Bring Back Eisenhower Socialism

[Judi Lynn]

Published on
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
by OtherWords


Conservatives want you to believe that not having to choose between paying for rent or medicine is Soviet-style tyranny

by Chuck Collins



A Stalinesque Dwight Eisenhower statue looms over Abilene, Kansas. (Photo: Shutterstock)

Beware of the specter of socialism!

Anytime a politician proposes a wildly popular idea that helps ordinary people, a few grumpy conservatives will call them “socialists.” Propose to reduce college debt, help sick families, or ensure the super-rich pay their fair share of taxes — suddenly you’re a walking red nightmare.

Utah Republican Rep. Chris Stewart is so alarmed he’s convened an “Anti-Socialism Caucus” to ward off “the primitive appeal of socialism” that will “infect our institutions.” Democrats’ talk of restoring higher income tax rates on the wealthiest or helping families with childcare was enough to trigger Treasury Secretary Steve Munchin to quip, “We’re not going back to socialism.”

These same politicians consistently vote for tax cuts for the rich and to gut taxes and regulations on corporations so they can exercise their full freedom and liberty — to mistreat workers, pollute the environment, and rip off their customers.

The “shrink government” fear-mongers want you to believe there are only two flavors of economic ice cream. Choose strawberry and you get liberty-choking gulag communism. From this vantage, any proposal to rein in the unchecked power of global corporations and the rule-rigging rich is creeping socialism.

Choice number two, blueberry, is plutocracy, a society where the super-rich lord over the rest of us. It’s an economically polarized dystopia with stagnant wages and a declining standard of living for the majority.

Conservative demagogues aim to scare you into embracing their pro-plutocrat agenda as the only tolerable choice.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

More:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/13/bring-back-eisenhower-socialism

[AncientGeezer]

1. Nobody paid the top marginals....that's a falacy

Back then 3 martini lunch was a deductible...loop holes were common.
NOBODY paid 90-70%

JFK...cut the rates....increased Treasury revenue...that's a fact

[FiveGoodMen]

14. Guess the GOP's assertion that trickle-down works is true, then

[demigoddess]

2. England has universal health care and very heavy death taxes on the rich

and probably a decent wage. But they have not gotten rid of their rich and their aristocracy. We could do that and still have people who do something and end up rich. J. K. Rowling is an example. She started out on their version of welfare and became richer than the Queen. I don't think they stifled wealth creation, do you?

[True Blue American]

4. They did cut into the Aristocracy

By levering huge taxes on big Estates. Broke many of them up.

[AncientGeezer]

6. GB has a mixed health care system...both public and private...

You know that right? You should.

[demigoddess]

12. I do.

[True Blue American]

3. Gave us the

Interstate system designed on the Autobahn in Germany.

[AncientGeezer]

5. Do you know what else happened during the formation of the Autobahn?

Any clue?

[True Blue American]

7. I have a pretty good idea

Since my future Husband was there. So was my Father.Next question?

[AncientGeezer]

8. Your future husband was there in the 1920's? Your Dad?

Either of them in the 1930's....1940's.....
Please explain the time line for us.

[True Blue American]

9. They were in the war. i certainly do not remember the 1920's.

My Dad would.

[AncientGeezer]

10. My Grandfather was there back then....and I'm 57

He jumped on a ship as a hand because he saw what was coming...

If your Dad remembers the 1920's....he's in his late 90's

[Haggis for Breakfast]

11. And your point is ????

[demigoddess]

13. gee, you guys are testy.

yes, I know some of the rich guys have a hard time but they still have people with titles and names even if they have to find a way to earn a living on their estate and pay death duties. As far as I am concerned it is the cost of having more money than you need to live. And the cost of having healthy neighbors who don't die out in huge numbers. On Downton Abbey they made the point that at WWI a lot of the men who they needed for soldiers were not healthy enough to serve due to the very rich/very poor divide. Lately I heard on the news that many American men who want to sign up for the military, fail the physical. Sound familiar??We are going the way of the British before WWI. And it ain''t a good idea.