Jump to content

The Wreckage of Neoliberalism


BeaverFever

Recommended Posts

The Wreckage of Neoliberalism

The postwar neoliberal economic project is nearing its end. The question is who will write the last chapter, the Democrats or the totalitarians?

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism argues that barrier-free international markets, rapidly advancing communications technology and automation, decreased regulation, and empowered citizen-consumers are the keys to prosperity, happiness, and strong democracy.

… But then, about 30 years ago, the project started to fray at the edges. The newly global economy moved America’s well-paying jobs—the ones that had created the U.S.’s early- and mid-20th-century blue-collar aristocracy—overseas, but the jobs that replaced them offered lower pay, fewer benefits, and less opportunity for advancement. Technology, which had promised to make our lives easier and more connected, started to get so complicated, and advance at a pace so dizzying, that it no longer felt within our control. Social media joined us, but also bred resentment and societal fragmentation. Automation and online commerce erased our local economies, our local meeting places, and our local news sources. And the consumerism that was supposed to fill our lives with the material rewards necessary for happiness instead left many feeling empty as our cultures and identities got swallowed up by the shapeless, antiseptic, profit-obsessed international economy.

Read: When people were proud to call themselves ‘neoliberal’

The result, today, is a very real epidemic of American unhappiness. Surveys taken during the past decade suggest that Americans have never been so pessimistic. Despite the nonstop information flow, more Americans report greater feelings of intense loneliness today than at any time before. People know they have more access to things—shiny things, fancy things, complicated things—but they grope for meaning and sense a depressing, decreasing personal control over their own future.

Although Trump’s anti-neoliberal messaging has been successful, his policies have never matched his rhetoric. By the time he left office, there were fewer, not more, well-paying manufacturing jobs in America. Trump did nothing to curb corporate excess or restore power to families and workers—his primary domestic legislative accomplishment was a tax cut in which 83 percent of the benefits would go to the same 1 percent of the population he attacked in his speeches. And he championed no legislation to rein in the corrosive influence of social media or unchecked automation. Indeed, his promises to undo economic neoliberalism was all empty rhetoric; instead, his entire term was an unending parade of gifts to the very status quo forces he condemned in his rise to power.

….

Trump and his followers are frauds—mouthing critical platitudes about the neoliberal order while ultimately serving its biggest beneficiaries—and Democrats should expose them as such. No matter their rhetorical attacks on elites, Republicans’ agenda still begins and ends with using government as a crude means to deliver favors to their billionaire and corporate friends. 

….

And it isn’t hyperbole to suggest that the future of our democracy rests on the question of which party offers the most credible alternative to the neoliberal order. Republicans’ fake populism is just a way to secure total power. This is the era of the post-democracy Republican Party, and if their critique of neoliberalism brings their party complete power after the 2024 election, they are likely to change the rules of democracy in order to make sure Democrats never win again. Trump’s Republican Party believes that Democrats present an existential threat to America, and therefore any means—even the end of democracy—is justified to defeat the left. Whether it be a purge of thousands of professional civil servants, continued crackdowns on voting rights, or a rigging of elections, if Trump and his allies win control of Congress and the White House again, our 250-year experiment may be over.

This does not have to be our nation’s fate. It is possible to reverse the damaging impacts of the neoliberal world order while saving democracy….

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/democrats-should-reject-neoliberalism/671850/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I would start this thread more as a critique of neoliberalism rather than of political parties.  Over the decades, the Liberal Party and Democratic Party have been faithful servants of neoliberalism too.

The reason why there is so much radicalism on the left and right is because- exactly as was predicted by unions and left-of-centre critics decades ago - the extreme form of capitalism known as neoliberalism has ruined the lives of many working class people and has stolen the dreams and haunted the nightmares of many more who fear maintaining their current standard of living. People in the working class have all but completely given up on the idea of ever “getting ahead”   

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1. Thought I would start this thread more as a critique of neoliberalism rather than of political parties.  Over the decades, the Liberal Party and Democratic Party have been faithful servants of neoliberalism too.

2. The reason why there is so much radicalism on the left and right is because- exactly as was predicted by unions and left-of-centre critics decades ago - the extreme form of capitalism known as neoliberalism has ruined the lives of many working class people and has stolen the dreams and haunted the nightmares of many more who fear maintaining their current standard of living. People in the working class have all but completely given up on the idea of ever “getting ahead”   

1. Good for you for starting an intelligent thread on here.
2. Maybe or maybe not.  The problem with the assertion is that is a typical nostalgic call for the "good old times".  And, frankly, we have always had that - especially in the good old times that you refer to.  Both you and the article are guilty of this.  Whether or not things are better or worse, we can agree that they are 'different'.   And what are the causes ?  People point to technology, social changes, affluence, loss of religion, change in the structure of the economy, immigration, liberalism, technology among other things.  Nothing could hope to be isolated apart from the others, and therefore it's impossible to say (even if these factors have changed and/or been impactful) whether they are causes or symptoms.

Now, I'll post my thoughts on the excerpt.  I advise you, Beaver, to not waste time on trolls on this thread as they aren't able to entertain ideas like this without getting very angry.

 

Quote

 

1. … But then, about 30 years ago, the project started to fray at the edges. The newly global economy moved America’s well-paying jobs—the ones that had created the U.S.’s early- and mid-20th-century blue-collar aristocracy—overseas, but the jobs that replaced them offered lower pay, fewer benefits, and less opportunity for advancement.

2. Technology, which had promised to make our lives easier and more connected, started to get so complicated, and advance at a pace so dizzying, that it no longer felt within our control.

3.  The result, today, is a very real epidemic of American unhappiness. Surveys taken during the past decade suggest that Americans have never been so pessimistic. Despite the nonstop information flow, more Americans report greater feelings of intense loneliness today than at any time before. People know they have more access to things—shiny things, fancy things, complicated things—but they grope for meaning and sense a depressing, decreasing personal control over their own future.

4. Although Trump’s anti-neoliberal messaging has been successful, his policies have never matched his rhetoric.

5. By the time he left office, there were fewer, not more, well-paying manufacturing jobs in America. Trump did nothing to curb corporate excess or restore power to families and workers—

6. And he championed no legislation to rein in the corrosive influence of social media or unchecked automation.

7. Indeed, his promises to undo economic neoliberalism was all empty rhetoric; instead, his entire term was an unending parade of gifts to the very status quo forces he condemned in his rise to power.

8. And it isn’t hyperbole to suggest that the future of our democracy rests on the question of which party offers the most credible alternative to the neoliberal order.

9. Republicans’ fake populism is just a way to secure total power.

10. Trump and his allies win control of Congress and the White House again, our 250-year experiment may be over.

11. This does not have to be our nation’s fate. It is possible to reverse the damaging impacts of the neoliberal world order while saving democracy….


1. Not accurate.  First of all, thirty years ago the global project REALLY started to get going.  Manufacturing jobs were being lost long before then and nothing was going to save them.  To say that they were replaced by lower-paying jobs is false - they were replaced but by different jobs, some of which didn't exist before.  UNSKILLED jobs were replaced by lower-paying jobs, as the new unskilled jobs were not unionized on the whole the way the previous jobs were.

2. I have read pieces from Victorian Britain that said the same thing.  More subjectivity at play.

3. This is perhaps the REAL crime of neoliberalism... centre-left Democrat types like the author who think they still are in touch with the working class of people.  Case in point: "People know they have more access to things"  Really ?  Rents and food prices have soared past wage earning for unskilled workers making daily life a brutal struggle not seen in decades.  People aren't "groping for meaning", they're gasping for air.

4. Very weird that they would go after Trump here.  First of all, Trump mostly did do what he said he would do.  Secondly, he ESPECIALLY did this with regards to International Trade despite the establishment being 100% against him.  Thirdly, this very article is, at the core, in agreement with Trump's #1 message about American workers being screwed over by trade.

5. Weird.  Trump adored "manufacturing jobs" just as the writer does and did exactly what the writer would have wanted a Democrat to do (in fact, Biden is still doing) and yet he's blaming TRUMP for the fact that the policy didn't work.   Also, pretty confused to blame corporations when he wanted US manufacturing to come back... those aren't mom and pop shops after all.

6. Why would you expect Trump to rein in Social Media ?  Also... 'unchecked" automation ?  Automation is a good thing for the economy.

7.  See China Tariffs.  He never blamed the Corporate elite, he just said they were in bed with other nations and vowed to stop it via tariffs which he indeed passed.

8.  The answer is not the Democrats (NAFTA, social safety net cuts) or the Republicans either in their current form.  Either party could morph to actually help working people very quickly with the right candidate but there needs to be a public sphere that connects economic well-being to policy in a realistic way, ie. not finger-pointing or ignoring the problem altogether in favour of bogeymen.

9. Democrat fake populism is just as pernicious.

10.  Perhaps, but also would likely put the knife in the heart of neoliberalism after 2 years or so.

11.  Luckily, almost ALL of America subscribes to The Atlantic... oops, no, let me check that again oh my god it's .25% we are doomed etc.   Look, I love a guy in Brooklyn wearing a tweed jacket and writing deep thoughts as much as the next guy, but the Revolution ain't gonna be editorialized...
----

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 9:48 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Good for you for starting an intelligent thread on here.
2. Maybe or maybe not.  The problem with the assertion is that is a typical nostalgic call for the "good old times".  And, frankly, we have always had that - especially in the good old times that you refer to.  Both you and the article are guilty of this.  Whether or not things are better or worse, we can agree that they are 'different'.   And what are the causes ?  People point to technology, social changes, affluence, loss of religion, change in the structure of the economy, immigration, liberalism, technology among other things.  Nothing could hope to be isolated apart from the others, and therefore it's impossible to say (even if these factors have changed and/or been impactful) whether they are causes or symptoms.

Now, I'll post my thoughts on the excerpt.  I advise you, Beaver, to not waste time on trolls on this thread as they aren't able to entertain ideas like this without getting very angry.

 


1. Not accurate.  First of all, thirty years ago the global project REALLY started to get going.  Manufacturing jobs were being lost long before then and nothing was going to save them.  To say that they were replaced by lower-paying jobs is false - they were replaced but by different jobs, some of which didn't exist before.  UNSKILLED jobs were replaced by lower-paying jobs, as the new unskilled jobs were not unionized on the whole the way the previous jobs were.

2. I have read pieces from Victorian Britain that said the same thing.  More subjectivity at play.

3. This is perhaps the REAL crime of neoliberalism... centre-left Democrat types like the author who think they still are in touch with the working class of people.  Case in point: "People know they have more access to things"  Really ?  Rents and food prices have soared past wage earning for unskilled workers making daily life a brutal struggle not seen in decades.  People aren't "groping for meaning", they're gasping for air.

4. Very weird that they would go after Trump here.  First of all, Trump mostly did do what he said he would do.  Secondly, he ESPECIALLY did this with regards to International Trade despite the establishment being 100% against him.  Thirdly, this very article is, at the core, in agreement with Trump's #1 message about American workers being screwed over by trade.

5. Weird.  Trump adored "manufacturing jobs" just as the writer does and did exactly what the writer would have wanted a Democrat to do (in fact, Biden is still doing) and yet he's blaming TRUMP for the fact that the policy didn't work.   Also, pretty confused to blame corporations when he wanted US manufacturing to come back... those aren't mom and pop shops after all.

6. Why would you expect Trump to rein in Social Media ?  Also... 'unchecked" automation ?  Automation is a good thing for the economy.

7.  See China Tariffs.  He never blamed the Corporate elite, he just said they were in bed with other nations and vowed to stop it via tariffs which he indeed passed.

8.  The answer is not the Democrats (NAFTA, social safety net cuts) or the Republicans either in their current form.  Either party could morph to actually help working people very quickly with the right candidate but there needs to be a public sphere that connects economic well-being to policy in a realistic way, ie. not finger-pointing or ignoring the problem altogether in favour of bogeymen.

9. Democrat fake populism is just as pernicious.

10.  Perhaps, but also would likely put the knife in the heart of neoliberalism after 2 years or so.

11.  Luckily, almost ALL of America subscribes to The Atlantic... oops, no, let me check that again oh my god it's .25% we are doomed etc.   Look, I love a guy in Brooklyn wearing a tweed jacket and writing deep thoughts as much as the next guy, but the Revolution ain't gonna be editorialized...
----

To your opening comment while it’s fair to say there were never any “good ol times” there were  certainly better times for the blue collar and lower income working class (at least those who are white and who are the backbone of the current anti-democracy populist movement). This will be a recurring theme dor the fails of neoliberalism although neoliberalism has failed more than just this angry group 

 

1.  I think it’s arguable when the global shift happened,  it didn’t all happen at once. I usually say “40 years” just to peg it to the start of Reagan/Thatcher. It’s something that started slowly in insignificant numbers then increased over time, greatly accelerated by events such as the signing of NAFTA and other trade agreements. Your comments on which jobs replaced then ones lost are also a matter of perspective. As you suggest, unskilled jobs were replaced with lower paying jobs,  the people who lost those jobs, the jobs were replaced with lower paying jobs.  There will always be demand for unskilled jobs and people who are only able to obtain unskilled jobs. For them it doesn’t matter that new highly skilled jobs were created. It’s also not a forgone conclusion that only neoliberalism could have brought us those new jobs. 
 

2. I don’t think the author is making a luddite argument but he is referring to the social division, fake news,  and commodification of personal data (and I suppose accelerated ravenous consumerism) driven by technology and government unwillingness to regulate industry in a neoliberal regime

3  This is a critique of the last several decades of neoliberalism not just a snapshot of today’s problems. Rhat said I wouldn’t read the “access to lore things too literally. Even low income families “gasping for air” have more goods and services on offer at their local store than before and the consumerist neoliberal culture places more pressure on people of every income to buy more and define themselves by the quantity of “stuff” they own  Example:  low income people who previously never had the option of buying brand-name items can now buy low-end version at “factory outlet” stores where they end up paying more than a similar quality product from a less prestigious brand  Neoliberalism teaches us that happiness can be found through feckless consumerism but consumerism is bottomless pit thatbis never satisfied  There is ALWAYS someone who seems to have more trinkets and gadgets than you, whose social media feed makes their life appear more glamourous At the same time that people are drowning in sebt amd strugling to make ends meet they’re feverishly  overpaying for a low-end products because their worst nightmare is that Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian might think they’re a loser. 

4 and 5.  Neoliberalism isn’t just about globalization it’s about deregulation and trump definitely killed consumer and worker protections. In his alleged  war again globalization did he really accomplish anything for the American worker?  If any jobs came back were they the same “good paying” jobs that left or just more low paying jobs,  His policies wee piecemeal and erratic.  The writer argues Trump and Republicans purposely say one thing while doing another. Look at their long track record of union-breaking and opposing minimum wage increases. Trump also tried to repeal Obamacare and poled enough holes in its providing that he stripped millions of working class citizens of their health coverage


6. His point is that social media needs to be reigned in. Your point on automation is fair

 

7. Neoliberalism is more than globalization or just trade with China 

 

8 -9.  Agreed, the mainstream Democratic party is also neoliberal.  At best a kinder gentler version that doesn’t care if you’re gay and wants to offer slightly more affordable healthcare  The author is claiming he wants to change that  we can believe or doubt his authenticity  

10.  Fascism is arguably neoliberalism without the inconvenience of democracy  The last notable fascist government, Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, was a darling of American neoliberals during his reign

11  It’s not?

 

 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

1. To your opening comment while it’s fair to say there were never any “good ol times” there wee certificates better time for the blue collar and lower income working class 

2. not a forgone conclusion that only neoliberalism could have brought us those new jobs.  

3. In his alleged  war again globalization did he really accomplish anything for the American worker?   

4. Neoliberalism is more than globalization or just trade with China 

5.  Fascism is arguably neoliberalism without the inconvenience of democracy  The last notable fascist government, Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, was a darling of American neoliberals during his reign

6.  It’s not?

1. Yes
2. True but it is hard to argue against specialization, and its cousin global trade, bringing prosperity.
3. No, but Biden hasn't either.  They're kind of working on the same team.
4. Sure but pointing out the loss of manufacturing jobs means pointing out that they went offshore.
5. I can't believe how quickly these things have been forgotten.
6. No.  Look, I think we're on the same page with this topic so I have hardly any comments and not even any challenges.

I want to add this:  You couldn't have made people understand a huge paradigm shift, even just a few years before they happened.  Problems seem insurmountable and then... they are fixed just like that.  I'm not talking about technology here but social problems of the kind we see today.

They are fixable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes
2. True but it is hard to argue against specialization, and its cousin global trade, bringing prosperity.
3. No, but Biden hasn't either.  They're kind of working on the same team.
4. Sure but pointing out the loss of manufacturing jobs means pointing out that they went offshore.
5. I can't believe how quickly these things have been forgotten.
6. No.  Look, I think we're on the same page with this topic so I have hardly any comments and not even any challenges.

I want to add this:  You couldn't have made people understand a huge paradigm shift, even just a few years before they happened.  Problems seem insurmountable and then... they are fixed just like that.  I'm not talking about technology here but social problems of the kind we see today.

They are fixable.

2. Prosperity for whom?  Neoliberalism created massive amounts of new wealth but almost none of it was shared with the working classes, almost all the new wealth went to the “the 1%”.  Meanwhile workout class people were hit with cutbacks to public services, user fees, rising tuition, etc. 
 

3.  Sure. Biden, Pelosi Clinton and the establishment Dems are is no heroes of the working class that’s for sure  They are neoliberals, no doubt  about it  I assume this author is an AOC-Sanders left wing Democrat instead 

 

4.  I think “good paying” traditional manufacturing jobs  like assembling sewing machines or coffee makers are probably gone for good. I doubt any of those jobs that remain or return will be anything other than low paying. Trump is certainly not doing anything about that and I don’t know anyone who is.  But yet we will always have a segment of the population who will be “low-skill” and who in past generations could count on these heavily endangered  “good-paying factory jobs”  The solutions are some combination of

a) creating new good paying jobs that can’t easily be offshored but don’t require too much education and skill for example in the emerging green sector

b) making skills and education much more affordable and accessible 

c) improving benefits and services for those who are still left behind in the bad jobs that are still needed. Not everyone at Tim Hortons is a live-at-home student or retiree doing it simply for a little extra pocket money. A lot of these people are trying to survive on their minimum wage pittance. 

Neoliberalism and especially Trumpism oppose all of above. For e their rhetoric about creating jobs, Republicans NEVER talk about the quality of those jobs. 

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. No.  Look, I think we're on the same page with this topic so I have hardly any comments and not even any challenges.

I want to add this:  You couldn't have made people understand a huge paradigm shift, even just a few years before they happened.  Problems seem insurmountable and then... they are fixed just like that.  I'm not talking about technology here but social problems of the kind we see today.

I dunno I guess I’m just more cynical about the people in charge these days and who they really answer to.  I think neoliberalism explains why governments today DON’T address problems. Neoliberalism tells us that the only people in society who are qualified to identify problems and propose solutions to government  are business leaders. Anything else that governments sense from voters they simply address with cheap ineffective gimmicks not real policy. Small tax rebates for childcare, for example, is a gimmick not a policy.  To the extent that change is possible, issues and ideas have to be out there inculcating in the public sphere and establish a base level of familiarity amongst the general public, which in turn allows a leader to place the issue on their agenda. 
 

In summary I think the fact that the article is being discussed in this forum means its doing it’s job (although I admit I have read better critiques of neoliberalism). Many or even most people believe that the way things have been over the last several decades were simply due to natural forces and “the way the world works”. This plays into neoliberals hands because they falsely accuse critics of neoliberalism of trying to tamper with some kind of natural order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

...

1.  I think it’s arguable when the global shift happened,  it didn’t all happen at once. I usually say “40 years” just to peg it to the start of Reagan/Thatcher.

....

Since the early 1980s, several billion people are living better than at any time in our planet's history.

What we have achieved in the past 40 years is astonishing. As a community, we have brought several billion people into the modern world.

In 1600, no one knew what a derivative was. Nowadays, kids can take a derivative using their iPhone.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

1. Prosperity for whom?  Neoliberalism created massive amounts of new wealth but almost none of it was shared with the working classes, almost all the new wealth went to the “the 1%”.  Meanwhile workout class people were hit with cutbacks to public services, user fees, rising tuition, etc. 

2.  Sure. Biden, Pelosi Clinton and the establishment Dems are is no heroes of the working class that’s for sure  They are neoliberals, no doubt  about it  I assume this author is an AOC-Sanders left wing Democrat instead 

3.  I think “good paying” traditional manufacturing jobs  like assembling sewing machines or coffee makers are probably gone for good. I doubt any of those jobs that remain or return will be anything other than low paying.

4. The solutions are some combination of

a) creating new good paying jobs that can’t easily be offshored but don’t require too much education and skill for example in the emerging green sector

b) making skills and education much more affordable and accessible 

c) improving benefits and services for those who are still left behind in the bad jobs that are still needed. Not everyone at Tim Hortons is a live-at-home student or retiree doing it simply for a little extra pocket money. A lot of these people are trying to survive on their minimum wage pittance. 

5. I dunno I guess I’m just more cynical about the people in charge these days and who they really answer to.  I think neoliberalism explains why governments today DON’T address problems. Neoliberalism tells us that the only people in society who are qualified to identify problems and propose solutions to government  are business leaders. Anything else that governments sense from voters they simply address with cheap ineffective gimmicks not real policy. Small tax rebates for childcare, for example, is a gimmick not a policy.  To the extent that change is possible, issues and ideas have to be out there inculcating in the public sphere and establish a base level of familiarity amongst the general public, which in turn allows a leader to place the issue on their agenda. 

6. In summary I think the fact that the article is being discussed in this forum means its doing it’s job (although I admit I have read better critiques of neoliberalism). Many or even most people believe that the way things have been over the last several decades were simply due to natural forces and “the way the world works”. This plays into neoliberals hands because they falsely accuse critics of neoliberalism of trying to tamper with some kind of natural order. 

1.  2. Again, I obviously can't argue with you on how the gains went to different segments of society.  
3. Why do you doubt that high paying jobs could ever return ?  My grandparents worked in factories and their kids went to university.  How did that happen ?
4. a) Offshoring is going to be with us for a long time but onshoring too.  That is happening now.  b) c) Ok but I guess I disagree with how you're looking at this, ie. rear-view perspective.  In 1920 someone might have said... if they unionize these farms and factories nobody will have any jobs at all, not being able to foresee the rise of the middle class, consumer markets, mass media and so on.  The future is very far away and also only seconds away.
5. Ok, but ... where do the ideas come from ?  And how are they believed and picked up by "the" public or publics ?  Keynesian economics gives way to the Chicago school gives way to....
6. Well yes, and unfortunately you and I are part of the problem because we can't imagine massive social changes and political economic changes.  

What if all money transactions were made public ?  What if there were two kinds of money - one for investment one for living ?  What if money had an expiration date ?  What if there was no government money, only private money ?  What if you got rid of income taxes and just made rent and food free ?  What if you got corporations to take on solving problems like poverty, lack of education ?

These are just ideas and some of them are admittedly bad ones but why don't we talk about ideas anymore in our political economy ?  Why did we kill the public intellectual ?  Why did advertising utterly consume all political discussion ?

How do we get out of it ?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2022 at 9:48 PM, BeaverFever said:

The Wreckage of Neoliberalism

The postwar neoliberal economic project is nearing its end. The question is who will write the last chapter, the Democrats or the totalitarians?

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism argues that barrier-free international markets, rapidly advancing communications technology and automation, decreased regulation, and empowered citizen-consumers are the keys to prosperity, happiness, and strong democracy.

… But then, about 30 years ago, the project started to fray at the edges. The newly global economy moved America’s well-paying jobs—the ones that had created the U.S.’s early- and mid-20th-century blue-collar aristocracy—overseas, but the jobs that replaced them offered lower pay, fewer benefits, and less opportunity for advancement. Technology, which had promised to make our lives easier and more connected, started to get so complicated, and advance at a pace so dizzying, that it no longer felt within our control. Social media joined us, but also bred resentment and societal fragmentation. Automation and online commerce erased our local economies, our local meeting places, and our local news sources. And the consumerism that was supposed to fill our lives with the material rewards necessary for happiness instead left many feeling empty as our cultures and identities got swallowed up by the shapeless, antiseptic, profit-obsessed international economy.

Read: When people were proud to call themselves ‘neoliberal’

The result, today, is a very real epidemic of American unhappiness. Surveys taken during the past decade suggest that Americans have never been so pessimistic. Despite the nonstop information flow, more Americans report greater feelings of intense loneliness today than at any time before. People know they have more access to things—shiny things, fancy things, complicated things—but they grope for meaning and sense a depressing, decreasing personal control over their own future.

Although Trump’s anti-neoliberal messaging has been successful, his policies have never matched his rhetoric. By the time he left office, there were fewer, not more, well-paying manufacturing jobs in America. Trump did nothing to curb corporate excess or restore power to families and workers—his primary domestic legislative accomplishment was a tax cut in which 83 percent of the benefits would go to the same 1 percent of the population he attacked in his speeches. And he championed no legislation to rein in the corrosive influence of social media or unchecked automation. Indeed, his promises to undo economic neoliberalism was all empty rhetoric; instead, his entire term was an unending parade of gifts to the very status quo forces he condemned in his rise to power.

….

Trump and his followers are frauds—mouthing critical platitudes about the neoliberal order while ultimately serving its biggest beneficiaries—and Democrats should expose them as such. No matter their rhetorical attacks on elites, Republicans’ agenda still begins and ends with using government as a crude means to deliver favors to their billionaire and corporate friends. 

….

And it isn’t hyperbole to suggest that the future of our democracy rests on the question of which party offers the most credible alternative to the neoliberal order. Republicans’ fake populism is just a way to secure total power. This is the era of the post-democracy Republican Party, and if their critique of neoliberalism brings their party complete power after the 2024 election, they are likely to change the rules of democracy in order to make sure Democrats never win again. Trump’s Republican Party believes that Democrats present an existential threat to America, and therefore any means—even the end of democracy—is justified to defeat the left. Whether it be a purge of thousands of professional civil servants, continued crackdowns on voting rights, or a rigging of elections, if Trump and his allies win control of Congress and the White House again, our 250-year experiment may be over.

This does not have to be our nation’s fate. It is possible to reverse the damaging impacts of the neoliberal world order while saving democracy….

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/democrats-should-reject-neoliberalism/671850/

Trump's tax policies brought in more manufacturing jobs from the far east than ANY other president or Congress in history. He cannot be blamed for the Obama virus shutting down the economy. And Unelected Joe has made things much worse. 

Neoliberalism is a cancer. It is a revival of Nazism. The camps are only a few years away.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  2. Again, I obviously can't argue with you on how the gains went to different segments of society.  
3. Why do you doubt that high paying jobs could ever return ?  My grandparents worked in factories and their kids went to university.  How did that happen ?
4. a) Offshoring is going to be with us for a long time but onshoring too.  That is happening now.  b) c) Ok but I guess I disagree with how you're looking at this, ie. rear-view perspective.  In 1920 someone might have said... if they unionize these farms and factories nobody will have any jobs at all, not being able to foresee the rise of the middle class, consumer markets, mass media and so on.  The future is very far away and also only seconds away.
5. Ok, but ... where do the ideas come from ?  And how are they believed and picked up by "the" public or publics ?  Keynesian economics gives way to the Chicago school gives way to....
6. Well yes, and unfortunately you and I are part of the problem because we can't imagine massive social changes and political economic changes.  

What if all money transactions were made public ?  What if there were two kinds of money - one for investment one for living ?  What if money had an expiration date ?  What if there was no government money, only private money ?  What if you got rid of income taxes and just made rent and food free ?  What if you got corporations to take on solving problems like poverty, lack of education ?

These are just ideas and some of them are admittedly bad ones but why don't we talk about ideas anymore in our political economy ?  Why did we kill the public intellectual ?  Why did advertising utterly consume all political discussion ?

How do we get out of it ?
 

3. High paying jobs returned from the Far East when Trump cut taxes on corporations.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-tax-cuts-jolt-manufacturing-jobs

Quote

 

Since President Trump signed the tax cuts, manufacturing has been booming. At least 100 manufacturers have built new facilities, purchased new equipment, hired new employees, and invested in current employees through bonuses and benefit increases. Each has cited tax cuts as the reason for their actions

Manufacturers are taking advantage of two key pro-business and pro-growth provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: a reduced corporate tax rate and full business expensing. The new corporate tax rate is 21 percent, down from the developed-world high of 35 percent. Full business expensing allows manufacturers who purchase new equipment to deduct the full cost from their taxable income in the same year. Previously, deductions occurred over multiyear periods involving complex depreciation schedules

 

Offshoring is done primarily to cut costs. Companies DO NOT WANT TO SPEND THE CASH moving factories to the far east. It's expensive, and requires a lot of cultural boondoggles, since there are language issues. Thank Democrat policies for causing the cost of manufacturing (from burdensome regulations to mafia type union thugs) for making offshoring financially feasible. When I state that no Democrat has EVER expanded the American economy, I was being nice.  Democrats are REALLY bad for the economy.

(Florida has unions too. But our economy is the best in the country. Maybe that's because Florida is a right to work state, where close union shops are illegal.)

If all money transactions were required to be made public, the Democrat Party would likely be completely out of power within a few election cycles. (Even the stupid Democrat voters would somehow grow a brain and understand dark money as well as loads of cash from Nazi sympathizer George Soros.)

Why would getting rid of income taxes have to be accompanied by slavery? (Forcing food and housing providers to work for free is SLAVERY) Why not just CONTROL SPENDING? Right now, the welfare state takes up around 70 percent of the federal budget.

https://www.investors.com/politics/policy-analysis/us-government-payments-to-individuals-70-of-budget/

 

Here's how to get out of it:

Get Democrats OUT of power. PERIOD. They are the ones causing all the damage, all the misery, all the deficit spending, etc. Their policies account for the WORST economies in history.

Elect more Trumps. Secure the border. Invest in the rule of law.

https://cnsnews.com/commentary/stephen-moore/trump-economic-record-looks-better-every-day
 

Quote

 

Here are just the facts, ma'am. Over his first three years in office before COVID hit, the unemployment rate fell below 4%, which was near the lowest in half a century. The inflation rate fell to 1%, which was even below the target level set from the Federal Reserve. This kept the interest rates on mortgages and many other loans down to the lowest level in modern times.

Poverty rates fell to their lowest levels ever recorded. This was true for women, children, Blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians. Median household income rose to nearly $68,000, and the $5,000 gain in three years was more than over the second term of George W. Bush and the eight years of Barack Obama.

Here was another remarkable feat: Under Trump, the United States became energy-independent. The month that Trump left office, one year ago, America was importing zero oil from Saudi Arabia, largely because U.S. oil and gas production had surged. Now we have a president who has to beg the Saudis and Iranians to produce more oil. How humiliating.

 

THAT'S how you solve the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Neoliberalism’s impact in the US has been decades of harsh government austerity, heavy-handed policing, mass incarceration, income inequality  and lack of social mobility  As left wing groups and labour unions have been predicting for decades this would lead to a breakdown of social cohesion, racism, and ultimately a breakdown of democracy itself  as citizens turn on each other to fight over crumbs and seek a strongman to save them  

 

The return of fascism: Fueled by widening inequality and the bankruptcy of liberalism

….

Economic collapse was indispensable to the Nazis' rise to power. In the 1928 elections in Germany, the Nazi party received less than 3 percent of the vote. Then came the global financial crash of 1929. By early 1932, 40 percent of the German insured workforce, six million people, was unemployed. That same year, the Nazis became the largest political party in the German parliament. The Weimar government, tone deaf and hostage to the big industrialists, prioritized paying bank loans and austerity rather than feeding and employing a desperate population. It foolishly imposed severe restrictions on who was eligible for unemployment insurance. Millions of Germans went hungry. Desperation and rage rippled through the population. Mass rallies, led by a collection of buffoonish Nazis in brown uniforms who would have felt at home at Mar-a-Lago, denounced Jews, Communists, intellectuals, artists and the ruling class as internal enemies. Hate was their main currency. It sold well. 

The evisceration of democratic procedures and institutions, however, preceded the Nazis' ascension to power in 1933. The Reichstag, the German Parliament, was as dysfunctional as the U.S. Congress. The Socialist leader Friedrich Ebert, president from 1919 until 1925, and later Heinrich Brüning, chancellor from 1930 to 1932, relied on Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to largely rule by decree to bypass the fractious Parliament. Article 48, which granted the president the right in an emergency to issue decrees, was "a trapdoor through which Germany could fall into dictatorship," historian Benjamin Carter Hett writes.
 

The step from dysfunctional democracy to full-blown fascism was, and will again be, a small one. The hatred for the ruling class, embodied by the establishment Republican and Democratic parties, which have merged into one ruling party, is nearly universal. The public, battling inflation that is at a 40-year high and cost the average U.S. household an additional $717 a month in July alone, will increasingly see any political figure or political party willing to attack the traditional ruling elites as an ally. The more crude, irrational or vulgar the attack, the more the disenfranchised rejoice. These sentiments are true here and in Europe, where energy costs are expected to rise by as much as 80 percent this winter and an inflation rate of 10 percent is eating away at incomes.

The reconfiguration of society under neoliberalism to exclusively benefit the billionaire class, the slashing and privatization of public services, including schools, hospitals and utilities, along with deindustrialization, the profligate pouring of state funds and resources into the war industry, at the expense of the nation's infrastructure and social services, and the building of the world's largest prison system and militarization of police, have predictable results.
 

At the heart of the problem is a loss of faith in traditional forms of government and democratic solutions. Fascism in the 1930s succeeded, as Peter Drucker observed, not because people believed its conspiracy theories and lies but in spite of the fact that they saw through them. Fascism thrived in the face of "a hostile press, a hostile radio, a hostile cinema, a hostile church, and a hostile government which untiringly pointed out the Nazi lies, the Nazi inconsistency, the unattainability of their promises, and the dangers and folly of their course." He added, "nobody would have been a Nazi if rational belief in the Nazi promises had been a prerequisite."
 

As in the past, these new fascist parties cater to emotional yearnings. They give vent to feelings of abandonment, worthlessness, despair and alienation. They promise unattainable miracles. They too peddle bizarre conspiracy theories, including QAnon. But most of all, they promise vengeance against a ruling class that betrayed the nation. 

Hett defines the Nazis as "a nationalist protest movement against globalization." The rise of the new fascism has its roots in a similar exploitation by global corporations and oligarchs. More than anything else, people want to regain control over their lives, if only to punish those blamed and scapegoated for their misery. 
 

https://www.salon.com/2022/09/27/the-return-of-fascism-fueled-by-widening-inequality-and-the-bankruptcy-of-liberalism/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  2. Again, I obviously can't argue with you on how the gains went to different segments of society.  
3. Why do you doubt that high paying jobs could ever return ?  My grandparents worked in factories and their kids went to university.  How did that happen ?
4. a) Offshoring is going to be with us for a long time but onshoring too.  That is happening now.  b) c) Ok but I guess I disagree with how you're looking at this, ie. rear-view perspective.  In 1920 someone might have said... if they unionize these farms and factories nobody will have any jobs at all, not being able to foresee the rise of the middle class, consumer markets, mass media and so on.  The future is very far away and also only seconds away.
5. Ok, but ... where do the ideas come from ?  And how are they believed and picked up by "the" public or publics ?  Keynesian economics gives way to the Chicago school gives way to....
6. Well yes, and unfortunately you and I are part of the problem because we can't imagine massive social changes and political economic changes.  

What if all money transactions were made public ?  What if there were two kinds of money - one for investment one for living ?  What if money had an expiration date ?  What if there was no government money, only private money ?  What if you got rid of income taxes and just made rent and food free ?  What if you got corporations to take on solving problems like poverty, lack of education ?

These are just ideas and some of them are admittedly bad ones but why don't we talk about ideas anymore in our political economy ?  Why did we kill the public intellectual ?  Why did advertising utterly consume all political discussion ?

How do we get out of it ?
 

3.  That happened because once upon a time factory jobs paid reasonably well and university was much more affordable.  But that was such a long time ago that it is beyond most peoples imagination. The idea that factory jobs are generally undeserving of adequate pay, and rising tuition fees thats now cost well into the tens or even the hundreds of thousands have been normalized for a long time now thanks to neoliberalism. I fully expect that then usual suspects in the business community and on the political right would be able convince the public that more affordable university or massive increases to manufacturing jobs is outrageous and catastrophic to the economy. Look at the outrage south of the border over Biden’s student loan forgiveness. Even amongst Democrats it’s apparently not  been a big popular success, people just say “where’s MY handout?”  which is how neoliberalism has conditioned us to respond to everything. 
 

4.  Onshoring is part of the reaction to the problems caused by neoliberalism I think. We’ll see if it sticks around or is just a fad.  My only point is I think there will always be a demand for low skilled jobs and we need to how to let the people who perform them in on prosperity.    Under neoliberalism such people are considered disposable untermenschen who don’t really count  and deserve their place at the bottom of the order. We either make it easier for rhem to move up the ladder or we make the bottom of the ladder a better place than it is now. 
 

5.  Sadly I think getting ideas out there and onto the public agenda in a meaningful way is a slow boat… you need to get new ideas out into the zeitgeist by whatever means possible and it does happen after a decade or two! Although these are imperfect examples I think of the recent massive CPP benefit increase that was in large part helped by Kathleen Wynnes Ontario Pension Plan that almost launched and forced Trudeau to stop foot-dragging.  It only took 20 years of people warning about the looming retirement savings crisis and being ignored until one day they weren’t. The policy doesn’t seem to be driven by any private interests or agenda, simply fixing a public problem  Another example might be $10/day daycare although employers are probably on board with this one to help address current and future labour shortages as baby boomers continue to retire  

 

6.  Well I wish I knew the solutions to the worlds problems and how to get everyone on board but I think a critical first step is defining the current problems and shortcomings and challenging peoples current assumptions misconceptions about the world whenever possible   I find that most people don’t spend any time reading or thinking about these topics and don’t want to talk about them either. Snd yet they still have these conceptions from decades of messaging that they’ve been passively absorbing through the media: government is bad, taxes should be cut,freedom means being able to do whatever you want without any consequences, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1.  That happened because once upon a time factory jobs paid reasonably well and university was much more affordable.  But that was such a long time ago that it is beyond most peoples imagination.  
 

 
 

2.  Sadly I think getting ideas out there and onto the public agenda in a meaningful way is a slow boat… you need to get new ideas out into the zeitgeist by whatever means possible and it does happen after a decade or two!

3.  Another example might be $10/day daycare although employers are probably on board with this one to help address current and future labour shortages as baby boomers continue to retire  

 

4.  Well I wish I knew the solutions to the worlds problems and how to get everyone on board but I think a critical first step is defining the current problems and shortcomings and challenging peoples current assumptions misconceptions about the world whenever possible   I find that most people don’t spend any time reading or thinking about these topics and don’t want to talk about them either. Snd yet they still have these conceptions from decades of messaging that they’ve been passively absorbing through the media: government is bad, taxes should be cut,freedom means being able to do whatever you want without any consequences, etc. 

1. My grandparents made a pittance from factory work.

2. Ideas such as fairness are easy to get across.  Things like trade deals are difficult to explain.

3. This is an example of a benefit that people just demand from the government.  Again it's related to fairness.

4. The answer is better dialog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:


Neoliberalism’s impact in the US has been decades of harsh government austerity, heavy-handed policing, mass incarceration, income inequality  and lack of social mobility  As left wing groups and labour unions have been predicting for decades this would lead to a breakdown of social cohesion, racism, and ultimately a breakdown of democracy itself  as citizens turn on each other to fight over crumbs and seek a strongman to save them  

 

The return of fascism: Fueled by widening inequality and the bankruptcy of liberalism

….

Economic collapse was indispensable to the Nazis' rise to power. In the 1928 elections in Germany, the Nazi party received less than 3 percent of the vote. Then came the global financial crash of 1929. By early 1932, 40 percent of the German insured workforce, six million people, was unemployed. That same year, the Nazis became the largest political party in the German parliament. The Weimar government, tone deaf and hostage to the big industrialists, prioritized paying bank loans and austerity rather than feeding and employing a desperate population. It foolishly imposed severe restrictions on who was eligible for unemployment insurance. Millions of Germans went hungry. Desperation and rage rippled through the population. Mass rallies, led by a collection of buffoonish Nazis in brown uniforms who would have felt at home at Mar-a-Lago, denounced Jews, Communists, intellectuals, artists and the ruling class as internal enemies. Hate was their main currency. It sold well. 

The evisceration of democratic procedures and institutions, however, preceded the Nazis' ascension to power in 1933. The Reichstag, the German Parliament, was as dysfunctional as the U.S. Congress. The Socialist leader Friedrich Ebert, president from 1919 until 1925, and later Heinrich Brüning, chancellor from 1930 to 1932, relied on Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to largely rule by decree to bypass the fractious Parliament. Article 48, which granted the president the right in an emergency to issue decrees, was "a trapdoor through which Germany could fall into dictatorship," historian Benjamin Carter Hett writes.
 

The step from dysfunctional democracy to full-blown fascism was, and will again be, a small one. The hatred for the ruling class, embodied by the establishment Republican and Democratic parties, which have merged into one ruling party, is nearly universal. The public, battling inflation that is at a 40-year high and cost the average U.S. household an additional $717 a month in July alone, will increasingly see any political figure or political party willing to attack the traditional ruling elites as an ally. The more crude, irrational or vulgar the attack, the more the disenfranchised rejoice. These sentiments are true here and in Europe, where energy costs are expected to rise by as much as 80 percent this winter and an inflation rate of 10 percent is eating away at incomes.

The reconfiguration of society under neoliberalism to exclusively benefit the billionaire class, the slashing and privatization of public services, including schools, hospitals and utilities, along with deindustrialization, the profligate pouring of state funds and resources into the war industry, at the expense of the nation's infrastructure and social services, and the building of the world's largest prison system and militarization of police, have predictable results.
 

At the heart of the problem is a loss of faith in traditional forms of government and democratic solutions. Fascism in the 1930s succeeded, as Peter Drucker observed, not because people believed its conspiracy theories and lies but in spite of the fact that they saw through them. Fascism thrived in the face of "a hostile press, a hostile radio, a hostile cinema, a hostile church, and a hostile government which untiringly pointed out the Nazi lies, the Nazi inconsistency, the unattainability of their promises, and the dangers and folly of their course." He added, "nobody would have been a Nazi if rational belief in the Nazi promises had been a prerequisite."
 

As in the past, these new fascist parties cater to emotional yearnings. They give vent to feelings of abandonment, worthlessness, despair and alienation. They promise unattainable miracles. They too peddle bizarre conspiracy theories, including QAnon. But most of all, they promise vengeance against a ruling class that betrayed the nation. 

Hett defines the Nazis as "a nationalist protest movement against globalization." The rise of the new fascism has its roots in a similar exploitation by global corporations and oligarchs. More than anything else, people want to regain control over their lives, if only to punish those blamed and scapegoated for their misery. 
 

https://www.salon.com/2022/09/27/the-return-of-fascism-fueled-by-widening-inequality-and-the-bankruptcy-of-liberalism/

Salon? Seriously? What's next? THE VIEW?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

1. My grandparents made a pittance from factory work

Back then, the cost of living wasn't so high.

(This is a point Woke liberals will NEVER get. The value of a dollar is always in direct proportion to what it will buy.)

Quote

2. Ideas such as fairness are easy to get across.  Things like trade deals are difficult to explain.

Fairness is such a childish term. It completely ignores the reality of the world. President Trump negotiated the greatest trade deals of all time. He was an expert. His policies gave us the lowest inflation of all. And they brought back manufacturing jobs that liberal policies had sent overseas.

Quote

3. This is an example of a benefit that people just demand from the government.  Again it's related to fairness.

Demanding fairness from government is like demanding virtue from a street whore. The more government tries to legislate "fairness" the greater number of people unemployed.

Quote

4. The answer is better dialog.

Actually, the answer is to vote Democrats out of office, since this particular generation of Democrats have no idea what it takes to expand a national economy. The LAST Democrat who understood that was John F. Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, reason10 said:

 

Actually, the answer is to vote Democrats out of office, since this particular generation of Democrats have no idea what it takes to expand a national economy. 

Why not just ban them?

 

Then you would be free to enact Trump's policies of large deficits caused by corporate tax cuts right?

 

And the idea that fairness is a childish concept is pretty laughable, I guess Republicans could run on an anti fairness platform at least that would be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why not just ban them?

 

Then you would be free to enact Trump's policies of large deficits caused by corporate tax cuts right?

 

And the idea that fairness is a childish concept is pretty laughable, I guess Republicans could run on an anti fairness platform at least that would be honest.

Legitimate elections take power away from Nazi Democrats. My side of the aisle doesn't go with cancel culture.

Large deficits are caused by Democrat SPENDING. Tax cuts do not cause deficits because IT'S NOT WASHINGTON'S MONEY. Corporate tax cuts create hundreds of thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs, which create taxpayers that didn't exist before. This is how the REagan tax cuts brought in a TRILLION in extra revenue by 1986. Democrats spent it. The welfare state makes up 70 percent of the budget.

Fairness cannot be legislated because there is no objective standard for fairness. A useless welfare slut downloading one illegitimate brat after another while losing the fathers has a different standard of fairness than a small business owner who mortgaged his home to create a company that hires employees, (AND MOST EMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA IS THROUGH SMALL BUSINESS.)

Your ideas have been proven wrong by history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2022 at 8:25 AM, reason10 said:

Trump's tax policies brought in more manufacturing jobs from the far east than ANY other president or Congress in history. He cannot be blamed for the Obama virus shutting down the economy. And Unelected Joe has made things much worse. 

Neoliberalism is a cancer. It is a revival of Nazism. The camps are only a few years away.

You’re a dope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, reason10 said:

Legitimate elections take power away from Nazi Democrats. My side of the aisle doesn't go with cancel culture.

Large deficits are caused by Democrat SPENDING. Tax cuts do not cause deficits because IT'S NOT WASHINGTON'S MONEY. Corporate tax cuts create hundreds of thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs, which create taxpayers that didn't exist before. This is how the REagan tax cuts brought in a TRILLION in extra revenue by 1986. Democrats spent it. The welfare state makes up 70 percent of the budget.

Fairness cannot be legislated because there is no objective standard for fairness. A useless welfare slut downloading one illegitimate brat after another while losing the fathers has a different standard of fairness than a small business owner who mortgaged his home to create a company that hires employees, (AND MOST EMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA IS THROUGH SMALL BUSINESS.)

Your ideas have been proven wrong by history.

 

You are completely delusional. For the last 30 years every Republican president has increased deficits

1. For the past 30 years, every Democratic president years has decreased deficits over their terms while every Republican has increased deficits

2. Deficit simply means spending is greater than revenue, so yes, obviously tax cuts can create deficits by decreasing revenue.

3. Reagan didn't bring in "extra" revenue, he ran huge deficits, exploding the national debt and creating a burden for every administration after.

Aside from being rude, I don't think you're in a position to call other people "useless."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Neoliberalism ?  What ? 🤔

 

 

The  earlier version of liberalism in no way resembles the left today

The original liberalism would have been viewed as Libertarianism of the late 80s and early 90s. Laissez Faire free market capitalism, small government, freedom, liberty, the rule of law.

Today's goose stepping liberalism began with the Port Huron Statement in the early Sixties, back when college dropouts began embracing Marxist ideals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

You are completely delusional. For the last 30 years every Republican president has increased deficits

1. For the past 30 years, every Democratic president years has decreased deficits over their terms while every Republican has increased deficits

2. Deficit simply means spending is greater than revenue, so yes, obviously tax cuts can create deficits by decreasing revenue.

3. Reagan didn't bring in "extra" revenue, he ran huge deficits, exploding the national debt and creating a burden for every administration after.

Aside from being rude, I don't think you're in a position to call other people "useless."


That is all a LIE.

NO Democrat president has decreased deficits. NONE. Zero. Zip. Nada. (A little Spanish lingo.) The LARGEST item on the budget is ENTITLEMENTS.

The Reagan tax cuts EXPANDED the economy and brought in an additional TRILLION dollars in new revenue by 1986. The left spent it.

Tax cuts cannot increase a deficit because it is NOT WAshington's money. And the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED revenues/

https://amac.us/reagan-cut-taxes-revenue-boomed/

Quote

When Reagan left office, real federal revenue was more than 19% higher than it was the day of his first inauguration. A major recession had been overcome, inflation had been broken, the tax code had been indexed to eliminate bracket creep, and the largest tax cut of the postwar era had been implemented. The Reagan tax cuts and the boom they created stand as the most successful policy initiative and recovery of the postwar era—the polar opposite of Mr. Obama’s program and economy.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/tax-cuts-increase-federal-revenues

Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues

Quote

However, the numbers, crunched by Heritage's Brian Riedl, show otherwise (see chart below). In 1980, the last year before the tax cuts, tax revenues were $956 billion (in constant 1996 dollars).

Revenues exceeded that 1980 level in eight of the next 10 years. Annual revenues over the next decade averaged $102 billion above their 1980 level (in constant 1996 dollars).

Any increase in budget deficits was therefore the result of spending increases rather than tax cut-induced revenue decreases.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/reagan-cut-taxes-revenue-boomed-1501800678

Reagan Cut Taxes, Revenue Boomed

T

Quote

 

he Reagan tax cuts were implemented in three installments, with the top marginal rate falling to 50% from 70%. When the reductions were fully in effect in 1983, the economy snapped out of the recession, and real growth averaged 4.6% for the remainder of the Reagan presidency—more than his much-maligned “rosy scenario” ever promised. In 1984, a final good-government tax provision—indexing individual brackets for inflation and thereby eliminating bracket creep—was implemented. Although indexing reduced revenue, it was overpowered by surging economic growth. Then the 1986 tax reform cut subsidies and special-interest provisions, lowered the top individual tax rate to 28%, dropped the top corporate tax rate to 34% from 46%, and provided additional incentives to work, save and invest.

 

When Reagan left office, real federal revenue was more than 19% higher than it was the day of his first inauguration. A major recession had been overcome, inflation had been broken, the tax code had been indexed to eliminate bracket creep, and the largest tax cut of the postwar era had been implemented. The Reagan tax cuts and the boom they created stand as the most successful policy initiative and recovery of the postwar era—the polar opposite of Mr. Obama’s program and economy

 

You have LOST this argument.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, reason10 said:


That is all a LIE.

NO Democrat president has decreased deficits. NONE. Zero. Zip. Nada. (A little Spanish lingo.) The LARGEST item on the budget is ENTITLEMENTS.

 

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? If you're going to lie about something, at least make it vaguely plausible, not something everyone can plainly see is a lie with half a glance. You're like Trump, lying about the largest inauguration crowd ever (well, no, that's obviously not true) lol.

FRED

image.thumb.png.621dd73b374cafc4d46b1e812c9fb0a2.png

 

Do you need a list of which presidents were in office which years? I can give you a hint, the line climbs showing reductions in deficit (and to surplus) Democrats are in office.

 

Here's a Red and Blue view if that's easier for you. There are many variations of this but this one was easy to read.

Despite Trump's promises, deficit soars in 2019

 

Edited by Hodad
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,533
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    papoket
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...