Dandelion Salad: Ellen Brown- ‘Funding A U.S. Green Deal Without Raising Taxes’

Source:Bart Everson- Via Flickr. 

Source:The New Democrat

“As alarm bells sound over the advancing destruction of the environment, a variety of Green New Deal proposals have appeared in the US and Europe, along with some interesting academic debates about how to fund them. Monetary policy, normally relegated to obscure academic tomes and bureaucratic meetings behind closed doors, has suddenly taken center stage.

The 14 page proposal for a Green New Deal submitted to the US House of Representatives by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez does not actually mention Modern Monetary Theory, but that is the approach currently capturing the attention of the media—and taking most of the heat. The concept is good: abundance can be ours without worrying about taxes or debt, at least until we hit full productive capacity. But the devil is in the details….

MMT advocates say the government does not need to collect taxes before it spends. It actually creates new money in the process of spending it; and there is plenty of room in the economy for public spending before demand outstrips supply, driving up prices.”

From Dandelion Salad

"Democrats are introducing framework for what they call the Green New Deal. It addresses climate change and how the U.S. can make clean energy a priority over 10 years. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey have championed the measure. CBS News chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes joins CBSN to explain."

Source:CBS News- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: at the 2019 State of The Union.

From CBS News

Ellen Brown is right about one thing: the U.S. Government doesn’t have to actually collect the taxes that it’s owed before it spends money.

Back when Congress and the President actually passed budgets and appropriations bills ( when dinosaurs were still around, ha, ha, ) they would agree to what the U.S. Government would spend and how to collect the money that it spent. Then most of that money would be spent and the taxes would come in later.

If Congress and the President passed a budget, all the appropriations, and a tax bill today, the revenue to pay for that government spending that has already been spent wouldn’t actually come in until the following year, or at least not all of it. Similar to how individuals pay for things on credit: we purchase items on credit and then pay those bills to our credit card company at the end of the month. If we made those payments, we didn’t have any debt. But if we didn’t make those payments, we would now have a credit card debt.

When Congress appropriates money for the Executive to spend, that money gets spent before the taxes are actually collected. And if the Executive takes in more money than was actually spent, ( which happens about as often as the Cleveland Indians win the World Series ) then the U.S. Government has a budget surplus. But if the Executive spent more money than it collected in either taxes or tariffs or a combination of both, then it runs a deficit for that year and that deficit is added to the national debt. Which has happened every year in this country since 2002. ( That should give you an idea of how often that is )

What Ellen Brown is arguing for is that the U.S. Government could fund a Green New Deal ( as its called ) simply though monetary policy that would fund it by itself and you wouldn’t have to borrow more money or raise new taxes to pay for it. If that were true, government wouldn’t need a tax code, taxes, or an Internal Revenue Service, because it could just pay for all of its operations with Treasury printing all the money. The reason why we have a national debt of 22 trillion-dollars ( get your head all the way around that number ) is because Congress and the Executive has been borrowing money ever since the Federal Republic was created and has been running a budget deficit almost every year since the 1960s, because it almost always takes in less tax revenue than it spends. With the last four years of the Clinton Administration, the last year of the Johnson Administration, and one year during the 1950s under President Dwight Eisenhower.

Knowledge Hub: 'History of Prohibition- Why It Failed?'

Source:Knowledge Hub- Big Government, is coming for you.

Source:The New Democrat

"People like booze. Now. But there was a time alcohol was a matter of debate and was made illegal. Here is why it failed.

Music by No Sustain

Written and Edited by Tyler Franklin"

Source:Google Sites- Yes, end the War on Drugs. 

From Knowledge Hub

As someone who is a nondrinker ( when it comes to alcohol ) I believe I have a lot of credibility when it comes to alcohol and other prohibitions, simply because I'm not looking to keep products like alcohol, tobacco, sugar, salt, caffeine, and any other current drugs that Americans consumer that are currently legal simply so I can continue to consume them, but because I don't believe they should be illegal. I don't want to legalize marijuana and decriminalize harder narcotics because I want to consume them, but because I don't believe people should be put in prison or even jail simply for consuming or possessing these products.

I simply as a Liberal don't believe that people should be arrested and put in jail simply for doing or consuming things that are dangerous and come with negative side-effects. You need a better argument than, "this is bad for you and dangerous and if you do this or take this, you're going to be locked, because these products are bad for you." Or you need a better argument than these products violate some people's religious and moral values in order to outlaw something. You need a fact-based argument that lays out that the negative consequences of using let's say risky products or so great that if they're allowed to be consumed in society that not only will the people who consume them be negatively affected. but the people around then and the greater society will be harmed to the point that society couldn't afford those negative affects. An argument that has never been made to outlaw alcohol or any other product that comes with real risk in America.

So why bas prohibition failed?

I'll give you a hypothetical: think about a father who doesn't want his daughter ( let's say ) seeing her boyfriend anymore simply because the father doesn't like him and doesn't want him around his daughter and he tells his daughter that and perhaps even tells her boyfriend that he doesn't' want him seeing his daughter anymore and if does, there will be real consequences for that: you think the daughter is going to stop seeing her boyfriend simply because her father no longer wants her to see him, especially if her father can't explain why he doesn't' like him, or why he's bad for her? Well, if you're familiar with teenage girls in America and perhaps outside of this country, you know that they won't stop seeing people simply because their parent or parents tell them not to.

The so-called War on Drugs whether it was alcohol prohibition in the 1920s or the war on harder narcotics today like marijuana ( and there's still a question of whether marijuana is actually a harder narcotic than marijuana ) has failed for the same reasons. Just because you tell someone they can't do something especially if the person is an addict or they know what they're doing is not so dangerous than they can die from, especially if they don't abuse alcohol or marijuana, doesn't mean they'll stop doing it or taking whatever they're into. It just means that what they're currently doing is illegal and that they may end up in jail or prison if they're caught in possession or consuming what they're into.

What you get with the so-called War on Drugs is an overcrowded, unaffordable, and unsustainable criminal justice and prison incarceration system where maybe 1-10 American prison inmates don't represent any actual threat to society. If they represent any threat whatsoever to anyone, it's to themselves, but because they're addicts. If your'e a true fiscal Conservative, you hate the so-called War on Drugs and criminal justice system in America, because it's so expensive, because we lock up people for what they do to themselves. You're cool with locking up predators who hurt innocent people especially if the punishment is just, but locking up people for what they do to themselves is a waste of tax dollars and you hate that as a fiscal Conservative.

So the War on Alcohol and the broader so-called War on Drugs has failed for several reasons: One, almost 50 years later after President Richard Nixon launched this so-called war we're still fighting it. That should be a pretty good clue there. But now thanks to this so-called war we have an overcrowded, unaffordable, unsustainable criminal justice system in a time when we're running trillion-dollar deficits and have a national debt of over 20 trillion-dollars.

Just because you outlaw something doesn't mean it goes away, it just means that it's now illegal and will go underground. And the people who get caught will end up in prison simply because they were caught in possession or caught using a product that Big Government says is dangerous and should be illegal.

Just like the father who tells his daughter to stop seeing her boyfriend for no apparent reason: they'll continue to see each other, but behind her parents backs and no longer be upfront and honest about their relationship.

The Real News Network: Paul Jay- 'Is Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialism, Socialism?'

Source:The Real News Network- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

"Sanders says that medicare for all, a living wage, and other reforms is the socialism that’s possible, but is he too reserved on strengthening public ownership? - with Jacqueline Luqman, Eugene Puryear, Norman Solomon and host Paul Jay"

Source:Fortune Magazine- U.S Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont: speaking at Georgetown 

From The Real News Network

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont: speaking at Georgetown in 2015

Apparently we need and the people from the so-called Real News Network need a refresher course on Socialists and socialism, because there are Socialists and then there are Socialists and none of these factions are the same as the other except when it comes to Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats. Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, are the same faction.

Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats both believe in a democratic form of socialism or socialist form of democracy and neither wants to eliminate the private enterprise or even capitalism. They just want the national government to provide the people's workers benefits. Things like health care, health insurance, pension, child care, education, etc. Services that a country like America you would get those services from the private sector, or at the very least would have the option in getting those services from the private sector.

Senator Bernie Sanders, believes in democratic socialism/social democracy. He's not looking to government to come in and close down private business's ( except for perhaps health insurers and hospitals ) or have government come into people's homes and other properties and kick people out and have the properties taken over by the government.

Under a Bernie Sanders Administration if a President Sanders had his way let's say, the private sector in America would remain in place, but the public sector at least at the Federal level would be a lot larger. Trillions of dollars would be added to the Federal public sector every year in new social programs and in expansions in current Federal social programs, but the private sector would remain in place.

I'm not explaining this because I'm a fan of Senator Sanders, because I'm not even though I respect his candor and honesty, but to explain his own politics so people know what they're getting when they hear about Socialist Bernie Sanders. He doesn't represent the Communist or Marxist wing of socialism and looking to turn America into a gigantic Cuba, but instead if he had his way America would become like a gigantic Sweden or gigantic Scandinavia. Where the national government would be a lot larger and more expensive, taxes on everyone would be a lot higher, but the national government would provide a lot more social services and individuals would still own their own properties.

The Globalist: Richard Phillips- 'Enter Alexandria O. Cortez, Socialist'

Source:The Globalist- U.S. Congress: good luck finding a more unpopular institution. 

Source:The New Democrat

"The word “socialist” is suddenly gaining currency in American politics. After decades of laying dormant, the term briefly reared its ugly head in Bernie Sanders’ run for the US presidency in 2016.

But it quickly disappeared when Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Presidential nomination. Now, however, the word is suddenly experiencing a major renaissance."

From The Globalist

"Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the newest political figure everyone loves or loves to hate. From her ‘Green New Deal’ proposal to combat climate change to her clapbacks against Trump and her critics, here’s how AOC danced her way into the spotlight."

From USA Today

Source:USA Today- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: Democratic Socialist?

Socialism, similar to libertarianism and perhaps conservatism and when I think of conservatism I think of Conservative-Libertarians, but that's a different discussion, but socialism similar to these other political ideologies have different factions. I get that, I was one of the first people to acknowledge that when I first started blogging ten years ago. So when I think of Socialists, I don't automatically think of Communists and the Fidel Castro's of the world or Neo-Communists ( as I call them ) the Nicholas Maduro's of the world. But when I think of Socialists, I don't automatically think of Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, like Swedish or French Socialists. I take each Socialist and socialist faction one by one and look at them individually.

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, self-described Democratic Socialist 

For me if you want to recognized as a Democratic Socialist, you can't just be in favor of government-run health care and health insurance, as well as a lot of welfare state programs, you also have to be in favor of democracy, free and fair elections that include non-socialist democratic parties and candidates, including conservative parties and candidates, you have to be in favor of a free, fair, and open press, check and balances, limits on executive power, and you have to be against bigotry regardless of where and who it comes from. Not just be against bigotry when it targets non-Europeans and non-Christian religious groups, but antisemitism as well.

In case there is anyone left who doesn't already know this, but Jews are both ethnic and religious minorities in every country in the world outside of Israel and in most countries their tiny minorities representing 1-2% of the population ( depending on what country you look at ) so when you when you attack Jews simply because they're Jewish, you're attacking not just a religious minority, but an ethnic minority as well when you're outside of Israel. Which is something the Far-Left and not just in America, but in Britain as well doesn't seem to understand or even care about. Who seem to believe that oppression and bigotry against Palestinians is somehow a horrible thing, but it's OK when it's against Jews in and outside of Israel. Why, because Palestinians are Arab and not Jewish, why would that make any difference.

Freshman Representative Alexandria O. Cortez and Representative Ilhan Omar can all themselves Democratic Socialists all they want, but until they come out against antisemitism and the state oppression and authoritarianism of the Socialist Maduro Regime in Venezuela, they're just Socialists to me. Perhaps even hippie Socialists or hipster Socialists, yuppie Socialists, which are common in both New York and San Francisco, but they're just Socialists who apparently don't have issues with bigotry just as long as it targets the rights groups ( according to them ) and don't have issues with authoritarianism, just as long as it's left-wing authoritarianism.

If you want to be a Democratic Socialist, you have to remember that Democratic Socialists starts with Democratic which applies at least that you believe in at least some level of democracy and appose authoritarianism regardless of where and who it comes from. And you oppose authoritarianism regardless of who and where it comes from. The same thing with Liberals and liberalism, anyone can call themselves a Liberal, but if you don't believe in liberal democracy and the individual rights that come from liberal democracy, you're not very liberal if at all. The same thing with Democratic Socialists and democratic socialism, if you don't believe in democracy and don't oppose bigotry in all forms, you're not much of a Democratic Socialist.