President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
The rich have too much money. The poor have not enough money. We need to take it from the former and give it to the latter. I am highly interested in improving the material conditions of the poor, (which, also, automatically makes the place in which they reside less of a "shithole" the conservatives are terrified of) and it appears as though Rococo-style incrementalism isn't
Incrementally is the only way to go.
Have you ever heard the term, "Hood rich"?
Turning Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos upside down and shaking all the carboard boxes, robots, and spaceship parts from their pockets to redistribute to the poors isn't going to solve anything. Poverty is often a mindset.
There's a reason professional sports teams have to bring in experts to try and prevent incoming athletes from destroying their lives financially.
If you give someone a free house to live in, what incentive do they have to take care of it? If they **** it up, you'll just give them another one. Ask any landlord who specializes in Section 8 units. There's a reason we don't play that game around here.
The same wannabe communists who dunk on trust fund babies and generational wealth are going to sit here and claim that all of society's problems will be solved by taking Daddy Elon's money and giving it away. What's the difference?
We need a cultural shift in America, but not toward communism. People need to stop waiting for other people to solve all their problems. Mike Rowe would probably be a better idol to look up to than Karl Marx.
Can't you see that if this form of capitalism (kleptocapitalism) continues eventually 90% of everything (possibly more) will be owned by a very small number of people?
If you can see this, do you think this is a good or even justifiable thing when so many people live in abject poverty or work crazy hours just to pay the bills when compared to the 19050s to 1970s?
Socialists water down their own policies and confuse the discussion when they try to equate criticisms of wealth/power distribution with criticisms of capitalism.
You can be a capitalist and believe there should be a different tax structure or controls on speculation.
Socialism is about a particular theory of economics and power, so just pointing at isolated economic indicators is not enough to support a socialist paradigm.
Socialists water down their own policies and confuse the discussion when they try to equate criticisms of wealth/power distribution with criticisms of capitalism.You can be a capitalist and believe there should be a different tax structure or controls on speculation.Socialism is about a particular theory of economics and power, so just pointing at isolated economic indicators i
Socialists know this. They also know the way to convince an arch capitalist is to begin by pointing out how much worse things have become since Keynes was abandoned.
A stunningly brilliant soul read from the guy who knows nothing about Communism yet regards himself as an expert on it because his mother expelled him from her womb somewhere within the geographical area of the USSRIt's not like I've made similar statements to the one in question twenty billion times on this forum...I assume this is some kinda gotcha for some dumb reason or ano
I am not really making a point about the merits of incrementalism v. sudden change. It would be more correct to say that I am commenting on how insulated the billionaire class is today as compared to Louis XVI in the 1780s.
Socialists know this. They also know the way to convince an arch capitalist is to begin by pointing out how much worse things have become since Keynes was abandoned.
If they know they are confusing the issue then they should expect people to feel insulted and gaslit when they try to make it just about wealth distribution and ignore the long history of authoritarian marxist governments (I’ll stay away from calling them socialist or communist governments because I know that can be triggering)
If they know they are confusing the issue then they should expect people to feel insulted and gaslit when they try to make it just about wealth distribution and ignore the long history of authoritarian marxist governments (I’ll stay away from calling them socialist or communist governments because I know that can be triggering)
It isn't "confusing the issue" to point out that the CEO : median worker pay ratio has risen by an order of magnitude and worker's rights have been eroded in a few decades. It's highly relevant to understanding how flawed capitalism is.
Remember when people like you were cock-a-hoop that "trickle down" theory meant that capitalism was great?
Well guess what? You were wrong then and you're still wrong now.
It isn't "confusing the issue" to point out that the CEO : median worker pay ratio has risen by an order of magnitude and worker's rights have been eroded in a few decades. It's highly relevant to understanding how flawed capitalism is.
It’s confusing the issue if you present a wealth tax as a socialist solution to the problem when it’s actually a capitalist solution.
A socialist solution would be expropriation of the means of production.
Remember when people like you were cock-a-hoop that "trickle down" theory meant that capitalism was great?
Well guess what? You were wrong then and you're still wrong now.
lol I’m a social democrat/social liberal. I am not at all in favor of trickle down economics. This is just you making something up to deflect.
Turning Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos upside down and shaking all the carboard boxes, robots, and spaceship parts from their pockets to redistribute to the poors isn't going to solve anything.
Hmmm. Well, I say, let's give it a shot! Personally, I feel that giving money to people who are suffering from a lack of money would go a long way, but I guess they're stuck with mindset issues regardless, like you say.
If you give someone a free house to live in, what incentive do they have to take care of it? If they **** it up, you'll just give them another one. Ask any landlord who specializes in Section 8 units. There's a reason we don't play that game around here.
Their incentive to not trashing their home is ...to have a nice home? Oh, and don't pretend it's trivial for people to pack up and move their family into a new place, that they would disregard that future expenditure of time and effort so deeply that they would trash their home because... of why, again? They don't have an Econ 101-style education on economic incentives? They just enjoy living in poor conditions? GTFO.
Poverty is often a mindset
Nah, I think it's a lack of money.
There's a reason professional sports teams have to bring in experts to try and prevent incoming athletes from destroying their lives financially.
20-year-olds who suddenly find themselves with millions of dollars may be inclined to spend that money wastefully. Stop the presses! I guess you think a "cultural shift" would change that phenomenon?
Ask any landlord who specializes in Section 8 units.
The only thing I want to ask a landlord, and ESPECIALLY a Section 8 landlord, is what he'd like to eat for his last meal before the malignant tumor that is his soul is wiped off the planet
The same wannabe communists who dunk on trust fund babies and generational wealth are going to sit here and claim that all of society's problems will be solved by taking Daddy Elon's money and giving it away. What's the difference?
What's the difference? The difference between what and what?
Not sure what you're saying, but in any case, "all of society's problems will be solved" by socialism or Communism is an obvious strawman that nobody here said.
We need a cultural shift in America, but not toward communism. People need to stop waiting for other people to solve all their problems. Mike Rowe would probably be a better idol to look up to than Karl Marx.
Mike Dirty Jobs Rowe is an austerity-preaching scumbag. He's low-key one of the most malignant creeps around.
Can you point to where I said socialism means 100% public ownership?
And also, let’s say you’re defining a wealth tax to be a socialist solution. In that case, how is it that making a policy that assumes the existence of people becoming wealthy through exploitation (surplus value extraction) can be a socialist solution? It seems that allowing mechanisms of extracting surplus value to exist is pretty nonsocialist to me. At that point, what exactly is socialism?
You're a capitalist shill for the elite who are supported by the establishment and you support private individuals profiting from price gouging of essential facilities such as housing rentals, and taking the fruits of public investment such as transport and energy and water utilities and making huge profits from them while providing a costlier and much worse service to the public.
Call yourself a social democrat if it makes you feel better about yourself because you support slightly higher taxes during economic booms. Well done you.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersa...
but Mike Rowe, CEO of the mikeroweWORKS Foundation, is pointing to another crisis: a diminishing desire to work.
“The skills gap is real, but the will gap is also real,” said the 63-year-old former TV host in a recent interview with Fox Business.
No-one wants to work anymore!!! Luckily, Mike Rowe is here to build up some "will to work*" amongst our moribund American lay-abouts!
Somehow, in their attempt to solve the issue of why nobody wants to work anymore, the possible solution of "raise their pay" was not found anywhere in the article. I mean, I get it, Mr. Dirty Jobs may not be able to afford his eighth Ford F-150 if he were to pay people a livable wage.
Gooooood luck getting people onboard the forced austerity train.
*some people even say work will set you free, which is honestly not too distanced from Mike Rowe's dumb ****
You're a capitalist shill for the elite who are supported by the establishment and you support private individuals profiting from price gouging of essential facilities such as housing rentals, and taking the fruits of public investment such as transport and energy and water utilities and making huge profits from them while providing a costlier and much worse service to the publ
this
There's zero chance checkraisdraw would crush all privatization, as any legit left-winger would if they had the opportunity. There's a less than zero chance he would get on board my idea to imprison every billionaire in the country until they have given up 90% of their wealth (although at that point the Revolutionary Committee may decide to give them to the guillotines, and I'm a man of the people, tough luck.)
But, CRD, I personally am sure you are indeed a social Democrat or a social liberal, like you claim. Tons of those types are full-standing members of the capitalist order. It's called woke capitalism.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersa...No-one wants to work anymore!!! Luckily, Mike Rowe is here to build up some "will to work*" amongst our moribund American lay-abouts! Somehow, in their attempt to solve the issue of why nobody wants to work
What in your warped model of the world would make you think that raising hourly wages will make people work more hours in total?
"Just raise wages" is the proper answer when some sector business owners complain they can't find specific workers (usually for massacrating jobs like in kitchens and so on).
But in aggregate in the economy? If people can achieve their desired consumption goals with less effort, in the vast majority of cases they will work less in total.
You laugh as if what I said is ridiculous, but based on the latest DPI numbers I found, the chronic truancy rate at Milwaukee Public Schools was FIFTY EIGHT percent.
A bus quite literally comes to your house to pick you up for school and then takes you back home at the end of the day. The school also feeds you twice each day.
That change starts at home.
The people doing most of the complaining on the internet are the art students who are upset they can't afford an apartment in New York or Los Angeles on a Starbucks salary. That in itself is more of a NIMBY issue than an evil billionaire issue.
Look on sites like reddit to see this in action. Someone will post a photo of their first home in North Carolina and it'll be a nice place with an American Flag on the front porch and the title is, "$210k @ 7%! So excited!" The comments are an endless stream of people saying, "LOL that would be $2M where I live".
Then move, *******. It's a big country and not everyone can afford to live in the most desirable cities. If NYC runs out of baristas because the price of real estate is too high, that sounds like a NYC problem. Nobody has the right to afford a house in a specific location. Let the market sort that out.
lol I’m a social democrat/social liberal. I am not at all in favor of trickle down economics. This is just you making something up to deflect.
You a normal center right European (on the economics), you are probably to the right of the Tories for example (again on economics ), and around where the current German prime minister or Meloni are.
You are left of center on economics in the USA, a normal centrist democrat
You laugh as if what I said is ridiculous, but based on the latest DPI numbers I found, the chronic truancy rate at Milwaukee Public Schools was FIFTY EIGHT percent.A bus quite literally comes to your house to pick you up for school and then takes you back home at the end of the day. The school also feeds you twice each day.That change starts at home.The people doing most of t
It's incredible that these very basic things aren't obvious to everyone and yet here we are.
We are at a point where some people advocate for a human right to live in the most expensive areas of a country.
Your average libtard grossly overestimates the liquidity of billioniares.
Though, I suppose if you grease the palms of the local building-inspectors, some of these corporate assets could theoretically be repurposed for housing.
Probably so but many average conservtard grossly underestimate how a dollar that travel a lot through exchanges of services and buying goods can do a long way for a lot of people in helping them ….
It’s called velocity of money .
A dollar hiding in stock market dont do much but stand there idle .
the problem sadly is the debt is too high today .
Thx for wars, bailing out wall street , keep a fake interest low for near 2 decades ,etc.
Someone needs to pay the bill and no one wants to of course .
And now the beautiful bill answer ?
Let’s borrow even more money to give tax cut for billionaires and corporations .
While depraving even more those that needs help….
Yup great plan….
You laugh as if what I said is ridiculous, but based on the latest DPI numbers I found, the chronic truancy rate at Milwaukee Public Schools was FIFTY EIGHT percent.
A bus quite literally comes to your house to pick you up for school and then takes you back home at the end of the day. The school also feeds you twice each day.
Yeah man, I know how public education works in the US, this was not a thing you needed to explain to anyone.
It’s confusing the issue if you present a wealth tax as a socialist solution to the problem when it’s actually a capitalist solution.
A socialist solution would be expropriation of the means of production.
A wealth tax is the expropriation of a slice of all the means of production, every year.
It's definitionally a socialist policy, if enacted it moves a locality more toward actual socialism (especially if you can pay in kind for illiquid property, like the state slowly increasing it's ownership of your business or real estate)
