Noam Chomsky: Balancing the Budget DEBATED

Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political commentator, social justice activist, and anarcho-syndicalist advocate. Sometimes described as the "father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy. He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and has authored over 100 books. He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.

Chomsky spoke at the University of Minnesota on April 15, 1997.

0:00 Noam Chomsky on Balancing the Budget
10:48 Military Spending Isn't the Primary Driver of Innovation
11:31 Both Parties Support Welfare Spending on the Poor
12:31 Both Parties Support Welfare Spending on the Rich
13:16 Socialism for All vs. Capitalism for All
16:28 Balancing the Budget is Sensible

Noam Chomsky’s correct that Republicans want to increase defense spending, which it’s interesting he didn’t argue against it as many leftists typically do because he credits the Pentagon for much of our modern innovation.

Swish! Republicans?

With that said, his evidence is EXTREMELY weak for such a bold endorsement of military-driven innovation because otherwise North Korea and the Soviet Union would be one of the most innovative countries on Earth. Defense spending can incentivize private investment to help achieve certain national goals (to the Mooooooon!), but overall there’s a lot of evidence that the military-industrial complex crowds out privately financed R&D and drains the private sector of much of its top researchers.

Chomsky’s main complaint, therefore, is that

Republicans only care about balancing the budget when it pertains to welfare spending on the poor.

He’s factually wrong though.

Republicans have continuously supported welfare spending on the poor. In the last 40 years, Republican politicians have consistently voted for federal budgets that increase welfare spending.

In addition, Republican presidents have signed into law such anti-poverty legislation as: XYZ

On the state level, Republican politicians have also supported welfare spending on the poor.

And on an individual level, many Republican voters are on food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.

If Chomsky’s claim was accurate then in 2016 when Republicans had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency they would’ve cut welfare spending on the poor, but in fact, they increased it.

Overall, the U.S. spends about 20% of its GDP on social welfare spending, which is more than Australia, Canada, and Switzerland. This is a MASSIVE amount too when you consider the U.S. has the largest GDP in human history.

Generally, Republicans support less welfare spending than Democrats, but it’s dishonest populist pandering leftist straw-manning to suggest they don’t support it at all.

Both parties support welfare spending on the rich.

Unfortunately, Chomsky’s correct here that both parties support corporate welfare.

As Noam Chomsky points out, “The extent to which corporations rely on the nanny state is often not realized.”

Since the 1980s, Big Business started lobbying for more regulations and government spending. Famous recent examples are the 2008 bailouts, Obamacare, Walmart/Amazon lobbying for a higher minimum wage, and Big Tech endorsing a Global Minimum Corporate Tax.

This isn’t a bug in the system, but an INEVITABLE consequence of any big centralized government hence why any socialist vision that doesn’t acknowledge this reality is fundamentally utopian.
The only way to reduce cronyism & corruption in D.C. is to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Chomsky proposes: we need to downsize D.C!

Socialism for All (vs.) Free Market for All.

Chomsky wants to give the ruling 1% even more power/control over your life.
Want to choose your own doctor? Nope. Want to choose your own teacher? Nope. Want to start your own business?

Nope.

Chomsky wants politicians/bureaucrats/academics to dictate virtually everything about your life, “for your own good,” of course. And although there are many socialists who come to power with good intentions, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the ruling elite inevitably put their own self-interest over the collective interest because humans are naturally self-interested. Anyone who promises you something for nothing should be treated as a scammer no matter if they’re speaking from an Ivory Tower, the halls of Congress, or a Nigerian “palace.”

Read FULL Essay @ www.AnthonyGalli.com