Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote: it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy.
When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way.
Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party.
"Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns?
Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now.
You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything.
Let me ask you this, in a clear way:
1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats?
2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower?
And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do?
You’re pivoting again, because this isn’t about the vocal support or citizens United (as much about the first amendment as anything else; and Democrats would love to have more of a monopoly on media corporations, while preventing other corps getting their message out). Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes.
You’re also relying on the crutch of tax cuts as a proxy for who’s beholden to big business. You think the tax burden on companies are not passed down eventually to the consumers? You think tax raises are the prime mechanism to prove you’re with the common man against billionaires? Ha! The tax code should be simplified and all the complex schemes of separate excise taxes and capital gains taxes and social security taxes and corporate income taxes and estate taxes and alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals. It’s through the machinations of the Democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths (and a certain amount of Republican politicians as well) that these things are necessary. When it becomes too complicated to file but for hordes of accountants; that isn’t a triumph over billionaires—that’s a way to give them the same tax burden with a nominal tax increase while profiting from their dollars.
I basically reject your faulty premises Mohdoo. You’re smart enough to know that conservatives don’t view redistribution as a societal good or government as the proper means to run an economy or major economic sector. It might be easier to acknowledge that you’re basing arguments on fallacious roots (what someone on the right would call framing the questions in ways that only allow for one proper answer). I’d twist it back around, and ask you if you will always give Democrats credit for talking tough on taxing the rich, while giving them the SALT and offshoring and all the comforts they’re used to asking and receiving from Democrats in every bill. Hell, it was in Pelosi’s trillion dollar COVID bill itself! I give them no credit; I know how the game is played. They’re bought and paid for politicians just like many Republicans.
And you should know by now, it’s not about what the left leaning members of this thread will accept. I’ve already seen billions in property damage across many urban areas, and very few accept more than “mostly peaceful protests” and “Antifa is an idea, not groups.” I’m after the truth, not what people in this ideological collection are prepared to accept at the moment. You can all kill industry and blame the right at each failure up to the moment of poverty, and until your dying breath, refusing to accept responsibility.
So let me try to understand what you are saying:
You are saying that Democrats don't actually want to make billionaires less powerful? And the evidence of this is that democrats supposedly create loop holes for specific billionaires? So while Democrats advocate for eliminating tax breaks for large corporations and billionaires, they have some sort of system of preferring specific billionaires? You haven't really substantiated that, but I am just trying to make sure I am at least following your thoughts.
May I ask what sorts of things you see Republicans as doing to make billionaires less powerful? What is on the Republican agenda aimed at reducing the power of billionaires?
The central banking we have now is the system. I can go further and say that government intervention, in general, in what should be a free market, also benefits the rich.
This system isn't limited to Democrats, but the Democrats openly embrace it. For example the Fed's policy during the Obama administration was characterized by unprecedented "easy money policy" such as QE.
Taxing the rich to address income inequality is addressing the result rather than the cause of the problem.
I know this is related to old news but it's pretty hilarious how the "1 in quadrillion claim" was made using the reasoning (can find it at around 7 minutes) that I predicted. Actually lmao'd at that point because even a grade schooler who hasn't drank the Trump kkkoolaid would know their assumptions were silly af. The Republican party is complete f*cking joke.
User was warned for this post.
I think this guy’s recent videos on the election are interesting for reasons that go way beyond the 2020 election. He does a decent job of debunking the myths he’s discussing - I think he does a little worse in this one than the first two, honestly.
What interests me, though, is his tone. It’s not totally “respectful” - he doesn’t wholly pretend ridiculous claims aren’t ridiculous - but it’s not exactly ridiculing either. He’s got kind of a Bill Nye vibe, like he’s mostly just excited to be talking about math because he thinks it’s cool.
If you ask guys like David Gorski conspiracy theories and pseudoscience should be met with ridicule. They’re not sane ideas, we shouldn’t pretend they are for the sake of collegiality or “debate.” He’ll acknowledge you won’t ever convince really committed believers this way, but you might show spectators of the dialogue how ridiculous these ideas are.
But also if you ask guys like David Gorski, truth is losing. Conspiracy theories and pseudoscience keep getting more popular, and relevant experts breaking down why they’re wrong have never had less effect. I think the ridicule might be more effective than insincere collegiality, but even tentative believers tend to get defensive rather than reconsider their beliefs. And does it work for the uncommitted spectator, or just make the expert seem like an overconfident asshole?
I wonder if what we need more Matt Parkers (that’s the guy in the video) out there, engaging with conspiracy theories in a way that hopefully promotes curiosity rather than defensiveness? Generally conspiracy theorists choose their beliefs for therapeutic reasons rather than genuinely seeking truth; inspiring curiosity seems like a promising approach.
If we don't get $2000 stimulus checks, people are going to be even MORE mad now, lmao.
What a crazy situation. Pelosi and Trump both in full agreement. House adjustments already being made. How in the WORLD can McConnell possibly get out of this? I can't remember a time when such a large percent of the country all agreed on something.
Can't believe Trump's pardoning of the Blackwater mercenaries convicted of civilian massacre. I hate how we all can only helplessly watch as he does horrible shit like this. Let's hope this is not in exchange for help from Eric Prince for god knows what purposes.
On December 23 2020 15:37 Mohdoo wrote: If we don't get $2000 stimulus checks, people are going to be even MORE mad now, lmao.
What a crazy situation. Pelosi and Trump both in full agreement. House adjustments already being made. How in the WORLD can McConnell possibly get out of this? I can't remember a time when such a large percent of the country all agreed on something.
Are the house adjustments just the exact same 900 billion dollar bill increased to accommodate for 2000 dollar checks?
On December 23 2020 16:21 Starlightsun wrote: Can't believe Trump's pardoning of the Blackwater mercenaries convicted of civilian massacre. I hate how we all can only helplessly watch as he does horrible shit like this. Let's hope this is not in exchange for help from Eric Prince for god knows what purposes.
It’s not even the first war criminal he’s pardoned so I’m not sure why you can’t believe it. He also pardoned the guy who was bragging in writing about how he stabbed bound prisoners to death. If there’s anything morally awful that can be done you can bet Trump will do it.
On December 23 2020 16:21 Starlightsun wrote: Can't believe Trump's pardoning of the Blackwater mercenaries convicted of civilian massacre. I hate how we all can only helplessly watch as he does horrible shit like this. Let's hope this is not in exchange for help from Eric Prince for god knows what purposes.
It’s not even the first war criminal he’s pardoned so I’m not sure why you can’t believe it. He also pardoned the guy who was bragging in writing about how he stabbed bound prisoners to death. If there’s anything morally awful that can be done you can bet Trump will do it.
This is just Trump being spiteful. According to the guardian, linky, Biden was the one who seeked prosecution after the first one was rejected.
"An initial prosecution was thrown out by a federal judge – sparking outrage in Iraq –but the then vice president, Joe Biden, promised to pursue a fresh prosecution, which was backed by judges."
Jesus, if we actually GET the 2,000 dollar stimulus checks and Biden stops it I think I'm going to be in a position where I prefer Trump to Biden.
1400 quid for your principles/loyalty.
You're cheaper than some amsterdam floozies.
2,000 dollars to keep my car? Pay down debt? Afford food? Oh, but I could have 600 dollars and my LOYALTY TO DEMOCRATS AND JOE BIDEN LOL, thats just so much better for me than 2,000!
Sorry that I have material needs, I'll consider your opinion next time I'm out shopping for nearly expired mark down food, maybe I'll go without eating at all to earn your respect!
Or you can keep it, and I'll support any politician that promises to materially improve the standard of not only my life but the lives of actual Americans.
Being "loyal" to politicians is for sycophants, they're politicians, they're in their positions to serve the public, if they're doing a shit job serving the public why do they deserve LOYALTY?
On December 23 2020 17:31 Belisarius wrote: Zambrah hates Biden and has been looking for an excuse to prefer trump from the beginning.
EDIT see above
You're half right, I do hate Biden, Trump and Biden are just mired so low in my rankings that it doesn't take a ton to put one above the other, especially given any and all news I've seen about Biden indicate he looks to be an austerity minded president who will repeat the mistakes of the Obama administration, which means hes got all of the things I disliked him for on his campaign coupled with all of the things I disliked about the last Democrat administration.
Add all of that on top of one old white piece of shit potentially doing something positive and the other old white piece of shit going on to say, "yeah thats not happening anymore, you get no stimulus 'cause government spending" (should that happen would lead to to Trump going from Rank 99 on my Shittiest List up to 98.
I don't want to prefer Trump, I think hes a very fun justified target to mock and ridicule and hate on, but at the same time it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Republicans for not criticizing Trump if I can't also give Trump credit for potentially actually achieving his one good life time deed (potentially around Christmas time no less! Its like that Epic Rap Battle of History.)
EDIT: and to continue criticizing Trump since thats what seems popular I guess, Trump is absolutely a piece of human trash for pardoning those disgusting Blackwater murderers as well as the other awful GOP scumbags.
On December 23 2020 17:31 Belisarius wrote: Zambrah hates Biden and has been looking for an excuse to prefer trump from the beginning.
EDIT see above
You're half right, I do hate Biden, Trump and Biden are just mired so low in my rankings that it doesn't take a ton to put one above the other, especially given any and all news I've seen about Biden indicate he looks to be an austerity minded president who will repeat the mistakes of the Obama administration, which means hes got all of the things I disliked him for on his campaign coupled with all of the things I disliked about the last Democrat administration.
Add all of that on top of one old white piece of shit potentially doing something positive and the other old white piece of shit going on to say, "yeah thats not happening anymore, you get no stimulus 'cause government spending" (should that happen would lead to to Trump going from Rank 99 on my Shittiest List up to 98.
I don't want to prefer Trump, I think hes a very fun justified target to mock and ridicule and hate on, but at the same time it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Republicans for not criticizing Trump if I can't also give Trump credit for potentially actually achieving his one good life time deed (potentially around Christmas time no less! Its like that Epic Rap Battle of History.)
EDIT: and to continue criticizing Trump since thats what seems popular I guess, Trump is absolutely a piece of human trash for pardoning those disgusting Blackwater murderers as well as the other awful GOP scumbags.
tbf Democrats have been losing a lot of ground among people making less than 30k a year. It shows that people do not believe that Democrats have the interests of working class people as a top priority, which would be mostly true. Obama won 63-35 in this group in 2012, Clinton won 53-41 and Biden only won 54-46 (can find these figures from wikipedia).
I will give Biden some credit. He did meh in a lot of traditionally left-wing voting demographics but he did quite well among 40-49 year olds, moderates, independents and middle class people but these things give you a better idea of who he appeals to.
On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote: it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy.
When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way.
Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party.
"Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns?
Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now.
You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything.
Let me ask you this, in a clear way:
1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats?
2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower?
And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do?
You’re pivoting again, because this isn’t about the vocal support or citizens United (as much about the first amendment as anything else; and Democrats would love to have more of a monopoly on media corporations, while preventing other corps getting their message out). Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes.
You’re also relying on the crutch of tax cuts as a proxy for who’s beholden to big business. You think the tax burden on companies are not passed down eventually to the consumers? You think tax raises are the prime mechanism to prove you’re with the common man against billionaires? Ha! The tax code should be simplified and all the complex schemes of separate excise taxes and capital gains taxes and social security taxes and corporate income taxes and estate taxes and alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals. It’s through the machinations of the Democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths (and a certain amount of Republican politicians as well) that these things are necessary. When it becomes too complicated to file but for hordes of accountants; that isn’t a triumph over billionaires—that’s a way to give them the same tax burden with a nominal tax increase while profiting from their dollars.
I basically reject your faulty premises Mohdoo. You’re smart enough to know that conservatives don’t view redistribution as a societal good or government as the proper means to run an economy or major economic sector. It might be easier to acknowledge that you’re basing arguments on fallacious roots (what someone on the right would call framing the questions in ways that only allow for one proper answer). I’d twist it back around, and ask you if you will always give Democrats credit for talking tough on taxing the rich, while giving them the SALT and offshoring and all the comforts they’re used to asking and receiving from Democrats in every bill. Hell, it was in Pelosi’s trillion dollar COVID bill itself! I give them no credit; I know how the game is played. They’re bought and paid for politicians just like many Republicans.
And you should know by now, it’s not about what the left leaning members of this thread will accept. I’ve already seen billions in property damage across many urban areas, and very few accept more than “mostly peaceful protests” and “Antifa is an idea, not groups.” I’m after the truth, not what people in this ideological collection are prepared to accept at the moment. You can all kill industry and blame the right at each failure up to the moment of poverty, and until your dying breath, refusing to accept responsibility.
So let me try to understand what you are saying:
You are saying that Democrats don't actually want to make billionaires less powerful? And the evidence of this is that democrats supposedly create loop holes for specific billionaires? So while Democrats advocate for eliminating tax breaks for large corporations and billionaires, they have some sort of system of preferring specific billionaires? You haven't really substantiated that, but I am just trying to make sure I am at least following your thoughts.
May I ask what sorts of things you see Republicans as doing to make billionaires less powerful? What is on the Republican agenda aimed at reducing the power of billionaires?
The central banking we have now is the system. I can go further and say that government intervention, in general, in what should be a free market, also benefits the rich.
This system isn't limited to Democrats, but the Democrats openly embrace it. For example the Fed's policy during the Obama administration was characterized by unprecedented "easy money policy" such as QE.
Taxing the rich to address income inequality is addressing the result rather than the cause of the problem.
So what's your proposed solution? Tight monetary policy? Decreasing the money supply is what happened in the great depression and that didn't end well.
On December 23 2020 17:31 Belisarius wrote: Zambrah hates Biden and has been looking for an excuse to prefer trump from the beginning.
EDIT see above
You're half right, I do hate Biden, Trump and Biden are just mired so low in my rankings that it doesn't take a ton to put one above the other, especially given any and all news I've seen about Biden indicate he looks to be an austerity minded president who will repeat the mistakes of the Obama administration, which means hes got all of the things I disliked him for on his campaign coupled with all of the things I disliked about the last Democrat administration.
Add all of that on top of one old white piece of shit potentially doing something positive and the other old white piece of shit going on to say, "yeah thats not happening anymore, you get no stimulus 'cause government spending" (should that happen would lead to to Trump going from Rank 99 on my Shittiest List up to 98.
I don't want to prefer Trump, I think hes a very fun justified target to mock and ridicule and hate on, but at the same time it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Republicans for not criticizing Trump if I can't also give Trump credit for potentially actually achieving his one good life time deed (potentially around Christmas time no less! Its like that Epic Rap Battle of History.)
EDIT: and to continue criticizing Trump since thats what seems popular I guess, Trump is absolutely a piece of human trash for pardoning those disgusting Blackwater murderers as well as the other awful GOP scumbags.
tbf Democrats have been losing a lot of ground among people making less than 30k a year. It shows that people do not believe that Democrats have the interests of working class people as a top priority, which would be mostly true. Obama won 63-35 in this group in 2012, Clinton won 53-41 and Biden only won 54-46 (can find these figures from wikipedia).
I will give Biden some credit. He did meh in a lot of traditionally left-wing voting demographics but he did quite well among 40-49 year olds, moderates, independents and middle class people but these things give you a better idea of who he appeals to.
My issues with Biden aren't who he appeals to, but the nature of his political career, hes been budget austerity minded, pro-war, and is basically a moderate Republican in almost every way. I expect him to let life for the working class of the US continue to degrade.
Noone wants me to be wrong more than me, if he winds up being a really, really good president for the working class who manages to reduce poverty, ease student debt, tax the wealthy, provide some form of universal healthcare I'll eat my words, fuck I'll put ,"I suck Joe Biden's toes because hes my personal hero and savior" as my signature next to the Whelkor thing if he winds up making it happen.
I just don't expect it to happen, and I plan to criticize the piss out of him and every Democrat (and the occasional Hawley Republican who seem like they might be on board with something decent once in a while) who doesn't try and push for universal healthcare, student debt forgiveness (to some extent or another), criminal justice reform, etc.
On December 23 2020 16:21 Starlightsun wrote: Can't believe Trump's pardoning of the Blackwater mercenaries convicted of civilian massacre. I hate how we all can only helplessly watch as he does horrible shit like this. Let's hope this is not in exchange for help from Eric Prince for god knows what purposes.
Everyone he pardoned was an early Trump loyalist. It's the easiest transaction to follow if you do any thinking about it.
On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote: it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy.
When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way.
Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party.
"Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns?
Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now.
You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything.
Let me ask you this, in a clear way:
1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats?
2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower?
And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do?
You’re pivoting again, because this isn’t about the vocal support or citizens United (as much about the first amendment as anything else; and Democrats would love to have more of a monopoly on media corporations, while preventing other corps getting their message out). Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes.
You’re also relying on the crutch of tax cuts as a proxy for who’s beholden to big business. You think the tax burden on companies are not passed down eventually to the consumers? You think tax raises are the prime mechanism to prove you’re with the common man against billionaires? Ha! The tax code should be simplified and all the complex schemes of separate excise taxes and capital gains taxes and social security taxes and corporate income taxes and estate taxes and alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals. It’s through the machinations of the Democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths (and a certain amount of Republican politicians as well) that these things are necessary. When it becomes too complicated to file but for hordes of accountants; that isn’t a triumph over billionaires—that’s a way to give them the same tax burden with a nominal tax increase while profiting from their dollars.
I basically reject your faulty premises Mohdoo. You’re smart enough to know that conservatives don’t view redistribution as a societal good or government as the proper means to run an economy or major economic sector. It might be easier to acknowledge that you’re basing arguments on fallacious roots (what someone on the right would call framing the questions in ways that only allow for one proper answer). I’d twist it back around, and ask you if you will always give Democrats credit for talking tough on taxing the rich, while giving them the SALT and offshoring and all the comforts they’re used to asking and receiving from Democrats in every bill. Hell, it was in Pelosi’s trillion dollar COVID bill itself! I give them no credit; I know how the game is played. They’re bought and paid for politicians just like many Republicans.
And you should know by now, it’s not about what the left leaning members of this thread will accept. I’ve already seen billions in property damage across many urban areas, and very few accept more than “mostly peaceful protests” and “Antifa is an idea, not groups.” I’m after the truth, not what people in this ideological collection are prepared to accept at the moment. You can all kill industry and blame the right at each failure up to the moment of poverty, and until your dying breath, refusing to accept responsibility.
So let me try to understand what you are saying:
You are saying that Democrats don't actually want to make billionaires less powerful? And the evidence of this is that democrats supposedly create loop holes for specific billionaires? So while Democrats advocate for eliminating tax breaks for large corporations and billionaires, they have some sort of system of preferring specific billionaires? You haven't really substantiated that, but I am just trying to make sure I am at least following your thoughts.
May I ask what sorts of things you see Republicans as doing to make billionaires less powerful? What is on the Republican agenda aimed at reducing the power of billionaires?
The central banking we have now is the system. I can go further and say that government intervention, in general, in what should be a free market, also benefits the rich.
This system isn't limited to Democrats, but the Democrats openly embrace it. For example the Fed's policy during the Obama administration was characterized by unprecedented "easy money policy" such as QE.
Taxing the rich to address income inequality is addressing the result rather than the cause of the problem.
It takes a certain kind of people to look at the current US and say "we need less government intervention for the good of the people". The "market" has become such a weird entity that should somehow self regulate itself by magic. No, the "market" will not fix every problems if we let it run free. What a weird take.
On December 23 2020 17:28 Zambrah wrote: 2,000 dollars to keep my car? Pay down debt? Afford food? Oh, but I could have 600 dollars and my LOYALTY TO DEMOCRATS AND JOE BIDEN LOL, thats just so much better for me than 2,000!
Sorry that I have material needs, I'll consider your opinion next time I'm out shopping for nearly expired mark down food, maybe I'll go without eating at all to earn your respect!
Or you can keep it, and I'll support any politician that promises to materially improve the standard of not only my life but the lives of actual Americans.
Being "loyal" to politicians is for sycophants, they're politicians, they're in their positions to serve the public, if they're doing a shit job serving the public why do they deserve LOYALTY?
Posts like this are Blue MAGA posts.
I mean, Trump's awful mismanagement of the pandemic is part of the reason why your livelihood is at stake to begin with. I'm all for voting for your best interests, but this just seems awfully myopic toward how we got to this point in the first place.
On December 23 2020 07:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: Danglars, a more precise question: Do you think the wealthy make too much compared to the poor in the US today? I know you said you didn't favor redistribution as a social good and that you don't want more taxes and that you don't want the government to be more involved in running the economy. But I feel like you kinda dodged the implied 'is inequality too high in the US today'- question.
I'm not overly interested in the inequality metric as a thing unto itself. The extreme, extreme poverty alongside wealth, think Brazilian estates next to slums (favelas), would be the time that I'd sign on to the metric. But the poor in the country do not necessarily do worse just because the top billionaires earned an extra 10% this year from next. Vice versa, a lot of poor countries have very little inequality, and misery is commonplace. I want to look at the state of the poor independent on how the rich are doing; how is access to health care, housing, food, jobs, education, and all that. If those metrics are gaining, but inequality also rises, I will celebrate for the improved quality of life for the poor. If the poor lose access to health care, cannot afford housing, have trouble finding food, are mostly unemployed, with terrible schools and colleges, but if inequality goes down across the board, I'm still saddened by the quality of life for the poor.
It aint a zero-sum game and I think the debate on that basis distorts the real issues.
I've seen you say this a lot so I'd like you to be a little bit more specific: what are the poor countries you have in mind where misery is commonplace, but there is very little inequality? Or alternatively, can you think of any statistically significant examples of places where inequality was increasing and at the same time quality of life was improving? Because using the US as the example, things get kind of funny. Inflation adjusted incomes for lower/middle-class Americans have been stagnant since late 60s-early 70s -- and that's also more or less the time when your income inequality started to grow exponentially.
On December 23 2020 17:28 Zambrah wrote: 2,000 dollars to keep my car? Pay down debt? Afford food? Oh, but I could have 600 dollars and my LOYALTY TO DEMOCRATS AND JOE BIDEN LOL, thats just so much better for me than 2,000!
Sorry that I have material needs, I'll consider your opinion next time I'm out shopping for nearly expired mark down food, maybe I'll go without eating at all to earn your respect!
Or you can keep it, and I'll support any politician that promises to materially improve the standard of not only my life but the lives of actual Americans.
Being "loyal" to politicians is for sycophants, they're politicians, they're in their positions to serve the public, if they're doing a shit job serving the public why do they deserve LOYALTY?
Posts like this are Blue MAGA posts.
I mean, Trump's awful mismanagement of the pandemic is part of the reason why your livelihood is at stake to begin with. I'm all for voting for your best interests, but this just seems awfully myopic toward how we got to this point in the first place.
The fucked up state of American poverty extends very far beyond Trump, I'd argue it extends beyond Republicans too, there is no easy singular entity that I can accuse of being responsible for the state of the American poor. Placing sole blame on the state of how Americas poor are able to deal with this pandemic on Trump ignores the conditions that have led to so many Americans being incapable of shouldering even minor monetary setbacks.
Trump is naturally a generally incompetent ass hat and I will not say otherwise, however if we get 2,000 dollar stimulus checks up from 600 dollar checks how can I fairly not attribute some of that to him? While Im at it good on Pelosi for pouncing on the situation, same with AOC and Tlaib. Schumer for backing it too, and Ossoff. Trump just came in from the Left flank and set up a good thing to possibly happen. If he doesn't manage to fuck it up I say GOOD ON HIM for once.
And the minute a single one of these fucks or any other loathesome politician (COUGH MCCONNELL COUGH) goes back to not sending stimulus checks out for as long as it's needed and making sure people aren't evicted from their homes and aren't drowning in back rent I will give them every ounce of shit I have.
On December 23 2020 15:37 Mohdoo wrote: If we don't get $2000 stimulus checks, people are going to be even MORE mad now, lmao.
What a crazy situation. Pelosi and Trump both in full agreement. House adjustments already being made. How in the WORLD can McConnell possibly get out of this? I can't remember a time when such a large percent of the country all agreed on something.
Are the house adjustments just the exact same 900 billion dollar bill increased to accommodate for 2000 dollar checks?
That seems to be what they are saying. Just cross out the 600 and write 2000 instead. I’m starting to agree with some people that this is an attempt to get revenge on McConnell for pressuring senators to certify Biden’s victory. Trump would rather have a dead republicans party than one that survived “betraying” him. If republicans lose the senate, this allows Trump to remake the party himself.
EPT
