"Socialism" Is A Scare Word

“Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power.
Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan 'Down With Socialism' on the banner of his 'great crusade,' that is really not what he means at all.”

--Harry S. Truman during a whistle-stop campaign speech in Syracuse, New York, on October 10, 1952.

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/

This Moment Might Be Dark, But It Is Not Our First

Author and organizer Garrett Bucks had this to say after Tuesday night's "speech" to the nation by the convicted felon:

"Last night’s address wasn’t technically a state of the union, but it was one more chance for Trump to lay out a story of a country whose hearts are small and shriveled.

But if he gets to tell his stories, than so do we.

You know damn well that the state of the union isn’t strong.

The state of the union is cruel, which means that we must be more caring than ever.

The state of the union is teetering, which means that we must both block and build at the same time.

The state of the union breaks our hearts, which means that we must love each other even harder.

The state of the union has us questioning our own mettle, which is why we must remember that we are not the first who’ve been asked to be brave.

The state of the union is, as it has always been, unwritten.

The state of the union is, as always, what we make it."

https://thewhitepages.net/p/the-state-of-the-union-is

Warning Signs Of Fascism

Time to repost this...

VOTE HARRIS 2024!

http://kamalaharris.com

VOTE HARRIS-WALZ 2024!

https://kamalaharris.com/

"The Candidate"

The New Yorker endorses Kamala Harris for President of the United States of America.

Cover: "The Candidate" by Malika Favre
https://www.instagram.com/malikafavre

VOTE HARRIS WALZ!

https://kamalaharris.com/

WINNER!

And the clear winner from last night is Kamala Harris. Her opponent only displayed his typical childish petulance and rambling incoherence.

Since I am a California resident, I have had the pleasure of voting for Kamala Harris several times already--in primaries and elections for both State Attorney General and State Senator--and I will have great pleasure voting for her again.

https://kamalaharris.com/

MADAME PRESIDENT

VOTE HARRIS WALZ!

https://kamalaharris.com/

Freedom 2024

Pete: "I believe in a better politics, one that finds us at our most decent and open and brave. The kind of politics that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are offering. And as you have felt these many days, that kind of politics also just feels better to be part of. There is joy in it as well as power."

Oprah says, "Freedom isn't free. America is an ongoing project, it requires commitment, it requires being open to the hard work and the heart work of democracy. And every now and then it requires standing up to life's bullies."

And this from our next Vice President, Tim Walz: "When we Democrats talk about freedom, we mean the freedom to make a better life for yourself and the people that you love. Freedom to make your own healthcare decisions. And yeah, your kids' freedom to go to school without worrying about being shot dead in the hall."

VOTE HARRIS WALZ!

https://kamalaharris.com/

Do something! VOTE!

Do something!

VOTE!

VOTE HARRIS WALZ!

https://kamalaharris.com/

We Fight, We Win. For The People. For Our Future.

We're not just electing a President, we are uplifting our nation.

"We are moving forward!"

"LOCK HIM UP!"

"The lie and the logic of January 6th is a sickness. It is a kind of cancer...Donald Trump is a plague on the American conscience."

THANK YOU, JOE!

VOTE HARRIS WALZ!

https://kamalaharris.com/

Harris Walz 2024

https://kamalaharris.com/

HARRIS 2024

http://kamalaharris.com

Pete Supports Kamala

https://www.instagram.com/pete.buttigieg
https://www.wintheera.com/

We Must Protect Our Democracy

"A house in disarray..."

The foundations and libraries of thirteen former United States Presidents across all political spectrums have banded together to issue an urgent--and much needed--call to action, urging leaders and citizens across the United States to model our nation’s democratic principles. Read the entire, moving statement below:

The unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, are principles that bind us together as Americans. They have enabled the United States to strive toward a more perfect union, even when we have not always lived up to those ideals.

As a diverse nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, democracy holds us together. We are a country rooted in the rule of law, where the protection of the rights of all people is paramount. At the same time, we live among our fellow citizens, underscoring the importance of compassion, tolerance, pluralism, and respect for others.

We, the undersigned, represent a wide range of views across a breadth of issues. We recognize that these views can exist peaceably side by side when rooted in the principles of democracy. Debate and disagreement are central features in a healthy democracy. Civility and respect in political discourse, whether in an election year or otherwise, are essential.

Americans have a strong interest in supporting democratic movements and respect for human rights around the world because free societies elsewhere contribute to our own security and prosperity here at home. But that interest is undermined when others see our own house in disarray. The world will not wait for us to address our problems, so we must both continue to strive toward a more perfect union and help those abroad looking for U.S. leadership.

Each of us has a role to play and responsibilities to uphold. Our elected officials must lead by example and govern effectively in ways that deliver for the American people. This, in turn, will help to restore trust in public service. The rest of us must engage in civil dialogue; respect democratic institutions and rights; uphold safe, secure, and accessible elections; and contribute to local, state, or national improvement.

By signing this statement, we reaffirm our commitment to the principles of democracy undergirding this great nation, protecting our freedom, and respecting our fellow citizens. When united by these convictions, America is stronger as a country and an inspiration for others.

Obama Presidential Center
George W. Bush Presidential Center
Clinton Foundation
George & Barbara Bush Foundation
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute
The Carter Center
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation
Richard Nixon Foundation
LBJ Foundation
John F. Kennedy Library Foundation
Truman Library Institute
Roosevelt Institute
Hoover Presidential Foundation

https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/reaffirming-americans-commitment-to-a-more-perfect-union

President Biden Addresses the Nation on the Anniversary of the COVID-19 Shutdown

As an American who lived through the horror of the last four years of the last administration, I can't even begin to tell you how relieving and wonderful it is to hear our leader--and dare I say it, the leader of the free world, once again--speak in coherent sentences, and speak with intelligence and compassion.

The Economy Does Much Better Under Democrats. Why? by David Leonhardt

Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?
G.D.P., jobs and other indicators have all risen more slowly under Republicans for nearly the past century.

By David Leonhardt | Graphics by Yaryna Serkez
Mr. Leonhardt is a senior writer at The Times. Ms. Serkez is a writer and graphics editor for Opinion.

Feb. 2, 2021

A president has only limited control over the economy. And yet there has been a stark pattern in the United States for nearly a century. The economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.

It’s true about almost any major indicator: gross domestic product, employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. It’s true if you examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or instead assume that a president’s policies affect the economy only after a lag and don’t start his economic clock until months after he takes office. The gap “holds almost regardless of how you define success,” two economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write. They describe it as “startlingly large.”

Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans, according to a Times analysis. In more concrete terms: The average income of Americans would be more than double its current level if the economy had somehow grown at the Democratic rate for all of the past nine decades. If anything, that period (which is based on data availability) is too kind to Republicans, because it excludes the portion of the Great Depression that happened on Herbert Hoover’s watch.

The six presidents who have presided over the fastest job growth have all been Democrats, as you can see above. The four presidents who have presided over the slowest growth have all been Republicans.

The big question, of course, is why. And there are not easy answers.

I have shown the data to multiple economists in recent weeks, and most say they are not sure how to explain it, at least not fully. “We don’t quite get why it’s the case,” Katherine Eriksson, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in economic history, told me. Marianne Wanamaker, an economist at the University of Tennessee, described the pattern to the graduate students in a class she teaches and asked for their thoughts. “They were sort of stumped,” she said.

Part of the answer surely involves coincidence. Some presidents, like Barack Obama and George W. Bush, take office when the economy is in a downturn, while others, like Harry Truman and Donald Trump, inherit a boom. Some, like Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, preside over military buildups; others, like Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton, drawdowns. More broadly, the economy’s performance stems from millions of decisions made every day by businesses and consumers, many of which have little relation to government policy.

Still, the pattern is so strong and long-lasting that coincidence alone is unlikely to be the only explanation. Statistical noise, as Mr. Blinder and Mr. Watson wrote in their paper exploring the pattern, does not seem to be the answer.

What, then, are the most plausible theories?

First, it’s worth rejecting a few unlikely possibilities. Congressional control is not the answer. The pattern holds regardless of which party is running Congress. Deficit spending also doesn’t explain the gap: It is not the case that Democrats juice the economy by spending money and then leave Republicans to clean up the mess. Over the last four decades, in fact, Republican presidents have run up larger deficits than Democrats.

That leaves one broad possibility with a good amount of supporting evidence: Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe — like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation. Democrats, in short, have been more pragmatic.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt first ran for president, in 1932, he did not have a fully coherent economic plan. He sometimes argued that reducing the deficit was the key to ending the Depression. Above all, though, he called for “bold, persistent experimentation.” As he explained: “Take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

Over time, he and his advisers came to champion the ideas of John Maynard Keynes. In an economic downturn, when companies and households are caught in a vicious cycle of spending reductions, the government needs to step in. The Keynesian approach has shaped Democratic economic policy ever since.

It has made Democratic presidents much more aggressive in responding to crises than Republicans. Not only was Hoover passive in the face of the Depression, but the first George Bush was slow to fight the 1990-91 recession, and the second George Bush was slow to begin fighting the 2007-9 financial crisis. Mr. Obama and now President Biden, when faced with an economic crisis, have been much bolder.

Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, told me that he believed the overall partisan pattern was mostly coincidence. But, he said, “It is certainly a defensible posture that in periods of economic distress Democrats are more concerned about jobs than Republicans.”

The past year has offered another case study. Mr. Trump repeatedly downplayed the coronavirus pandemic, and the country suffered. The economy would have experienced a downturn no matter who was president, but his scattered response aggravated the pandemic and the recession. In some other countries, life is much closer to normal. In the United States, Mr. Trump became the first president since Hoover to preside over a decline in employment.

The pragmatism gap isn’t only about recessions, either. Democrats have also been more aggressive about making job-creating investments — in medical research and clean energy, for example — that the private sector does not make when left to its own devices. Occasionally, a Democratic president has even been willing to go against type in order to encourage growth. Mr. Clinton, persuaded that deficit reduction could bring down interest rates and accelerate growth, scrapped some early spending plans and raised taxes. Interest rates fell, and the economy boomed.

Some past Republican presidents took a similarly pragmatic approach. Despite being conservative, both Eisenhower and Nixon were nonetheless comfortable using government to help the economy when needed. The elder George Bush signed a tax increase that contributed to the deficit reduction that, in turn, fueled the 1990s boom.

For the most part, however, Republican economic policy since 1980 has revolved around a single policy: large tax cuts, tilted heavily toward the affluent. There are situations in which tax cuts can lift economic growth, but they typically involve countries with very high tax rates. The United States has had fairly low tax rates for decades.

The evidence now overwhelmingly suggests that recent tax cuts have had only a modest effect on the economy. G.D.P. grew at virtually the same rate after the 2017 Trump tax cut as before it. If anything, the Clinton tax increase of 1993 has a better claim on starting a boom than any tax cut since.

One possibility is that the two parties are both responding to the interest groups that support and finance them, suggested Ms. Wanamaker, who worked in the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Trump administration. But the Democratic-leaning groups (like labor unions and civil-rights organizations) may favor policies that lift broad-based economic growth, while Republican-leaning groups (like the wealthy) favor policies that mostly shift income toward themselves.

These explanations are almost certainly not complete. Much of the partisan gap remains mysterious. At the end of their academic paper on it, Mr. Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman and Clinton administration official, and Mr. Watson encourage other economists to study the issue.

But if the causes are not fully clear, the pattern is. The American economy has performed much better under Democratic administrations than Republican ones, over both the last few decades and the last century. And as Ms. Wanamaker said, “Administrations do certainly have the ability to affect economic outcomes.”

Link to original article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html

Watching History

1/20/21