A Republican's take on democratic front runners

This is beyond frustrating for me. My entire adult life, I’ve have never read or heard a conservative tell the truth or avoid abject ignorance when it comes to economic matters, and/or social programs. Never. If it’s a social program as the trigger, they simply can’t get beyond their ideological assumptions enough to be honest. Ever.

First off, the richest 1% in America hold, roughly, 50 trillion — that we know about. If the Green New Deal costs that much over ten years — and I don’t believe right-wing or centrist estimates on the costs — all of that money plus profits would be easily recouped in dollar terms, not to mention social and environmental benefits.

Conservatives, without fail, seem to believe that if “gubmint” initiates something, all the money spent disappears, never to be seen again. Gubmint programs “cost” trillions. They never, ever, apparently generate economic activity and profits. But if the private sector initiates it, money magically multiplies like free range rabbits. In reality, Warren’s minuscule (two-penny) tax on the super rich would all end up back in their own pockets, plus profits, at least indirectly. They own the means of production. Who else would end up with it?

(Even flat out payments to the poor end up back in the pockets of the rich — which is one of the reasons why I’d much rather have a true socialist economy than a social democratic one. Rather than government supplements to make up for the grotesque inequalities of capitalism, I’d prefer a system that doesn’t allow the inequalities in the first place, so no “social safety net” is needed.)

The GND would create ginormous amounts of new jobs, radically improve the economy, increase exports, raise productivity, increase all health metrics (including literally saving lives), which increases productivity and saves a fortune . . . along with helping to save the planet. Sadly, it’s not radical enough. But it’s a huge step in the right direction. Those who argue against it on matters of costs are, at best, incredibly ignorant. At worst, cynically manipulating the general ignorance of Americans.

Billy_T wrote:

. . . along with helping to save the planet. Sadly, it’s not radical enough. But it’s a huge step in the right direction. Those who argue against it on matters of costs are, at best, incredibly ignorant. At worst, cynically manipulating the general ignorance of Americans.

—————-

Well to me, that article raises fundamental questions about the revered ‘Constitution.’

And my question is, IF this constitution allows the poisoning of poor people, so that rich people can profit, then what the hell is the point of it? Etc, and so forth.

w
v

Another quick observation about the difference between public and private investment:

In my experience, the right, in general, doesn’t see public sector investment as investment. It sees it as confiscation. And if it ever acknowledges the word, it refuses to admit that public investment can ever have positive returns.

Its view of the private sector, of course, is markedly different. It sees capitalist machinery as investment for the good, and with positive returns.

The dominant narrative used to be quite different in America, at least during the Keynesian era . . . before Reagan. Public investment was considered a good back then overall. Conservatives certainly tried to counter that narrative, but they generally failed. But from Reagan on, they’ve owned the scene, and the center/center-left have basically ceded all of that ground to the right. It’s incredibly rare today to hear a Dem even try to make a positive case for public spending, programs, etc. etc . . . at least on the grounds of “investment for the common good.” At least beyond the new DSA members.

This needs to change, or this planet simply won’t sustain most life. Roaches, viruses, and so on, sure. But not much aside from that.