|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
lol @ a concept of economic justice that doesnt revolve around the community
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Peachfart posted:I know you didn't ask me personally, but imo economic justice is the ability of every person to afford quality shelter, food, education, and health care without any of these tied to a job. The rich can have more money than the average person, sure whatever, but taxes should be high enough to keep the disparity between the richest and the poorest as small as possible. Problem is the rich will lobby to roll those back the moment they get the opportunity to do so, because they will always want more money to increase their high score. As has already happened. You need to have ways to stop that from happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
^^^ We should create a law that allows the rich to be murdered without legal recourse. So you can become as rich as you want, but by doing so you subject yourself to the risk of being randomly knifed in the street. No risk no reward!Peachfart posted:I know you didn't ask me personally, but imo economic justice is the ability of every person to afford quality shelter, food, education, and health care without any of these tied to a job. The rich can have more money than the average person, sure whatever, but taxes should be high enough to keep the disparity between the richest and the poorest as small as possible. My personal feeling is that it's common sense that you should just keep increasing taxes on the rich until it causes some sort of actual economic problems (and honestly I'm not convinced it would ever reach this point). Like, what reason is there not to just increase taxes* by X% every year indefinitely? You can always stop or revert it if something bad happens as a result. The problem is that the topic of dramatically increasing taxes on the wealthy is almost completely absent from American political discourse, even among the Sanders segment of the party. Which is weird to me, since it seems like it should be the easiest sell. Like, UHC is a good idea and needs to happen, but I can at least understand in theory why someone might be concerned about the effects of such a dramatic change to an industry that affects such a large portion of our economy. But there's literally no reason to oppose jacking up taxes on the wealthy a bunch; inequality is so extreme that you can say with 100% confidence that you could increase taxes massively without any negative effects, and it's a pretty straight-forward and simple change to make. Like, a big part of redistribution is, you know, taking money from the wealthy. And to do that you gotta increase taxes more than 5% or whatever the heck was on Hillary's platform. *Of course this refers to effective tax rate, so you'd need to tax into account all types of taxes as well as existing loopholes and forms of tax reduction Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:Okay, so you made a meaningless aside that was meant to look as if it was a response to something. Guess we're done here. Who the gently caress actually writes like this lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The problem is that the topic of dramatically increasing taxes on the wealthy is almost completely absent from American political discourse, even among the Sanders segment of the party. Which is weird to me, since it seems like it should be the easiest sell. Like, UHC is a good idea and needs to happen, but I can at least understand in theory why someone might be concerned about the effects of such a dramatic change to an industry that affects such a large portion of our economy. But there's literally no reason to oppose jacking up taxes on the wealthy a bunch; inequality is so extreme that you can say with 100% confidence that you could increase taxes massively without any negative effects, and it's a pretty straight-forward and simple change to make. I would guess part of the reason is because Sanders doesn't want to completely close the door on any corporate donations, should he ever get a presidential nomination. He would want to be as competitive as possible, while cutting back overall on the contributions he takes. So he soft-pedals it more than he probably could. Plus another partial explanation might be that he and other left-Dems really don't know how big companies would react to promises of greater taxation. Would they amp up the offshoring? Would they freak out, causing the Dow to tank? Would they do something else deliberately lovely, to try to sabotage a Sanders general election campaign? It's hard to say, and it's equally hard to say if the general voting public would reward him or blame him for any or all of these outcomes. That's not a reason to not pursue much higher taxes on the rich, but I can at least see why he doesn't bang the drum too loudly, without knowing exactly how it will play out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
"Pay their fair share" = much higher taxes
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
I mean, I think it's pretty fair to say that in all likelihood, a plausible Presidential frontrunner openly calling for dramatically raising taxes on the rich would probably cause corporate America in general and their bought politicians to lose their loving minds and throw billions of dollars into burying them as hard as possible and slandering them as racist sexist commies who want to take away your toothbrush and take jobs from hard working hedge fund investors, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I would guess part of the reason is because Sanders doesn't want to completely close the door on any corporate donations, should he ever get a presidential nomination. He would want to be as competitive as possible, while cutting back overall on the contributions he takes. So he soft-pedals it more than he probably could. I'm not even talking about companies, but rather individuals. Companies are fine also, but they introduce some potential issues (like the stuff you mentioned). white sauce posted:"Pay their fair share" = much higher taxes "Pay their fair share" is too vague; it's the same language Hillary used, and she was referring to like a 4 or 5% increase on the top bracket. Things need to be more explicit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm not even talking about companies, but rather individuals. Companies are fine also, but they introduce some potential issues (like the stuff you mentioned). Let them find out about their 100% tax rate when they file with the IRS 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
And we're trusting Kamala Harris to make good on this Medicare for All commitment... why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
call to action posted:And we're trusting Kamala Harris to make good on this Medicare for All commitment... why? Who is we? Kamala has the stench of prison slave labor all over her, she's gonna back stab everyone the second it's convenient for her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I would guess part of the reason is because Sanders doesn't want to completely close the door on any corporate donations, should he ever get a presidential nomination. He would want to be as competitive as possible, while cutting back overall on the contributions he takes. So he soft-pedals it more than he probably could. Bernie accepted Ben & Jerry's cash, he's deep in the big ice cream pocket.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Bernie accepted Ben & Jerry's cash, he's deep in the big ice cream pocket. The Military-Frozen Dessert Industrial Complex
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
white sauce posted:The Military-Frozen Dessert Industrial Complex God, you know this world is going to Hell when they can't even call it ice cream legally. gently caress Breyer's. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Bernie accepted Ben & Jerry's cash, he's deep in the big ice cream pocket. white sauce posted:The Military-Frozen Dessert Industrial Complex Forget it, Jake...it's Burlington.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I was thinking Clintons and Pelosis - people who may well genuinely want to end discrimination Well I'm sure Abuela would be happy owning slaves of any color.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Anyway seeing the usual suspects poo poo on TNC over the past couple days is kinda hilarious. Yeah, it's hilarious dude. The way the country is going is totally owning economic leftists- badass!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Like I said, Bernie in the primaries and Trump in the general for 2020. Oh sorry I shouldn't have replied to you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Bernie accepted Ben & Jerry's cash, he's deep in the big ice cream pocket. He's for Americone not America
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Well I'm sure Abuela would be happy owning slaves of any color. Exactly. Liberals believe that race and gender aren't traits which inherently affect someone's chances of being rightfully sorted into the permanent underclass by a procedurally flawless meritocracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Bernie accepted Ben & Jerry's cash, he's deep in the big ice cream pocket. He'd never get two scoops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I would guess part of the reason is because Sanders doesn't want to completely close the door on any corporate donations, should he ever get a presidential nomination. He would want to be as competitive as possible, while cutting back overall on the contributions he takes. So he soft-pedals it more than he probably could. Oh, another thing I forgot to mention in my previous post is that any sort of sufficient positive change is going to inevitably run into strong conflict with wealthy interests. I honestly would be kind of afraid to be the politician proposing stuff that really shifts a bunch of wealth from the top; like, I would actually fear for my life, because I wouldn't consider assassination to be completely out of the question in such a situation. Making healthcare single payer or some other effective UHC is probably more doable because while it hurts one very powerful industry, it helps a bunch of others, but something like directly jacking up taxes a bunch to actually redistribution wealth on a large scale would probably face very large resistance, because it would objectively "hurt" the rich. Most of the stuff liberals would propose only slows the rate at which the rich become richer, which is something some rich people are okay with. But once you start talking about stuff like actual wealth taxes, you'd basically be turning almost all the upper classes into your enemy (which, IMO, is totally fine; the super-wealthy can't peacefully coexist with everyone else in a fair society). Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't do this stuff. It's just that this sort of conflict is gonna happen regardless, so avoiding angering wealthy interests/individuals isn't a good long-term strategy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Granted, the lesson from Poland-Lithuania was that the Liberum veto was the factor that ultimately undermined them, but that the large and extremely powerful aristocracy wouldn't do anything unless it was in their personal/familial best interests. Over time foreign interest had an easy had in their internal affairs as the Commonwealth came politically divided and largely unable to field an army that could meet their foes. Also, many of the "tweaks" that the wealthy would be okay with have already been tried, and there really isn't any real way to get more efficiency out of the system without funding and that needs to come from taxes. Granted, I am generally a pessimist because this country might already be to far gone but that isn't any reason not to push in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, the lesson from Poland-Lithuania was that the Liberum veto was the factor that ultimately undermined them, but that the large and extremely powerful aristocracy wouldn't do anything unless it was in their personal/familial best interests. Over time foreign interest had an easy had in their internal affairs as the Commonwealth came politically divided and largely unable to field an army that could meet their foes. I am slightly less pessmistic. But i see the left organizing and practicing the second ammendment now, as well as increasingly being involved int he armed forces as part of a twenty year plan, that will end in this country rapidly changed, one way or the other. Along with the advocates of neoliberalism no longer calling this place home. I also do not believe that the racists can win if because I know enough poor whites that would never support them. THey'll try, and they'll meet their ends in numerous reeducation companies building dikes all ovle r the atlantic coasts and see their bodies entomed in those dikes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
More Thomas Frank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTghUNKF78o
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/906700454041714689
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
How deep in the tank do you have to be to think Daou is doing Hillary any favors here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Oh, another thing I forgot to mention in my previous post is that any sort of sufficient positive change is going to inevitably run into strong conflict with wealthy interests. I honestly would be kind of afraid to be the politician proposing stuff that really shifts a bunch of wealth from the top; like, I would actually fear for my life, because I wouldn't consider assassination to be completely out of the question in such a situation. Making healthcare single payer or some other effective UHC is probably more doable because while it hurts one very powerful industry, it helps a bunch of others, but something like directly jacking up taxes a bunch to actually redistribution wealth on a large scale would probably face very large resistance, because it would objectively "hurt" the rich. Most of the stuff liberals would propose only slows the rate at which the rich become richer, which is something some rich people are okay with. But once you start talking about stuff like actual wealth taxes, you'd basically be turning almost all the upper classes into your enemy (which, IMO, is totally fine; the super-wealthy can't peacefully coexist with everyone else in a fair society). It's not a good strategy, no. But given that Sanders wasn't ever really expecting to get the nomination, I'm guessing he probably didn't expect to have to face the dilemma of, "Go full chort into calling for higher taxes on the rich, or continue receiving donations that make it easier to stay competitive," either. I think that, had he gotten the nomination, we would have seen him tack more more strongly in one direction or another, as opposed to kind of taking the middle path that you described earlier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Radish posted:How deep in the tank do you have to be to think Daou is doing Hillary any favors here? Peter Daou is a Hillary Bro 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
 not specifically dems related but goddamn do we need some new focus on labor rights edit: gently caress pizzahut
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
we at pizza hut have a commitment to provide lovely pizza to stoners at 2am come rain, sleet, snow, or cat 5 hurricane
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Presented without comment: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/10/barack-obama-rang-with-reassurance-for--theresa-may-on-election-night
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:More Thomas Frank: This is a pro-click. The democrats are a waste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
tekz posted:Presented without comment: As I've mentioned before, I've donated and raised money for a bunch of centrist democrats. My post history here may even include a "bernie or bust" complaint or two. Two things put me on the "democrats are a waste" mindset. First was the reaction to DeVos statements on HBCUs that completely ignored the terrible treatment of HBCUs by the Obama administration (reinforcing the idea that democrats care more about manners than policy). But far more important was the British election. All the talk about having to be pragmatic and the need for incrementalism was exposed as a complete lie when Obama's cronies went all in for May. May, who wants to have US insurance companies play a larger role in health care in the UK and roll back a bit of the NHS. It is absolutely clear at this point that the ACA wasn't just a political compromise, and that it was ideologically closer to Obama's preferences than the public option. I would not be surprised at all if 10 years from now there's a tell all book where it comes out that Lieberman's role in killing it was coordinated as a way to give other dems cover for their actual preferences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
jesus christ democrats are suck a bad gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
ahaha Obama leaked information from Labour to the Tories. Liberalism truly does prefer Fascism to Socialism
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Obama was trash. A waste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
We're still doing the woman respecter thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:ahaha Obama leaked information from Labour to the Tories. Liberalism truly does prefer Fascism to Socialism "The Democratic Party is in better shape than Labour; we have facts on our side." *leaks Labour facts to right-wingers*
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:More Thomas Frank: lol the list of bill's accomplishments. the clintons have been chasing moderate republicans for decades despite being loathed by them
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 21:09
|
|