3 ms·

The reference is possibly to the Green New Deal or to Build Back Better. Both probably qualify as "multi-trillion social programs", but perhaps the former fits

The reference is possibly to the Green New Deal or to Build Back Better. Both probably qualify as "multi-trillion social programs", but perhaps the former fits the description better.

miguelazo 4y ago
I wouldn’t call either of those social programs. They’re mostly subsidies for industry, with ancillary tax benefits for the rich and upper middle class. Also hardly “multi-trillion”. After reading the article in full, I assume they were alluding to the PPP and direct stimulus payments to taxpayers that suffered some fraud. Even the 25% fraud cited seems minor, but it certainly could have been administered a lot better. I agree that public investment in long term endeavors has been abysmal, but that trend started in the 70s with Carter. What all this is ultimately about is neoliberalism. Using the state via the Fed to further enrich the rich is the final end of that ideology, and it has been very successful at that.
- areyousure 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal > social aims like job creation and reducing economic inequality > the plan could cost between $51–$93 trillion over the next decade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Plan > the largest nationwide public investments in social > a variety of social policy initiatives > $1.9 trillion > $2.3 trillion (which, when combined with the American Families Plan, amounted to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending) > $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Last I checked, neither plan ever passed. Nor would they have passed in time to make a difference for the issues raised in the article.
    - areyousure 4y ago
      Your comment starting this theead was about the following quote from 'rayiner: > Democrats could advocate multi-trillion social programs https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate

The reference is possibly to the Green New Deal or to Build Back Better. Both probably qualify as "multi-trillion social programs", but perhaps the former fits the description better.

miguelazo 4y ago

I wouldn’t call either of those social programs. They’re mostly subsidies for industry, with ancillary tax benefits for the rich and upper middle class. Also hardly “multi-trillion”. After reading the article in full, I assume they were alluding to the PPP and direct stimulus payments to taxpayers that suffered some fraud. Even the 25% fraud cited seems minor, but it certainly could have been administered a lot better. I agree that public investment in long term endeavors has been abysmal, but that trend started in the 70s with Carter. What all this is ultimately about is neoliberalism. Using the state via the Fed to further enrich the rich is the final end of that ideology, and it has been very successful at that.

areyousure 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal > social aims like job creation and reducing economic inequality > the plan could cost between $51–$93 trillion over the next decade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Plan > the largest nationwide public investments in social > a variety of social policy initiatives > $1.9 trillion > $2.3 trillion (which, when combined with the American Families Plan, amounted to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending) > $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Last I checked, neither plan ever passed. Nor would they have passed in time to make a difference for the issues raised in the article.
  - areyousure 4y ago
    Your comment starting this theead was about the following quote from 'rayiner: > Democrats could advocate multi-trillion social programs https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate