What’s unfortunate is that he’s a great songwriter and has a fantastic voice. Then he goes and uses those gifts to write a song signaling to the most wretched among us.
Also, this is blowing up because far-right agitators like Matt Walsh and co. timed a coordinated promotion. The only part that’s “true” is that everything sucks. The real reasons aren’t in the song.
Only if you sincerely think that punching down at overweight Americans eating Debbie Cakes is an accurate criticism of anything worthwhile.
Try listening to Sturgil Simpson Turtles all the Way Down instead. Or Holy Shit by Father John Misty.
Or if you just want to listen to newer bluegrass and country/western that isn’t astroturfed by wealthy capitalists or white nationalist influencers, you can check out Tyler Childers - the entire album Ballad of Janita and the Dood is a masterpiece. Michael Davies is also an incredible musician and vocalist that “Oliver Anthony” could never be.
I’m pretty sure he’s not hating on welfare as a whole, just people who are using it who don’t need it. I know a handful of people who under report earnings just so they can get food stamps and take advantage of other government programs.
He’s right though, the song is basically saying “life is hard for conservative cishet white men because of the got dang politicians taxing us”, and that’s a fundamentally reactionary view of the world.
If you want recommendations for good, actually working class country songs, might I recommend Woodie Guthrie? Or Peggy Seeger? They’re a little more on the folk side, but they’re really good.
I lean about as far left as you can go and the song resonates with me. I thought the song was a little deeper, talking about how the rich men (I’m assuming politicians) aren’t looking out for people. I feel like saying the song is only about taxes is taking a lot away from it. He talks on important issues like homelessness, male suicide rates, and that no one pays a living wage.
Edit: I’m not hating on people who use welfare, earlier I just stated what I thought he meant in his song by the phrase “milking welfare” to mean people who do not currently need it, using it.
No, not because his ideas and beliefs don’t align with mine. In fact a lot of what I have seen does fall in line with mine, but because I haven’t actually read up on most of his ideas in detail, I’ve just casually heard about them.
Edit: lmao I thought you meant Andrew Yang before I googled that term
As far left as you can go, huh? I’d suggest trying to push that envelope a little bit. Instead of being disappointed/mad/sad that rich people aren’t looking out for other people, try asking why rich people exist in the first place? Where did their wealth come from? And should they be allowed to keep it?
I don’t know why other people are giving you a hard time. I’m about as far left as you can go as well. This is absolutely a far-left song. This is the kind of thing Mao would have played when liquidating landlords or Stalin would have used as a soundtrack to confiscating Kulak farms.
This is probably the anthem of the far left and I’m glad you, as a fellow far leftist, enjoy it.
hang on, I get it but we have an opportunity to make some inroads here, immediately dragging up the most controversial possible issue doesn’t really serve us
Consider this perspective: People work for seven, ten, fifteen dollars an hour. The companies they work for - Walmart, Kroger, Amazon, McDonalds - have a bottom line that amounts to hundreds of dollars per employee hour. Welfare is paid for by taxes that everyone pays (except corporations, who have the lowest tax rates of any entity, including the poor) and inflates the effective income of these low wage folks to maybe twenty an hour.
Through this lens, welfare transfers income from middle and lower class people to only lower class people to keep them barely floating above destitution, while most of the actual profits that the working classes produce with their labor go into corporate coffers, upper class stock holders, and executive’s pockets. Welfare is a corporate bailout because it means corporations can pay less to workers and the difference is made up for by the working class.
When we think like this, there are 2 very natural conclusions:
Anything that anyone can get through welfare is legitimate, because anyone eligible for it is so screwed over by corporations that they deserve whatever they can get
Welfare as a system is built to favor the rich, and ultimately needs to be replaced by a system that favors the poor and funds the necessities of everyone from those who have benefitted the most from everyone else’s work (corporations and the wealthy)
Here’s 54 acres of undeveloped land in the town he lives in for $475K. He could parcel his 90 acres ($792k at this rate, and by far not the most expensive lot per acre I found when browsing), build a 5000 sq. foot home with a 3 car garage with 100% contractor labor, and keep 20 acres to have it on.
That is more than your typical working class individual but what was the overall point you were trying to make? He currently lives in a camper, he could sell it all and have a decent home but he hasn’t. Are you implying he’s only posing as a working class man because of the potential wealth he has in his land? I’m just not understanding the point you are chasing after here.
Add comment