled healthcare. This is what thinking people dissagree w.
 
Dec 2016
4,397
2,275
Canada
#42
The denizens of the liberal/socialist loony bin, AKA congressional Democrats, are all flocking to adore the new normal for their party. Keep it up loons, the Reps will take the refugees from tyranny.
WALSH: The 5 Most Hilarious And Insane Things In Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal' Proposal
YAWN! Back here in the real world, the fact is that AOC's Green New Deal proposals are already too limited (no hard limits or targets) and mostly advisory points just to get people talking about what's needed to stop the continued increase in human GHG production and prevent runaway climate change from extending species extinctions to taking out the human one also in the process!
A quick example would be the proposal to expand highspeed rail to reduce air travel. Almost nothing is said (unless Al Gore is on his private jet) about the carbon impacts of flying, and it's about time air travel be added to the mix and seriously dealt with!
What's still missing is the 800 pound gorilla that NOBODY ever talks about...not even reformist Democrats....yet: the US military branches have a total, combined carbon output equal to all of the domestic carbon production that goes on annually within US borders! Expanded military land and naval exercises under Trump have greatly added to the military carbon footprint and will bring these totals from four years ago even higher: https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/23/72279/
 
Dec 2018
998
390
New England
#44
So, you prefer corporate monopolist control of healthcare and the means of production!
Generally speaking, those of us against collectivist solutions prefer open and competitive markets. If you're going to explain why socialism is better you need to speak to markets, not straw-men.
 
Dec 2016
4,397
2,275
Canada
#46
Generally speaking, those of us against collectivist solutions prefer open and competitive markets. If you're going to explain why socialism is better you need to speak to markets, not straw-men.
Talk about strawmen! "Markets" are not a natural force of nature, they are created by and for those who manage the markets! Capitalism by its very nature seeks to end competition which is costly, so if one oligarch can't eliminate the competitors, they'll all sit down at a Davos conference or some other bullshit roundtable and decide how to divy up the world!
 
Dec 2016
4,397
2,275
Canada
#47
Can someone please explain the GND's bit about a guaranteed income for "those unwilling to work?"
What needs explaining? It's an issue related because a guaranteed income would reduce the extreme deprivations caused by capitalism.
We've gone for decades of productivity increases/while real wages have stagnated in the face of rising costs of living, yet all the profits from the system are being collected by fewer and fewer at the top! Especially at a time when tech-worshippers are telling us that most of our jobs will be obsolete in a few years, what sense does it make to abandon everyone who's not on the gravy train?
 
Dec 2018
998
390
New England
#48
Talk about strawmen! "Markets" are not a natural force of nature, they are created by and for those who manage the markets! Capitalism by its very nature seeks to end competition which is costly, so if one oligarch can't eliminate the competitors, they'll all sit down at a Davos conference or some other bullshit roundtable and decide how to divy up the world!
But what you're describing is not an open and fair market (nor is it reality in the western world). That is among the principal roles of government in a capitalist system: to maintain competition. When that is accomplished, market-based economies provide a vastly higher standard of living for all than the alternatives.
 
Dec 2018
998
390
New England
#50
What needs explaining? It's an issue related because a guaranteed income would reduce the extreme deprivations caused by capitalism.
We've gone for decades of productivity increases/while real wages have stagnated in the face of rising costs of living, yet all the profits from the system are being collected by fewer and fewer at the top! Especially at a time when tech-worshippers are telling us that most of our jobs will be obsolete in a few years, what sense does it make to abandon everyone who's not on the gravy train?
I guess what needs explaining is the morality of a system that confiscates money earned from the labor of others in order to award it to someone who is able to work but unwilling to do so. This process would seem to be indistinguishable from theft with the notable exception that most thieves show more initiative than does the subsidized individual.