Politics

Some democrats are wanting to get Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez out of the picture and are looking for a candidate to replace her: "What I have recommended to the New York delegation is that you find her a primary opponent and make her a one-term congressperson. You've got numerous council people and state legislators who've been waiting 20 years for that seat." ~Anonymous Democratic lawmaker to The Hill Here's greed and corruption that blatantly rears it's ugly head. Democrats are no different that Republicans from this perspective. Neither party wants to hear what the American people have to say. But when money talks, they listen. They have a wildly successful candidate in AOC. A woman who truly resonates with real Americans and speaks to the issues the face on a daily basis. She's popular, exciting and energizing. In a little over a year, she has a social media following that is larger than any current congress person. But obviously having someon...

I see the term "progressive" used in a negative context more often than not. It's used to describe people on the fringe. Since when did progress become a negative thing? From a political standpoint, progressives are tired of things not working. They are tired of political inaction on the problems that face society today. They want thing to move forward, which is the original sense of the word. "When did "progressive" become a bad word?"  In Canada, one of the leading political parties is the Progressive Conservatives. They realize that being conservative does not mean keeping the status quo when the status quo is not working. The world is changing whether we like it or not and we need to be progressive to deal with these new realities. Today's problems can't be fixed with yesterday's solutions.

In an article titled Activist groups are ‘amateurizing’ our political candidates , the authors make a point that a concern is that "the groups are magnets for amateur candidates." He is right. They are amateurs. That's the way politics was meant to be. People from communities who were elected to represent their communities in Washington and then return home to pass the torch to another person who was committed to community or public service. They were very much connected to their communities and could represent their needs effectively. The political system breaks down when politics becomes a professional career. We can see the detrimental effects of this shift as politicians stop servicing their communities and start servicing the businesses and individuals who can support their professional career. And since their salary is limited, they start accepting bribes from the wealthy. Of course, doing so is only self-serving and doesn't serve the people who they supp...

Fox News in a story on the " Socialism Rising " talks about the new crop of democrats entering congress and their "socialist" ideals as being a fringe movement. Ideals, like accessible healthcare and education, funded in part by higher marginal tax rates for the ultra-wealthy are seen as insane concepts. It's like calling the metric system a fringe idea. Every country in the world uses it except Burma, Liberia, and the US. according to the author of the 1981 book Metric Madness: Over 150 Reasons for NOT Converting to the Metric System , the conversion process was considered by many to be a communist conspiracy. In fact, most of the western world embraces those ideals. College tuition in most European countries is free or relatively inexpensive . American tuition costs are among the highest in the world. Almost all developed countries offer universal healthcare . United States is one of the few countries that do not guarantee access to healthcare. These kin...

Here is an infographic produced by studentloan.org

“I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is being criticized for saying that it's immoral to be a billionaire. But what she said was the system that allows rampant and growing income inequality is immoral. “It’s important to say that, I don’t think that necessarily means that all billionaires are immoral. It is not to say that someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are immoral people,” she said. It's difficult to justify a system that allows someone to spend  $57 million on a pair of earrings or  buy an island for $300 million  or pay $122 million for a home , when so the biggest part of the population can't afford basic healthcare or education. How do we change a system that allows for this?

Regardless of whether or not you have "earned" massive wealth, the question is to what degree are you permitted to retain it. The question of getting and the question of keeping are distinct. Take this example, let's say I come into possession of a whole lot of EpiPens and I encounter a child experiencing a severe allergic reaction. Do I have a moral obligation to help the child?  Maybe I worked hard to make the money to buy them or maybe I stole them. It doesn't really matter how legitimate the acquisition is. What matters is what you do them. On seeing the child, I can choose to throw them in the garbage or give one to the child to save its life. Although it's my legal right to throw them away is it morally right?  Instead of arguing the morality of acquisition of wealth, start talking about the retention of wealth when we are in a world with so many in need. This idea comes from this article . 

According to an Oxfam report, in 2018 the 26 richest people on Earth own as much as the poorest 50 percent. In 2017 the number was 43. In 2016 the number was 61. The richest in the world are getting richer at an accelerated rate, dramatically increasing income equality. It's absurd to think that 26 billionaires hold as much wealth as 3.8 billion of the poorest people in the world. Read more about the Oxfam report

I was watching a Fox news report where the reporter was commenting on the idea that the ultra-rich get taxed at 70%. She cited examples of several people who had donated millions to charity and asked the viewers what we would do if we didn't have these philanthropists to help us. But making a show of doing good while benefiting from unfettered capitalism doesn't make you a some kind of change agent, but a fraud. If you're just blunting the edge of rampant inequality with a fortune you made preying on people who lack healthcare, union or job security, you aren't exactly off the hook for being a capitalist huckster. You're making yourself feel better, and perhaps making it less likely hordes of angry people storm your gated estate. Philanthropy isn't a moral get-out-jail-free card. You can't escape a broader responsibility to humankind with a few perfunctory handouts.

The term "drip down economics" essentially means that the rich are given bigger meals in the hopes that the rest of us have a better chance of catching some scraps.