The problem is that Republicans and corporate Dems have the same donors. Real progressives like Bernie are the best bet to fight fake populists like drumpf and his cronies.
Until the US thoroughly reforms its political and lobbying systems to eliminate dark money and drastically limit private campaign and political contributions (what you and I would call bribes), we'll continue to have "One dollar, one vote" politics. There will always be corruption, of course, but we can label it for what it is, minimize it, and hold corrupt actors accountable. Outside of a small group of higher-minded people, though, short-term self-interest (read: the acquisition and preservation of power) prevails.
Presently, a twisted version of the Golden Rule applies: Those who have the gold, make the rules. Until that changes, progressives can agitate at the margins but don't have a meaningful chance to take the conn, and the country will continue to slide ever deeper into exploitative oligarchic corporatism, authoritarianism, racism and intolerance, and ruinous wealth inequality.
Elizabeth, you are right about the ability of the haves to dictate political power. We do need to severely limit political contributions at all levels. Billionaires being permitted to buy elections should not be part of democratic life, but it is. "Trickle-down" practices only make the problem worse, a bunch of rich users getting even richer so they can do so much more damage to our democracy. Inexcusable. We should have learned from the '80s fiasco, but we allow Republicans to reframe it as a success and people buy it because it fits their desire to love and trust the rich.
Agreed. In 2016, you just had to follow the polling/statistics website 538 to see, very early on, that Clinton might well lose. In hypothetical matchups of Sanders v Trump and Clinton v Trump, Sanders would have beaten Trump in a 2:1 landslide, whereas Clinton and Trump were evenly matched throughout the year. But Clinton was the Wall Street pick.
OMG! Yeah, why is it always men who claim "Clinton was the Wall Street pick?" I admire Bernie Sanders, but I don't think as time went on in 2016 that he would have beat Trump. Trump had a lot of weapons that most people were unaware of early on. Remember, Clinton did win the popular vote. She couldn't beat the racism and sexism of the white states. I doubt if Bernie Sanders would have beat Trump in those states either. Racism and sexism were and are huge in this country! I think we are going to see just how huge in this midterm election.
Bernie was the only one drumpf was afraid of. Watch his FoxNOTNews town hall to see why. He is the real deal and the antidote to fake populism. The DNC took him out of the race and made way for the corporate Dem. People wanted change and they got it. Some of them still want it even after that 4 year long 💩 tornado. He’s still getting investigated for more crimes and his rabid base still supports him. There’s a lot of racists who like what he’s selling and people who just want tax cuts no matter what. Always knew they existed but didn’t know how many of them were out there. Pretty scary.
Agreed. I always thought Bernie could beat tRump, who was terrified of authenticity. Bernie was authentic and smart ad cared about Americans. I think the world would be a different place had the dems picked the person best for the country.
Clinton WAS Wall Street. Clinton WAS the anointed one. I would vote for AOC in a heartbeat, because she is NOT Wall Street. I'm not against women; I'm DONE with corporatism that decides the nominee, controls the direction of the country. Sanders was railroaded twice by the system. And I believe that the people wanted that. I think we may have not tilted into Trumpism if a viable, veritable candidate had been offered. I don't know about 2 to 1. I just believe that people chose the NEW over the same damned thing that got us here. She didn't lose because she was a woman. See lost because she is the problem personified.
How does a candidate “line up all the Super Delegates” before they run? Honest question. I simply don’t know how that’s done. My husband says that Super Delegates are no more. True?
With respect, Michael, I am tired of hypothetical match-ups, Monday morning quarterbacking, and the endless prognostications of political pundits and media darlings.
I am working to get Ranked Choice Voting implemented in NC b/c I believe that this simple nonpartisan upgrade to our voting process would save money (instant runoff) and produce elected officials who are capable of attracting a majority of voters - 50%+1. In NC, you can get elected with 30% of the vote.
So the strategy for both parties is to excite the base to turn out the vote in the primaries and then pivot to center for the general election. Right now politicians are scrubbing their websites of anti-abortion rhetoric. This is deceptive and voters are reasonably pissed off and disillusioned that “all politicians lie.” Which contributes to both-side-ism, with some (weak) evidence that the Dems are as bad as the GOP. (They aren’t). I’m sure that you know all that.
The majority of the country is Independent now, and more and more people are not religious. Politicians spout nonsense because they are currently incentivized to do so. We need election and campaign finance reform badly—and I’m sure you advocate for that, too. The days are long past when we can rely on “personality” and the party to get great candidates nominated. If those days were ever real … I wasn’t paying attention then, so I don’t know.
So many important points that you make here, Steve. It's been overwhelming for me to learn what I need to know to understand the governance framework and how things really work. Focusing on ranked choice voting feels good b/c it is focused on what feels like an attainable goal. We need a LOT more people to go to the Better Ballot NC website to register their support, and we are very grateful for the 20 or so active volunteers that we have leaning into achieving this goal for North Carolina. Thanks for your encouragement!
I'm in Durham, Steve. And it would be great to meet you. Why not come to our upcoming party to celebrate the work volunteers are doing to bring RCV to NC? Check out the BBNC website; there should be an announcement there (for the party) soon. And if you can't come to that, why don't we get on the phone to figure out what we can bring to your neck of the woods? We have LOTS of supporters in Wake County, and it's important to educate voters in Wake County. Just go to the BBNC website and add your name as an RCV supporter who might be able to volunteer. I'll ask the onboarding people (e.g., my husband) to watch for you, and let him know that I'll follow up with you. Hope to meet you soon! Let's not give up. It's a struggle, but we did good this time. These midterms could have been MUCH worse for democracy.
I believe Bernie has created a movement that includes many like minded people from different ages and groups. Even if Bernie never gets to be president he has brought many issues (i.e. healthcare, living wage and student loan forgiveness) into the mainstream benefiting most Americans.
1. Belief of "trickle down" economics is like belief in the tooth fairy. NO Democrats, even Manchin, ascribe to that theory.
2. I like Bernie, but he never learned to play in the sandbox. To quote Tim Ryan "Some people think that they have to agree with their politicians 100% of the time. And I ask these people, “Are any of you married?”
3. We have NOTHING when Republicans win and control the government. One month out, the last thing we need is dissention. What, if anything, will you do to help Democrats win?
Daniel, I like your points. Yep, "belief in trickle-down" being like believing in the tooth fairy is apt, as is your assessment of Bernie's challenges and significant contributions to contemporary discourse. The real issue is supporting Democrats in this midterm election since right now, Republicans have nothing to offer except division, ignorance, lying to get their way, and a bunch more negatives.
My other point today is that even if a person believes strongly and is mistaken about about economics, how can any red blooded American support insurrection?
How can anyone with a conscience forgive candidates who are morally reprehensible? Trump, Tim Scott, Rick Scott, Tom Cotton et al endorse a scumbag for the senate in Georgia.
Bernie single handedly has changed the narrative in American politics. He began shouting what everyone was thinking. But Wall Street didn’t like him. Wall Street does not give a hoot about the American people or a society in which people can live in relative comfort.
I"ve come to think of "Wall Street" as bands of - corporate, socio-economic ---
parasites = 'haulling in' the $$ -> $$$$$$ by their investments in - whatever that will make - them - $$$$$$$ +++++. And too much of that 'investment' is toward
material goods & services that are NOT really needed but can be - sold - as -
necessary to advancement in life (whatever that is supposed to be. I remember attending the Seattle World's Fair in 1962 as a kid and ALL the promise that that event held for the future - that - over the time since - has not panned out - but $$$ was still to be made ~ ~ ~
Oh Fay, that would be great, a young version of Bernie. I like Katie Porter. I don't know how old she is, but she has Bernie's push and no-nonsense approach to politics.
Fay Reid ; Bernie is not dead ; yet. He has good students that he mentored and they hold office. They are part of the solution, even as they suffer from death threats. There are very good candidates who are courageous and deserve our support, when we can give it. At the least, our votes. Thanks to Robert Reich, and others who speak truth to power, we do have information and can have hope. The truth will set us free!
Daniel B., yes we could use some more younger Bernies, as well as that many Elizabeth Warrens, Katie Porters, and more. That is the only way we are going to reclaim our democracy from them who believe money should rule here instead of the American people.
Yes, and dark money corporate donors have been flooding Democratic congressional primaries with money to nominate corporate Democrats over progressives who want to work for positive change.
Also, the intellectually lazy mainstream news media pundits talk relentlessly about "the far left and the far right," equating Bernie, AOC, etc., who work hard to improve Americans' lives, with the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, who seem only to want to be social media stars.
Yes, I just read it. He makes compelling points. I agree that the focus shouldn't be only on abortion. Democrats can hit Republicans on the economy, and they should be doing so. Instead, they let Republicans get away with the fact that they have done nothing and will do nothing to help ordinary Americans. Democrats need to get rid of their corporate consultants and find some who will make these important points.
I am from outside your country, and wondered why I've always liked Bernie, despite aspersions thrown at him all the time, and no luck making it to top office.
Now I realise why. I identify with his self-starting authenticity, however much it seems like another old man repeating himself.
Because I fight the same fight my whole life, as a nobody peasant.
Sanders has been consistent and honest with his voting record his whole career. Honesty means as much or more than age. I’ll take that every time. FYI - One of the most well-known world leaders is Vladimir Putin, president of Russia as of June 2022. While he may have reached the age of 69 in 2021, he entered office in 2000 at 47 and was sworn in for a fourth time in 2018 at 66. When Putin ordered an invasion of Ukraine in 2022, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was 44 years old. To me , it wouldn’t matter where I lived because honesty and the issues would always mean more than age. Yes an infusion of younger people with new ideas would be a good thing but let’s not forget that with age comes experience and we always hope wisdom.
Oct 10, 2022·edited Oct 10, 2022Liked by Robert Reich
The “trickle-down” snake oil salesmen, and women, love to say that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” though they’re far less honest, able-bodied seamen than plundering pirates.
What that they always fail to note when they repeat that hoary expression is that a rising tide lifts only those boats with intact hulls; for those whose figurative hulls are leaking or fully breached — and that describes tens of millions of hard-working Americans who’re barely treading water — all that rising tide serves to do is submerge those boats deeper and deeper till the occupants drown.
What an excellent comparison, Avie. Paul Krugman calls trickle down theory a "zombie" idea because it just won't die. Before pandering to the right, Bush 41 called it "voodoo economics." By whatever name, the theory is still a lie because it does not work like its proponents claim. Ask David Stockman, Reagan's budget director.
David Stockman didn’t even wait for Reagan to leave before he told the truth about the “trickle pickle”!
I am truly impressed when reading all our comments. We are talking to the choir.
But, our problem is how to talk to the public that is so badly influenced by the constant lies. The public knows the truth... they are being “had” again and again.
We must stop talking and start sharing obvious facts that the general public can understand. Do we do it on “bill boards”? I know that Bernie and Elizabeth and many more are talking straight. I know that many of us follow Krugman and others. Robert Reich being one of our finest economists....
But what has me thoroughly depressed is that nothing seems to change. I feel useless.
I wonder if Robert put a fun “test your knowledge” questionnaire on the social media about facts about “ trickle down” and reward winners with real public support. Make it like a “National Spelling Bee” or a test your aptitude about your own futures success. What works for you and what doesn’t.
My husband and I have just finished Ken Burns “Holocaust” documentary. How to twist the narrative about how close we are to being close to this horror so young people start to think about government that works for the people. There are obviously brilliant thinkers out there. Help us teach ! Help us change attitudes with reality.
Obviously I do not want to give up. However, when things stay the same for thirty and forty years at a time one has to wonder... “ what’s the point?”
Remember “Boys State” and Girls State”? When high school students could go to state sponsored programs to study government and then compete to go to the National honor program in Washington DC ?Give scholarships for college.
Well I hope I didn’t spoil the day for all of you.
Jenn, Ugh, there's a name from the past, David Stockman. Talk about someone who had no clue. But, Reagan, not being all that aware of economics, bought the BS Stockman et al were selling and it still haunts us, Krugman's "zombie economics. We need a funeral for this nonsense but Republicans and their "trickle-down" donors just won't let it pass away. They have so much to gain and the rest of us have so much to lose.
'trickle down' (?). I've come to think of this phrase (I've mentioned this before on this posting) as more like "Hoovering Up" (re Hoover brand of vacuum cleaner from the past). This could also be a ref to President Herbie Hoover at the time of the - GREAT DEPRESSION" where the rich - stayed - rich - and millions upon millions sank into povertry &&& at the beginning of the Dust Bowl Years. Family members from that era
were hit hard by those years, those hardships having "trickled down" to my current situation. [[[ History DOES REPEAT ITSELF !!! including climatically ~ ~ ~
The idea behind supply-side or trickle down economics is that by "relieving businesses of tax "burdens" and regulatory "burdens," those funds would be invested in the businesses to grow and expand creating more jobs, needing more equipment, etc. Small businesses might actually do those things, but big corporations just use those funds to buy back their own stock boosting the stock price. Those gains went to a smallish group of shareholders, not a large segment of the working consuming public.
Stock buy-backs do indeed benefit only a very small group of Americans, who typically are in the top 10% of the economic spectrum.
As well, a non-trivial portion of the wealth that supposedly will someday, somehow "trickle down," instead mysteriously seems to find its way into executive pay increases and bonuses. Some old wisdom about foxes guarding chicken coops comes to mind...
Do stock buy-backs *hurt* the rest of us? Presumably it's the excess profits of the companies that pursue buy-backs (for want of better ideas, e.g. generating wealth through investment in communities & other stakeholders) that do the real harm...?
(A focus on short-term results hurts everyone - and that is fueled by excess pay and bad incentives... but focusing on buy-backs won't change that!)
They hurt us generally in the sense that money spent on stock buy-backs is money not spent on productive capacity, worker wages and salaries, research and development, and so forth. The point of a buy-back is to drive up the value of the company's stock; most stock is owned by relatively few people, who typically are at the upper end of the economic spectrum. Thus the effect of a buy-back is to increase the wealth of the relatively few who are already substantially wealthier than the great majority of the population as a whole. In that sense it's a redistribution of wealth upward.
If a company were to use surplus cash -- from profits, government bail-out money, pandemic relief money, or whatever -- to hire more workers, pay workers more, or invest in future profit-making capability, it would be redistributing the wealth horizontally and downward through the economy. The wealth would get spent and re-spent, as companies and individuals use it to produce more goods, pay their own workers, and buy more goods.
Economies are healthiest when money circulates broadly within it; they're the least healthy when money stagnates (is hoarded or allowed to accumulate unproductively or concentrated in the hands of too few people who can't or won't use most of it).
So you could think of stock buy-backs as imposing a kind of opportunity cost on everyone who doesn't have stock. It's not direct harm to the non-stock owners -- it doesn't take money out of anyone's pocket or by itself diminish anyone's purchasing power. Rather, it's an opportunity to build broad economic strength and longer-term, broadly beneficial economic performance that is forgone, allowed to slip away.
Jenn, good summary, and of course, salaries/wages were not markedly raised, only the extreme necessities were bought, and the few got sickeningly rich. That's "trickle-down." Some other "theories" that do a lot of harm also get play. The "bail out the banks to save worse trouble" theory just won the Nobel Prize for Economics. So, a bank that screws up and does bad, should get bailed out so its bad actions won't cause worse? It seems to me paying off mortgages would have done more to help banks and communities, but banks clearly have more pull all over the world, including in Sweden in October. It shows that even smart people can be bamboozled.
Not asking about the theory (is there one?) - but rather the conceptualization (as the idea itself just seems sub-par academically).
Also, the federal government did provide direct relief (in the form of rental assistance) during the pandemic - but the issue could be one of how quickly (and to what extent) existing tools can be put to use for the purpose (as not undertaking QE would probably have led to collapse of the financial system).
In terms of discourse, the idea that someone hasn't already tried to co-opt the language (as was done with the word 'queer' in the 1980's per Michel Foucault) does get illuminated in light of the same (excellent point!)...
Avie, I really like your metaphoric response to the "rising tides" proverb. The thought of the leaky boats makes things clearer and should be shared. I will not hear that one in the same way again. Thanks!
What I continue to wonder is why "the people," those who work and pay taxes and vote for those in power, continue to tolerate the blatant, unfettered transfer of their "wealth" to the rich-richer-richest.
But all of us who live in the same society are subjected to the same lies and manipulations and yet the responses are not the same from everyone. It is critical that there be some societal consensus about what is true, what the essential principles are, or - to use some old song lines applied to the concept of "America:" What's it all about, Alfie? - and for most Americans to be able to answer that rhetorical question with a generally similar response.
Annie Cross ; I agree that we could benefit from a reinstatement of the 'fairness Doctrine' which could require 'truth in advertising' and generally protect us from outright false information in the news. There were standards of decency ; 'No hitting below the belt'. "All the news that's fit to print". Tricky ; because who gets to decide?
There has been a breakdown in consensus on basic principles among the ruling elites in this country. this is reflected in the media and the public response to what they see in the media. It’s not that the public has gotten any dumber.
And the conundrum is how to reach the millions of deluded voters who love Trump and believe not just The Big Lie but all of the lies told by the bought and paid for sycophants: MTG, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Desantis, et al. Trump is actually just the hired help, the paid salesman of the oligarchs and autocrats.
Leslie E ; True! But he loves ❤ the limelight! He might be shocked to see how his 'loves' who sent letters would treat him if he succeeds in helping them achieve their aims!
Annie, it sure would be good if there were some kind of consensus, but that would never work for those who thrive on division, and there are a lot of them right now, mostly Republicans. Their constituents like the division because it has been designed to make them feel special, holders of some fantastical knowledge that no one else has. They whine that they, the "real Americans" are being ignored but they deliberately elect candidates who will ignore them and their needs. It makes me wonder sometimes if they like and even need their "poor little me" position. It gives them something to live for. That can never be a winning proposition, but they choose it anyway. I wish there were some way to stop the cycle of division-whine-division-whine more-divide more.
Ruth Sheets ; It's like the 'biker chicks' (as they called themselves), saying to an interviewer; " We don't ask too many questions". They get the 'glory' of being with their gang and wearing the colors, and riding the loud bikes of their law breaking masters.
Annie Cross ; I also wonder how many voters have significant stock portfolios, which they depend on, and who vote for those who will protect and maybe even increase their bottom lines? There are those who do not work, but receive social security and also pay taxes. Social security is taxed. Those with pensions and who own property still pay taxes.
I would contend, contrary to the Professor’s newsletter, that Democrats this term did offer “[a] bottom-up economics that invests in the education and health of the public, and the infrastructure connecting them.”
To refresh our memories, I would note, in late Spring 2020, after Joe Biden had become the Party’s presumptive Presidential nominee, he and Bernie Sanders created 6 policy task forces which, according to Sanders, “had some of the most knowledgeable people in the country coming together” to deal with education, climate change, healthcare, the economy, criminal justice, and immigration reform. Sanders had concluded that if the compromises they had achieved were implemented, “life would improve for tens and tens of millions of working people.”
Because Senate Republicans refused to allow regular order, Democrats had to cram the President’s entire legislative agenda into one bill that only could be passed through the procedural maneuver we know as budget reconciliation. Despite certain pieces disallowed by the Senate Parliamentarian into the plan, the legislation (BBB), nonetheless, would have helped to remedy much of the country’s grotesque inequalities of wealth and income.
When the reconciliation package, this past January, failed, by two votes (Manchin and Sinema), to pass, I decided, as important as it was this election season to defend democracy at the state and local levels, my principal commitment would be to help hold the House and pick up at least two Senate seats. Besides, state and local government would be subject to regulations of Congress.
My opposition to the Professor’s position notwithstanding, I would be remiss were I not to underscore the nearly impossible odds of holding the House, wherein Republicans need flip only five seats in highly gerrymandered terrain. Still, though I’ve posted it before, it’s worth restating that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote, “Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done.” As follow-up, I simply would note, generally speaking, that only in retrospect is the true value of persistence in the face of difficulty revealed.
Barbara Jo. Thanks for your hopeful words. I remember well the groups studying how real improvement can be made from 2020, but I also remember the Republican extreme efforts to discard those things claiming all kinds of problems mostly economic that would keep us from dealing with any of them. The media helped a lot with that. Republicans have nothing to offer the American people, so fearmonger with their revised Willy Horton ads like those of 1988. They can't even invent anything but have to reuse the crap they already put out there with new actors and phrases. The ads imply, OK demand people think that Democrats are going to release hardened criminals, murderers if they get elected. They lie that Democrats think our economy is great even though they, the poor little me white people" are not seeing it and will suffer even more under Democrats (yes, the ones who give them relief while Republicans voted against nearly everything for over a decade that would help anyone but the rich individuals and corporations). We have a lot of work to do, and I think we can. Democrats may not always be in unison, but we try to look for different solutions when old ones don't work, at least a lot of the time we do. Republicans on the other hand, lie, divide, and toss around their racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia like they are candy thrown to children. Their approach is insulting and really unacceptable if the people actually listened to what was being said instead of just the whining professional actor ad voice that pleads for them to believe some more lies about candidates while their own candidates do some more lying and try to play down their insurrectionist bonafides except online. Wow!
Ruth, While your comment encompasses several valid points, my intent was to focus more narrowly on truly progressive legislation Senate Democrats nearly were able to enact, without support from any Republicans, through budget reconciliation. Moreover, I wanted to underscore that the only reason Democrats had to legislate in this ridiculous way, cramming their entire legislative agenda into a single bill, was because Senate Republicans refused to allow regular order, by which I mean their insistence upon abusing the filibuster to prevent legislation from coming to the floor for debate and an up or down vote.
Hence, my reason for summoning all my resources to hold the House and to pick up at least 2 Senate Democrats who support the Democrat’s legislative agenda and are willing, when warranted, either to reform or to set aside the filibuster.
I remember Sam Brownback's epic failure in Kansas in 2012, the "Great Kansas Tax Cut Experiment, " approved by the likes of ALEC, Reagan's "Trickle Down," "Voodoo economics" guru Arthur Laffer, and tax-cut zealot, Grover Norquist; all successful republican scam artists.
Needless to say, the reckless Kansas "Experiment" was an abject failure, as infrastructure, social services, education, etcetera, could not be sustained, as a result of fallen tax revenues (which is exactly what this "Experiment " was designed to do).
Now, years later, Idiot Truss wants to be a latter-day "supply-side" scammer, and, again, it's not working.
The wealthy will continue their class warfare, as long as they have feckless lacky politicians like Reagan, Trump, Truss and others, peddling the same snakeoil, and the continued enablement of such blatant class-warfare by the vast majority of the democratic party, because the democrats refuse to employ effective
Deborah Carroll ; The latest and biggest scam was the very rich installing tRump, with the help of Putin. and the corrupt, corporate media. The first thing he did was give trillions from our treasury to billionaires
Oh Laurie, you have that right, but we must remember that Trump didn't do that on his own. He had unanimous support from Congressional Republicans for his trillions of dollar giveaway to the very rich, under the guise of helping the middle class. OK, they had to do it after midnight at the end of the year in 2017, but it was a group effort that is just what Trump wanted. It was one of the biggest disasters of his disastrous administration!
Sadly, there have always been people who would buy the snake oil. Once they had made their sales to the suckers, the snake oil salesmen always hurried to leave town before folks wised up to their tricks.
Deborah, You are right about the "trickle-down" crew and their aims. I remember the Kansas fiasco, but I think a whole lot of people learned nothing from the incident. I wish it were just Democrats' inability to get the word out that keeps this "trickle-down" insanity from stopping, but it isn't. Democrats may have a plurality of registered voters in the United States, but we don't have the majority of the money. It seems when one gets rich democracy is just something that can be ignored and Republicans are the party that is most comfortable with that, in fact very comfortable with that. They love it when politicians who know little or nothing preach "trickle-down" because it enhances their cause. People often go for the message put out by the loudest mouths rather than from the mouths that speak truth, even common sense. Then, there's the media which are owned far more by rich Republican-leaning mostly white men, and white men are a majority constituency of the Republican party. That does not mean we shouldn't be getting the message out, but it is going to be exceedingly hard.
Trickle down? More like gush up!. It is time for Democratic political leaders to start explaining what it is, When Reagan cut taxes in 1986 I was a school public school teacher earning a modest living. My taxes went up $700 from the previous year. This was true of every "tax cut" enacted since 1986, the amount of increase in taxes owed went up. Now I am retired, living on 3 small pensions so for the first time in 34 years I got a walloping $225 back from the Feds and only had to pay $3 for State tax. I'm sure I'm not the only formerly middle income American who experienced the same thing. Why don't they connect the dots?
Fay, I do know of others who experienced the same kinds of tax increases under the guise of tax cuts you did. Why is this not reported? It is, but certain administrations are heard better than others. Reagan was an actor, so knew how to present the BS really well. Trump is a terrible communicator, but is loud, obnoxious, racist, sexist, and more, all things that can persuade a lot of people that those above approaches to communication must be telling the truth because of who is telling it even though the president was a serial liar. I don't think people want to connect the dots because it might prove they were wrong about some things and there are a whole lot of people who just can't be wrong about anything.
This has been around for years because the average American is not educated well enough to recognize gobbledygook. It is often spoken by supposed distinguished Americans knowing it is false in order to perpetuate the lie.
John, that's right. The average American never had to learn anything about economics and our TV/cable/radio media want to present both sides of an issue even when one of the sides is simply bogus. When presented like it is, people think both sides are just two different viewpoints, not one viewpoint and one lie masquerading as legitimate. Things will not improve until our media are called to actually report what is true and what has failed in the past and explain why and how. I know a lot of people will just roll their eyes and shut it off, but it could reach some.
Until we have public funding of elections, Congress will always be bought and paid for. In my own state of Florida, the Dems depend primarily on ordinary people to back their campaigns. They can't compete with the GOPers who get million$ to fund their campaigns. We need to go back to public funding of campaigns. But that won't happen because the political apparatus runs on $$. Unfortunately, it will take a depression to make that happen. The filthy rich are running us in that direction by starving the ordinary buyer of earnings to buy with.
I’ve lived through Reagan’s Trickle Down era. It did nothing for me or the middle class. I can’t understand how this failed,corrupt concept still gets pushed back on us. Politicians keep drinking the BILLIONAIRE Kool Aid to drive the country further and further into the ground.
While we no longer have castles, manors, serfs or vassals, we do have a modern simulacrum of the Middle Ages. The objects are not as visible but the effects remain just as pernicious.
We have substituted the hedge fund for the privet hedge and the corporation for the lord's estate.
What we have not changed is greed, now fueled with the internet, the meme, the "influencer".
We are deceived and distracted with the bright shiny objects now littering our lives from such as these:
- migrant caravans
- critical race theory
- welfare queens
- Antifa
- American carnage
If someone is patting you on the back for being better than another with one hand especially if he loudly says you have been unjustly disadvantaged, just like a skilled magician, you can bet he is picking your pocket with the other hand.
because if you do not know history then you are bound to repeat it. our attention span is shortened. but history didn't just begin NOW. it doesn't have to be your history for you to be able to learn from it. are we (collective) not doing a good enough job teaching the next generations? or are we just not listening to each other?
c t petersel, I think both, the same money that supports the " trickle down"ers, is keeping us divided and uncoordinated so the situation doesn't change.
This article neglected to mention that to improve public infrastructure and services tax increases across the board are required.Wealthy people can and do move their tax affairs offshore leaving the middle and working people to fund government spend.Britain's Labour party has committed to keep the tax cuts proposed by the ruling Conservatives apart from a decrease to the top rate.As we know many wealthy individuals pay themselves via dividends or capital gains which are more favourably treated.Until the Labour Party is honest about the need to fix the inequalities of the current UK taxation system then it will always be left trying to explain how it can fund improvements to health education and social security without running up yet more public debt.I think that this is applicable too to the Democrats.No one likes to pay more taxes but the alternative which has been tried under Reagan and Thatcher is to let everyone fend for themselves.That is the credo of free enterprise "think tanks" but it is a discredited one when we can see that only through collective action can we fightback against pandemics,ecological disaster and military aggression.
As one who has worked in public policymaking bodies at the local, state and national level, I can attest that this missive is spot-on.
We should not be surprised that the hoarders at the top build all kinds of structures and institutions to further economic and social inequality; while immoral, it's totally logical. The tragedy is the four decades-long failure of so-called progressive forces to to mount effective, sustained counter-measures. And that includes the Administration for which Secretary Reich served.
I remember back in the early 1980s when "Trickle-down economics" was being pushed that I and my co-workers, non-economists knew it was a stupid idea. I had watched the shows about the rich and the famous and understood well that those folks were not about to give up any of their new gains to anyone for any purpose, not even to build their brand beyond getting their name out there, and definitely not to help raise incomes or improve working conditions of their workers. Many of the rich and famous are deeply addicted to accumulation. It becomes a contest to see who can get the most, hoping people won't notice how they get it, then suddenly, they are too rich to stop. I think a lot of people don't think of that because we have been conditioned to see the rich and famous as somehow brilliant, mostly nice people who wouldn't hurt the little guy who one day could be rich like them. It makes no sense, but I think it is built into a society where what one has often indicates the level of respect one gets. And, what one has opens them to all kinds of benefits like education, jobs, power, etc. Conservatives/Republicans in this country have attached themselves to "trickle-down" and liberals/Democrats have a hard time getting traction in opposition because, let's face it, those who benefited from "trickle-down" own the media, industry, telecommunications, and more. Their voices and money speak far louder than what the rest of us can say. Building from the bottom is certainly the right strategy, but when the weight of the wealthy is so great, how can the have-nots get started. Then, there's the filibuster that stops nearly everything that could curb the "trickle-down" insanity. Ugh!
The problem is that Republicans and corporate Dems have the same donors. Real progressives like Bernie are the best bet to fight fake populists like drumpf and his cronies.
Until the US thoroughly reforms its political and lobbying systems to eliminate dark money and drastically limit private campaign and political contributions (what you and I would call bribes), we'll continue to have "One dollar, one vote" politics. There will always be corruption, of course, but we can label it for what it is, minimize it, and hold corrupt actors accountable. Outside of a small group of higher-minded people, though, short-term self-interest (read: the acquisition and preservation of power) prevails.
Presently, a twisted version of the Golden Rule applies: Those who have the gold, make the rules. Until that changes, progressives can agitate at the margins but don't have a meaningful chance to take the conn, and the country will continue to slide ever deeper into exploitative oligarchic corporatism, authoritarianism, racism and intolerance, and ruinous wealth inequality.
Elizabeth, you are right about the ability of the haves to dictate political power. We do need to severely limit political contributions at all levels. Billionaires being permitted to buy elections should not be part of democratic life, but it is. "Trickle-down" practices only make the problem worse, a bunch of rich users getting even richer so they can do so much more damage to our democracy. Inexcusable. We should have learned from the '80s fiasco, but we allow Republicans to reframe it as a success and people buy it because it fits their desire to love and trust the rich.
pts ; Maybe Unions can help. It's a start. "A slave that cannot be beaten is half free".
Let's all spell C-i-t-i-z-e-n-s U-n-i-t-e-d.
Exactly
I’d say you nailed it . Thanks.
Beautifully said!
Agreed. In 2016, you just had to follow the polling/statistics website 538 to see, very early on, that Clinton might well lose. In hypothetical matchups of Sanders v Trump and Clinton v Trump, Sanders would have beaten Trump in a 2:1 landslide, whereas Clinton and Trump were evenly matched throughout the year. But Clinton was the Wall Street pick.
OMG! Yeah, why is it always men who claim "Clinton was the Wall Street pick?" I admire Bernie Sanders, but I don't think as time went on in 2016 that he would have beat Trump. Trump had a lot of weapons that most people were unaware of early on. Remember, Clinton did win the popular vote. She couldn't beat the racism and sexism of the white states. I doubt if Bernie Sanders would have beat Trump in those states either. Racism and sexism were and are huge in this country! I think we are going to see just how huge in this midterm election.
Bernie was the only one drumpf was afraid of. Watch his FoxNOTNews town hall to see why. He is the real deal and the antidote to fake populism. The DNC took him out of the race and made way for the corporate Dem. People wanted change and they got it. Some of them still want it even after that 4 year long 💩 tornado. He’s still getting investigated for more crimes and his rabid base still supports him. There’s a lot of racists who like what he’s selling and people who just want tax cuts no matter what. Always knew they existed but didn’t know how many of them were out there. Pretty scary.
Agreed. I always thought Bernie could beat tRump, who was terrified of authenticity. Bernie was authentic and smart ad cared about Americans. I think the world would be a different place had the dems picked the person best for the country.
The DNC is the reason I switched to a 3rd party.
Yes. Not me, although I voted for Sanders in 2016 and contributed to losing the election to a buffoon that I KNEW couldn't win.
So now I'm sexist? It should be perfectly OK to criticize a woman without being branded. As it happens, I'm a big fan of Elizabeth Warren.
And even she is timid when faced with the real power of capitalism. Still, she's one of the best.
Clinton WAS Wall Street. Clinton WAS the anointed one. I would vote for AOC in a heartbeat, because she is NOT Wall Street. I'm not against women; I'm DONE with corporatism that decides the nominee, controls the direction of the country. Sanders was railroaded twice by the system. And I believe that the people wanted that. I think we may have not tilted into Trumpism if a viable, veritable candidate had been offered. I don't know about 2 to 1. I just believe that people chose the NEW over the same damned thing that got us here. She didn't lose because she was a woman. See lost because she is the problem personified.
I completely agree. I had to hold my nose to vote for her. For all the good that did.
It's NOT men. She had a long resume and her politics were clear. She WAS wall street pick.
And THAT was the Wizard of Oz pulling those levers. Capitalism is brazen and brash about their power.
How does a candidate “line up all the Super Delegates” before they run? Honest question. I simply don’t know how that’s done. My husband says that Super Delegates are no more. True?
With respect, Michael, I am tired of hypothetical match-ups, Monday morning quarterbacking, and the endless prognostications of political pundits and media darlings.
I am working to get Ranked Choice Voting implemented in NC b/c I believe that this simple nonpartisan upgrade to our voting process would save money (instant runoff) and produce elected officials who are capable of attracting a majority of voters - 50%+1. In NC, you can get elected with 30% of the vote.
So the strategy for both parties is to excite the base to turn out the vote in the primaries and then pivot to center for the general election. Right now politicians are scrubbing their websites of anti-abortion rhetoric. This is deceptive and voters are reasonably pissed off and disillusioned that “all politicians lie.” Which contributes to both-side-ism, with some (weak) evidence that the Dems are as bad as the GOP. (They aren’t). I’m sure that you know all that.
The majority of the country is Independent now, and more and more people are not religious. Politicians spout nonsense because they are currently incentivized to do so. We need election and campaign finance reform badly—and I’m sure you advocate for that, too. The days are long past when we can rely on “personality” and the party to get great candidates nominated. If those days were ever real … I wasn’t paying attention then, so I don’t know.
So many important points that you make here, Steve. It's been overwhelming for me to learn what I need to know to understand the governance framework and how things really work. Focusing on ranked choice voting feels good b/c it is focused on what feels like an attainable goal. We need a LOT more people to go to the Better Ballot NC website to register their support, and we are very grateful for the 20 or so active volunteers that we have leaning into achieving this goal for North Carolina. Thanks for your encouragement!
I'm in Durham, Steve. And it would be great to meet you. Why not come to our upcoming party to celebrate the work volunteers are doing to bring RCV to NC? Check out the BBNC website; there should be an announcement there (for the party) soon. And if you can't come to that, why don't we get on the phone to figure out what we can bring to your neck of the woods? We have LOTS of supporters in Wake County, and it's important to educate voters in Wake County. Just go to the BBNC website and add your name as an RCV supporter who might be able to volunteer. I'll ask the onboarding people (e.g., my husband) to watch for you, and let him know that I'll follow up with you. Hope to meet you soon! Let's not give up. It's a struggle, but we did good this time. These midterms could have been MUCH worse for democracy.
Wow, I wish I could say it better but I can’t . Thank you Steve-e
The liberals(I am one) should always ask if possible what one of these people running mean by “liberal” and then have it explained kindly.
I agree, too.
I agree.
We need a new young, intelligent Bernie. Ageism wins (and I'm much older than Bernie)
I believe Bernie has created a movement that includes many like minded people from different ages and groups. Even if Bernie never gets to be president he has brought many issues (i.e. healthcare, living wage and student loan forgiveness) into the mainstream benefiting most Americans.
1. Belief of "trickle down" economics is like belief in the tooth fairy. NO Democrats, even Manchin, ascribe to that theory.
2. I like Bernie, but he never learned to play in the sandbox. To quote Tim Ryan "Some people think that they have to agree with their politicians 100% of the time. And I ask these people, “Are any of you married?”
3. We have NOTHING when Republicans win and control the government. One month out, the last thing we need is dissention. What, if anything, will you do to help Democrats win?
Daniel, I like your points. Yep, "belief in trickle-down" being like believing in the tooth fairy is apt, as is your assessment of Bernie's challenges and significant contributions to contemporary discourse. The real issue is supporting Democrats in this midterm election since right now, Republicans have nothing to offer except division, ignorance, lying to get their way, and a bunch more negatives.
My other point today is that even if a person believes strongly and is mistaken about about economics, how can any red blooded American support insurrection?
How can anyone with a conscience forgive candidates who are morally reprehensible? Trump, Tim Scott, Rick Scott, Tom Cotton et al endorse a scumbag for the senate in Georgia.
This is the crux of the matter. Unforgivable
Bernie single handedly has changed the narrative in American politics. He began shouting what everyone was thinking. But Wall Street didn’t like him. Wall Street does not give a hoot about the American people or a society in which people can live in relative comfort.
I"ve come to think of "Wall Street" as bands of - corporate, socio-economic ---
parasites = 'haulling in' the $$ -> $$$$$$ by their investments in - whatever that will make - them - $$$$$$$ +++++. And too much of that 'investment' is toward
material goods & services that are NOT really needed but can be - sold - as -
necessary to advancement in life (whatever that is supposed to be. I remember attending the Seattle World's Fair in 1962 as a kid and ALL the promise that that event held for the future - that - over the time since - has not panned out - but $$$ was still to be made ~ ~ ~
There is no "I" in TEAM.
Oh Fay, that would be great, a young version of Bernie. I like Katie Porter. I don't know how old she is, but she has Bernie's push and no-nonsense approach to politics.
Katie Porter is a young Bernie and can do presentations that are hard to argue with. She is sooo smart!
I love Katie ❤️
A great idea! She is wonderful!
YES.
Fay Reid ; Bernie is not dead ; yet. He has good students that he mentored and they hold office. They are part of the solution, even as they suffer from death threats. There are very good candidates who are courageous and deserve our support, when we can give it. At the least, our votes. Thanks to Robert Reich, and others who speak truth to power, we do have information and can have hope. The truth will set us free!
We could use 51 younger Bernie Sanders.
Daniel B., yes we could use some more younger Bernies, as well as that many Elizabeth Warrens, Katie Porters, and more. That is the only way we are going to reclaim our democracy from them who believe money should rule here instead of the American people.
Very true! ❤
Daniel Boone ; What a good idea! We do have some of the people he mentored in office now. That is a start.
Yes, and dark money corporate donors have been flooding Democratic congressional primaries with money to nominate corporate Democrats over progressives who want to work for positive change.
Also, the intellectually lazy mainstream news media pundits talk relentlessly about "the far left and the far right," equating Bernie, AOC, etc., who work hard to improve Americans' lives, with the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, who seem only to want to be social media stars.
I have to interject this for all of us to read. Bernie Sanders in “The Guardian” today.
He says exactly how we must focus on the working class in order to win the mid terms and not to focus only on the “Right To Choose”!
Excellent!!!
Yes, I just read it. He makes compelling points. I agree that the focus shouldn't be only on abortion. Democrats can hit Republicans on the economy, and they should be doing so. Instead, they let Republicans get away with the fact that they have done nothing and will do nothing to help ordinary Americans. Democrats need to get rid of their corporate consultants and find some who will make these important points.
I am from outside your country, and wondered why I've always liked Bernie, despite aspersions thrown at him all the time, and no luck making it to top office.
Now I realise why. I identify with his self-starting authenticity, however much it seems like another old man repeating himself.
Because I fight the same fight my whole life, as a nobody peasant.
Sanders has been consistent and honest with his voting record his whole career. Honesty means as much or more than age. I’ll take that every time. FYI - One of the most well-known world leaders is Vladimir Putin, president of Russia as of June 2022. While he may have reached the age of 69 in 2021, he entered office in 2000 at 47 and was sworn in for a fourth time in 2018 at 66. When Putin ordered an invasion of Ukraine in 2022, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was 44 years old. To me , it wouldn’t matter where I lived because honesty and the issues would always mean more than age. Yes an infusion of younger people with new ideas would be a good thing but let’s not forget that with age comes experience and we always hope wisdom.
If I understand you correctly, Daniel, then it is that senior Putin at 70 now appallingly lacks wisdom for the people,
whereas Zelenskyy in his youthful 40s continues to earn the trust of his people throughout this extreme adversity.
The “trickle-down” snake oil salesmen, and women, love to say that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” though they’re far less honest, able-bodied seamen than plundering pirates.
What that they always fail to note when they repeat that hoary expression is that a rising tide lifts only those boats with intact hulls; for those whose figurative hulls are leaking or fully breached — and that describes tens of millions of hard-working Americans who’re barely treading water — all that rising tide serves to do is submerge those boats deeper and deeper till the occupants drown.
What an excellent comparison, Avie. Paul Krugman calls trickle down theory a "zombie" idea because it just won't die. Before pandering to the right, Bush 41 called it "voodoo economics." By whatever name, the theory is still a lie because it does not work like its proponents claim. Ask David Stockman, Reagan's budget director.
Exactly Jenn,
David Stockman didn’t even wait for Reagan to leave before he told the truth about the “trickle pickle”!
I am truly impressed when reading all our comments. We are talking to the choir.
But, our problem is how to talk to the public that is so badly influenced by the constant lies. The public knows the truth... they are being “had” again and again.
We must stop talking and start sharing obvious facts that the general public can understand. Do we do it on “bill boards”? I know that Bernie and Elizabeth and many more are talking straight. I know that many of us follow Krugman and others. Robert Reich being one of our finest economists....
But what has me thoroughly depressed is that nothing seems to change. I feel useless.
I wonder if Robert put a fun “test your knowledge” questionnaire on the social media about facts about “ trickle down” and reward winners with real public support. Make it like a “National Spelling Bee” or a test your aptitude about your own futures success. What works for you and what doesn’t.
My husband and I have just finished Ken Burns “Holocaust” documentary. How to twist the narrative about how close we are to being close to this horror so young people start to think about government that works for the people. There are obviously brilliant thinkers out there. Help us teach ! Help us change attitudes with reality.
Obviously I do not want to give up. However, when things stay the same for thirty and forty years at a time one has to wonder... “ what’s the point?”
Remember “Boys State” and Girls State”? When high school students could go to state sponsored programs to study government and then compete to go to the National honor program in Washington DC ?Give scholarships for college.
Well I hope I didn’t spoil the day for all of you.
Jenn, Ugh, there's a name from the past, David Stockman. Talk about someone who had no clue. But, Reagan, not being all that aware of economics, bought the BS Stockman et al were selling and it still haunts us, Krugman's "zombie economics. We need a funeral for this nonsense but Republicans and their "trickle-down" donors just won't let it pass away. They have so much to gain and the rest of us have so much to lose.
'trickle down' (?). I've come to think of this phrase (I've mentioned this before on this posting) as more like "Hoovering Up" (re Hoover brand of vacuum cleaner from the past). This could also be a ref to President Herbie Hoover at the time of the - GREAT DEPRESSION" where the rich - stayed - rich - and millions upon millions sank into povertry &&& at the beginning of the Dust Bowl Years. Family members from that era
were hit hard by those years, those hardships having "trickled down" to my current situation. [[[ History DOES REPEAT ITSELF !!! including climatically ~ ~ ~
What's the metaphor exactly - "tickle-down" == melted ice cream? (How is the "trickling" correctly visualized?)
The idea behind supply-side or trickle down economics is that by "relieving businesses of tax "burdens" and regulatory "burdens," those funds would be invested in the businesses to grow and expand creating more jobs, needing more equipment, etc. Small businesses might actually do those things, but big corporations just use those funds to buy back their own stock boosting the stock price. Those gains went to a smallish group of shareholders, not a large segment of the working consuming public.
Stock buy-backs do indeed benefit only a very small group of Americans, who typically are in the top 10% of the economic spectrum.
As well, a non-trivial portion of the wealth that supposedly will someday, somehow "trickle down," instead mysteriously seems to find its way into executive pay increases and bonuses. Some old wisdom about foxes guarding chicken coops comes to mind...
Do stock buy-backs *hurt* the rest of us? Presumably it's the excess profits of the companies that pursue buy-backs (for want of better ideas, e.g. generating wealth through investment in communities & other stakeholders) that do the real harm...?
(A focus on short-term results hurts everyone - and that is fueled by excess pay and bad incentives... but focusing on buy-backs won't change that!)
They hurt us generally in the sense that money spent on stock buy-backs is money not spent on productive capacity, worker wages and salaries, research and development, and so forth. The point of a buy-back is to drive up the value of the company's stock; most stock is owned by relatively few people, who typically are at the upper end of the economic spectrum. Thus the effect of a buy-back is to increase the wealth of the relatively few who are already substantially wealthier than the great majority of the population as a whole. In that sense it's a redistribution of wealth upward.
If a company were to use surplus cash -- from profits, government bail-out money, pandemic relief money, or whatever -- to hire more workers, pay workers more, or invest in future profit-making capability, it would be redistributing the wealth horizontally and downward through the economy. The wealth would get spent and re-spent, as companies and individuals use it to produce more goods, pay their own workers, and buy more goods.
Economies are healthiest when money circulates broadly within it; they're the least healthy when money stagnates (is hoarded or allowed to accumulate unproductively or concentrated in the hands of too few people who can't or won't use most of it).
So you could think of stock buy-backs as imposing a kind of opportunity cost on everyone who doesn't have stock. It's not direct harm to the non-stock owners -- it doesn't take money out of anyone's pocket or by itself diminish anyone's purchasing power. Rather, it's an opportunity to build broad economic strength and longer-term, broadly beneficial economic performance that is forgone, allowed to slip away.
Jenn, good summary, and of course, salaries/wages were not markedly raised, only the extreme necessities were bought, and the few got sickeningly rich. That's "trickle-down." Some other "theories" that do a lot of harm also get play. The "bail out the banks to save worse trouble" theory just won the Nobel Prize for Economics. So, a bank that screws up and does bad, should get bailed out so its bad actions won't cause worse? It seems to me paying off mortgages would have done more to help banks and communities, but banks clearly have more pull all over the world, including in Sweden in October. It shows that even smart people can be bamboozled.
Not asking about the theory (is there one?) - but rather the conceptualization (as the idea itself just seems sub-par academically).
Also, the federal government did provide direct relief (in the form of rental assistance) during the pandemic - but the issue could be one of how quickly (and to what extent) existing tools can be put to use for the purpose (as not undertaking QE would probably have led to collapse of the financial system).
what trickles down is the urine of the rich pissing on the poor....
Mineral wealth, got it- (disgusting but spot on; thank you!)
If you feed the horse enough oats the sparrows will eventually get theirs.
Going to save that one for "trickling through" - but also spot on (obliged!).
Google (or search the internet) for trickle down economics cartoons. Great visualizations indeed!
Almost afraid to look, to be honest (probably the correct idea though - "A picture is worth a thousand words!")...
Perhaps "Golden Shower" economic theory would be more picturesque and understanable.
In terms of discourse, the idea that someone hasn't already tried to co-opt the language (as was done with the word 'queer' in the 1980's per Michel Foucault) does get illuminated in light of the same (excellent point!)...
Trickling Down = Flooding UP
Avie, I really like your metaphoric response to the "rising tides" proverb. The thought of the leaky boats makes things clearer and should be shared. I will not hear that one in the same way again. Thanks!
What I continue to wonder is why "the people," those who work and pay taxes and vote for those in power, continue to tolerate the blatant, unfettered transfer of their "wealth" to the rich-richer-richest.
Because they are consistently lied to and manipulated (see DT) about what's really going on.
But all of us who live in the same society are subjected to the same lies and manipulations and yet the responses are not the same from everyone. It is critical that there be some societal consensus about what is true, what the essential principles are, or - to use some old song lines applied to the concept of "America:" What's it all about, Alfie? - and for most Americans to be able to answer that rhetorical question with a generally similar response.
Annie Cross ; I agree that we could benefit from a reinstatement of the 'fairness Doctrine' which could require 'truth in advertising' and generally protect us from outright false information in the news. There were standards of decency ; 'No hitting below the belt'. "All the news that's fit to print". Tricky ; because who gets to decide?
There has been a breakdown in consensus on basic principles among the ruling elites in this country. this is reflected in the media and the public response to what they see in the media. It’s not that the public has gotten any dumber.
And the conundrum is how to reach the millions of deluded voters who love Trump and believe not just The Big Lie but all of the lies told by the bought and paid for sycophants: MTG, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Desantis, et al. Trump is actually just the hired help, the paid salesman of the oligarchs and autocrats.
Leslie E ; True! But he loves ❤ the limelight! He might be shocked to see how his 'loves' who sent letters would treat him if he succeeds in helping them achieve their aims!
Annie, it sure would be good if there were some kind of consensus, but that would never work for those who thrive on division, and there are a lot of them right now, mostly Republicans. Their constituents like the division because it has been designed to make them feel special, holders of some fantastical knowledge that no one else has. They whine that they, the "real Americans" are being ignored but they deliberately elect candidates who will ignore them and their needs. It makes me wonder sometimes if they like and even need their "poor little me" position. It gives them something to live for. That can never be a winning proposition, but they choose it anyway. I wish there were some way to stop the cycle of division-whine-division-whine more-divide more.
Ruth Sheets ; It's like the 'biker chicks' (as they called themselves), saying to an interviewer; " We don't ask too many questions". They get the 'glory' of being with their gang and wearing the colors, and riding the loud bikes of their law breaking masters.
Annie: You probably don't have that collective subconscious. Our line is "the truth goes marching on."
You can believe in trickle down BS and also oppose insurrection.
Right. And also because of the call to their racist collective subconscious.
Annie Cross ; I also wonder how many voters have significant stock portfolios, which they depend on, and who vote for those who will protect and maybe even increase their bottom lines? There are those who do not work, but receive social security and also pay taxes. Social security is taxed. Those with pensions and who own property still pay taxes.
I would contend, contrary to the Professor’s newsletter, that Democrats this term did offer “[a] bottom-up economics that invests in the education and health of the public, and the infrastructure connecting them.”
To refresh our memories, I would note, in late Spring 2020, after Joe Biden had become the Party’s presumptive Presidential nominee, he and Bernie Sanders created 6 policy task forces which, according to Sanders, “had some of the most knowledgeable people in the country coming together” to deal with education, climate change, healthcare, the economy, criminal justice, and immigration reform. Sanders had concluded that if the compromises they had achieved were implemented, “life would improve for tens and tens of millions of working people.”
Because Senate Republicans refused to allow regular order, Democrats had to cram the President’s entire legislative agenda into one bill that only could be passed through the procedural maneuver we know as budget reconciliation. Despite certain pieces disallowed by the Senate Parliamentarian into the plan, the legislation (BBB), nonetheless, would have helped to remedy much of the country’s grotesque inequalities of wealth and income.
When the reconciliation package, this past January, failed, by two votes (Manchin and Sinema), to pass, I decided, as important as it was this election season to defend democracy at the state and local levels, my principal commitment would be to help hold the House and pick up at least two Senate seats. Besides, state and local government would be subject to regulations of Congress.
My opposition to the Professor’s position notwithstanding, I would be remiss were I not to underscore the nearly impossible odds of holding the House, wherein Republicans need flip only five seats in highly gerrymandered terrain. Still, though I’ve posted it before, it’s worth restating that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote, “Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done.” As follow-up, I simply would note, generally speaking, that only in retrospect is the true value of persistence in the face of difficulty revealed.
Barbara Jo. Thanks for your hopeful words. I remember well the groups studying how real improvement can be made from 2020, but I also remember the Republican extreme efforts to discard those things claiming all kinds of problems mostly economic that would keep us from dealing with any of them. The media helped a lot with that. Republicans have nothing to offer the American people, so fearmonger with their revised Willy Horton ads like those of 1988. They can't even invent anything but have to reuse the crap they already put out there with new actors and phrases. The ads imply, OK demand people think that Democrats are going to release hardened criminals, murderers if they get elected. They lie that Democrats think our economy is great even though they, the poor little me white people" are not seeing it and will suffer even more under Democrats (yes, the ones who give them relief while Republicans voted against nearly everything for over a decade that would help anyone but the rich individuals and corporations). We have a lot of work to do, and I think we can. Democrats may not always be in unison, but we try to look for different solutions when old ones don't work, at least a lot of the time we do. Republicans on the other hand, lie, divide, and toss around their racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia like they are candy thrown to children. Their approach is insulting and really unacceptable if the people actually listened to what was being said instead of just the whining professional actor ad voice that pleads for them to believe some more lies about candidates while their own candidates do some more lying and try to play down their insurrectionist bonafides except online. Wow!
Ruth, While your comment encompasses several valid points, my intent was to focus more narrowly on truly progressive legislation Senate Democrats nearly were able to enact, without support from any Republicans, through budget reconciliation. Moreover, I wanted to underscore that the only reason Democrats had to legislate in this ridiculous way, cramming their entire legislative agenda into a single bill, was because Senate Republicans refused to allow regular order, by which I mean their insistence upon abusing the filibuster to prevent legislation from coming to the floor for debate and an up or down vote.
Hence, my reason for summoning all my resources to hold the House and to pick up at least 2 Senate Democrats who support the Democrat’s legislative agenda and are willing, when warranted, either to reform or to set aside the filibuster.
I remember Sam Brownback's epic failure in Kansas in 2012, the "Great Kansas Tax Cut Experiment, " approved by the likes of ALEC, Reagan's "Trickle Down," "Voodoo economics" guru Arthur Laffer, and tax-cut zealot, Grover Norquist; all successful republican scam artists.
Needless to say, the reckless Kansas "Experiment" was an abject failure, as infrastructure, social services, education, etcetera, could not be sustained, as a result of fallen tax revenues (which is exactly what this "Experiment " was designed to do).
Now, years later, Idiot Truss wants to be a latter-day "supply-side" scammer, and, again, it's not working.
The wealthy will continue their class warfare, as long as they have feckless lacky politicians like Reagan, Trump, Truss and others, peddling the same snakeoil, and the continued enablement of such blatant class-warfare by the vast majority of the democratic party, because the democrats refuse to employ effective
strategies to expose and stop such scams.
Deborah Carroll ; The latest and biggest scam was the very rich installing tRump, with the help of Putin. and the corrupt, corporate media. The first thing he did was give trillions from our treasury to billionaires
Oh Laurie, you have that right, but we must remember that Trump didn't do that on his own. He had unanimous support from Congressional Republicans for his trillions of dollar giveaway to the very rich, under the guise of helping the middle class. OK, they had to do it after midnight at the end of the year in 2017, but it was a group effort that is just what Trump wanted. It was one of the biggest disasters of his disastrous administration!
Sadly, there have always been people who would buy the snake oil. Once they had made their sales to the suckers, the snake oil salesmen always hurried to leave town before folks wised up to their tricks.
Yes: They had to 'get outta Dodge'! Fast
Deborah, You are right about the "trickle-down" crew and their aims. I remember the Kansas fiasco, but I think a whole lot of people learned nothing from the incident. I wish it were just Democrats' inability to get the word out that keeps this "trickle-down" insanity from stopping, but it isn't. Democrats may have a plurality of registered voters in the United States, but we don't have the majority of the money. It seems when one gets rich democracy is just something that can be ignored and Republicans are the party that is most comfortable with that, in fact very comfortable with that. They love it when politicians who know little or nothing preach "trickle-down" because it enhances their cause. People often go for the message put out by the loudest mouths rather than from the mouths that speak truth, even common sense. Then, there's the media which are owned far more by rich Republican-leaning mostly white men, and white men are a majority constituency of the Republican party. That does not mean we shouldn't be getting the message out, but it is going to be exceedingly hard.
Very well said, Deborah!
Trickle down? More like gush up!. It is time for Democratic political leaders to start explaining what it is, When Reagan cut taxes in 1986 I was a school public school teacher earning a modest living. My taxes went up $700 from the previous year. This was true of every "tax cut" enacted since 1986, the amount of increase in taxes owed went up. Now I am retired, living on 3 small pensions so for the first time in 34 years I got a walloping $225 back from the Feds and only had to pay $3 for State tax. I'm sure I'm not the only formerly middle income American who experienced the same thing. Why don't they connect the dots?
Fay, I do know of others who experienced the same kinds of tax increases under the guise of tax cuts you did. Why is this not reported? It is, but certain administrations are heard better than others. Reagan was an actor, so knew how to present the BS really well. Trump is a terrible communicator, but is loud, obnoxious, racist, sexist, and more, all things that can persuade a lot of people that those above approaches to communication must be telling the truth because of who is telling it even though the president was a serial liar. I don't think people want to connect the dots because it might prove they were wrong about some things and there are a whole lot of people who just can't be wrong about anything.
This has been around for years because the average American is not educated well enough to recognize gobbledygook. It is often spoken by supposed distinguished Americans knowing it is false in order to perpetuate the lie.
John, that's right. The average American never had to learn anything about economics and our TV/cable/radio media want to present both sides of an issue even when one of the sides is simply bogus. When presented like it is, people think both sides are just two different viewpoints, not one viewpoint and one lie masquerading as legitimate. Things will not improve until our media are called to actually report what is true and what has failed in the past and explain why and how. I know a lot of people will just roll their eyes and shut it off, but it could reach some.
Until we have public funding of elections, Congress will always be bought and paid for. In my own state of Florida, the Dems depend primarily on ordinary people to back their campaigns. They can't compete with the GOPers who get million$ to fund their campaigns. We need to go back to public funding of campaigns. But that won't happen because the political apparatus runs on $$. Unfortunately, it will take a depression to make that happen. The filthy rich are running us in that direction by starving the ordinary buyer of earnings to buy with.
One more day to register new Democrats in Florida.
Database of unregistered women. Mervis Reissig
merv4peace@gmail.com
Mailing more postcards this morning!🌊🌊🗳🗳
I’ve lived through Reagan’s Trickle Down era. It did nothing for me or the middle class. I can’t understand how this failed,corrupt concept still gets pushed back on us. Politicians keep drinking the BILLIONAIRE Kool Aid to drive the country further and further into the ground.
While we no longer have castles, manors, serfs or vassals, we do have a modern simulacrum of the Middle Ages. The objects are not as visible but the effects remain just as pernicious.
We have substituted the hedge fund for the privet hedge and the corporation for the lord's estate.
What we have not changed is greed, now fueled with the internet, the meme, the "influencer".
We are deceived and distracted with the bright shiny objects now littering our lives from such as these:
- migrant caravans
- critical race theory
- welfare queens
- Antifa
- American carnage
If someone is patting you on the back for being better than another with one hand especially if he loudly says you have been unjustly disadvantaged, just like a skilled magician, you can bet he is picking your pocket with the other hand.
Even a hedge fund manager should oppose insurrection.
Hear!! Hear!! Sucinct and well written. What a wonderful Post. Thank you so much for your insights Doug.
because if you do not know history then you are bound to repeat it. our attention span is shortened. but history didn't just begin NOW. it doesn't have to be your history for you to be able to learn from it. are we (collective) not doing a good enough job teaching the next generations? or are we just not listening to each other?
c t petersel, I think both, the same money that supports the " trickle down"ers, is keeping us divided and uncoordinated so the situation doesn't change.
This article neglected to mention that to improve public infrastructure and services tax increases across the board are required.Wealthy people can and do move their tax affairs offshore leaving the middle and working people to fund government spend.Britain's Labour party has committed to keep the tax cuts proposed by the ruling Conservatives apart from a decrease to the top rate.As we know many wealthy individuals pay themselves via dividends or capital gains which are more favourably treated.Until the Labour Party is honest about the need to fix the inequalities of the current UK taxation system then it will always be left trying to explain how it can fund improvements to health education and social security without running up yet more public debt.I think that this is applicable too to the Democrats.No one likes to pay more taxes but the alternative which has been tried under Reagan and Thatcher is to let everyone fend for themselves.That is the credo of free enterprise "think tanks" but it is a discredited one when we can see that only through collective action can we fightback against pandemics,ecological disaster and military aggression.
I just shook my head in wonder at Liz Truss’ budget proposal. So glad she got the pushback that she did.
The neo-liberals never learn!
But trickle down isn’t neo liberal.
Of course it is neo-liberal. The idea that the market is the solution for what ails society and that the invisible hand will mean prosperity for all.
Trickle down economy created a parasite class of capitalists.
As one who has worked in public policymaking bodies at the local, state and national level, I can attest that this missive is spot-on.
We should not be surprised that the hoarders at the top build all kinds of structures and institutions to further economic and social inequality; while immoral, it's totally logical. The tragedy is the four decades-long failure of so-called progressive forces to to mount effective, sustained counter-measures. And that includes the Administration for which Secretary Reich served.
I remember back in the early 1980s when "Trickle-down economics" was being pushed that I and my co-workers, non-economists knew it was a stupid idea. I had watched the shows about the rich and the famous and understood well that those folks were not about to give up any of their new gains to anyone for any purpose, not even to build their brand beyond getting their name out there, and definitely not to help raise incomes or improve working conditions of their workers. Many of the rich and famous are deeply addicted to accumulation. It becomes a contest to see who can get the most, hoping people won't notice how they get it, then suddenly, they are too rich to stop. I think a lot of people don't think of that because we have been conditioned to see the rich and famous as somehow brilliant, mostly nice people who wouldn't hurt the little guy who one day could be rich like them. It makes no sense, but I think it is built into a society where what one has often indicates the level of respect one gets. And, what one has opens them to all kinds of benefits like education, jobs, power, etc. Conservatives/Republicans in this country have attached themselves to "trickle-down" and liberals/Democrats have a hard time getting traction in opposition because, let's face it, those who benefited from "trickle-down" own the media, industry, telecommunications, and more. Their voices and money speak far louder than what the rest of us can say. Building from the bottom is certainly the right strategy, but when the weight of the wealthy is so great, how can the have-nots get started. Then, there's the filibuster that stops nearly everything that could curb the "trickle-down" insanity. Ugh!