MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Have Big Plans for 2020: They Want to Spend More Money!

Republicans have paved the way for the Democrats' big government agenda.

Ron Sachs/SIPA/NewscomRon Sachs/SIPA/NewscomAlthough the midterms are still in front of us, the leading lights of the Democratic party, and its likely presidential frontrunners, are already preparing for the election to follow, with a series of sweeping domestic policy proposals. You can think of these plans as teaser trailers for the 2020 election. Although they don't reveal the entire plot, they offer a sense of the race to come, what the issues will be, and how they are likely to be fought.

As it turns out, the pitch for nearly all of them is fundamentally the same: The government should be larger and spend more money, with debt and deficits an afterthought at best. Bernie Sanders would like to spend more money on Medicare for all, Kirsten Gillibrand on a jobs guarantee, Cory Booker on bonds for children, Kamala Harris on a tax credit—essentially a cash subsidy—for the middle class and working poor.

Taken together, these plans highlight the ways in which, under Trump, Democratic policy ambitions have become emboldened by the Republican party's hypocrisy and carelessness when it comes to the deficit—and in particular by last year's tax law, which, along with both military and domestic spending increases, has helped send annual deficits toward the trillion dollar mark.

The influence of the GOP's shruggie approach to the federal budget is most apparent in Kamala Harris' plan, which would provide up to $6,000 a year in cash benefits to low-income families—a sort of partial universal basic income meant to supplement America's existing welfare state rather than replace it. Harris wants to pay for this new spending by repealing major parts of the GOP tax law.

"Last year, Congress gave a trillion dollars in tax breaks to corporations," Harris recently told The Atlantic. "That money should have gone to American taxpayers who need it instead of handing it over to corporations and the top 1 percent."

Harris, notably, isn't making an argument that the tax law raising the deficit is a bad thing. Instead, she's saying that it raised the deficit in service of the wrong goal. The GOP tax bill, which added $1.5 trillion to the deficit, has provided a convenient excuse for progressive economic policies.

Thanks in large part to the GOP's deficit hypocrisy, Democrats now feel free to propose bigger and bolder economic policy ideas than they have in decades. These are not tepid centrist plans designed to triangulate the parties or cater to some imagined moderate center. Instead, they are blue-sky visions for a significantly more activist government and a substantially larger welfare state.

That is particularly true if you take these plans in combination. At the moment, each of these plans is mostly associated with a single figure (along with Gillibrand, Sanders has offered his own version of a jobs guarantee). But they are not mutually exclusive, and they point toward a sprawling, multi-part vision of all the ways that empowered Democrats might choose to expand the size and scope of the federal government.

This represents a transformation from the 1990s, when Democratic centrists were ascendant and President Bill Clinton famously declared that the era of big government was over. Heading into 2020, Clinton's party has all but announced its intention to bring it back. For most prominent Democrats, whether or not to embrace a bigger role for government is no longer a question.

One of the reasons for this shift is Donald Trump, whose coarse and unconventional approach to the presidency has encouraged a radical mindset in the opposition, both tactically (think: court packing and restaurant harassment) and in terms of policy. Trump's radicalism, the thinking goes, must be countered with a progressive version of the same.

But it's not just a response to Trump. It's also a rejection of the Clintons and their hold on Democratic politics. Many on the left believe Hillary Clinton failed to beat Trump in 2016 in part because she stuck too close to the more moderate approach adopted by her husband. And the emerging deficits-don't-matter consensus is, at least implicitly, a rebuke to Bill Clinton's low-budget-deficit presidency, which the Democratic party's left flank has long regarded as deeply compromised, if not an outright failure.

If there is an exception to this tendency amongst the current crop of likely Democratic contenders, it is Elizabeth Warren, who has rolled out proposals to dramatically increase corporate regulation and oversight, without any direct fiscal cost. But even this is largely a matter of emphasis, intended to gently sidestep the spending argument (for now) rather than to duck it completely.

Democrats may not succeed with all or even most of their agenda, but so far they are encountering precious little effective resistance. If anything, Republicans are working to further advance the cause.

Although the GOP has begun to attempt to counter the Democratic agenda, they have do so by adopting rhetoric that ends up supporting their opponents, offering defenses of Medicare and Obamacare's insurance regulations, signing on to spending bills that accept domestic funding increases in exchange for more money for the military, and promising further waves of tax cuts that would send the deficit spiraling ever higher, and offering additional justification for the Democrats' fiscal expansions in the process. Under Trump, Democrats have become the party of even bigger government—but Republicans have become the party of the big government we already have.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rockabilly||

    Spend it on me me me

    give me $871,987,976,876,867.96 because

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I bought a ticket. I deserve it.

  • Dillinger||

    belonging to zero virtue categories should warrant a cut.

  • Kirk Solo||

    "Blah blah blah Republicans do it too"...I can already hear Rev's dumbass comment.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Just don't respond. There's no discernable point to argue in his posts. Until he is willing to actually talk there is little reason to respond.

  • Kirk Solo||

    +1

  • Red Tony||

    Was Volokh coming here worth adding him to the comments section? Honestly unsure about this because I don't regularly visit Volokh (too smart for me).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He's not that bad.

  • John||

    He is that bad. He is the worst sort of troll. He is not even funny. He just shows up on threads with some kind of partisan bent and shits all over them making rational dialog impossible. I agree that ignoring him is the best idea. But, he really is that bad.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    But enough about you.

  • John||

    I am sorry I have offended you so much. I feel kind of bad for not just doing it but enjoying it so much. I really seem to have gotten under your skin. I guess I underestimate my effect on people sometimes. But you should work on being less angry and taking things in stride better.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    John, I just enjoy ribbing you, cause you get so worked up about it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes, which you can just ignore him. All he does is one thing. It is a little annoying, but he's clearly a person and I think he could be coaxed out of his shell to actually talk as a real person.

    Otherwise, just ignore him.

  • JesseAz||

    He's been following volokh with the same schtick for a decade. He is all shell. No brains. No redeemable quality.

  • DesigNate||

    Once in a blue moon I will find myself agreeing with Tony or Shrike. Rev is just the worst sort of douche who thinks he's way smarter than he actually is.

  • JesseAz||

    He has family baggage. Best described as the douchebag in a movie annoyed he has to go visit his family only to realize he's an asshole. Arthur never got past the opening credits.

  • MasterThief||

    Same. It isn't often and the agreements might be for different reasons, but they occasionally hit some points I can agree with. Rev is just a partisan asshole spouting nonsense labels without adding anything to the conversation

  • TuIpa||

    Meh, the Rev tried going supernova with his schtick, realized he still couldn't hang, and now he struggles to even be noticed.

    Volokh had mods who banned at the drop of a hat, so the Rev's style suited a place where mealy mouthed condescension was ok, but telling someone to suck your asshole wasn't.

    This isn't that place, and the Rev is nothing here.

  • JesseAz||

    Only wapo ever banned. It was never volokhs people. He never banned anyone at the VC.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I would also like to get rid of Hihn once and for all.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Coming here did not add Arthur Kirkland to the comments section. He was around, not only on WaPo, but on the VC's independent website before they moved to WaPo.

  • TuIpa||

    SMH

  • Bubba Jones||

    yeah. We are blaming VC.

  • JesseAz||

    You also get Stephen lanthrop, apedad, and sarcastro. A net drain for any comment section

  • Robert||

    Sarcastro used to be very entertaining, but has run out of material.

  • newshutz||

    On the original VC he (RAK) was not as bad, he really has gone off the deep end.

    I suggest we start including his middle initial and call him RALK

    Then we can move to RALPH, which is a synonym for the worth of his comments.

  • shortviking||

    Something something liberal libertarian alliance something something if you don't want government spending into oblivion then you are a backward bigot this and that derp derp

  • Kirk Solo||

    +1

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    You left off the: "Carry on clingers."

  • Nardz||

    "You left off the: "Carry on clingers.""

    And the rape fantasy

  • Nardz||

    ""Blah blah blah Republicans do it too"...I can already hear Rev's dumbass comment."

    Rev never admits equivalence.
    Your quote is more of a mealy mouthed sarcasmic, chemjeff, chipper baculum dumbass comment

  • Kirk Solo||

    ""Blah blah blah Republicans do it so much worse"...I can already hear Rev's dumbass comment."

    Better?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Under Trump, Democrats have become the party of even bigger government—but Republicans have become the party of the big government we already have.

    Huh, so they are conservatives after all.

  • Just Say'n||

    Your first salient point, Hugh

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Having the most qualified candidate in the history of presidential elections wasn't good enough against Idiocracy, so they're going to go with Plan A, otherwise known as buying votes with nonexistent tax revenue. Your only hope is that in opposition the GOP finds its inner budgetary speed bump.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    That speed bump will be The Donald playing 0-D checkers. His cunning plan all along has been to cut taxes, raise the deficit, egg on the Democrats, and use their even-spendier plans to shock the GOP into actually cutting spending.

    I keed you not!

  • ||

    Republicans have paved the way for the Democrats' big government agenda.

    Without Republicans showing them how to use the checkbook, Democrats wouldn't even know how to spend money!

  • esteve7||

    i believe the word you are looking for is "steal". the only money they can spend is money they've stolen from others

  • John||

    Not true. The money they borrow in the form of selling bonds isn't stolen since the people buying the bonds are not forced to do so.

  • esteve7||

    Money is not free. Borrowed money is either stealing from the future, since that money will be paid back, or it is stealing from all of us as the value of our dollar decreases.

    https://despair.com/products/inflation

  • John||

    It is no more stealing from the future than spending any other money is. If future bond payments are "stealing from the future", then every other form of spending is as well. And that is a very odd way to define stealing.

  • esteve7||

    stealing is taking away your property by force. It is theft when the government takes your money to give it to someone else. It is unconstitutional. The only acceptable taking of money is when services are rendered. Ex: Gas Tax to pay for roads, Tax to pay for Police, Military, etc.

    But taking your money at the point of a gun to give $500 checks to people not named you is theft, pure and simple.

  • TuIpa||

    Cool, and completely unrelated to your post.

  • buddhastalin||

    Future bond payments are a legal obligation. Future people cannot vote it away and the only way to extinguish it is to put up their own cash. Issuing other bonds does not make the legal obligations go away either, it just extends their lifetime. Just printing money to pay off bonds is stealing in a different form if it leads to inflation; look at Zimbabwe and Venezuela. "Every other form of spending", if it is not a legal obligation in disguise, can be voted away.

  • TuIpa||

    " Borrowed money is either stealing from the future, since that money will be paid back"

    That could be the dumbest statement ever made.

  • Juice||

    And they'll hold bake sales to pay off the bonds.

  • John||

    No. They will just sell more bonds like they always have.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    To the extent you reject taxation as theft then whatever borrowing is done against that future taxation is fraud/theft.

    In your formulation I could secure a loan based using your house as collateral and you'd say I hadn't stolen anything.

  • John||

    YEah, the Democrats would never want to spend money if it wasn't for the Republicans paving the way for them to do it. I mean, if the Republicans had balanced the budget this year, no Democrat would dare advocate spending a lot of money.

    The sad thing is that I think Suderman might actually believe this.

    False quivelence and pox on both houses for $500 Alex.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Tu quoque.

  • MasterThief||

    I stopped reading the article immediately when it became obvious that was going to be the central narrative. The Republicans lacking discipline on spending has been a problem of the establishment repeatedly backstabbing its own base. The sad part is that each time they raise spending it is to screams from the democrats complaining about not spending enough. The democrats have been radicalizing whether the republicans were behaving as moderates or getting back to their constitutional principles. This is an attempt to pass the blame for the stupidity of Democrats onto their opposition. Blame the R's for their lack of principled tenacity and blame the D's for being batshit crazy and trying to buy power directly with tax money

  • Juice||

    The government should be larger and spend more money, with debt and deficits an afterthought at best.

    So, the status quo then.

  • John||

    Pretty much. But hey we never had deficits or big spending until Republicans paved the way for it. Didn't you know that?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Republicans have paved the way for the Democrats' big government agenda.

    That's one way of looking at it.

  • John||

    Does Suderman actually believe this or is he just trolling the readership?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The GOP has sucked hard on spending, with a brief hiatus in sucking ~1994 and an ongoing rhetoric about not sucking on spending.

    The Democrats have sucked hard at spending my entire life and their ongoing rhetoric about spending always sucked hard.

    I'm not sure how the GOP "paved the way" for those poor Democrats who would have totally reigned it in, had it not been for the bad example the GOP set for them.

  • John||

    Both parties are appalling when it comes to spending. There is no denying that. You would think Suderman would take the easy "pox on both houses" tact that reason so loves. It is one of the few times where it is undeniably the right take. Instead, he tries to pretend the Republicans are somehow worse and more responsible for this than the Democrats. It makes no sense why he would do that except that perhaps he is actually that stupid and believes it to be the truth.

  • Tony||

    They are worse and more responsible, John. The good thing about this is that it's entirely about numbers. Just look them up. Which party makes deficits bigger? At least own it and stop lying.

  • John||

    Yes Tony, you are dumb enough to think that. You didn't need to remind us. We know you are stupid.

  • Tony||

    What a stunningly witty comeback.

    I'd link to numbers but I don't want you running away like a little bitch like you do every time someone beats you in an argument, which is always.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Which party created the specific government programs that spend the most money?

    Deficits are always caused by too much spending - never too little taxation.

  • Tony||

    To this day I don't understand how libertarians, the geekiest of all numbers geeks in politics this side of Nate Silver, don't understand how a fucking ledger works.

    I get that you want to throw old and sick people into death and destitution. What a charming life goal. But at least talk about arithmetic like you have at least the brain capacity of an orangutan.

  • John||

    So yes Tony, the programs that are driving the deficit were all created by Democrats. Thanks for admitting that. Now go back to ranting and raving about how the problem is that the American public just refuses to be enslaved to support your grand designs for them.

  • Tony||

    So tell me why Republicans just won't simply run on cutting Medicare and Social Security.

    Is it that you think hypocrisy makes up for their lack of principle?

  • TuIpa||

    "So tell me why Republicans just won't simply run on cutting Medicare and Social Security."

    This makes sense to Tony.

  • Just Say'n||

    "So tell me why Republicans just won't simply run on cutting Medicare and Social Security."

    Because they would never win with such a position. It's the "two Santa Clauses" paradox. Democrats will be you free stuff and Republicans will cut your taxes. No one is going to cut spending.

  • Tony||

    But if these programs are so terrible for people, surely someone can argue why.

  • TuIpa||

    "But if these programs are so terrible for people, surely someone can argue why"

    Because they sap resources by requiring that a demonstrably inefficient entity such as government be involved.

  • Just Say'n||

    "But if these programs are so terrible for people, surely someone can argue why."

    Tony, you still can't even grasp how reduced taxes are beneficial to economic growth and that's a pretty simple concept.

    How do you expect someone to explain to the average voter how the annual growth rate in the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is outpacing the consumer price index and inflating healthcare costs?

  • Tony||

    How is having everyone's grandparents totally dependent on their grandchildren conducive to growth?

    "Growth" is a macroeconomic concern. I thought you cared about individual freedom.

  • ||

    How is having everyone's grandparents totally dependent on their grandchildren conducive to growth?

    How is having everyone's grandparents totally dependent on the government conducive to growth?

    Do you even think about these things for two seconds before you hit "send?"

  • Tony||

    They're going to be dependent on someone or something is the point, your hand-waving charity fantasies notwithstanding. Whether you have to pay to care for a sick parent is a game of chance. It has become ever more likely the longer people are living (a good thing, surely).

    The entire point of such government programs is to smooth over the peaks and valleys in random human fortune. Just like any other insurance program. If someone wants to go be a productive member of society but can't because all his income goes to paying for his mother's elder care, then what have we gained?

  • ||

    If someone wants to go be a productive member of society but can't because all his income goes to paying for his mother's elder care, then what have we gained?

    So you want to solve that problem by inserting a bunch of bureaucrats between "someone" and their sick mother? In the name of reducing the cost of care? And you want to pretend that you're being more moral than the rest of us by wanting that?

  • JesseAz||

    I like how Tony completely believes it is impossible for a grandparent to be responsible and have saved for their retirement. Fact is that is destroyed the average American savings rate, exacerbating the lack of savings in old age.

  • Here for the outrage||

    It is very difficult to remove programs that create dependency. It's a one way ponzi scheme.

    It's a lot easier to attack the entire system, like budget cuts across the board. But to get there you've gotta be in a big hole. Give the government time, they're shovel in hand

  • DesigNate||

    Probably because when you take in record fucking tax revenue ($3.34Trillion this year, before any tax breaks "gutted" the revenue stream) it becomes patently obvious to anyone with a third grade education that the problem is not income, it's spending.

    (Oh, and the projected income for next year is 3.4Trillion according to CBO estimates. If that holds true, cutting taxes would have actually increased revenue. I'll be sure to bookmark this post and point it out and laugh at you if that happens.)

  • JesseAz||

    Baseline budgeting assumes 3.3% growth in government spending a year. Obama averaged just over 2% gdp growth a year. Only dumbfuck liberals can't understand why the math doesn't work.

  • Teddy Pump||

    BOTH SIDES SUK & BOTH ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME....Trump spent like crazy & also cut taxes....BAD MOVE!!!....Trumpty-Dumpty is an immoral egotistical psychologically diseased lying bag of turd Con Man just like pretty much every other Big Time Pol on both sides!

  • JesseAz||

    Trump wasn't able to veto a spending bill that passed with 90 senate votes. Blaming him is idiotic.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Nonsense, Trump , just like Obummy did not get involved in the process & guide it in any meaningful way towards cutting spending.....He could've if he wanted to!

  • Dont Tread On My Lawn||

    He actually believes this.

  • Just Say'n||

    Don't you remember when Democrats were for small government and the gold standard? It was under Garfield. So, Suderman is totally right and his "both sides, guys, both sides. I would never unilaterally insult Democrats" ensures him more cocktail party invites

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    Strange to think of Fauxcahontas as the moderate.

  • DWB||

    Yup, the Democrats were just fighting so hard to cut spending until that nasty Republicans came along!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Taken together, these plans highlight the ways in which, under Trump, Democratic policy ambitions have become emboldened by the Republican party's hypocrisy and carelessness when it comes to the deficit

    It's also possible that Hillary's loss and ongoing discontent among more progressive Democrats has emboldened Democratic policy ambitions. After all, wasn't Ocacio-Cortez the "future of the party"?

  • John||

    It is not so much Hillary's loss but the extinction of pretty much all Democrats who represented red or even purple districts in Congress after the Obamacare debacle. There is anyone in the party who holds office who actually has to answer to or try and appeal to voters beyond the lunatic fringe. If you are a Congressman from Manhattan or Berkley or Seattle, trying to be anything but maximum crazy is just going to cause you to lose the next Democratic primary.

  • Microaggressor||

    Bill Clinton declaring the era of big government over was on the heels of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The hot air propelling democratic socialists comes primarily from those too young to remember the cold war. Most of them have no clue what it was even about. Different times, different stupidity.

  • John||

    They do not remember the 1980s. Before Reagan, even Republicans didn't believe that markets would do best if you left them alone. Outside of a few areas like trucking and natural gas that were deregulated under Carter, the general consensus among both parties was that the economy could not thrive without being properly managed by the government. George H.W Bush called Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics" because that is what the powers that be on both sides actually believed. Reagan of course proved all of them wrong and forced everyone to reasses things such that policies like wage and price controls that were taken as a given by both parties in the 70s were not considered unthinkable.

    The retard millenials grew up in the 1990s and don't remember that. They have never been proven wrong the way the liberals were in the 1980s. So, they have learned none of the lessens that their elders learned in the 80s.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Bill Clinton declaring the era of big government over was on the heels of the collapse of the Soviet Union

    Kind of. It was hot on the heels of an historic GOP victory in 1994.

  • esteve7||

    In the same way me drinking a jack and coke paves the way for an alcoholic

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Paves the way for a party.

  • TuIpa||

    Jack and coke is not a party drink. It's a wallow in misery break up drink.

  • Paulpemb||

    "A guaranteed jobs program"

    So what sort of job? I mean, Democrats used to guarantee nearly every African-American man, woman and child a guaranteed job, with free food, free housing and free health care until mean Republicans with guns came and made them stop.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Amd now Trump has engaged a policy of forced starvation on blacks and Latinos.

  • Tony||

    Cynical asshole political charlatans have poisoned the idea of raising taxes to pay for what we want to buy. Nobody wants to run on raising taxes. Guess who is the pit of that particular rotten fruit? You people! Of course asshole Republicans helped sell the message more than you ever could.

  • John||

    If only we could squeeze the god damned Kulaks down to the last fucking chicken, this whole thing would work. You tell it tony. Tell us more about how the problem in this country is we just don't put a boot on enough faces.

    You are nothing if not consistently stupid and vile.

  • Tony||

    Are you an anarchist or a Republican, John? It seems to change depending on the time of day.

  • John||

    Yes Tony, anyone who thinks that taxes must be less than whatever it takes is just an anarchist. You tell it.

  • Tony||

    Just so we're clear, we both believe in "boots on faces," but you claim to want only some boots on faces, while I want those same boots plus maybe a couple more? And that happens to make the difference between moral and immoral, correct?

  • John||

    And you just want to take everything people make and use the money for your own pruposes. And I just want people to be able to refuse to be a part of sacred gay weddings or not pretend men are really women because they are delussional and think otherwise. yeah, I am the real tyrant here Tony. You called it.

  • Tony||

    You're cute when you're in a spitting rage.

  • TuIpa||

    "You're cute when you're in a spitting rage."

    I'll take Things Tony Says When He Knows He Is Wrong for 1000 Alex.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Gosh Tony, I don't believe in boots on faces. I just want to the necks of people like you broken so the rest of us can finally be free. Maybe if you weren't such a Marxist sociopathic slaver we could find a way to live in peace.

    But no, you and your friends are evil, oppressive shitbags. And that will ultimately not be countenanced.

  • shortviking||

    It's almost as if free thinking people don't perfectly conform to your labels.

  • Tony||

    John is not free thinking. He probably believes there are George Soros funded terrorists in the "caravan" or whatever the shit the rightwing propaganda machine is shitting into his face right now.

    Who should be arrested for inciting violence for the bomb that showed up at Soros's house, I wonder.

  • John||

    To some degree, it is.

    The caravan is organized by a group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras, [b]ut the effort is supported by the coalition CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project, which includes Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLIN), the American Immigration Council (AIC), the Refugee and Immigration Center for Education and Legal Services (RICELS) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) – thus the acronym CARA," WND reported. "At least three of the four groups are funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundation."

    http://www.americanthinker.com.....soros.html

    Facts are such inconvient things. The Open Society Fund funds refugee migrations all over the world. It is hardly a suprise they would be behind this one.

    Beyond that, you love Soros. Why would you want to deny that he is doing this?

  • Tony||

    So which ones are terrorists again?

  • John||

    immigrants can never be terrorists tony. Only evil conservative white men who blow up abortion clinics are terrorists. Everyone knows that.

  • Tony||

    Most terrorists in America are white Christians, that's for sure. But your president is out there spewing lies that demonize people who are already going through a tough time, and you're bitching at me.

  • TuIpa||

    Your link is broken

  • John||

    Yeah Tony I remember when those white Christians hijacked all those airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center. Or when those white Christians murder 60 people in that gay bar in Orlando. And don't even get me started on the scorge of white christian terrorism in Europe.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah, Tony's fellow anally inclined compatriots are murdered by adherents of the Peace Religion, and Tony continues to bleat it that progtard canard about white Christians being terrorists.

    Fucking weak.

  • lap83||

    Most terrorists in America are white Christians, that's for sure.

    and the rest of the terrorists are black Christians? Or are they all right? Maybe the blackness counteracts the evil influence of the Christian-ness.

    I'm gonna be honest, if Tony wrote a treatise of his views on human nature, it would probably make an entertaining read. Maybe with a nice scotch

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    If Tony wrote a treatise of his views on human nature, it could be used as evidence at his competency hearing.

  • ||

    If Tony wrote a treatise of his views on human nature, it would read exactly like Mein Kampf with some terms rearranged.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You beat me to it.

    +69000000

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    WND

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Cynical asshole political charlatans have poisoned the idea of raising taxes to pay for what we want to buy"

    And just exactly what is it that "we" want to buy and who is "we"?

  • Tony||

    You probably want courts, cops, and a military. Some of us want a social safety net too. Just civilization, nothing more.

  • Juice||

    Just civilization, nothing more.

    A civilization built on violence and threats.

  • John||

    We didn't have a civilization before we had a federal governmen that ate up 19% of our total GNP. Tony actually believes this. He really is that stupid.

  • Tony||

    Who are you trying to impress? You don't believe in a modern, large national government now? Do you even know what you believe from minute to minute?

  • John||

    You appearently believe one is necessary for civilization. Your the one that made such an absurd claim. And given your other absurd views, you no doubt believe it. There really is no response to make to such an idiotic claim other than ridicule. You are silly and ignorant Tony.

  • Tony||

    There have been civilizations run by absolute despots. A modern welfare state isn't necessary per se, but it's proved to be a nice idea.

  • John||

    So the United States before 1932, when its federal government was less than 1% of GNP in peace time was run by "absolute despots"? Really?

    And of course nothing says tyranny and despotision like a small governent. The first thing every dictator does is shut down the government and start leaving people alone.

    Tony you are so dumb I almost feel sorry for you.

  • Tony||

    So call your representatives and insist that they run on eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Nobody's stopping you. In fact, I encourage you. Democrats have no power over these programs right now. Why aren't you bitching at Trump, McConnell, and Ryan for not putting this on the agenda? Godspeed--elections have consequences after all.

  • TuIpa||

    "So call your representatives and insist that they run on eliminating Social Security and Medicare. "

    This is such a stupid talkong point, it's no surprise you're using it.

    They cam do those things without running on them. Stop being a fucking idiot.

  • Tony||

    Agreed. They can. But they aren't.

  • TuIpa||

    "Agreed. They can"

    Then your stupid question doesn't make any sense.

  • TuIpa||

    "but it's proved to be a nice idea"

    If you call "timeshifting the misery" a nice idea.

  • lap83||

    Some of us want a social safety net too.

    Or you could stop incessantly annoying everyone you work with and then you might find you can hold on to a job for longer than a day. Just a thought

  • ||

    You probably want courts, cops, and a military.

    He didn't ask for himself he asked for "we". Only an asshole charlatan would put words in other people's mouths like that.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    STEVE SMITH NOT APPROVE OF PUTTING WORDS IN MOUTH.

  • Nardz||

    STEVE SMITH PUT OTHER THINGS IN MOUTH

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Some of us want a social safety net too. Just civilization, nothing more."

    Get back to me when you can prove that's an integral requirement for civilization.

  • Tony||

    It's not integral, but it's worked out pretty well. It's just a technology like any other. Improves the quality of life of human beings.

    But if you think we should start requiring old and sick people to be entirely dependent on whether they have enough money to survive--and thus burdening their families beyond any ability to be productive members of society, go sell it to the people. Be my guest. I'm sure you'll be rewarded for your honesty.

  • TuIpa||

    "It's not integral, but it's worked out pretty well. "

    If so, that could be "despite" not "because" as you seem to think. You certainly haven't shown any causative effect.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "It's not integral, but it's worked out pretty well"

    And that's something else you can't prove.

  • JesseAz||

    Halving the Americans saving rate is a good thing?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    My far left democrat aunt is like Tony. She can't imagine anything other than Medicare or nothing. Typical progressive, reducing everything to a false binary choice of their idea or the apocalypse.

  • ||

    You probably want courts, cops, and a military.

    And you agree we need these things, too, right?

    Some of us want a social safety net too.

    And that's where not as many people agree as on the first one, including agreement on what "social safety net" really means, which you conveniently elide.

    Are you starting to see how this works? Who am I kidding - of course you're not.

  • Tony||

    If I could design our social safety net from scratch, it wouldn't look like it does, but the status quo is probably better than the anarchic hellscape you endorse. That would be anarchic hellscape for the poor. The rich get their courts and cops and military, obviously, because stealing from people to pay for those is " natural rights" or whatever horseshit you idiots say.

  • Just Say'n||

    It should be noted that private charities, particularly religious charities, are more than capable of caring for the poor. In fact, the federal government usually contracts them to manage most of their welfare programs. So your dystopia of some hellscape where the poor are writhing in the street in despair is a fairy tale that bears little resemblance to reality.

  • ||

    In fact, the federal government usually contracts them to manage most of their welfare programs.

    But since all the bureaucrats who make up and dole out these contracts work for free, and even donate a little money on the side, we are actually making the whole thing more efficient and cost-effective by involving the government.

  • Just Say'n||

    I know that the UBI is very controversial with some libertarians, but it would be a great idea if it was implemented along with the complete elimination of the entire bureaucracies that comprise, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, WIC, and every other alphabet soup welfare program that the feds and states manage. And then we can move on to eliminate the national security state apparatus.

    If we are to ever see a shrinking of government, the bureaucracy must be gutted first.

  • ||

    it would be a great idea if it was implemented along with the complete elimination of the entire bureaucracies that comprise, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, WIC, and every other alphabet soup welfare program that the feds and states manage.

    ^ This.

  • Tony||

    Citation needed. Politicians didn't invent Social Security to solve a nonexistent problem or to pollute your bodily fluids.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, they kind of did. Especially at the time that Social Security was passed.

    You know what's really going to blow your mind, Tony? Before the federal minimum wage law, African Americans had a lower unemployment rate than whites.

    You've just been red pilled

  • ||

    You've just been red pilled

    You don't get it. If the government did something, that in and of itself is evidence of that thing having been necessary. Like rounding up the Japanese during WWII, or trying to exterminate the Jews.

  • Tony||

    I think African Americans probably had their highest employment levels before the Civil War.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Why do you even come here? You're stupid and intractable. You neither learn nor evolve, and you're even dumber than I think you are if you believe you could possibly influence the socioeconomic political philosophy of anyone else here

    Seriously, what is the point of you?

  • ||

    Do I get make up "what you think" now?

  • Tony||

    It's a free country.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The rich get their courts and cops and military, obviously, because stealing from people to pay for those is " natural rights" or whatever horseshit you idiots say."

    Nope those are user fees for services - not theft.

    Transfer payments from one individual to another individual with no service being provided by the payee to the payer is theft.

    A communist such as yourself can't be expected to discern the difference.

  • Tony||

    That's a new one to me. Sounds like a bunch of ad hoc bullshit meant to justify "stealing" for the stuff you like.

    Giving money to old people so that they don't die of poverty means fewer old corpses on my street. Payment for service.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "That's a new one to me. Sounds like a bunch of ad hoc bullshit meant to justify "stealing" for the stuff you like."

    It really doesn't matter what anything "sounds like" to you.

    It remains an absolute fact regardless.

    Just as it's an absolute fact that deficits are always caused by too much spending and never too little taxation.

  • Tony||

    That's not an absolute fact, it's a transparently absurd slogan you employ to justify fiscal irresponsibility on the part of Republicans.

  • ||

    Giving money to old people so that they don't die of poverty means fewer old corpses on my street.

    But, see, this is where you turn into a disingenuous shit. Or double-down on being one, anyway.

    One of the main complaints about Soc Sec is that it doesn't pay enough for people to live on. Literally everyone knows this.

    Yet you seem to think "close my eyes and pretend Soc Sec keeps old people out of poverty" is the more moral stance than acknowledging that it doesn't.

  • Tony||

    Okay, so make the payments bigger. It certainly keeps them out of starvation destitution. But if you want America to look like some piece of shit fly-infested African hellhole, go sell it on the campaign trail. Do a phone bank why don't you.

  • ||

    Okay, so make the payments bigger.

    It's like you don't realize that this conversation has already been going on for like five decades. "Just make the payments bigger!" Okay, genius.

    Have you ever heard the phrase "Social Security is nearly insolvent?" Do you know what that phrase means? Do you have some notion of where the money for "Just make the payments bigger!" is going to come from? Of course you don't - you haven't thought about this for even two seconds.

    But if you want America to look like some piece of shit fly-infested African hellhole, go sell it on the campaign trail.

    So . . . you think African nations are typically fly-infested hellholes because their governments spend too little money? Do you have any idea why Zimbabwe's currency is now worthless? Do you think it's because of too little government spending?

    Don't lecture me on how to sell Zimbabwe when you're the one with it on your table.

  • Tony||

    Central banks--yet another fantastic innovation that prevents mass social catastrophe. Of course you're probably against them too for no good reason.

    Social Security, as is well known, can be relatively simply tweaked to be solvent for a century. It's not a very progressive scheme as far as wealth transfers go.

  • ||

    Central banks--yet another fantastic innovation that prevents mass social catastrophe.

    You really are stunningly ignorant. Zimbabwe would have been unable to spend its currency into oblivion if not for one particular thing. Do you know what that thing is?

    Of course you don't. You really do think "print more money" is a universal problem solver.

  • ||

    Social Security, as is well known, can be relatively simply tweaked to be solvent for a century.

    And you disingenuously fail to mention that the "simple tweak" is "make the payments smaller." Which seems to be the exact opposite of what you were saying just one or two comments ago. Almost like you don't actually give a shit about reality and only care about pumping your team, consistency and logic be damned.

  • JesseAz||

    He's actually referring to removing the sd taxation cap which only adds about 20 years since the cap effects inputs and outputs. But then he'll argue for leaving the output cap which would make the program illegal per the rulings thanks upheld SS as an equitably balanced program and not a transfer of taxes.

  • JesseAz||

    Finally Tony gets down to it. Personal responsibility is a total hellscape.

  • Microaggressor||

    Politicians. They always need more of your money. And the Tonys of the world will do anything to justify the theft on the grounds that politicians know better what to do with your money. Don't worry about corruption though. We have Top Men hard at work to prevent that.

  • Just Say'n||

    The welfare/warfare state.

    The generals and the bureaucrats always cry out for "more, more, more"

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Funny, you keep taking money from me to pay for what you want to buy and I don't want at all. Yeah, the people being robbed are the problem.

  • Tony||

    I doubt you are contributing that much.

  • TuIpa||

    That's how you avoid admitting the consequences of your choices.

  • TuIpa||

    "Nobody wants to run on raising taxes"

    "Is it that you think hypocrisy makes up for their lack of principle?"

  • Just Say'n||

    We don't have a revenue problem. We have an expenditure problem. You can raise revenues to the hilt and it still will not meet the ever increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid

  • John||

    To say that we have a revune rather than a spending problem is to assume that Congress would not spend any extra money they collected in taxes had the rates not been lowered and would have instead used the money to pay for existing spending and lower the deficit. I am not really sure how anyone could be dumb enough to believe that to be true. It really takes a special level of stupidity and or dishonesty to think that.

  • Just Say'n||

    Look at what Illinois did with its increased income tax rate. It's backlog of unpaid bills remains essentially unchanged and its pension system is still woefully underfunded with its liability growing. And the State still manages to run a deficit. It's insanity.

  • John||

    Raising taxes will not lower the deficit. The deficit is going to be whatever it is regardless of the tax rate. All raising taxes does is further enable them to spend money and make everyone poorer. They need to stop spending. And giving them more money isn't going to get them to do that.

    If anything, a debt crisis, by forcing Congress to use the money it has to pay interest on the debt rather than spending it on government programs that often do real harm, is likely the one thing that will ever get Congress to stop spending. I would rather see the money go to the old people on Social Security and the bond holders than it go to whatever assholes like Tony think will save the world.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    "We" can't even pay for what we've already bought. I could stomach taxes going up if it were to be used to pay off those existing debts. But that's not the plan, is it?

    I'm also wondering how many times you think you can spend the same dollar. When asked about funding for Pie In The Sky Scheme #1--free healthcare--you say "tax the rich". Then for Pie In The Sky Scheme #2--free college--you say the same thing. And on and on and on. But you can't spend the tax revenues on #2 if you've already spent them on #1, so what will you do?

  • John||

    That is actually very true. And it is one of the reasons why I don't really care much about the cost of servicing the debt. Every dollar they spend servicing the debt is one less dollar they can spend elsewhere.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    borrow the difference and demand more. It's like you've been asleep the last 80 years.

  • JesseAz||

    When you add up state and federal along with all fees, government spends 40 cents of every dollar in America. If you poll people for how much the government should spend they say about 25% which is the same as the tax revenue rates for the most part.
    It's the spending dumbfuck .

  • Daniel||

    "Democratic policy ambitions have become emboldened by the Republican party's hypocrisy and carelessness when it comes to the deficit—and in particular by last year's tax law, which, along with both military and domestic spending increases,"

    Of course the ideal is for the government to spend less but cutting taxes is better than the Democrats plan to raise taxes and increase spending.

  • John||

    The fact that Suderman equates cutting taxes with spending money shows just what a leftist shitbag he actually is. In Suderman's mind, all of the money you make belongs to the government and the government letting you keep more of it is no different than if they had written you a check.

    Suderman is really worse than Tony and the other leftist trolls on here. They all think that but unlike Suderman are at least honest enough to admit it. Suderman pretends to care about property rights and freedom but in reality cares almost nothing for either.

  • shortviking||

    I wish someone would call him out on that during the round table.

  • John||

    They likely all agree with him.

  • Just Say'n||

    "The Republicans made him beat his wife"

    - Suderman

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Yes Republicans have "paved the way" for the Democrats "big government agenda".

    The same big government agenda that the Democrats have had for the last 100 years or so.

  • lap83||

    It's also a rejection of the Clintons and their hold on Democratic politics. Many on the left believe Hillary Clinton failed to beat Trump in 2016 in part because she stuck too close to the more moderate approach adopted by her husband. And the emerging deficits-don't-matter consensus is, at least implicitly, a rebuke to Bill Clinton's low-budget-deficit presidency,

    WTF? It sounds like you're implying that a Hillary presidency would have been more fiscally responsible than Trump. I hope not, because that would be insane.

  • John||

    He is not implying it, he is saying it. And insane, stupid, idiotic, there are a lot of terms that are appropriate here.

  • lap83||

    Apparently Suderman is one of OBL's inspirations

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Not only that but the ideal that Bill Clinton engineered low budget deficits is nonsense.

    It was the GOP takeover of Congress that prevented Bill and the Dem's from spending a bunch.

    Bill had no independent spending discipline on his own.

  • John||

    Suderman's claim is especially galling when you consider that New Gingrich made a very sincere and serious effort to deal with entitlements only to have Bill Clinton shut down the government and get the media to blame Gingrich torpeoding the entire thing. Suderman claims to be so concerned about the deficit but then turns around and praises Bill Clinton, a guy who killed the last real opportunity that we have had to do something about entitlements.

    Reason really has no editorial standards.

  • Just Say'n||

    The Republicans got welfare reform which was largely a success. Their attempt to do the exact same system with Medicaid during Obamacare reform votes enraged Suderman

  • John||

    Nothing enrages a "libertarian" like trying to cut welfare.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is essentially a Clintonian neo-liberal publication masquerading as a libertarian publication, if we're being honest here

  • TuIpa||

    Cogent and accurate

  • Eddy||

    Clinton wants to spend money, Harris wants to increase the amount of money spent, Warren wants money to be spent in larger quantities...among these diverse views the voters must choose!

  • John||

    It is the People's Liberation through Spending Front versus the People's Spending for Liberation Front. The differences are grave and serious Eddy.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    The US government neither has to borrow or tax to be able to spend.

    If there was some central vault that the Federal government kept it's money in you would not see any cash nor would you see a ledger with an amount written in it. All you would see is the infinity symbol.

    No amount of reducing taxes or selling bonds will curtail the Federal gov't's ability to spend money. Both of those things could stop tomorrow and the Feds will still be able to pay every bill, every salary, every entitlement, and every interest payment.

    So you can't win by being the anti-spending guys.

    Go after the specific program instead. For example this basic income thing could be countered by arguing that if we cut regulations and taxes on businesses we could reduce everyone's monthly outlay by at least $500. That's better than giving people money.

  • John||

    +1

  • Dillinger||

    >>> the Republican party's hypocrisy and carelessness when it comes to the deficit

    this shit would be genius if it was 2002 and the whole fucking solar system hadn't already decided (R) = (D) = (R) and argued about it for 16 years

  • Reverend Re-donk-u-less||

    Spending is not an issue that we woketarians should care about. What is important is pee pee laws and that gender is totally different from sex, unless it's convenient for us to conflate the two.

    Only bitter clingers care about starving others so they can enjoy their extra blood money.

    Our great liberal-woketarian alliance will ensure peace, insolvency, and a post-factual reality!

    Carry on, clingers!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That about covers it

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    I imagine John and Tony facing off in furious episode of mutual masturbation while tearfully screaming, "Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!"

  • Just Say'n||

    Oh man, you got real specific

  • John||

    You know they do have entire websites dedicated to that kind stuff? There is a lot better jerk off material out there than having fantasies about me. Not that I am not flattered and all, but just saying.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    lol It's all about you babe. :/

  • John||

    Apparently it is. I am not the one writing pornographic fantasies about me, you are. So, yeah, I would say that for you at least, it is all about me. If it is not, then why am I the subject of your fantasies?

  • Dillinger||

    The Waitresses on line 2...

  • Darth Soros||

    Correction of the headline: "Democratic hopefuls . . . want to spend more money!"

    Should read: " . . . want to spend more of YOUR money."

    FIFY.

  • Darth Soros||

    Correction of the headline: "Democratic hopefuls . . . want to spend more money!"

    Should read: " . . . want to spend more of YOUR money."

    FIFY.

  • sk8rjason||

    The author lost me when he wrote that tax cuts caused the deficit. Tax cuts have zero to do with deficits, spending does.

  • Tony||

    So if your income got cut in half, how would that affect your bottom line?

  • John||

    Double your income and double your spending along with it and see what happens then. You are, thought you are too stupid to even realize it, assuming that Congress will not just spend the increased refunue instead of using it to pay for current spending. And that is something that only someone as stupid as you or appearently Suderman could believe.

  • Tony||

    Maybe, but that's hardly a law of mathematics (like addition and subtraction--things, I hasted to remind, you don't appear to understand). You want to argue that we don't need to pay for the things we buy, fine. Another fine campaign promise your favorite politicians can run on.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    If you're a rational person you work to cut your spending in half. If your an idiot you increase your spending and whine about how somebody else needs to pay for the things "we" bought.

  • zombietimeshare||

    So basically the left is stuck on stupid and for 2020 they are going to double-down on stupid. Got it.

  • Darth Soros||

    See any post from "Tony." At this point in human history, if you really believe the State is your best buddy, you clearly aren't one of the smart kids.

  • Tony||

    I believe the state is always a threat, as it has a lot of power. Checks and balances and democratic accountability--not just good ideas.

    But all I'm doing is supporting programs so universally popular that not even the party that has been obsessed with destroying them for most of a century is willing to do it with absolute control of the federal government and most of the states. And you think I'm the weird one?

  • ||

    And you think I'm the weird one?

    I don't think anyone here finds you weird at all. You're quite average, really, in your overall understanding of things.

  • Tony||

    That's what's so dumb. I can't even get you people to acknowledge that subtraction exists as well as addition. Forget complicated matters.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You people?

  • ||

    I can't even get you people to acknowledge that subtraction exists as well as addition.

    Sure. The problem could be with everyone else.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So social programs ARE a suicide pact then?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "But all I'm doing is supporting programs so universally popular"

    'Popular'

    As opposed to what? Medicare precludes an alternative, and SS is so horrible thatif a private entity offered it, they would go to prison for even trying.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Trump repeatedly dissed Global Warming Cassandras working on a Carbon Tax on everyone EXCEPT Alrurian China. This was the ONLY important or deliverable difference between the two looter Kleptocracy parties. The Dems are no more going to abolish the Bill of Rights than the GOP are going to reverse Rove v. Wade and bring back Comstock laws. The election hinged on the relationship between Maxwell's Equations and Buckminster Fuller "energy slaves." The pro-communist, anti-energy movement of the 1970s through 1990s is today's Dems--only without the Soviet Union to back them. Until that changes, they lose.

  • Flaco||

    ""Last year, Congress gave a trillion dollars in tax breaks to corporations," Harris recently told The Atlantic. "That money should have gone to American taxpayers who need it instead of handing it over to corporations and the top 1 percent.""

    Gotta love Kamala Harris. Corporations and the rich ARE the biggest taxpayers. The bottom 50 percent pay roughly zero in federal income taxes.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Has there been a politician yet born who decries (in his heart):
    Tax - Tax, Spend - Spend, Elect - Elect!

  • Generalissimo||

    This is a real question not trolling.

    So long as deficits are held under 5% of GDP how many on here are actually concerned about it?

    I used to be, but I am not so much of late. First of all the spending isn't going to change so why expend emotional energy on it. Second, I believe that technology will fundamentally change society and government over the next 20-30 years.

    We spend approx. 8.8% of GDP on energy, 7% on transportation, and 17.9% on healthcare. All three of those areas could see dramatic cost cuts from technology over the next 25 years.

    National net wealth is now over $100T. Growth rate might be over 4%.

    Think about the people you work with or who work at businesses you frequent. In my experience only about half are decent employees. I actually look forward to getting my cheeseburger from a machine that is more efficient and cleaner than the surly teens we currently have.

    Subject to technology and gdp growth I would prefer to see a UBI that replaces the welfare state and replaces marginal workers. The economy is pushed along by, at best, 50% of workers. I believe a UBI would have substantial benefits over our current hundreds of programs.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    My favorite fast food joint by a mile is Chick Fil A. Not just because they drive the leftards bonkers (which just by itself is awesome), but because literally every worker I've ever interacted with has been a good service employee. Chick Fil A trains every single one of their employees to be polite, courteous, and attentive and demands that they be so. If you're a rude and surly slob there you won't last very long; your ass will be fired and replaced with someone more trainable.

    Most service-oriented businesses in America used to operate this way, and I wish more would go back to doing so. If they did, maybe this "fuck 'em I hope they get replaced by a machine" attitude wouldn't be so prevalent.

  • vek||

    IF one is arguing that a UBI is better than the current mess of stuff... A properly thought through one MAYBE.

    But, if a UBI is poorly thought out, maybe not.

    And if one is comparing a UBI to... NOT having a UBI, and getting all those same improvements... I think no UBI will win hands down.

    I am one of those people who thinks it is entirely possible we may be FORCED to go the UBI route AT SOME POINT. But it ain't here yet. And may not be for a LONG time. Or ever. So we need to wait and see how things pan out. I can't for the life of me figure out what the 85 IQ people will be doing in 40 years when robots can do almost every job they do now... But we may come up with something. Or perhaps we'll just go back to every middle class household having a couple servants. I don't know. But we don't need to jump the gun.

    As far as not worrying about the deficit... This is true, and not. We may be forced to default on our debt, OR just inflate it away via the currency exchange market and a period of rapid inflation. We have a sovereign currency, so those are possible... But for stabilities sake it would make a lot more sense to just get our spending under control!

  • vek||

    Crazy lefties want to spend tons of money we don't have... Who woulda thunk?

    *Yawn*

    Call me when the shootin' war starts!

  • vek||

    Oh, also, the universal jobs program thing the way these morons are talking about it... Horrible idea.

    But it doesn't have to be... If every single form of welfare was eliminated, and one was REQUIRED to go do work to receive any benefits... This would be a positive. We could replace a lot of people that are currently full time government employees, at inflated government wages, with inflated government benefits, with these transitory people being paid at minimum wage to receive their benefits.

    Such people could be cleaning up parks, mowing lawns at city hall, washing windows on the capitol building, etc. The fact is we're already dolling out all the money ANYWAY. If we made them do something useful for it, even if some of it were somewhat "make work" type stuff, like keeping public parks immaculately maintained... It's still better than giving them money for doing nothing, and letting them sit on their asses watching Cartoon Network at home smokin' joints.

    The devil would surely be in the details... But if all welfare were eliminated and converted to something like this, I don't see how it could possibly be worse than the current system.

  • Sufi||

    assumes 100% of the population is able to work.

  • vek||

    Well, I didn't put it in there, because I'm not writing a policy white paper here... But you could put in a few obvious exclusions. Like people that are legally declared mentally insane, mentally retarded, and people who have such severe physical handicaps that they are incapable of working... People in wheelchairs should NOT be included in that category either. There are plenty of things people can do without walking.

    Any which way, not a major hurdle.

  • visages||

    Good tip, thank you for sharing.

  • Rastaman||

    All these morons are touted as being geniuses or innovative thinkers. What is so innovative or genius about spending more money you don't have trying to fix problems other geniuses created before you? Anyone can fucking spend money that isn't their own just tossing cash at shit. A real genius would figure out how to get what was needed and on budget.

  • Sufi||

    repealing the trump pay offs would be preferable but good luck with that one!

  • Sufi||

    Possibly the most biased article I've ever read here.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online