The Democratic Party needs to use this argument as their major talking point when selling these plans. People can understand that if they don't fix their roof now, it will cost them a fortune later to fix the damage. We need simple concepts for people to grab onto.
Maybe it's that we just don't like change, and that goes for me too. Who knows, maybe the roof will hold out a little longer and we can just deal with it later or we'll be in better place with our money later on to get it fixed. It seems that we only really fix things once we kow they're really broken. So how do we convince ourselves that things are breaking down quickly and the time to act is right now? Unfortunately it comes to down to facts, figures, studies by the many groups, institutions and government that many of us in this country tend to dismiss outright. I agree 1000% with today's message, but the only way I see it getting out is where we have a President like a JFK spearheading it, much like JFK did in his straightforward appeals for getting us to the moon. All the great things that came out of that effort are a matter of history, but JFK didn't let the details of those things cloud the main message.
Today's republican party is the new confederacy. The anti-federalists never wanted a democracy, they only want power. This country, the richest in the whole history of this planet, cannot be taken down by any foreign power, it can only be taken down from within, and that is exactly what the republican party is trying to do. This is the new civil war, and the Democrats are not up to the challenge. After the citizens united decision, the rich now own "our" government and everything goes to them, including the republican party and even some democrats too. We have already lost "our" democracy. I'm glad I'll die soon so that I won't have to witness the death of the United States of America.
The public is being brainwashed, and has been for decades, by the hidden/unannounced Republican mantra: Make as much money as you can regardless of the way(s) you can get away with. The Dems. not so secret one though too timidly, at least up to now, put forth by J.B. and the surge of women activists, is to promote the overall well-being of all who live here. The Rep. ultimate weapon is to hurl the charge of "socialism" at us. Do not be tempted to defend it. Just say, "I have no idea what you're talking about." That's throwing the issue back in their lap and forcing them to explain what they mean. Then they will try 'capitalism" as the reason. Answer: No, it was the physical and mental labor of millions of workers/laborers.
Jeffrey, we have suffered from excessive timidity for years. Harry Truman lambasted Republicans for labeling everything that helped the public "socialism." Why don't we label it the common good, and make the common good of central importance? Why don't we define patriotism as adherence to the common good?
i would argue that instead of saying "I have no idea what you're talking about" we say "yes, so what?" the countries that have a strong safety net are actually the ones that repeatedly rank as the happiest countries in the world. What is wrong with community thinking? What is wrong with helping each other? I would say we challenge the fear in this country of socialism or simply redefine it. We don't need to use that word, but we do need to stick up for a social safety net and more equality.
Agreed. It's just like letting the GOP define "liberal" as a bad thing. Take this from Wikipedia -- what's un-American about this? Isn't this the supposed ethos of America: "a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy."
Why do the Dems have ZERO ability to control the discourse?
I would be interested in Robert Reich's answer to this since he has been in government. My own hunch is that, among other things, Democrats lack courage that Republicans have. They are always scared.
Melissa, the essential problem is that Democrats don't have a clear idea what they're seeking (or else their pursuit of corporate money has clouded their minds). Republicans used to convey a clear idea -- limited government, individual freedom, tough on foreign policy. It was wrong but it was coherent. And they labeled Democrats as "tax and spend." Of course, today's Republicans have no idea what they stand for other than Donald Trump. But doesn't the current void in the current Republican message open the way for Democrats, progressives, and others who care about the common good to fashion a coherent set of ideas around that it?
Perhaps the question is whether the current political system is too compromised by big money to wean itself from its overwhelming influence. Campaign finance reform is often raised as a solution, but never really materializes. Neither major party can tear itself away from the trough, and that's partly because the costs of running a political campaign at all levels is very high. Sound bites, rallies, advertising blitzes, national travel on a chartered jet, and the whole paraphernalia of modern politicking suck up huge amounts of cash, which makes the big donors more powerful (irrespective of whether we would consider them benign or malicious). I don't know what the solution is, maybe Dr. Reich has a prescription, or Bernie Sanders or someone else with the experience and background to really understand the system from within.
Steven Ugoretz; Bernie Sanders is one person who started campaigning with small donor, grass roots money, and had huge crowds. Mainstream media along with faux news and 'conservative' media are bought, owned and paid for corporate interests, who do everything they can to put out negative messages about the likes of Bernie Sanders, and others who are mentored by him. The Socialist epithet is hurled along with lies and distortions. The DNC itself threw Bernie under the bus. He looked like a winner and should have been, but the greedheads and their media blocked him.
It also has a very good understanding of structural features of our system that facilitate minority power. The "founding fathers" themselves were not fans of majority rule and designed a system that is full of checks on the power of the majority, who they well understood were "have nots." Historian Charles Beard's book, An Economic Interpretation of the US Constitution, deserves a revival.
The corruption of language is a pervasive problem. A word that once had a clear meaning gradually comes to mean something else and sometimes its opposite, and is no longer is useful. Time to abandon "socialism" - it is now so corrupted that it no longer has a clear meaning and has a negative connotation.
An example: Before a joint session of Congress shortly after the 2001 airplane high jackings Bush said this: "Tonight, we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done."
Bush said "justice" but context suggests he clearly meant "vengeance". In the South where I grew up people talked about "Vigilante Justice" ie, lynchings. So what does "justice" really mean? It depends on context, which renders "justice" ambiguous and less useful. The same now with "socialism". Time for a new word.
interesting. I guess the question is whether it will be harder (and by harder, I mean the $$ to get the message out) to introduce new words or to redefine existing ones. I don't have an answer and not opposed to new words, just would want to know what is doable given limited $$ for messaging. I don't know.
You are smart enough to be in this forum, and I think more people will visit. I have told a few about how positive it is. That is a start. I'm not wealthy, but I can contribute, and I have in the past. Look how much small dollar donors have helped Bernie Sanders in the past! This is a positive development.
Another world is possible because another world is affordable. Get rid of unnecessary corporate subsidies, cut defense spending for equipment and planes and bases and other military expenditures that make zero sense given today's geopolitical realities, and properly fund the IRS to gather up all the taxes the wealthy and corporations are hiding....then the money we need to fund a decent society will seem like a drop in the bucket.
The Biden administration should draft an Environmental Impact Assessment of the Build Back Better plan that includes an evaluation of the "do nothing alternative." That would provide those of us interested in facts and believe in science a tool to push back against the charge that it is too costly. I am becoming a 'fatalist' that the Republican's won't wake up until it's too late.
My first thought is, "It’s like thinking about putting money in the meter. You can take a chance, but doing nothing may result of getting a ticket that costs 10x more."
The second is; the first scene of the premier in ‘The Network’. When Jeff Daniels is asked repeatedly, “what does he think of American greatness?”
He finally answers that he doesn't think we're so great and rattles off a litany of examples such as education, health care, life expectancy etc. where the U.S. is not #1 and not even in the top 10 compared to industrialized nations in each category!!
We spend over $750 Billion on defense. More than the next 16 countries combined!
To defend what?? Our quality of life should be just as important, if not more.
Aren’t the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over? Why aren’t we reducing $100+ Billion off of that?
Very powerful comment. This should be repeated loudly and often. And of course, the news media never ask how defense bills will be paid for. The news media also don't probe or question the claim that tax cuts will be paid for by "growth," when the evidence clearly shows otherwise. A commenter a few days ago mentioned that a bill for aid to Israel sailed through Congress with no CBO score needed. Showering Israelis with our taxpayer money is a given, while addressing critical problems and improving Americans' lives must be questioned to death.
Other than Bernie Sanders, I have not heard our political leaders addressing this in a manner that resonates, even by Build Back Better's most ardent supporters. That has allowed the news media and conservatives to portray its provisions as luxuries that we might possibly consider sometime in the future when the sun, the moon, and the stars are in perfect alignment...
We typically employ myopic math in public policy as well as our daily lives. It's worse than you describe. Long-term costs are left out of the discussion, and so are long-term benefits. Our decisions have life-cycles whose full costs and benefits that usually remain unidentified and uncounted. Industries "externalize" as many costs as they can to keep their products competitively priced. Special interests understate the true costs of the policies they advocate to make them more politically appealing. The public health and environmental impacts of fossil fuels are prominent examples. They are enormous, but they are not reflected in the prices we pay for oil, natural gas, and coal. Kids with asthma, damaged ecosystems, and the victims of climate disasters pay them. Because our decisions have such widespread and long-term consequences today, we need a new math that counts all life-cycle costs and benefits as completely as possible. We'd have far fewer unintentional and underhanded adverse consequences.
100% agree with everything you said. It's baffling that we don't take into consideration the cost of doing nothing into the analysis and how we present the information to readers and citizens. In school, we are taught to think critically yet the way the news is delivered in this country is so shallow without proper analysis and critical thinking. It's mind-boggling and maybe also says something about our education system. The only nuance to all this that I want to add and what bothers me is that we also don't get told where the money is going precisely and how we will measure results. I am happy the money is going towards good causes but a small part of me is always concerned about corruption, especially when we're talking about billions of dollars. That said, I am happy to see us move in the direction of helping people. Canada has universal healthcare that is not attached to one's employer. That gives citizens a lot more freedom in general to speak out about things, to seek other employment, etc. There's a huge freedom there that is lost in the US when each person is so dependent on their employer for healthcare. I can also vouch for the fact that the healthcare system in Canada is GREAT regardless of how the conservative media may spin it.
I would question whether we’re taught to think critically in school anymore. I was, but that was a long time ago. If that were still the case Fox News would have no power and the New York Times would do exactly what you’re saying should be done.
What amazes me is that the 1%ers appear to believe that the dire consequences of business as usual will not affect them. No matter how many millions you have, you're breathing the same air, drinking the same water, eating the same food. A collapse of the world economy, more severe weather events, etc. are non-discriminatory, and there's no place to flee to when thinks really tank. Where will their profits go when nobody can afford their products? How will they staff their factories and offices when millions are ill, schools are closed, and transportation is unaffordable? It should be patently obvious that investing in the greater good, is an investment in their own futures, and an insurance policy against very dire consequences. So, why are we headed for the cliff with the rich flooring the gas pedal?
Steve, Most publicly-traded corporations report operating results every three months. If a company's results "exceed expectations" the price of the company's stock goes up. When the price of the company's stock goes up, the value of the executives' stock options, which they received as major part of their compensation, goes up proportionally. This process rewards extreme short-term decision making. Not healthy for the company or the environment, or even ultimately for the shareholders.
is there a creative solution for this? Ie., some way we don't completely reinvent everything (since that's not realistic) but work within the existing system. How do we shift away from short-term prioritizing given this?
Fifty years ago influential economist Milton Friedman wrote a piece that said corporate managers have only one responsibility: Maximize Shareholder Value. That was just what corporate managers needed to hear. No more being a good corporate citizen no more obligation to society. Just make as much money for shareholders as you can.
yes, I just wonder if this view can be reconciled in some way with not being so short-term focused? In other words, I am approaching this from the position of starting where we are and i don't see us necessarily changing the piece of corporations being profit-driven (although I do hope we would turn citizens united one day). I wonder if there's a way to force them to report earnings that takes a longer view...or some other nuanced solution. In other words, if someone asked us for what we would change, what would we say? I don't see corporations going away completely, or stopping to focus mostly on profits. Given this starting point, are there ways we can encourage companies to think more long-term? Maybe there are not but worth discussing.
Eventually, if they have not figured it out already, they will find that trillions will be worthless. The pandemic gave a little preview of what's to come if we don't start caring about the common good!
Thank you so much for this opportunity to express my opinion. I feel we "all" have so much to say and hope someone is listening. Great therapy!
Just thinking ..in the future" maybe if possible you can have a petition on certain "issues" like the "right to vote " or whatever. Since your site here is growing someone reading the petition just might pay attention!
This all makes perfect sense to anyone capable of thinking logically. The challenge is to convince two particular Senate Democrats who, apparently, are incapable of this way of thinking and/or have ulterior motives.
The larger and as pressing a challenge is how to convince the supporters of no-nothing Republicans that we must work to solve these massive problems that face us as individuals, as communities and as a country.
The point has been made that if we had diddled around on the eve of World War II asking 'but how will we pay for it', or 'I don't want my taxes going up', we'd be a colony of a greatly-enlarged Nazi Germany and a militaristic, expansionist Japan. You know, the scenario that Philip K. Dick painted in his book, "The Man in the High Castle" that was later finagled and changed significantly to make a television series of the same name.
That's what can happen if you do nothing: America shrinks in wealth and security during the Chinese Century, when democracies no longer exist in this world and every tribal country is run by a 'strongman' who knows all, can fix all, and has total control (Trump's recurring wet dream). Meanwhile, fires are endless, coastal communities have been destroyed and abandoned, our water supply shrunk and poisoned, riots, plagues - you know the list of everything we want to avoid.
But the question remains: how to get through to the 'unthinking masses', in their irrationality. That is, those who are uneducated and for whatever reason, don't think logically, are prone to baseless fears, to dictators and to crazy conspiracy theories.
So true! But getting those two Senators on board (and why not a few Republicans?) will get BBB moving and we can begin... begin to get the ball rolling on addressing some of the issues at hand. I think that's the priority. Convincing the "unthinking masses" can come later... if it's even possible. As they see BID and BBB start to do their things (with some accompanying PR that the Dems aren't too good at), maybe... just maybe... they'll start to come around, at least the ones who start to care more about the country (and the planet) surviving than they do about seeing Biden fail.
It seems that someone is listening to you. The Washington Post's climate newsletter "The Climate 202" today has this headline: "As Democrats await CBO score, experts argue it may not account for climate change" According to the newsletter, members of Congress, including so-called centrists, are recognizing the costs of climate change, and legislation has been introduced to require the CBO to consider the costs of climate change in its scoring. A small step, but a step in the right direction.
The cheapest way to grow crops is use artificial fertilizer. Works great for a short time and leaves the land bare of nutrients. Then you move to new land and kill it as well. Eventually all you have is worthless land that is dead, can't grow anything.
The expensive way is the right way and is organic. It improves the land over time. But it takes time and effort. It is not cheap, but it works well. And it can last for a long time.
When making salt they refine it to sodium chloride, they take all the other chemicals out. Those trace chemicals are part of our make up. Sure sodium chloride is part of us but so many other chemicals make up the human body. We need those trace elements to live.
Rice is a staple of human nutrition in its natural form. But we stripe away the nutrients to make it more palatable. White rice is essentially starch which converts to sugar in the mouth. We need the other parts of rice for our nutrition.
In other words we take the sweet and easy and leave the nutrients. It is a diet that will ultimately kill us. But we don't seem to care because it is sweet and easy and costs less for now. Who cares about tomorrow.
Preston, I really like what you say about the artificial fertilizer. Studies show that small farms that use older ways of rotating crops and natural fertilizer produce more and better quality yields than huge agribusiness operations. It is 'more expensive' to a capitalist who wants to make money in a hurry, but costly to the common good in the long run. In other words, it's more sustainable.
Thank you. We tend to want the sugar more than the vitamins that would naturally go with the sugar in nature. The whole fruit instead of just the juice. But the juice tastes better and does not have all that other stuff. We have it rough today? Like our ancestors had it easy!
Speaking of rice, not everyone can digest the husk. I was an ardent fan of whole foods, but soon realized that whole grains are not for everyone. Many ancient cultures use rice with the bran removed for that reason. I really like India grown Basmati aromatic rice, because it has fewer lectins, which are like glutens in wheat. The worst food for me, as far as how it affects my G.I tract, is wheat germ agglutinin. Dr. Steven Gundry has written a few books on nutrition science that are interesting reads. (I call him Dr. Greedy because he has some very expensive supplements that are marketed in a way that I think, is weird. His books are worth the read, and some of the info has helped me with gut issues. He was a well established, sought after Heart surgeon who was tired of cutting people to save them from dying of heart disease. One of the thigs that got my attention was the science that says Wheat germ agglutinins are tiny proteins that can pass through the gut wall and even the blood brain barrier and latch on to brain cells, blocking necessary glucose molecules and causing Alzheimer's. That is a different forum.
Today, our biased media present stories and opinion rather than factually reporting the news. I flip back and forth between the Washington Post and Fox News to read about a particular issue. If you don’t do this I highly recommend it because then you will see why we need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in journalism. Some media, like Fox News, has become so polarized that even when they report on a topic they often omit pertinent information. These omissions have a very dramatic impact on the readers perception of what is truth and fact. Additionally, allowing a media company to own both print news and on air programming did not used to be allowed. Limiting media to one form of media would help to reduce the amount of sway they have in promoting their biased propaganda.
Social media only enhances the problem with media and individuals amplifying the MIS-information. This is what we need to get a handle on! Correct the erroneous reporting and simply report the truth.
You mentioned the Fairness Doctrine. I did some quick reading about it. It was promulgated by the Federal Communication Commission, a regulatory agency in the Executive Branch and thus subject to the whim of whosoever occupied the Oval Office and appointed the commissioners. It was whittled down and finally revoked completely in 1987. Fairness in communication should be an amendment to the Constitution or the subject of a Supreme Court Decision, not a bureaucratic dictum.
Without stopping the flow of propaganda, we have little chance to change the current course. If we think it is a big problem now, it will get much worse leading up to the midterms.
As I read your words today, I said to myself "yes, I am someone who simply doesn't consider that question" - never again. This is my new rallying cry. As we all know across the board, doing nothing costs money. On another plain, worrying requires more energy just peace of mind.
The Democratic Party needs to use this argument as their major talking point when selling these plans. People can understand that if they don't fix their roof now, it will cost them a fortune later to fix the damage. We need simple concepts for people to grab onto.
Dawn, I agree, obviously. I keep asking myself why isn't this argument central to what Biden and the Dems are doing.
Can you talk to Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer?
Maybe it's that we just don't like change, and that goes for me too. Who knows, maybe the roof will hold out a little longer and we can just deal with it later or we'll be in better place with our money later on to get it fixed. It seems that we only really fix things once we kow they're really broken. So how do we convince ourselves that things are breaking down quickly and the time to act is right now? Unfortunately it comes to down to facts, figures, studies by the many groups, institutions and government that many of us in this country tend to dismiss outright. I agree 1000% with today's message, but the only way I see it getting out is where we have a President like a JFK spearheading it, much like JFK did in his straightforward appeals for getting us to the moon. All the great things that came out of that effort are a matter of history, but JFK didn't let the details of those things cloud the main message.
Yes, you have to reach people where they are.
Today's republican party is the new confederacy. The anti-federalists never wanted a democracy, they only want power. This country, the richest in the whole history of this planet, cannot be taken down by any foreign power, it can only be taken down from within, and that is exactly what the republican party is trying to do. This is the new civil war, and the Democrats are not up to the challenge. After the citizens united decision, the rich now own "our" government and everything goes to them, including the republican party and even some democrats too. We have already lost "our" democracy. I'm glad I'll die soon so that I won't have to witness the death of the United States of America.
Agree we are on a definite decline and have been for quite a long time.
Dont wish for your death...we need more smart people like yourself and to hear it more. Stick around a while we may be surprised!
The public is being brainwashed, and has been for decades, by the hidden/unannounced Republican mantra: Make as much money as you can regardless of the way(s) you can get away with. The Dems. not so secret one though too timidly, at least up to now, put forth by J.B. and the surge of women activists, is to promote the overall well-being of all who live here. The Rep. ultimate weapon is to hurl the charge of "socialism" at us. Do not be tempted to defend it. Just say, "I have no idea what you're talking about." That's throwing the issue back in their lap and forcing them to explain what they mean. Then they will try 'capitalism" as the reason. Answer: No, it was the physical and mental labor of millions of workers/laborers.
Jeffrey, we have suffered from excessive timidity for years. Harry Truman lambasted Republicans for labeling everything that helped the public "socialism." Why don't we label it the common good, and make the common good of central importance? Why don't we define patriotism as adherence to the common good?
YES!!!
i would argue that instead of saying "I have no idea what you're talking about" we say "yes, so what?" the countries that have a strong safety net are actually the ones that repeatedly rank as the happiest countries in the world. What is wrong with community thinking? What is wrong with helping each other? I would say we challenge the fear in this country of socialism or simply redefine it. We don't need to use that word, but we do need to stick up for a social safety net and more equality.
Agreed. It's just like letting the GOP define "liberal" as a bad thing. Take this from Wikipedia -- what's un-American about this? Isn't this the supposed ethos of America: "a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy."
Why do the Dems have ZERO ability to control the discourse?
I would be interested in Robert Reich's answer to this since he has been in government. My own hunch is that, among other things, Democrats lack courage that Republicans have. They are always scared.
Melissa, the essential problem is that Democrats don't have a clear idea what they're seeking (or else their pursuit of corporate money has clouded their minds). Republicans used to convey a clear idea -- limited government, individual freedom, tough on foreign policy. It was wrong but it was coherent. And they labeled Democrats as "tax and spend." Of course, today's Republicans have no idea what they stand for other than Donald Trump. But doesn't the current void in the current Republican message open the way for Democrats, progressives, and others who care about the common good to fashion a coherent set of ideas around that it?
Yes. We need to own it, and proclaim it!
Yes, Robert Reich, it does!
Perhaps the question is whether the current political system is too compromised by big money to wean itself from its overwhelming influence. Campaign finance reform is often raised as a solution, but never really materializes. Neither major party can tear itself away from the trough, and that's partly because the costs of running a political campaign at all levels is very high. Sound bites, rallies, advertising blitzes, national travel on a chartered jet, and the whole paraphernalia of modern politicking suck up huge amounts of cash, which makes the big donors more powerful (irrespective of whether we would consider them benign or malicious). I don't know what the solution is, maybe Dr. Reich has a prescription, or Bernie Sanders or someone else with the experience and background to really understand the system from within.
Steven Ugoretz; Bernie Sanders is one person who started campaigning with small donor, grass roots money, and had huge crowds. Mainstream media along with faux news and 'conservative' media are bought, owned and paid for corporate interests, who do everything they can to put out negative messages about the likes of Bernie Sanders, and others who are mentored by him. The Socialist epithet is hurled along with lies and distortions. The DNC itself threw Bernie under the bus. He looked like a winner and should have been, but the greedheads and their media blocked him.
They generally have less money. Sadly, today money is speech! This forum helps! I told another beleagered soul about it this morning!
but there is more of us. 99.999% of us. the establishment just does a really really really good job of dividing us.
There is power in numbers, especially if we can educate and unite!
It also has a very good understanding of structural features of our system that facilitate minority power. The "founding fathers" themselves were not fans of majority rule and designed a system that is full of checks on the power of the majority, who they well understood were "have nots." Historian Charles Beard's book, An Economic Interpretation of the US Constitution, deserves a revival.
Why shouldn’t we use the word? Let’s reclaim it and stop letting them corrupt the language and set the agenda.
i agree. there is nothing wrong with caring about one another. It's been turned on its head.
The corruption of language is a pervasive problem. A word that once had a clear meaning gradually comes to mean something else and sometimes its opposite, and is no longer is useful. Time to abandon "socialism" - it is now so corrupted that it no longer has a clear meaning and has a negative connotation.
An example: Before a joint session of Congress shortly after the 2001 airplane high jackings Bush said this: "Tonight, we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done."
Bush said "justice" but context suggests he clearly meant "vengeance". In the South where I grew up people talked about "Vigilante Justice" ie, lynchings. So what does "justice" really mean? It depends on context, which renders "justice" ambiguous and less useful. The same now with "socialism". Time for a new word.
interesting. I guess the question is whether it will be harder (and by harder, I mean the $$ to get the message out) to introduce new words or to redefine existing ones. I don't have an answer and not opposed to new words, just would want to know what is doable given limited $$ for messaging. I don't know.
You are smart enough to be in this forum, and I think more people will visit. I have told a few about how positive it is. That is a start. I'm not wealthy, but I can contribute, and I have in the past. Look how much small dollar donors have helped Bernie Sanders in the past! This is a positive development.
Liberal is where liberty comes from.
Tell 'em to look it up. -- b.rad
True and smart.
Another world is possible because another world is affordable. Get rid of unnecessary corporate subsidies, cut defense spending for equipment and planes and bases and other military expenditures that make zero sense given today's geopolitical realities, and properly fund the IRS to gather up all the taxes the wealthy and corporations are hiding....then the money we need to fund a decent society will seem like a drop in the bucket.
The Biden administration should draft an Environmental Impact Assessment of the Build Back Better plan that includes an evaluation of the "do nothing alternative." That would provide those of us interested in facts and believe in science a tool to push back against the charge that it is too costly. I am becoming a 'fatalist' that the Republican's won't wake up until it's too late.
As long as it does not take too long!
Yes, like by the end of the week. With all the data and scientific predictions available it should take more than a couple of days to produce it.
My first thought is, "It’s like thinking about putting money in the meter. You can take a chance, but doing nothing may result of getting a ticket that costs 10x more."
The second is; the first scene of the premier in ‘The Network’. When Jeff Daniels is asked repeatedly, “what does he think of American greatness?”
He finally answers that he doesn't think we're so great and rattles off a litany of examples such as education, health care, life expectancy etc. where the U.S. is not #1 and not even in the top 10 compared to industrialized nations in each category!!
We spend over $750 Billion on defense. More than the next 16 countries combined!
To defend what?? Our quality of life should be just as important, if not more.
Aren’t the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over? Why aren’t we reducing $100+ Billion off of that?
Very powerful comment. This should be repeated loudly and often. And of course, the news media never ask how defense bills will be paid for. The news media also don't probe or question the claim that tax cuts will be paid for by "growth," when the evidence clearly shows otherwise. A commenter a few days ago mentioned that a bill for aid to Israel sailed through Congress with no CBO score needed. Showering Israelis with our taxpayer money is a given, while addressing critical problems and improving Americans' lives must be questioned to death.
Other than Bernie Sanders, I have not heard our political leaders addressing this in a manner that resonates, even by Build Back Better's most ardent supporters. That has allowed the news media and conservatives to portray its provisions as luxuries that we might possibly consider sometime in the future when the sun, the moon, and the stars are in perfect alignment...
We typically employ myopic math in public policy as well as our daily lives. It's worse than you describe. Long-term costs are left out of the discussion, and so are long-term benefits. Our decisions have life-cycles whose full costs and benefits that usually remain unidentified and uncounted. Industries "externalize" as many costs as they can to keep their products competitively priced. Special interests understate the true costs of the policies they advocate to make them more politically appealing. The public health and environmental impacts of fossil fuels are prominent examples. They are enormous, but they are not reflected in the prices we pay for oil, natural gas, and coal. Kids with asthma, damaged ecosystems, and the victims of climate disasters pay them. Because our decisions have such widespread and long-term consequences today, we need a new math that counts all life-cycle costs and benefits as completely as possible. We'd have far fewer unintentional and underhanded adverse consequences.
100% agree with everything you said. It's baffling that we don't take into consideration the cost of doing nothing into the analysis and how we present the information to readers and citizens. In school, we are taught to think critically yet the way the news is delivered in this country is so shallow without proper analysis and critical thinking. It's mind-boggling and maybe also says something about our education system. The only nuance to all this that I want to add and what bothers me is that we also don't get told where the money is going precisely and how we will measure results. I am happy the money is going towards good causes but a small part of me is always concerned about corruption, especially when we're talking about billions of dollars. That said, I am happy to see us move in the direction of helping people. Canada has universal healthcare that is not attached to one's employer. That gives citizens a lot more freedom in general to speak out about things, to seek other employment, etc. There's a huge freedom there that is lost in the US when each person is so dependent on their employer for healthcare. I can also vouch for the fact that the healthcare system in Canada is GREAT regardless of how the conservative media may spin it.
I would question whether we’re taught to think critically in school anymore. I was, but that was a long time ago. If that were still the case Fox News would have no power and the New York Times would do exactly what you’re saying should be done.
fair point.
It is a lifelong process. No easy way to learn it. But worth the effort.
What amazes me is that the 1%ers appear to believe that the dire consequences of business as usual will not affect them. No matter how many millions you have, you're breathing the same air, drinking the same water, eating the same food. A collapse of the world economy, more severe weather events, etc. are non-discriminatory, and there's no place to flee to when thinks really tank. Where will their profits go when nobody can afford their products? How will they staff their factories and offices when millions are ill, schools are closed, and transportation is unaffordable? It should be patently obvious that investing in the greater good, is an investment in their own futures, and an insurance policy against very dire consequences. So, why are we headed for the cliff with the rich flooring the gas pedal?
Steve, Most publicly-traded corporations report operating results every three months. If a company's results "exceed expectations" the price of the company's stock goes up. When the price of the company's stock goes up, the value of the executives' stock options, which they received as major part of their compensation, goes up proportionally. This process rewards extreme short-term decision making. Not healthy for the company or the environment, or even ultimately for the shareholders.
is there a creative solution for this? Ie., some way we don't completely reinvent everything (since that's not realistic) but work within the existing system. How do we shift away from short-term prioritizing given this?
Fifty years ago influential economist Milton Friedman wrote a piece that said corporate managers have only one responsibility: Maximize Shareholder Value. That was just what corporate managers needed to hear. No more being a good corporate citizen no more obligation to society. Just make as much money for shareholders as you can.
After fifty years of this, some are having second thoughts. Here is a link to an article in Fortune, the magazine of big business, that questions Friedman's rubric. https://fortune.com/2020/09/13/milton-friedman-anniversary-business-purpose/ So maybe the tide will turn some day.
yes, I just wonder if this view can be reconciled in some way with not being so short-term focused? In other words, I am approaching this from the position of starting where we are and i don't see us necessarily changing the piece of corporations being profit-driven (although I do hope we would turn citizens united one day). I wonder if there's a way to force them to report earnings that takes a longer view...or some other nuanced solution. In other words, if someone asked us for what we would change, what would we say? I don't see corporations going away completely, or stopping to focus mostly on profits. Given this starting point, are there ways we can encourage companies to think more long-term? Maybe there are not but worth discussing.
Eventually, if they have not figured it out already, they will find that trillions will be worthless. The pandemic gave a little preview of what's to come if we don't start caring about the common good!
Thank you so much for this opportunity to express my opinion. I feel we "all" have so much to say and hope someone is listening. Great therapy!
Just thinking ..in the future" maybe if possible you can have a petition on certain "issues" like the "right to vote " or whatever. Since your site here is growing someone reading the petition just might pay attention!
Great Job Mr Reich..!
This all makes perfect sense to anyone capable of thinking logically. The challenge is to convince two particular Senate Democrats who, apparently, are incapable of this way of thinking and/or have ulterior motives.
The larger and as pressing a challenge is how to convince the supporters of no-nothing Republicans that we must work to solve these massive problems that face us as individuals, as communities and as a country.
The point has been made that if we had diddled around on the eve of World War II asking 'but how will we pay for it', or 'I don't want my taxes going up', we'd be a colony of a greatly-enlarged Nazi Germany and a militaristic, expansionist Japan. You know, the scenario that Philip K. Dick painted in his book, "The Man in the High Castle" that was later finagled and changed significantly to make a television series of the same name.
That's what can happen if you do nothing: America shrinks in wealth and security during the Chinese Century, when democracies no longer exist in this world and every tribal country is run by a 'strongman' who knows all, can fix all, and has total control (Trump's recurring wet dream). Meanwhile, fires are endless, coastal communities have been destroyed and abandoned, our water supply shrunk and poisoned, riots, plagues - you know the list of everything we want to avoid.
But the question remains: how to get through to the 'unthinking masses', in their irrationality. That is, those who are uneducated and for whatever reason, don't think logically, are prone to baseless fears, to dictators and to crazy conspiracy theories.
So true! But getting those two Senators on board (and why not a few Republicans?) will get BBB moving and we can begin... begin to get the ball rolling on addressing some of the issues at hand. I think that's the priority. Convincing the "unthinking masses" can come later... if it's even possible. As they see BID and BBB start to do their things (with some accompanying PR that the Dems aren't too good at), maybe... just maybe... they'll start to come around, at least the ones who start to care more about the country (and the planet) surviving than they do about seeing Biden fail.
It seems that someone is listening to you. The Washington Post's climate newsletter "The Climate 202" today has this headline: "As Democrats await CBO score, experts argue it may not account for climate change" According to the newsletter, members of Congress, including so-called centrists, are recognizing the costs of climate change, and legislation has been introduced to require the CBO to consider the costs of climate change in its scoring. A small step, but a step in the right direction.
The cheapest way to grow crops is use artificial fertilizer. Works great for a short time and leaves the land bare of nutrients. Then you move to new land and kill it as well. Eventually all you have is worthless land that is dead, can't grow anything.
The expensive way is the right way and is organic. It improves the land over time. But it takes time and effort. It is not cheap, but it works well. And it can last for a long time.
When making salt they refine it to sodium chloride, they take all the other chemicals out. Those trace chemicals are part of our make up. Sure sodium chloride is part of us but so many other chemicals make up the human body. We need those trace elements to live.
Rice is a staple of human nutrition in its natural form. But we stripe away the nutrients to make it more palatable. White rice is essentially starch which converts to sugar in the mouth. We need the other parts of rice for our nutrition.
In other words we take the sweet and easy and leave the nutrients. It is a diet that will ultimately kill us. But we don't seem to care because it is sweet and easy and costs less for now. Who cares about tomorrow.
Preston, I really like what you say about the artificial fertilizer. Studies show that small farms that use older ways of rotating crops and natural fertilizer produce more and better quality yields than huge agribusiness operations. It is 'more expensive' to a capitalist who wants to make money in a hurry, but costly to the common good in the long run. In other words, it's more sustainable.
Thank you. We tend to want the sugar more than the vitamins that would naturally go with the sugar in nature. The whole fruit instead of just the juice. But the juice tastes better and does not have all that other stuff. We have it rough today? Like our ancestors had it easy!
Speaking of rice, not everyone can digest the husk. I was an ardent fan of whole foods, but soon realized that whole grains are not for everyone. Many ancient cultures use rice with the bran removed for that reason. I really like India grown Basmati aromatic rice, because it has fewer lectins, which are like glutens in wheat. The worst food for me, as far as how it affects my G.I tract, is wheat germ agglutinin. Dr. Steven Gundry has written a few books on nutrition science that are interesting reads. (I call him Dr. Greedy because he has some very expensive supplements that are marketed in a way that I think, is weird. His books are worth the read, and some of the info has helped me with gut issues. He was a well established, sought after Heart surgeon who was tired of cutting people to save them from dying of heart disease. One of the thigs that got my attention was the science that says Wheat germ agglutinins are tiny proteins that can pass through the gut wall and even the blood brain barrier and latch on to brain cells, blocking necessary glucose molecules and causing Alzheimer's. That is a different forum.
The “MIS-information Age”…
Today, our biased media present stories and opinion rather than factually reporting the news. I flip back and forth between the Washington Post and Fox News to read about a particular issue. If you don’t do this I highly recommend it because then you will see why we need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in journalism. Some media, like Fox News, has become so polarized that even when they report on a topic they often omit pertinent information. These omissions have a very dramatic impact on the readers perception of what is truth and fact. Additionally, allowing a media company to own both print news and on air programming did not used to be allowed. Limiting media to one form of media would help to reduce the amount of sway they have in promoting their biased propaganda.
Social media only enhances the problem with media and individuals amplifying the MIS-information. This is what we need to get a handle on! Correct the erroneous reporting and simply report the truth.
You mentioned the Fairness Doctrine. I did some quick reading about it. It was promulgated by the Federal Communication Commission, a regulatory agency in the Executive Branch and thus subject to the whim of whosoever occupied the Oval Office and appointed the commissioners. It was whittled down and finally revoked completely in 1987. Fairness in communication should be an amendment to the Constitution or the subject of a Supreme Court Decision, not a bureaucratic dictum.
Without stopping the flow of propaganda, we have little chance to change the current course. If we think it is a big problem now, it will get much worse leading up to the midterms.
As I read your words today, I said to myself "yes, I am someone who simply doesn't consider that question" - never again. This is my new rallying cry. As we all know across the board, doing nothing costs money. On another plain, worrying requires more energy just peace of mind.