HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » PatrickforB » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Not disclosed
Home country: USA
Current location: Not disclosed
Member since: Mon Apr 28, 2014, 07:28 PM
Number of posts: 14,207

About Me

Counselor, economist and public servant.

Journal Archives

Interesting. Now, I like a mixed socialist and free market, a la northern


I suppose philosophically (or ideologically) you could call me a Social Democrat. Or, a Democratic Socialist.

Ah, but the question you raise is whether Social Security can fairly be called a 'socialist' program. While my answer is clearly 'yes,' it seems best to bring in a third party.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/122916/are-social-security-benefits-form-socialism.asp. After defining a bunch of terms, they make the following conclusion:

Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system – deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out – it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism.

So there you have it. Funny the Republicans are vowing this country will 'never go socialist.'

But don't worry. This country is no longer a republic, and may only loosely be called a 'democracy.' No, what we have now is a fascist oligarchy, where a very few people own most of the wealth, and the politicians are owned by PAC money, lobbies and corporations. They have no political courage because they are on the gravy train. Most are so afraid of not being reelected they won't lift a finger to enact legislation that actually makes our lives better.

Instead, we get a giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations, as if they didn't already have enough, that has essentially gutted our treasury and will ultimately force massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, all safety net programs, basically all non-military discretionary spending.

And, we have a rather sinister administration in power that is very much like an old mafiosi caporegime. Donald is the Don, Eric and Don Jr. are Fredo and Santino, Ivanka is Connie, and Jared Kushner is Carlo Rossi. But they are small potatoes. They report to bigger bosses, Russian oligarchs.

Then we have Pence and the holy-rollers, who would impose a 'christian' Sharia law upon us, while still letting the oligarchs have our treasury - as long as abortion is illegal, they are fine with that.

Finally, there is a pretty large group, mostly in the Tea Party and Trumpers, who genuinely believe that there is nothing worth saving about the republic that is the United States in specific and western democracies in general. This group is purposely and purposefully tearing down our institutions - consider the gutting of the EPA, the criticisms of the press, Betsy DeVos sabotaging the student loan forgiveness program, Trump publicly disagreeing numerous times with national security leaders. This is a purposeful wrecking of our republic - an effort to tear the whole thing down.

So, about half of our party is quaking like jelly at the prospect of being labeled 'socialist,' and the other half is saying, "Whatever you might call it, we need a green new deal now, healthcare, expanded Social Security and debt-free college."

We are in for, I think, a time of upheaval. The only ones who can possibly save this republic from being torn apart, and its pieces handed to international oligarchs while we ourselves are made into wage slaves, and then real slaves, is the new kids in Congress. The ones like AOC, Omar and Tlaib, who are speaking truth to power because they don't care if they are one-term Representatives - they want to wake up the people to what's going on and give us back our power.

By way of prognosticating, IF, and it is a big IF, we discover how powerful we the people really are, stop being afraid of these greed-heads and band together to make some real reforms, we might well save those things that are worth saving, and make those things better that need improvement.

But, no, I won't split hairs with you on whether or not Social Security and Medicare are forms of socialism or not. I don't care. What I care about is having more say in policies that affect me. I'm sick of my tax money being routed to corporate profits or billionaires instead of being used for programs that help me, my children and my grandchildren. Medicare for all Americans, a Green New Deal. Expanded Social Security. Infrastructure programs so that we can rebuild/upgrade as part of the Green New Deal. Heavily subsidized childcare, early childhood education, a K-12 system that's the envy of the world, and debt-free college and graduate school.

And to make all this possible, let us pull out the root cause of the evil that besets us: the primacy of the shareholder doctrine. If corporations want to do business here, we need to force them to change their charters - put workers on their Boards of Directors, and consider the welfare of workers, consumers and the environment equally with shareholder profits.

My...wasn't that the verbal gush? It is how I feel though, after 60 years of working my ass off in this capitalist utopia and getting nickel and dimed so much day after day, year after year, that I have less purchasing power now than I did back in the 90s. That isn't good enough. We are better than that.

I'm impatient too.

I want change now.

We race with time, a species of lemmings running at breakneck speed toward extinction.

How much longer can we afford to play a 'long game?' Do you wonder?

Yes, the GOP still controls the Senate and the White House. But it isn't really the GOP any more, you know? It is little more than a criminal gang, controlled by bigger bosses. It is the party of Trump. Its rank and file have forgotten how to be Americans, and instead put party first, and that party is corporate-owned, beholden to oligarchs, a tool of billionaires.

Heard of 'iron triangles?' The Panama Papers? We've been the victims since the days of Nixon of the most massive transfer of wealth in the history of humankind. Away from the many and to the few.

Rank and file, theirs and ours, have been played like so many violins with the age-old 'divide and conquer' strategy. Works every time.

Sometimes at night, I lay awake and wonder what will come. Will we ever grow up as a species and begin planning around human need and not human greed? Will we learn to plan generations ahead to preserve and replenish our earth? Or will we, like the lemmings, run headlong to our deaths over the cliff of capitalism and crash to a bloody death on the teeth of oligarchs?

How can this be?

OK, we don't know WHEN Mueller will release his report - not yet. And we're told that the GOP will do their level best to suppress it completely, contending that to publish would broach national security.

And, we have the Democrats, who are fighting the good fight, to release it to the public insofar as that is possible without broaching national security.

And NOW...

Wait for it....

Barnes and Noble is allowing people to pre-order, and it is supposed to be out on the 26th of this month.

So...what's wrong with this picture? They want to charge $10.95 or some such, with forward by Alan Dershowitz.

Here's the link. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/mueller+report?_requestid=635245

So, is this the butt-ugly end of capitalism or what? I don't know about you, but I'm pretty disgusted.

Some background on Joe Biden.

I knew some of this, but not all. Certainly the bankruptcy law of 2005 is odious and has enslaved millions of our children and grandchildren to massive student loans.

I also did not like Biden's performance in the Anita Hill hearings.

Hear is a Huffpo article that gives more history. In fact it goes clear back in time. It is quite interesting, but maybe take it with a grain of salt and do some independent research.


Be warned - it is a rather negative article. Here is an excerpt. Note that a) I'm still neutral, though I favor Warren, b) Biden would be exponentially better than Trump, and c) it's awfully early in the game still.

As Democratic voters begin to consider who to make their standard-bearer in the 2020 election, Joe Biden has held an early, commanding lead in the polls, fueled by the belief that he’s the best Democrat to take on Donald Trump. The former vice president spent the closing weeks of the 2018 midterms in what Politico called a “working class whisperer tour” to the midwestern states that Trump carried. Emphasizing his Scranton, Pennsylvania, roots, Biden styled himself in stop after stop as “Middle-Class Joe,” savoring praise from fellow Democrats as the “kind of guy you could have a beer with.”

This version of “folksy Joe” even touted himself as “labor from belt buckle to shoe buckle.” There’s only one problem with this carefully cultivated image: Joe Biden’s entire career.

In more than four decades of public service, Biden has enthusiastically championed policies favored by financial elites, forging alliances with Wall Street and the political right to notch legislative victories that ran counter to the populist ideas that now animate his party. If he declares for the presidency, Biden will face a Democratic electorate that has moved on from his brand of politics.

Well, Hickenlooper is now officially in the 2020 race.

From the Hill:

Hickenlooper launches 2020 presidential campaign


Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) on Monday announced he is running for president in 2020.

“I’m running for president because we need dreamers in Washington but we also need to get things done,” Hickenlooper said in a campaign video.

“I’ve proven again and again I can bring people together to produce the progressive change Washington has failed to deliver,” he added.

Oh...and this is CLASSIC:

Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Ahrens said in a statement that Hickenlooper "is the latest tax-and-spend liberal to join the race."

LOL, if 'tax-and-spend liberal' is the best they can do, the GOP is about to become the next dodo bird. To my mind, it is better to be a tax-and-spend liberal than it is to be a cut-taxes-and-run-up-huge-debt republican.

Let me try and explain it in a way that cracks open the myths surrounding

the NPV compact.

From my perspective, we've had three presidential elections stolen since the year 2000. Three. This last one, Clinton had 2.9 million more votes than Trump. 2.9 million. Yet, due to the electoral college system, Russian hackers were able to help Trump win by 25-35K votes in key districts in a couple of swing states. And because of that, he won the Electoral College vote, but not the people's vote.

This is an explanation from the official site, which I encourage you to visit. Here is the link to that site: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/answering-myths

As a Coloradan, I supported this effort.

Now, before the excerpt, let me say one more thing: you can tell a tree by its fruit. The Democrats are generally FOR this because electing a president based on the national popular vote is more, well, democratic than relying on an antiquated group of people using a system designed to prop up slave states. The people against NPV? You guessed it. Nearly ALL Republicans.

The small states (the 13 states with only three or four electoral votes) are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. The reason is that political power in presidential elections comes from being a closely divided battleground state, and almost all of the small states are noncompetitive states in presidential elections.

The small states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. The 12 small non-battleground states have about the same population (12 million) as the closely divided battleground state of Ohio. The 12 small states have 40 electoral votes—more than twice Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. However, Ohio received 73 of 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-sized states to voters in a handful of big states that happen to be closely divided battleground states in presidential elections.

The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system has long been recognized by prominent officials from those states. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly small states in suing New York (then a closely divided battleground state) in the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get state winner-take-all statutes declared unconstitutional.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, a vote for President in Wyoming is equal to a vote in California—both are politically irrelevant.
Go to Page: 1