Republicans Against Inequality?

[BeaverFever]

Republicans Against Inequality

 

A rising generation of Republican politicians is more skeptical of the free market and more comfortable using government power to regulate the economy than the party has traditionally been. Consider:

• Senator J.D. Vance, the Ohio Republican, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts progressive, have collaborated on a bill to claw back executive pay at failed banks. The two worked through the details through in-person conversations, weekend phone calls and late-night texts.

• Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has signed a public letter calling for the reinvigoration of collective bargaining and praising the German approach, in which labor unions play a larger role in the economy. Rubio this month published a book, “Decades of Decadence,” that criticizes the past 30 years of globalization.

• Senator Todd Young of Indiana has helped write a bipartisan bill to restrict noncompete agreements, which companies use to prevent their employees from leaving for jobs at a competitor.

• Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas was among a bipartisan group of lawmakers who began pushing a few years ago for federal subsidies to expand domestic semiconductor manufacturing. President Biden signed a version of the policy last year.

Tomorrow afternoon, these four Republican senators — Cotton, Rubio, Vance and Young — will speak at an event on Capitol Hill that’s meant to highlight the emergence of a populist conservative movement in economics. The event is organized around a policy manifesto, called “Rebuilding American Capitalism: A Handbook for Conservative Policymakers.”

“We really like capitalism, but we recognize it’s not working right now,” said Oren Cass, a former aide to Mitt Romney and the executive director of American Compass, a think tank that published the manifesto.

Cass is right about that: Income growth for most families has been sluggish for decades, trailing well behind economic growth. Life expectancy stagnated even before Covid. And polls show that Americans of all ideological stripes are frustrated with the country’s direction.

 

“Capitalism is a complex system dependent on rules and institutions,” Cass told me. “And conservatism calls for building and maintaining institutions that work well.”

 

A new capitalism

I recognize that many liberals will be skeptical of the new breed of Republicans. For one thing, they really are conservative; they’re not disaffected right-wingers who have become moderates without admitting it. They support abortion restrictions and oppose gun laws. They make excuses for Donald Trump’s anti-democratic behavior or even spread his falsehoods.

But the preference for a different kind of economic policy than one Republicans have long supported is nonetheless significant. It is a sign that the consensus in Washington is moving away from the neoliberal, laissez-faire approach that has dominated since the 1980s. These new conservatives are trying to separate themselves from anti-government Republicans like Paul Ryan — and, although they won’t say so, Ronald Reagan.

One major reason is the class inversion of American politics. Most professionals now vote for Democrats, which is a stark change from past decades. Most working-class voters vote Republican, partly because they see Democrats as an elite party dominated by socially liberal and secular college graduates.

Yet the Republican Party still has a major vulnerability with working-class voters. The party has long pushed the laissez-faire agenda that has hurt those voters, and polls show the country to be left of center on economic policy. Most Americans favor a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, expanded government health insurance and subsidies for well-paying jobs.

 

When Democrats can flip the script on elitism and paint a Republican candidate as an out-of-touch protector of the rich, the Democratic candidate can often draw enough blue-collar support to win. John Fetterman used this approach to beat Mehmet Oz last year in Pennsylvania, the only state where a Senate seat switched parties.

 

Politically, the new conservative populism is an effort to show that Republicans understand Americans’ struggles and want to help. Economically, the new approach offers a glimpse of a Republican Party that’s starting to grapple with the economy’s true challenges.

The manifesto rejects the idea that free trade is inherently good and argues for policies to ensure the U.S. has a thriving, well-paying manufacturing sector that makes strategically important goods like semiconductors. “The idea that trade would lead to liberalization and a happy world was wildly wrong,” Cass said.

The document also calls for:

• a guaranteed right for workers to organize and industrywide bargaining, which could increase the number of union contracts — and raise wages.

• a financial transaction tax, meant to reduce Wall Street trading that makes people rich without making the economy more productive.

• a monthly child benefit of around $300, as well as changes to Medicare and Social Security to recognize the work done by stay-at-home parents.

• an easing of government regulations, to encourage new construction.

Progressives will raise principled objections to some ideas — such as a ban on unions’ campaign donations. And that’s how a democracy should function. The country’s two political parties are not on the verge of agreeing about most economic issues.

But something is changing. More politicians are recognizing that the policies of the past several decades have failed to create a broadly prosperous economy. From that emerging consensus may eventually come a longer list of bipartisan legislation designed to lift living standards.

 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/briefing/republicans-inequality-free-market.html

[BeaverFever]

So basically SOME Republicans are starting to accept what liberals and unions have been saying for 40 years and what republicans used to scream was communism. 
 

But that’s always hoe it goes. Liberals have the new ideas -it’s what the word liberal means - while conservatives scream and denounce the new idea -it’s what the word conservative means- and then eventually conservatives say “yep I supported it the whole time, just pay no attention to anything I said on the topic before last week!”

[reason10]

22 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Republicans Against Inequality

 

A rising generation of Republican politicians is more skeptical of the free market and more comfortable using government power to regulate the economy than the party has traditionally been. Consider:

• Senator J.D. Vance, the Ohio Republican, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts progressive, have collaborated on a bill to claw back executive pay at failed banks. The two worked through the details through in-person conversations, weekend phone calls and late-night texts.

• Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has signed a public letter calling for the reinvigoration of collective bargaining and praising the German approach, in which labor unions play a larger role in the economy. Rubio this month published a book, “Decades of Decadence,” that criticizes the past 30 years of globalization.

• Senator Todd Young of Indiana has helped write a bipartisan bill to restrict noncompete agreements, which companies use to prevent their employees from leaving for jobs at a competitor.

• Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas was among a bipartisan group of lawmakers who began pushing a few years ago for federal subsidies to expand domestic semiconductor manufacturing. President Biden signed a version of the policy last year.

Tomorrow afternoon, these four Republican senators — Cotton, Rubio, Vance and Young — will speak at an event on Capitol Hill that’s meant to highlight the emergence of a populist conservative movement in economics. The event is organized around a policy manifesto, called “Rebuilding American Capitalism: A Handbook for Conservative Policymakers.”

“We really like capitalism, but we recognize it’s not working right now,” said Oren Cass, a former aide to Mitt Romney and the executive director of American Compass, a think tank that published the manifesto.

Cass is right about that: Income growth for most families has been sluggish for decades, trailing well behind economic growth. Life expectancy stagnated even before Covid. And polls show that Americans of all ideological stripes are frustrated with the country’s direction.

 

“Capitalism is a complex system dependent on rules and institutions,” Cass told me. “And conservatism calls for building and maintaining institutions that work well.”

 

A new capitalism

I recognize that many liberals will be skeptical of the new breed of Republicans. For one thing, they really are conservative; they’re not disaffected right-wingers who have become moderates without admitting it. They support abortion restrictions and oppose gun laws. They make excuses for Donald Trump’s anti-democratic behavior or even spread his falsehoods.

But the preference for a different kind of economic policy than one Republicans have long supported is nonetheless significant. It is a sign that the consensus in Washington is moving away from the neoliberal, laissez-faire approach that has dominated since the 1980s. These new conservatives are trying to separate themselves from anti-government Republicans like Paul Ryan — and, although they won’t say so, Ronald Reagan.

One major reason is the class inversion of American politics. Most professionals now vote for Democrats, which is a stark change from past decades. Most working-class voters vote Republican, partly because they see Democrats as an elite party dominated by socially liberal and secular college graduates.

Yet the Republican Party still has a major vulnerability with working-class voters. The party has long pushed the laissez-faire agenda that has hurt those voters, and polls show the country to be left of center on economic policy. Most Americans favor a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, expanded government health insurance and subsidies for well-paying jobs.

 

When Democrats can flip the script on elitism and paint a Republican candidate as an out-of-touch protector of the rich, the Democratic candidate can often draw enough blue-collar support to win. John Fetterman used this approach to beat Mehmet Oz last year in Pennsylvania, the only state where a Senate seat switched parties.

 

Politically, the new conservative populism is an effort to show that Republicans understand Americans’ struggles and want to help. Economically, the new approach offers a glimpse of a Republican Party that’s starting to grapple with the economy’s true challenges.

The manifesto rejects the idea that free trade is inherently good and argues for policies to ensure the U.S. has a thriving, well-paying manufacturing sector that makes strategically important goods like semiconductors. “The idea that trade would lead to liberalization and a happy world was wildly wrong,” Cass said.

The document also calls for:

• a guaranteed right for workers to organize and industrywide bargaining, which could increase the number of union contracts — and raise wages.

• a financial transaction tax, meant to reduce Wall Street trading that makes people rich without making the economy more productive.

• a monthly child benefit of around $300, as well as changes to Medicare and Social Security to recognize the work done by stay-at-home parents.

• an easing of government regulations, to encourage new construction.

Progressives will raise principled objections to some ideas — such as a ban on unions’ campaign donations. And that’s how a democracy should function. The country’s two political parties are not on the verge of agreeing about most economic issues.

But something is changing. More politicians are recognizing that the policies of the past several decades have failed to create a broadly prosperous economy. From that emerging consensus may eventually come a longer list of bipartisan legislation designed to lift living standards.

 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/briefing/republicans-inequality-free-market.html

Basically, this is the OPINION of a far left opinion rag, not real news.

[Rebound]

39 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Basically, this is the OPINION of a far left opinion rag, not real news.

No you dolt, they’re reporting what these Republicans are actually doing and saying.  
 

Serious question: You’re really 11 years old, aren’t you?

[reason10]

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No you dolt, they’re reporting what these Republicans are actually doing and saying.  
 

Serious question: You’re really 11 years old, aren’t you?

Nope. The article (and the failing Treason Times) only reports ITS OPINIONS of what it THINKS people say.

I'm a teacher. And your IQ is 12.

[reason10]

23 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So basically SOME Republicans are starting to accept what liberals and unions have been saying for 40 years and what republicans used to scream was communism. 
 

But that’s always hoe it goes. Liberals have the new ideas -it’s what the word liberal means - while conservatives scream and denounce the new idea -it’s what the word conservative means- and then eventually conservatives say “yep I supported it the whole time, just pay no attention to anything I said on the topic before last week!”

If this nonsense came from a RELIABLE source and not the Treason Times, it wouldn't be as laughable.

The threat title is very dishonest, when compared to this LYING article.

Inequality EXISTS, whether you goose steppers like it or not. Some people work harder and smarter than others. Some people make more money than others, AND THERE'S NOT A GODDAM THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

You can STEAL money through taxation and create more and more GHETTOS. But you WON'T raise the standard of living of a lazy bum who is stupid and refuses to work. (Which just describes PRETTY MUCH EVERY LIBERAL here.)

[CdnFox]

On 6/20/2023 at 3:27 PM, BeaverFever said:

Republicans Against Inequality

 

A rising generation of Republican politicians is more skeptical of the free market and more comfortable using government power to regulate the economy than the party has traditionally been. Consider:

• Senator J.D. Vance, the Ohio Republican, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts progressive, have collaborated on a bill to claw back executive pay at failed banks. The two worked through the details through in-person conversations, weekend phone calls and late-night texts.

• Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has signed a public letter calling for the reinvigoration of collective bargaining and praising the German approach, in which labor unions play a larger role in the economy. Rubio this month published a book, “Decades of Decadence,” that criticizes the past 30 years of globalization.

• Senator Todd Young of Indiana has helped write a bipartisan bill to restrict noncompete agreements, which companies use to prevent their employees from leaving for jobs at a competitor.

• Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas was among a bipartisan group of lawmakers who began pushing a few years ago for federal subsidies to expand domestic semiconductor manufacturing. President Biden signed a version of the policy last year.

Tomorrow afternoon, these four Republican senators — Cotton, Rubio, Vance and Young — will speak at an event on Capitol Hill that’s meant to highlight the emergence of a populist conservative movement in economics. The event is organized around a policy manifesto, called “Rebuilding American Capitalism: A Handbook for Conservative Policymakers.”

“We really like capitalism, but we recognize it’s not working right now,” said Oren Cass, a former aide to Mitt Romney and the executive director of American Compass, a think tank that published the manifesto.

Cass is right about that: Income growth for most families has been sluggish for decades, trailing well behind economic growth. Life expectancy stagnated even before Covid. And polls show that Americans of all ideological stripes are frustrated with the country’s direction.

 

“Capitalism is a complex system dependent on rules and institutions,” Cass told me. “And conservatism calls for building and maintaining institutions that work well.”

 

A new capitalism

I recognize that many liberals will be skeptical of the new breed of Republicans. For one thing, they really are conservative; they’re not disaffected right-wingers who have become moderates without admitting it. They support abortion restrictions and oppose gun laws. They make excuses for Donald Trump’s anti-democratic behavior or even spread his falsehoods.

But the preference for a different kind of economic policy than one Republicans have long supported is nonetheless significant. It is a sign that the consensus in Washington is moving away from the neoliberal, laissez-faire approach that has dominated since the 1980s. These new conservatives are trying to separate themselves from anti-government Republicans like Paul Ryan — and, although they won’t say so, Ronald Reagan.

One major reason is the class inversion of American politics. Most professionals now vote for Democrats, which is a stark change from past decades. Most working-class voters vote Republican, partly because they see Democrats as an elite party dominated by socially liberal and secular college graduates.

Yet the Republican Party still has a major vulnerability with working-class voters. The party has long pushed the laissez-faire agenda that has hurt those voters, and polls show the country to be left of center on economic policy. Most Americans favor a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, expanded government health insurance and subsidies for well-paying jobs.

 

When Democrats can flip the script on elitism and paint a Republican candidate as an out-of-touch protector of the rich, the Democratic candidate can often draw enough blue-collar support to win. John Fetterman used this approach to beat Mehmet Oz last year in Pennsylvania, the only state where a Senate seat switched parties.

 

Politically, the new conservative populism is an effort to show that Republicans understand Americans’ struggles and want to help. Economically, the new approach offers a glimpse of a Republican Party that’s starting to grapple with the economy’s true challenges.

The manifesto rejects the idea that free trade is inherently good and argues for policies to ensure the U.S. has a thriving, well-paying manufacturing sector that makes strategically important goods like semiconductors. “The idea that trade would lead to liberalization and a happy world was wildly wrong,” Cass said.

The document also calls for:

• a guaranteed right for workers to organize and industrywide bargaining, which could increase the number of union contracts — and raise wages.

• a financial transaction tax, meant to reduce Wall Street trading that makes people rich without making the economy more productive.

• a monthly child benefit of around $300, as well as changes to Medicare and Social Security to recognize the work done by stay-at-home parents.

• an easing of government regulations, to encourage new construction.

Progressives will raise principled objections to some ideas — such as a ban on unions’ campaign donations. And that’s how a democracy should function. The country’s two political parties are not on the verge of agreeing about most economic issues.

But something is changing. More politicians are recognizing that the policies of the past several decades have failed to create a broadly prosperous economy. From that emerging consensus may eventually come a longer list of bipartisan legislation designed to lift living standards.

 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/briefing/republicans-inequality-free-market.html

Nah. Republicans have always considered special cases and looked at doing things like that where it makes sense. Nobody on the republican side has ever argued for a TRULY 'free market'.  It generally doesn't work - you need some regulations and occasionally some stimulous to achieve proper function of the market.  The main difference is that republicans see the need for very little and let the market correct problems itself while the dems feel that the market should be heavily controlled and milked for as much money as possible to fund their social spending.

[WestCanMan]

This seems like an excuse for MSM pundits to pull back from being all-out Democrat cheerleaders. They wanna pretend that some Republicans suddenly "stopped being evil" so that they can give some coverage that's 1% unbiased. 

There must have been a media watchdog report that came out showing that coverage of Dems was 97% favourable on some stations while the same stations gave 99% negative coverage to Republicans. 

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

This seems like an excuse for MSM pundits to pull back from being all-out Democrat cheerleaders. They wanna pretend that some Republicans suddenly "stopped being evil" so that they can give some coverage that's 1% unbiased. 

There must have been a media watchdog report that came out showing that coverage of Dems was 97% favourable on some stations while the same stations gave 99% negative coverage to Republicans. 

Yup thats about it.

Also they want to spread the idea that 'even republicans realize that the republicans are unreasonable some times".   It's like "LOOK - even republicans can do the right thing once in a while!"

Republicans have always realized the market isnt' entirely free and some regulation is necessary.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, reason10 said:

Nope. The article (and the failing Treason Times) only reports ITS OPINIONS of what it THINKS people say.

I'm a teacher. And your IQ is 12.

NYT has FAR MORE CREDIBILITY than YOU and your FOS LIES put together. LMAO

[reason10]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

NYT has FAR MORE CREDIBILITY than YOU and your FOS LIES put together. LMAO

WRONG. There is no such thing as FOS LIES. And you are an idi0t.

The Treason Times is nothing more than fake news. Only idi0ts read it.

Fox is the most trusted name in journalism today. Only mor0ns think otherwise.

 

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2013-11-11/graph4.jpg

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kufm/files/styles/x_large/public/201509/MT-news-survey-slide-15.jpg

http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/fox-news-new-logo-fair-and-balanced-most-trusted-most-watched.jpg

 

The Treason Times isn't on any list, you idi0t.

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Contrarian said:

The free market has contributed to technological advancements, job creation, and a higher standard of living.It's an integral part of the economic system that has driven America's prosperity and global influence.

Why, though ?  And how free ?  And when free, and when state-managed ?  These are all questions that take us to the next level of depth beyond one-word platitudes like "freedom".

The state funds money-losing research that allows free markets to build applications... with obvious examples being the space program, and the internet.  The state has to pay for cleanup after the money has been made and the money men have gone home and left behind their mess - see Superfund.  And I'm using American examples here because this is ostensibly THE free market.

But it's not stupid to do this, it's a function of self-organizing and efficient markets that it makes sense to have decentralized decision making and entrepreneurship.  But the accumulation of wealth and power that we are seeing now is turning into the opposite of what free markets are supposed to provide.

And you can look at the inequality in the west today as evidence that "the" system isn't working... You can't yell "Uncle Sugar" whenever referring to government roles... in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2023... because the power, organization, and focus of the US government in those years was entirely different in scope at those times.

The Reagan Revolution presided over a government that would be regarded as socialist today.  

Centrists should have a wider view of history than the last 10 years IMO.

 

[reason10]

The state funds money-losing research that allows free markets to build applications... with obvious examples being the space program, and the internet.  The state has to pay for cleanup after the money has been made and the money men have gone home and left behind their mess - see Superfund.  And I'm using American examples here because this is ostensibly THE free market.

To bring you up to speed with the science of economics, The United States has NEVER been a laissez faire free market economy. Such a thing has NEVER existed in all of human history.

And you can look at the inequality in the west today as evidence that "the" system isn't working... You can't yell "Uncle Sugar" whenever referring to government roles... in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2023... because the power, organization, and focus of the US government in those years was entirely different in scope at those times.

From HUMAN ACTION, written by the greatest economist of all time: Ludwig Von Mises.

The inequality of incomes and wealth is an inherent feature of the market economy. Its elimination would entirely destroy the market economy."
What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume. In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less. When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him. He does not suggest a curtailment of his own income for the benefit of those 95 per cent of the earth's population whose income is lower than his.
The role that income inequality plays in the market society must not be confused with the role it plays in a feudal society or in other types of noncapitalistic societie~Y.~e t in the course of historical evolution this precapitalistic inequality was of momentous importance.
Let us compare the history of China with that of England. China has developed a very high civilization. Two thousand years ago it was far ahead of England. But at the end of the nineteenth century England was a rich and civilized country while China was poor. Its civilization did not differ much from the stage it had already
reached ages before. It was an arrested civilization. China had tried to realize the principle of income equality to a
greater extent than did England. Land holdings were divided and subdivided. There was no class of landless proletarians. But in eighteenth-century England this class was very numerous. For a very long time the restrictive practices of nonagricultural business, sanctified by traditional ideologies, delayed the emergence of modern entrepre neurship.
But when the laissez-faire philosophy had opened the way for capitalism by utterly destroying the fallacies of restrictionism, the evolution of industrialism could proceed at an accelerated pace because the labor force needed was already available.

In other words, you liberals don't really want equality of income. You just want to take from those who have more than you have. You do not want to give a massive portion of YOUR income to the starving masses in the world.

The Reagan Revolution presided over a government that would be regarded as socialist today.  
Centrists should have a wider view of history than the last 10 years IMO.

When people like you say such things, I start to wonder if your schools are run by meth addicted teachers who sit in their chairs all day and teach NOTHING.

An American president does not PRESIDE over the government. The American government is THREE separate and EQUAL branches.

The Reagan model was one of a single person having to fight a hostile Congress to get anything done. Reagan's tax cuts gave America the greatest and LONGEST stretch of prosperity in history. His deregulation of oil caused gasoline prices to PLUMMET.

But he was never able to PRESIDE over baseline budgeting, which caused ENTITLEMENT spending to mushroom and become the LARGEST item on the budget. (Only Congress could overturn the Budget And Impoundment Act, that Nixon signed into law in the early Seventies.) And remember, the LAST time the American federal budget was balanced was in 1969, during the Vietnam War, when Defense was the largest budget item.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by reason10

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, reason10 said:

 

1. To bring you up to speed with the science of economics, The United States has NEVER been a laissez faire free market economy. Such a thing has NEVER existed in all of human history.

2. In other words, you liberals don't really want equality of income. You just want to take from those who have more than you have.

3. You do not want to give a massive portion of YOUR income to the starving masses in the world.

4. An American president does not PRESIDE over the government. The American government is THREE separate and EQUAL branches.

5. And remember, the LAST time the American federal budget was balanced was in 1969, during the Vietnam War, when Defense was the largest budget item.

 

 

1. Thanks for "bringing me up to speed" ... by restating my point....
2. Isn't "taking from those who have" the opposite of a laissze-faire economy ?  And 'liberal' small-l means someone who supports economic and personal liberty so readjust your use of that word.  Nobody here, especially me, is asking for total equality.
3. I do that by buying goods made in developing countries, duh.
4. Yes this is a fair point, but we should use it reflexively when blaming presidents also.  They do set the tone, as Trump did with massive tax cuts, deficit spending etc.  But you made a point.
5. By the biggest tax-and-spend liberal in some of our lifetimes: LBJ.  Man, he was great wasn't he ?  But I'm breaking your rule of blaming/crediting presidents where it's not due...

[Deluge]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:32 PM, BeaverFever said:

So basically SOME Republicans are starting to accept what liberals and unions have been saying for 40 years and what republicans used to scream was communism. 
 

But that’s always hoe it goes. Liberals have the new ideas -it’s what the word liberal means - while conservatives scream and denounce the new idea -it’s what the word conservative means- and then eventually conservatives say “yep I supported it the whole time, just pay no attention to anything I said on the topic before last week!”

I don't give a shit who's doing what until the prices come down. What are you government sluts doing to solve the inflation problem? 

[reason10]

 

2. Isn't "taking from those who have" the opposite of a laissze-faire economy ?  And 'liberal' small-l means someone who supports economic and personal liberty so readjust your use of that word.  Nobody here, especially me, is asking for total equality.

Back when Ludwig Von Mises wrote Human Action, the word "liberal" meant Laissez-faire free market capitalism. The word's meaning changed in the early Sixties, thanks to the Port Huron Statement. It began to stand for national socialism, government being the ATM for lazy bums, etc.

3. I do that by buying goods made in developing countries, duh.

No you don't. Buying goods is not the same as GIVING AWAY YOUR MONEY. When you buy goods, you get value for value. If you buy a lot of stuff manufactured in China, it's possible you are making businesses with SLAVE LABOR rich. But you at no time would consider sending a check for 3/4 of your income to GIVE to poor people in other countries (getting no value in return) just to make it fair. I imagine you'd be screaming bloody murder at that.

4. Yes this is a fair point, but we should use it reflexively when blaming presidents also.  They do set the tone, as Trump did with massive tax cuts, deficit spending etc.  But you made a point.

Actually, President Trump signed tax cuts into law that were passed by Congress. If you want to look at the things he did individually, they would be the Executive Orders. The deregulation, etc. Just like Reagan, Trump's deregulation exec orders went a long way towards expanding the economy, keeping fuel prices low, etc. The tax cuts brought record numbers of jobs back from the Far East.

5. By the biggest tax-and-spend liberal in some of our lifetimes: LBJ.  Man, he was great wasn't he ?  But I'm breaking your rule of blaming/crediting presidents where it's not due...

LBJ and the Democrat Congress did more damage to this country than World Wars 1 and 2. He escalated the Vietnam War, which cost THOUSANDS of lives. His Great Society spending completely DESTROYED the black family unit. (Today, 75 percent of all black children are born into and raised by single parent households.THAT'S what the welfare state did.) And if you think about it, taking money from those who produce and giving it to those who do not, comes kinda close to the agenda Ludwig Von Mises suggested, in the "equality" thing.

The Great Society, the WAR ON POVERTY has created more poverty in this country than at any other time. Other Democrat presidents and Congresses only made things worse.

 

 

[reason10]

On 6/20/2023 at 6:32 PM, BeaverFever said:

So basically SOME Republicans are starting to accept what liberals and unions have been saying for 40 years and what republicans used to scream was communism. 
 

But that’s always hoe it goes. Liberals have the new ideas -it’s what the word liberal means - while conservatives scream and denounce the new idea -it’s what the word conservative means- and then eventually conservatives say “yep I supported it the whole time, just pay no attention to anything I said on the topic before last week!”

Excuse me, but THIS

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Manifesto of the Communist Party

---

Written: Late 1847;
First Published: February 1848;
Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137;
Translated: Samuel Moore in cooperation with Frederick Engels, 1888;
Transcription/Markup: Zodiac and Brian Baggins;
Proofed: and corrected against 1888 English Edition by Andy Blunden 2004;
Copyleft: Marx/Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1987, 2000. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.

 

is not a new idea. And basically it's ALL the liberals today have to offer.

And it has FAILED every time and everywhere it has been tried.

 

[BeaverFever]

On 6/21/2023 at 8:58 AM, Contrarian said:

So, are you suggesting that unions and liberals are the only ones holding the secret decoder ring of truth?

I don't know man, some disagree: 

Well apparently so because whenever liberals and unions said  these things over the past few decades , Republicans screamed that such ideas were communist propaganda . Now Republicans are saying them without giving credit where credit is due. 

[BeaverFever]

20 hours ago, Deluge said:

I don't give a shit who's doing what until the prices come down. What are you government sluts doing to solve the inflation problem? 

Your constant use of the word “slut” as an insult to everyone and everything you don’t like leads me to suspect your computer has a trove of pornography depicting women being abused and degraded

[BeaverFever]

On 6/21/2023 at 6:31 PM, CdnFox said:

Nah. Republicans have always considered special cases and looked at doing things like that where it makes sense. Nobody on the republican side has ever argued for a TRULY 'free market'.  It generally doesn't work - you need some regulations and occasionally some stimulous to achieve proper function of the market.  The main difference is that republicans see the need for very little and let the market correct problems itself while the dems feel that the market should be heavily controlled and milked for as much money as possible to fund their social spending.

This is clearly a pivot from traditional Republican talking points they’ve never said these things before, in fact they’ve always said the opposite.
 

Everything said in the OP above could he heard in the Occupy Wall Street protests or a Michael Moore film, just Remember how Republicans responded to those:  Any criticism of capitalism is socialism, the “free market” must be allowed to do as it pleases for better or for worse, the most dangerous words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”

[Rebound]

On 6/21/2023 at 11:25 PM, Contrarian said:

To the OP, @BeaverFever who I know is a reasonable man, not an agitator like @NYLefty. 

The free market principle, championed by visionary leaders like Paul Ryan, and Ronald Reagan has played a crucial role in America's success, fostering innovation, competition, and economic growth. It promotes individual liberty, entrepreneurship, and resource allocation based on consumer demand.

The free market has contributed to technological advancements, job creation, and a higher standard of living.It's an integral part of the economic system that has driven America's prosperity and global influence.

So, what are you saying? Some in the <- leftist media are suggesting that some Republicans can't keep up and need Uncle Sam to intervene?!

The free market capitalists made a fortune by outsourcing their manufacturing to slave wage-paid Chinese factory workers, then their leader Trump declared that China somehow stole something from us and acted unfairly. 
 

Remind me who profited when Steve Jobs moved his factories from California to China? 
 

Adam Smith argued that government is a necessity in a free market economy. If you think government has no role in an economy, you aren’t a capitalist, you’re an anarchist. What’s more, Wealth of Nations was written in 1776.  The world has changed incomprehensibly since then.  To suggest that the economic principles of 1776 apply exactly the same in the year 2023 is ludicrous.  Yes, I agree with free market capitalism, but I don’t think we can treat a 250 year-old book as if it’s a religious document either.  

Edited June 23, 2023 by Rebound

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

1. The free market capitalists made a fortune by outsourcing their manufacturing to slave wage-paid Chinese factory workers, then their leader Trump declared that China somehow stole something from us and acted unfairly. 

2. Remind me who profited when Steve Jobs moved his factories from California to China? 
 

3. Adam Smith argued that government is a necessity in a free market economy. If you think government has no role in an economy, you aren’t a capitalist, you’re an anarchist. What’s more, Wealth of Nations was written in 1776.  The world has changed incomprehensibly since then.  

4. To suggest that the economic principles of 1776 apply exactly the same in the year 2023 is ludicrous.  

5. Yes, I agree with free market capitalism, but I don’t think we can treat a 250 year-old book as if it’s a religious document either.  

1. Not quite.  The wages are only 'slave' in comparison to our on-shore wages.  Locally, they're more than competitive which is why Chinese farm workers flock to the cities for these jobs and save money, and send it back home.
2. Apple, the workers in China, and the consumers did.  
3. Sure, but like Das Kapital these are economics 'classics' that were never negated, only built upon.  Both Smith and Marx provide real insight, although they couldn't have foreseen the direction that the political economy took in the decades that followed.
4. The 'principles' indeed do: the invisible hand, the cyclical nature of economies, the behaviour of capitalists are still ring true.
5. Reading your post, I knew that THIS was your main point all along and of course you are correct.  

[Rebound]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not quite.  The wages are only 'slave' in comparison to our on-shore wages.  Locally, they're more than competitive which is why Chinese farm workers flock to the cities for these jobs and save money, and send it back home.
2. Apple, the workers in China, and the consumers did.  
3. Sure, but like Das Kapital these are economics 'classics' that were never negated, only built upon.  Both Smith and Marx provide real insight, although they couldn't have foreseen the direction that the political economy took in the decades that followed.
4. The 'principles' indeed do: the invisible hand, the cyclical nature of economies, the behaviour of capitalists are still ring true.
5. Reading your post, I knew that THIS was your main point all along and of course you are correct.  

I disagree with you about the wages.  I’ve been to Shenzhen and nobody from that massive city will take a factory job. It is only peasants from the countryside who live as subsistence farmers who take that on.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

I disagree with you about the wages.  I’ve been to Shenzhen and nobody from that massive city will take a factory job. It is only peasants from the countryside who live as subsistence farmers who take that on.  

Right, but they are leaving jobs to take those right ?  And as I said they send money home.  

Of course no Canadian, even the poorest, would work at that rate.  Cost of living is lower which allows for this to happen.

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Your constant use of the word “slut” as an insult to everyone and everything you don’t like leads me to suspect your computer has a trove of pornography depicting women being abused and degraded

It's a special word reserved strictly for people like you. 

And your general disregard for life, freedom, tradition, pretty much anything that's worth fighting for is inexcusable.