------------------------
Dr. Reich doesn't explain what Socialism is, but yet he is able to make mention of many government programs that are Socialist in nature. But the purpose of the article is to claim that America is not Socialist.
Dr. Reich seems unable to put together a procession of ideas. In fact, he explains absolutely nothing.
Friends,
I keep hearing a lot about “socialism” these days, mainly from Donald Trump and Fox News, trying to scare Americans about initiatives like a Green New Deal, universal child care, free public higher education, and higher taxes on the super-wealthy to pay for these.
Well, I’m here to ask you to ignore the scaremongering. (Why would we need to avoid being scared? Is Socialism scary?)
First, these initiatives are overwhelmingly supported by most Americans. (The support something has does not speak to its nature.
Further, Dr. Reich puts "Socialism" in scare quotes, which implies that the programs he listed aren't Socialism. But if they aren't Socialist, why would we need to ignore the scaremongering?
He seems to be doing a dance. He doesn't actually deny these programs are Socialist but doesn't affirm they are Socialist.)
Second, for the last 85 years, conservative Republicans have been yelling “socialism” at every initiative designed to help most Americans. (What Republicans have been yelling about Socialism does not define the nature of Socialism.)
It was the scare word used by the Liberty League in 1935 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed Social Security. (Still doing the dance...)
In 1952, President Harry Truman noted that “Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.” (What epithets have been hurled towards Socialism do not define the nature of Socialism.)
Truman went on to say: “Socialism is what they called public power … Social Security … bank deposit insurance ... free and independent labor organizations ... anything that helps all the people.” (So helping people is different than Socialism? In what way?)
Second, for the last 85 years, conservative Republicans have been yelling “socialism” at every initiative designed to help most Americans. (What Republicans have been yelling about Socialism does not define the nature of Socialism.)
It was the scare word used by the Liberty League in 1935 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed Social Security. (Still doing the dance...)
In 1952, President Harry Truman noted that “Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.” (What epithets have been hurled towards Socialism do not define the nature of Socialism.)
Truman went on to say: “Socialism is what they called public power … Social Security … bank deposit insurance ... free and independent labor organizations ... anything that helps all the people.” (So helping people is different than Socialism? In what way?)
Truman concluded by noting, “When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan ‘Down With Socialism’ … what he really means is, ‘Down with Progress.’” (Oh, ok. It's not Socialism, it's progress.)
Third, if we don’t want to live in a survival-of-the-fittest society in which only the richest and most powerful can endure, (The alternative to Socialism is everyone dies except for the rich?)
Third, if we don’t want to live in a survival-of-the-fittest society in which only the richest and most powerful can endure, (The alternative to Socialism is everyone dies except for the rich?)
government has to do three basic things: regulate corporations, provide social insurance against unforeseen hardships, and support public investments such as schools and public transportation. (Apparently because none of this is currently happening. There are no corporate regulations, social insurance programs, public schools or public transportation currently in existence, correct?)
All of these require that we pool our resources for the common good. (But that's not Socialism...
All of these require that we pool our resources for the common good. (But that's not Socialism...
And by the way, who is this "we?" "We" is not you and me, despite the innocuous characterization of how "we" need to pool our resources. "We" is actually government extracting money from people via taxation and spending it on other people. Therefore, you don't get to keep the money you worked for, it is given to others who did not earn it.)
Regardless of whether this is called democratic socialism (Oh, so it is Socialism? But, but...)
Regardless of whether this is called democratic socialism (Oh, so it is Socialism? But, but...)
or enlightened capitalism, (There is no such thing.)
all are necessary for a decent society. (Um, sir. This is the matter to be demonstrated. Dr. Reich, you need to engage the logical process. You need to explain something, anything. You don't just get to jump to a conclusion without explaining how you know these things.)
Fourth and finally, America spends very little on social programs compared to other industrialized nations. (What is spent on social programs does not define the nature of those programs.)
As a result, almost 30 million Americans still lack health insurance, (Despite Obamacare? How is this possible?)
Fourth and finally, America spends very little on social programs compared to other industrialized nations. (What is spent on social programs does not define the nature of those programs.)
As a result, almost 30 million Americans still lack health insurance, (Despite Obamacare? How is this possible?)
nearly 51 million households can’t afford basic monthly expenses including housing, food, child care, and transportation. (Despite Bidenomics? How is this possible?)
And we’re the only industrialized nation without paid family leave. (Dr. Reich previously extolled the virtues of a plethora of government programs, which he obtusely identified as democratic socialism. Many of these programs have been in place for decades, yet we still have all these problems.
So if "democratic Socialism" is so wonderful, why are seniors still having to choose between eating and paying for heat? Why are public schools such a disaster? Why are the rich getting richer? Why is the Social Security Trust Fund empty?
What problems has this particular brand of Socialism solved?)
Most Americans who lose their jobs are not eligible for unemployment benefits. We provide less unemployment insurance than nearly every other advanced country. (How we compare to other countries' social programs does not define the nature of those programs.)
We’re also among the worst when it comes to reducing poverty, especially child poverty. ("Reducing" child poverty tells us nothing about the level of child poverty. It's a lot easier to show big numbers in the reduction of child poverty if the level of child poverty is high.
Most Americans who lose their jobs are not eligible for unemployment benefits. We provide less unemployment insurance than nearly every other advanced country. (How we compare to other countries' social programs does not define the nature of those programs.)
We’re also among the worst when it comes to reducing poverty, especially child poverty. ("Reducing" child poverty tells us nothing about the level of child poverty. It's a lot easier to show big numbers in the reduction of child poverty if the level of child poverty is high.
What we really want to know is how do various countries stack up as far as objective measures of poverty?
This is a good example of the manipulation of language employed by Leftists like Dr. Reich.)
Only 36 percent of Americans have government-subsidized health insurance. (Astonishingly, Dr. Reich considers government-subsidized health insurance to be good and desirable. So let's crunch some numbers. But first it's important to note that health insurance is not health care. A person can receive health care without health insurance.
Only 36 percent of Americans have government-subsidized health insurance. (Astonishingly, Dr. Reich considers government-subsidized health insurance to be good and desirable. So let's crunch some numbers. But first it's important to note that health insurance is not health care. A person can receive health care without health insurance.
Previously Dr. Reich claimed that almost 30 million Americans lack health insurance, which is about 9.23%. If 35% have government health care that means 54.77% of Americans are insured apart from the government. That is, the majority of Americans are not subsidized. This apparently is bad, but he doesn't explain why.
The reason it's bad is because government isn't in control. Leftists love to control people. So there's only one reason to get more people sucking from the government teat: It's easier to control them.)
Other advanced countries provide better access to health care, and also better health care outcomes. (Term switching. Health insurance is not health care.)
Fewer than 30 percent of working Americans have access to paid family leave. (??? Previously he claimed, "And we’re the only industrialized nation without paid family leave." So we do have paid family leave.
Fewer than 30 percent of working Americans have access to paid family leave. (??? Previously he claimed, "And we’re the only industrialized nation without paid family leave." So we do have paid family leave.
Apparently all businesses should be forced to provide paid family leave, serving the government agenda instead of their own business interests.)
Again, the contrast with other advanced nations is stark. Almost all their citizens get paid leave. (Apparently there are no economic side effects to these programs. They don't cost anyone any money, they don't have an effect on productivity, they don't influence the cost of products.)
And while people in most other countries get 3-5 weeks of paid vacation, Americans on average get only 11 days. (Apparently there are no economic side effects to these programs. They don't cost anyone any money, they don't have an effect on productivity, they don't influence the cost of products.)
We force young people to go deep into debt to finance their college educations. Most other advanced nations provide debt-free education. (There is no such thing as debt-free education.)
We offer families almost no support for child care and elder care. Other advanced nations subsidize child care and elder care. (Apparently there are no economic side effects to these programs. They don't cost anyone any money, they don't have an effect on productivity, they don't influence the cost of products.)
Our Social Security retirement benefits are skimpy as compared to the generous retirement benefits of other advanced countries. (Apparently there are no economic side effects to these programs. They don't cost anyone any money, they don't have an effect on productivity, they don't influence the cost of products.)
No, America doesn’t have socialism. We practice extreme capitalism. (But, but, but... We have Social Security, welfare, progressive taxation, 30% are given paid leave, 36% have government-subsidized health insurance, our corporations are heavily regulated, we have huge investments in public education, the arts, and scientific research. We spend billions on public transportation, unemployment insurance, and worker safety programs.
But there is no Socialism?
And by the way, there is no such thing as "extreme capitalism.")
Yet for one group of Americans, America is socialist. (Let's see if Dr. Reich will finally explain Socialism.)
Executives who run their companies into the ground get gold-plated exit packages even as their workers get pink slips. (This is a feature of Socialism?)
Boeing’s outgoing CEO could get a “golden parachute” worth as much as $45 million. The CEO before him got one worth $62 million on his way out the door in 2019. (This is a feature of Socialism?)
After a security breach at Equifax that exposed the personal information of 145 million customers to hackers, CEO Richard Smith retired with an $18 million pension. (This is a feature of Socialism?)
The Wells Fargo CEO in charge of the unit that opened more than 2 million unauthorized consumer accounts departed with a $125 million exit package. (This is a feature of Socialism?)
Meanwhile, thousands of big American corporations are raking in billions each year in government subsidies, bailouts, and tax loopholes, all funded by taxpayers. (This is a feature of Socialism?)
Yet because they don’t pay their lowest-paid workers a living wage, many have to rely on programs like food stamps and Medicaid. (This is a feature of Socialism?)
Corporations that don’t pay their lowest-paid workers a living wage in effect get fat government subsidies. (This is a feature of Socialism?)
This government largesse raises stock prices for the richest 1 percent, who own half of the stock market, as well as CEOs and other top executives who are paid largely in shares of stock. (This is a feature of Socialism?)
Of course other advanced countries generally have higher taxes than the United States to support all these benefits — especially taxes on the rich. (He finally lets the cat out of the bag. We need to pay more taxes.)
Yet in America, the rich have done such a good job convincing people that any increase in public benefits would be … you know, that S word … that we just accept things as they are. (No, we resist the decades-long march towards Socialism. We don't want your world, Dr. Reich. It has a long history of genocide, oppression, and torture. No, sir, we take a pass.)
All of this is a major reason why America has such staggering levels of inequality and poverty. (Despite decades of advancing Socialism. May you're the cause, Dr. Reich?)
We’re the richest nation in the history of the world, yet many Americans are insecure. Almost one-fifth of our children are impoverished.
America has socialism for the rich. Almost everyone else is subject to unnecessary levels of anxiety or hardship.
No comments:
Post a Comment