THREAD: The line between inept government and bought government is often blurred, and that's intentional. Those doing the buying have convinced people that policies for the greater good are "pie in the sky," but that their looting of the commonwealth isn't. A reversal is overdue.
The fact that the economic costs of a pandemic and mass deaths have taken precedence over the human costs doesn't expose a broken system, it exposes how the system is designed. Treating these failures as incompetence rather than intentional only serves to absolve the profiteers.
It's no coincidence that expanding the social safety net in meaningful ways is dismissed as "pie in the sky," but the growing and profitable industry of public benefit suppression isn't.
motherjones.com/politics/2019/…
motherjones.com/politics/2019/…
It's no coincidence that cancelling student loan debt is dismissed as "pie in the sky," but the practice of buying and selling that debt for profit on Wall Street isn't.
commondreams.org/views/2019/10/…
commondreams.org/views/2019/10/…
It's no coincidence that urgently needed climate action such as a Green New Deal is dismissed as "pie in the sky," but bailing out the fossil fuel industry while members of Congress own stock in those companies isn't. 
Abolishing the practice of cash bail is dismissed as "pie in the sky" while almost half a million Americans are stuck in jail because they're poor. This isn't a coincidence.
Medicare-for-all and unlinking health insurance from employment are also dismissed as "pie in the sky;" meanwhile, health insurance profits skyrocket while millions lose their employment *and* insurance during a pandemic. This isn't a coincidence either.
It's no coincidence that these "Reopen America" "protests" are being funded by right-wing billionaires safely quarantined at home. Because if the government actually focuses on helping the people, it's harder for billionaires to plunder the commonwealth.
theguardian.com/us-news/2020/a…
theguardian.com/us-news/2020/a…
It's no coincidence that aid to the most vulnerable is means-tested til rendered toothless while wealthy political donors get bailed out with no strings attached.
"When the dust settles, there will be a tale to tell of who mattered and who was sacrificed"
bostonreview.net/class-inequali…
"When the dust settles, there will be a tale to tell of who mattered and who was sacrificed"
bostonreview.net/class-inequali…
Most politicians asking, "How will we pay for it?" actually mean, "How much will this cut into our corporate donors' profits?" They're calculating how much they can sell you out without losing your vote. Republicans are more brazen about this, but it isn't exclusive to one party.
Republicans no longer have policy debates. So it's more important than ever that Democrats not go down that path. Demanding a policy platform that better reflects the needs of the most vulnerable and beating Trump are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they're inextricable.
Results vs. revolution is a false choice — because meaningful results can come only from revolution. Not a revolution based on any single candidate, but rather on the idea that the greater good cannot be restricted to the intersection of corporate profits and political careerism.
Disabuse yourself of the notion that political ideology supersedes political self-interest, especially when policy's dictated by the needs of the wealthy. Some say incrementalism is a pragmatic path to justice. But a path to justice set by the unjust is no path to justice at all.
