3 ms·

I'd like to share this video, which I feel explains the crux of the debate around allocating funds for one cause or group of people over another: https://www.c

I'd like to share this video, which I feel explains the crux of the debate around allocating funds for one cause or group of people over another: https://www.c-span.org/video/?520337-5/sen-rand-paul-ukraine-aid-bill https://www.c-span.org/video/?520337-5/sen-rand-paul-ukraine... I find myself agreeing with about 10-20% of what he says. His basic argument is that it's not the government's place to take from one group and give to another. The fallacy in his argument is that the government's primary job is specifically to gather funds through taxation and allocate those funds to certain groups, governed by the public's intentions as determined through the electoral process. Our elected officials are our proxy within our democratic republic, making those kinds of decisions on our behalf every single day. In other words, his argument isn't supported by fact. It's ideological. IMHO, rather than deciding if we send $40 billion to Ukraine or fix the lead pipes in many of our cities, the government can and should do both. Given the choice between reducing the student loan burden, or reducing the national debt, the government can and should do both! You see what I'm saying? This notion of choice in who will be helped and who will be hindered is a fallacy. The government is bigger than us, we need to stop thinking of it in terms of an individual struggling with their microeconomic finances, and realize that it can be more like a superhero and help many people simultaneously through the emergent behavior and opportunities created by macroeconomic policy. I think what's missing in our government today is this sort of visionary consideration of human potential, and the political will to enact policies that materially help people in need, rather than wealthy and powerful people in the status quo who don't need our help in the first place. If we follow his argument to its logical conclusion - the reduction or elimination of government spending with the private sector left to its own devices - then only one form of government fits that: autocracy. That's where we came from before the American Revolutionary War, and we've been headed back there again under 40 years of trickle-down economics and the rise of wealth inequality the likes of which the world has never seen. Billionaires are the new aristocracy. We're in a positive feedback loop where every time things get worse, people vote for the same people who caused it, making things worse still. Then that side blames the other and the process repeats itself. That's the seduction of seemingly rational-sounding arguments like the one against student loan forgiveness, which always align with the status quo. We can use that as the signal to know that the argument is disingenuous.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>The fallacy in his argument is that the government's primary job is specifically to gather funds through taxation and allocate those funds to certain groups, governed by the public's intentions as determined through the electoral process. Our elected officials are our proxy within our democratic republic, making those kinds of decisions on our behalf every single day. In other words, his argument isn't supported by fact. It's ideological. Both positions are ideological. Different people have opinions on what the purpose of the government is. If you told Americans for most of the counties history that the purpose of the government is to redistribute funds to the needy via taxation they would look at you like you are crazy.
- zackmorris 4y ago
  We weren't supposed to have a standing army either, much less one like we have today with an inflation-adjusted budget as high as during WWII, but here we are. Madison would be appalled, Washington would be ok with something but not that. Conveniently, the far-right in the US omits the military from balanced budget debates, since any reduction in military spending would disrupt the status quo. I feel that we haven't had civic discourse around this stuff since Newt Gingrich started his Contract with America. Or maybe before that with Paul Weyrich's New Right religious conservative movement with Reagan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw The fallout of that ideology today is gerrymandering and various other forms of disenfranchisement to maintain minority rule by the religious right and moneyed corporate interests. Which doesn't align with the separation of church and state, but again, here we are. So you're correct that our history of denying aid to people in need goes way back. But we should also remember that women lived under subjugation until their right to vote was recognized in 1920, and people of color lived under segregation until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We probably shouldn't use the term "aid", because reparations to repair the theft of those peoples' livelihoods would be an astronomical number, easily into the tens of trillions of dollars. The same people who thought those progressive movements were crazy continue to call aid to those in need "redistribution" today. These are heated enough debates, with people's beliefs informed by trauma and shame, that I feel rational discourse around them may be impossible. We'd have to go back 40+ years and prevent the undermining of our public education system, which is exactly what student loan forgiveness is attempting to do. In the meantime, all we can really do is vote out our opposition, and not buy into propaganda such as the recent movement to discredit institutions like the FBI and democracy itself. For a refreshing look at the real history of the US and more info like this, I highly recommend Thom Hartmann's show on FSTV (no affiliation): https://www.thomhartmann.com https://www.thomhartmann.com

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>The fallacy in his argument is that the government's primary job is specifically to gather funds through taxation and allocate those funds to certain groups, governed by the public's intentions as determined through the electoral process. Our elected officials are our proxy within our democratic republic, making those kinds of decisions on our behalf every single day. In other words, his argument isn't supported by fact. It's ideological. Both positions are ideological. Different people have opinions on what the purpose of the government is. If you told Americans for most of the counties history that the purpose of the government is to redistribute funds to the needy via taxation they would look at you like you are crazy.

zackmorris 4y ago
We weren't supposed to have a standing army either, much less one like we have today with an inflation-adjusted budget as high as during WWII, but here we are. Madison would be appalled, Washington would be ok with something but not that. Conveniently, the far-right in the US omits the military from balanced budget debates, since any reduction in military spending would disrupt the status quo. I feel that we haven't had civic discourse around this stuff since Newt Gingrich started his Contract with America. Or maybe before that with Paul Weyrich's New Right religious conservative movement with Reagan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw The fallout of that ideology today is gerrymandering and various other forms of disenfranchisement to maintain minority rule by the religious right and moneyed corporate interests. Which doesn't align with the separation of church and state, but again, here we are. So you're correct that our history of denying aid to people in need goes way back. But we should also remember that women lived under subjugation until their right to vote was recognized in 1920, and people of color lived under segregation until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We probably shouldn't use the term "aid", because reparations to repair the theft of those peoples' livelihoods would be an astronomical number, easily into the tens of trillions of dollars. The same people who thought those progressive movements were crazy continue to call aid to those in need "redistribution" today. These are heated enough debates, with people's beliefs informed by trauma and shame, that I feel rational discourse around them may be impossible. We'd have to go back 40+ years and prevent the undermining of our public education system, which is exactly what student loan forgiveness is attempting to do. In the meantime, all we can really do is vote out our opposition, and not buy into propaganda such as the recent movement to discredit institutions like the FBI and democracy itself. For a refreshing look at the real history of the US and more info like this, I highly recommend Thom Hartmann's show on FSTV (no affiliation): https://www.thomhartmann.com https://www.thomhartmann.com