John Boehner criticizes Republicans, but does he reject neo-liberalism?

[Eric the Green]

(04-21-2021, 11:39 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2021, 03:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You can find some Leftist to call them names; that doesn't mean anything. High military spending is not neo-liberalism; it is neo-conservatism. Biden is more of one of those than Trump, perhaps; although specific military actions are being reduced under Biden.

The federal government could never run the entire USA energy industry, nor would it ever happen. But there were municipal energy companies created before the neo-liberal era, such as in Los Angeles and Santa Clara CA. Measures to create these more recently have failed even in liberal cities like San Francisco. But now city companies are partnering with energy companies to produce and offer green energy. I now pay only for green renewable energy, and I pay it to San Jose Clean Energy company, although I get whatever is on the grid, and pay a fee to PG&E for this service too. Actually I don't pay anything to SJCE, because I generate more energy than I use from my solar panels.

The federal government can hardly run itself these days. It spends more time tripping over itself, undermining itself and getting in its own way these days. It's kind of sad but it is what it is which is why it's going to be let go of in favor of a do over and a fresh new start. It's coming dude and I want to see the look on the Democrats face when it happens and see their response. So, what to do think. do you think their arrogance/aggressive and greed will get the best of them?

Your side's philosophy that those who seek government help are weak, inferior and dependent, is tempting in times and places where the comparatively wealthy and ethnically established are afraid of losing their position and see threats to their lifestyles and fortunes. So things will go back and forth.

Right now, the new millennial generation and up and coming Gen Z trend strongly liberal, and on the macro level they see the threat of climate change and an economy stacked against them. Only the government, they see, has the clout to stand against private power and its ruthless methods and greed, which pollutes, destroys and restricts opportunity for all. Also, the younger generations are less populated with the established ethnic groups. So I think what's coming in the short term is a fresh start away from neo-liberalism (Reaganomics, tax-cutting, anti-welfare, deregulation, preventive wars, racial dog whistles/Trumpets). Your side had dominated for 40 years, so it is our side that needs a fresh start. Far from getting in its own way, social government has been unable to get its way at all for 40 years. It is our side that is long overdue for a fresh start.

That said, although Democratic government works well enough when it is allowed to work, politically Democrats are tone deaf when it comes to choosing candidates. They need to heed the horoscope scores, but likely will not. They need to learn the lesson that people don't just vote for the right policies and for policy wonks, although many Democrats do. The people in general also want someone who connects well with them and inspires them as someone who can be a leader. That is what the horoscope scores show. So, if the Democrats lose President Biden and are left with Kamala Harris as the nominee, who is not someone who communicates and inspires well, and whose score is only 3-17, then the Democrats will lose the White House, and that will complicate the overall trend. Whoever wins the White House is less governed by what trends are "coming," and more by WHO is actually nominated by the Parties for the job.

https://philosopherswheel.com/presidenti...ScoredWhat

[pbrower2a]

(04-21-2021, 02:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-21-2021, 12:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-21-2021, 09:10 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-20-2021, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The Democratic leadership is moving Left because that's where the bulk of the money is coming from these days. As far as the spending bills, who cares,, the government is broke and the bulk it won't ever be spent anyway. The future Democrats are pretty much screwed.

If the government is truly broke, blame the tax-cutters and and enforcement obstructers.

Of coarse you would blame the tax cutters, you're always blaming the tax cutters while ignoring the tax spenders and continually calling for more spending.

Our physical infrastructure is falling apart.  By international standards, it's a very sick joke. Our human infrastructure isn't in much better shape, with students carrying outrageous financial burdens for schooling typically provided for free or cheaply in other countries.  Those are only two of many examples.

Like I said, blame the tax cutters and the politicians who made tax enforcement a joke too.  Current estimates are $200Billion per year of tax cheating, mostly by the rich.  Who defunded the IRS? Oh yeah, the Republicans.

The last time that I was in California (in 2009) I noticed how poor the conditions of the roads were -- and how inadequate many of them were. California relies heavily upon freeways, and the state hasn't added much freeway mileage since the 1980's. California started building freeways soon after the end of the Second World War, which explains how one can see that a crossover bridge on California 1 near Santa Cruz has the year "1947" on it. In the 1940's, Santa Cruz was a sleepy little beach town. You can just about use a highway map from the mid-1980's to get around California by road, with the most obvious changes being some improvements to California 58 (I think that California is trying to get I-40 extended from Barstow through Bakersfield* to Interstate 5), some toll roads in Orange County built with private funds, and the replacement of the 1930's era Oakland-San Francisco Trans-Bay Bridge. The highway system built for a population of 25 million about 35 years ago now serves a population of nearly 40 million. To be sure, California now has far more poor people** who cannot afford a motor vehicle, but still... the only reason that the roads aren't as decrepit as those in Michigan is that Michigan has harsh winters that can frost-heave highways.  What was once visionary infrastructure in California is grossly obsolete.

That is one state. Let me tell you about the inadequacy of Interstate 94 between Benton Harbor and Ann Arbor. Fully adequate in 1962... well, that was nearly sixty years ago, was it not? Two lanes in each direction on one of the busiest, mostly rural, expressways in America (it connects among other things Greater Chicago and Greater Detroit) is wholly inadequate. The heavily-used interchange between I-69 and I-94  in Marshall is basically a cloverleaf, and it is only a matter of time before some trucker jack-knifes with a load of toxic materials. I remember when Interstate 69 was lightly traveled for an Interstate Highway; in Michigan much of its traffic is headed to or from such Canadian cities as Toronto and Montreal...

That's only roads, which are the most visible of infrastructure. 

*Bakersfield was a dump when it had fewer than 70,000 people in 1970, and it now has nearly 400,000 people, so you can just imagine how the transportation needs have changed there! It is the second-largest non-suburb in America not on the Interstate system, and California is seeking to upgrade California 58 and California 99 to Interstate quality with federal funds.  

** Poverty is an obscenity in a country that considers itself rich.