A basic economic issue our society has lost its mind on

[evince]

The marginal rates decrease in 2025 because that was the only way it could pass. Who would be in office in 2025 that you think would let those rates rise back to today's amounts?

the only way it passed is with Russian cheating help to get these assholes elected

 

[evince]

I love my rural family members, but they have to learn the hard way, they often vote against their own best interests because of wedge issues. They also have a lot of biogtry, it is one of the reasons I left Kansas and my hometown is considered more progressive then surrounding areas.

their kids are learning

soon their parents wont be voting


they would not have won without russians playing these people

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I love my rural family members, but they have to learn the hard way, they often vote against their own best interests because of wedge issues. They also have a lot of biogtry, it is one of the reasons I left Kansas and my hometown is considered more progressive then surrounding areas.

Yep. That's why he left rural Illinois as well. My in-laws who still live there are fine ppl, but most of them *are* very racist and have an aversion to diversity, non-Xtians, and anything/anyone not like them. One of our favorite times was when his nephew, a married young man with two kids and a college degree in engineering, was laid off. He stayed on unemployment and food stamps till the UE ran out, bitching bitterly the entire time about "all those lazy slackers in Chicago taking our tax dollars because they don't want to work." Seriously, you have a degree in engineering but *you* can't find a job and are living off our tax dollars? LOL

But yep, that's how a lot of those folks are, sadly.

 

[evince]

its really is racism


those helping hands are for them

not those black and brown people

 

[Nordberg]

The majority of the people getting aid are children. Most welfare recipients are kids. Food stamps help the poor, the needy and the sick. You can be proud of not wanting to help the poor ,if it makes you feel better about yourself. Social security helps old people, kids whose father or bread winner has died and people with debilitating illnesses. Ryan, who is trying to destroy SS, was saved by it when his dad died young. Without it, he would not have been able to go the college. He has dedicated himself to destroying it now.

It is diversion and you are looking the wrong way. The bulk of American wealth is being confiscated by the wealthy. Those on top are looting you . But it is easier to blame those you think are below you. That is what the plutocrats do. They want to destroy"entitlement " programs because if people were rich like god intended we would not have problems. There has to be something wrong with them. The wealthy just have an enormous pool to look down on and blame.

 

[cawacko]

The majority of the people getting aid are children. Most welfare recipients are kids. Food stamps help the poor, the needy and the sick. You can be proud of not wanting to help the poor ,if it makes you feel better about yourself. Social security helps old people, kids whose father or bread winner has died and people with debilitating illnesses. Ryan, who is trying to destroy SS, was saved by it when his dad died young. Without it, he would not have been able to go the college. He has dedicated himself to destroying it now.

It is diversion and you are looking the wrong way. The bulk of American wealth is being confiscated by the wealthy. Those on top are looting you . But it is easier to blame those you think are below you. That is what the plutocrats do. They want to destroy"entitlement " programs because if people were rich like god intended we would not have problems. There has to be something wrong with them. The wealthy just have an enormous pool to look down on and blame.

I'm not rich but I have (somewhat) rich friends (it's all relative I guess). How are they confiscating or looting anything from me or you? Because they are good at what they do and people are willing to pay them for it?

 

[Craig234]

I'm not rich but I have (somewhat) rich friends (it's all relative I guess). How are they confiscating or looting anything from me or you? Because they are good at what they do and people are willing to pay them for it?

No, that's not why. But of course you speak in vague generalities. If they made half as much, would they still be good at what they do and paid for it? Are they not because they don't make twice as much?

As I've told you repeatedly you just have no idea about issues like distribution of wealth.

Imagine a group of 20 workers. They make widgets, 8-12 a day, but one guy is the best and makes 20 a day of the best quality.

Should they all be paid the same? Perhaps - but you can pull out the right-wing lecture on how that doesn't reward the guy to make the most. OK, no problem.

Should all of their salaries be given to the one guy and the rest get nothing? Maybe that's a little too much 'wealth concentration'?

How about they get just enough to keep them working, and he gets 5 times much as the rest? Maybe still too much bonus? Should he be given 100% more matching his work? 20% more? 250% more?

The things is, as fun as it might be to bicker all day why one number is right and others aren't, they're all still workers, which is very unlike the real issues.

Instead imagine he's given all of the money made from their work and he decides how much to promise each of them in advance, the minimum to keep them working, and he keeps the rest - and he doesn't have to make any anymore.

That would make him the owner. Pretty nice. And there can only be a small number of owners - if they're all owners, there's no one making widgets and no income.

Now, you might say, hey, his income isn't secure. Well, for small businesses, that's true. Lots of competition, low margins, the heart of our economy.

But there are industries, military companies making tens of billions, big pharma making tens of billions, telecom making tens of billions, let's just take the Fortune 500. There's some competition, but the CEO of these companies isn't really faced with too much
loss. On average they're making hundreds of times the average worker under them, up from 25 times historically, and they have damn nice exist packages of hundreds of millions if they destroy the company generally.

Why? Because the system has been 'rigged' for them. It's abuse of power. They take care of each other. They aren't too concerned about Joe Q. Public, and that's the comparison.

The discussion about how much to differentiate rewards for workers is long gone by the time we're talking about the comparison to CEO's.

And our system of 'private enterprise' and 'private property rights' and 'deregulation' doesn't have a lot of measures for countering the abuse of power and preventing a few from gaining nearly all the wealth. And as they've gained more and more, they've learned to use to gain even more - to buy public opinion, to buy government, to protect their rigging.

About the only measure is taxation. There can be very rare things like 'public boycotts' that might affect especially bad actors, but even then it's too rare to mention, almost totally ineffective. No other measures really exist despite claims of 'public choice'. The internet and cable providers are among the least liked companies; yet they have near monopolies in their areas and just won a major victory with the killing of net neutrality and are making a fortune and about to make more.

We have a choice - a society with moderate inequality or a society with extreme inequality. Democracy functions with the former, and not the latter.

So what kind of country do we want? A country where there is some culture of those with the most returning enough to help those with the least, with a strong middle class and lots of competing small to moderate businesses, a high rate of growth and innovation and opportunity and a good safety net?

Or a plutocracy, with huge inequality, killing off many more at the bottom, far more poverty for most, a weak and small middle class with little power, ruled by oligarchs and dynasties (who just ended the estate tax on keeping their fortunes generation after generation), where they are at war with the people and democracy, and own the government as well as the money in society?

The right wing might be too clueless to realize they are fighting for plutocracy, but they are just the same.

 

[Teflon Don]

When too few have too much, it creates oppression, tyranny, it destroys democracy, it creates economic slavery, it reduces growth and innovation, it weakens the wealth of the public so they can buy fewer goods and increases the percent of people who need to find employment by serving the wealthy, it lowers wages and political rights, and much more.

Many people simply don't have any idea about this issue, and have simplistic notions, such as 'private wealth good, government and taxes bad'.That's as sophisticated as they get. And that view is heavily promoted to them by the wealthy interests.

When any challenge to unlimited concentration of wealth is brought up all they can understand is communism and Mao and Stalin and Castro, and say 'nope'.

All 'handouts' are viewed as waste and wrong except in cases like a paralyzed person. They assume that if the 'handouts' aren't there, the people will become middle class workers or at least make a decent living.

They simply do not understand at all how the economy works and the issues with the few being able to direct so much income to themselves. They don't understand what plutocracy is, why it's bad, or that it's being fought for hard, and happening. To them, the word plutocracy is like Karl Marx ranting about capitalists, nutty left-wing stuff.

A problem with their ignorance is that they simply can't view any need for taxing the rich to balance society and counter the rich receiving so large a share of the income. In their ignorance they can only think that is 'theft' and 'greed' to take other people's money.

Here's an example of what that mentality leads to. In come countries half a century ago, the main industry would be agriculture, like a fruit. An American company would buy practically all the farmable land, pushing families off. It would hire the workers it needed at low wages, expendable and easily replaced, and leave the rest to starve.

Even land it didn't use, it would own and keep idle and prevent the hungry people from farming, because it didn't want any risk of competition.

It would use its wealth to install a government that worked for it, and pay Washington to protect it. it would have its military and police serving the interests of the company, not the people.

If workers tried to grow on that land, they'd be arrested. If they resisted violently or with sabotage, they'd be called terrorists and killed. If there were elections and someone who served the people more were elected, they might be overthrown, possibly by the US, such as the leader of Guatemala was when he tried to have some land reform.


Little did he know, I wonder, that the arrangement for all the land in his country to be owned by a US company had been arranged by the US Secretary of State and his brother, the head of the CIA, and that they and many other senior officials had financial stakes in the company.

It was in this environment that John Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

Yes, what was needed was the government to step in, and implement land reform - to take unused land and let the people live and farm on it. Not to simply look only at the wealth of the company and say they could have it all regardless of the impact on the people.

But today, so many Americans have no idea about the problem of too much concentration of wealth, of why the government has a needed role in representing the interests of the public against the wealthy, the need for a balance in the distribution in wealth.

That balance can be improved by a number of measures, including taxation and labor rights and public investment in things like education, and simply in strong democracy so that government represents voters instead of rich donors.

For much of American history, there was no question about these issues. Even if the powers didn't follow them they at least paid them lip service - look how 'collectivist' and 'socialist' our core democratic slogans have been - 'of the people, by the people, for the people', 'e pluribus unum' (from the many, one), 'with liberty and justice for all', etc.

At times, the people have acted on these principles - the progressive movement of the early 20th century against the gilded age, the election of a Democratic super-majority in response to the Great Depression that radically changed our government (for the better), etc.

But why has America lost its mind on the basic idea that too much for too few is a problem? Because there has been a massive propaganda campaign to sell the public on the libertarian and plutocratic ideology, with 'think tanks' and mass media bombarding the messages 24x7, until now it's the accepted 'normal' politics. The Republican Party has been taken over and some Democrats.

Who cares if 90% of the media is owned by a handful of corporations? The public just knows they like their big corporation products, their big corporation entertainment, and don't like politics.

The Republicans just cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, in order to reduce taxes on the rich. Why? Because they opposed Democrats' Medicaid expansion to everyone by challenging it in court; and when they won a partial victory to let states decide whether to expand Medicaid, most Republican states decided not to - so cutting the $1 trillion comes almost entirely from Democratic states.

Pure partisan politics at the expense of millions of people's healthcare who can least afford it. Many Americans will be killed by that action alone.

How many times can taxes on the rich be lowered and allowed by cutting spending on the public and adding to the debt and raising taxes on the public? What will it take for the American people to realize the policies will bring plutocracy?

People need to learn the simple idea that too much inequality is a disaster and needs to be counteracted by the people and the government, and that it's neither wrong nor theft to do so.

Or, they can learn to be serfs again, as mankind has usually been before the liberal American politics created a middle class like never before. At some point, even lip service won't be needed.

What’s not to like?

It will help global warming.

 

[Nordberg]

Bush accelerated trickle down and it almost caused another great depression. The Repubs were into jacking up the debt to kill SS and medicare ,even before Bush. Now with the house and senate, Trump is cleaning us out so the real job of fundamentally changing America into the plutocracy the wealthy are building can get finished. It is ugly times for the people if they get it locked in.

 

[cawacko]

No, that's not why. But of course you speak in vague generalities. If they made half as much, would they still be good at what they do and paid for it? Are they not because they don't make twice as much?

As I've told you repeatedly you just have no idea about issues like distribution of wealth.

Imagine a group of 20 workers. They make widgets, 8-12 a day, but one guy is the best and makes 20 a day of the best quality.

Should they all be paid the same? Perhaps - but you can pull out the right-wing lecture on how that doesn't reward the guy to make the most. OK, no problem.

Should all of their salaries be given to the one guy and the rest get nothing? Maybe that's a little too much 'wealth concentration'?

How about they get just enough to keep them working, and he gets 5 times much as the rest? Maybe still too much bonus? Should he be given 100% more matching his work? 20% more? 250% more?

The things is, as fun as it might be to bicker all day why one number is right and others aren't, they're all still workers, which is very unlike the real issues.

Instead imagine he's given all of the money made from their work and he decides how much to promise each of them in advance, the minimum to keep them working, and he keeps the rest - and he doesn't have to make any anymore.

That would make him the owner. Pretty nice. And there can only be a small number of owners - if they're all owners, there's no one making widgets and no income.

Now, you might say, hey, his income isn't secure. Well, for small businesses, that's true. Lots of competition, low margins, the heart of our economy.

But there are industries, military companies making tens of billions, big pharma making tens of billions, telecom making tens of billions, let's just take the Fortune 500. There's some competition, but the CEO of these companies isn't really faced with too much
loss. On average they're making hundreds of times the average worker under them, up from 25 times historically, and they have damn nice exist packages of hundreds of millions if they destroy the company generally.

Why? Because the system has been 'rigged' for them. It's abuse of power. They take care of each other. They aren't too concerned about Joe Q. Public, and that's the comparison.

The discussion about how much to differentiate rewards for workers is long gone by the time we're talking about the comparison to CEO's.

And our system of 'private enterprise' and 'private property rights' and 'deregulation' doesn't have a lot of measures for countering the abuse of power and preventing a few from gaining nearly all the wealth. And as they've gained more and more, they've learned to use to gain even more - to buy public opinion, to buy government, to protect their rigging.

About the only measure is taxation. There can be very rare things like 'public boycotts' that might affect especially bad actors, but even then it's too rare to mention, almost totally ineffective. No other measures really exist despite claims of 'public choice'. The internet and cable providers are among the least liked companies; yet they have near monopolies in their areas and just won a major victory with the killing of net neutrality and are making a fortune and about to make more.

We have a choice - a society with moderate inequality or a society with extreme inequality. Democracy functions with the former, and not the latter.

So what kind of country do we want? A country where there is some culture of those with the most returning enough to help those with the least, with a strong middle class and lots of competing small to moderate businesses, a high rate of growth and innovation and opportunity and a good safety net?

Or a plutocracy, with huge inequality, killing off many more at the bottom, far more poverty for most, a weak and small middle class with little power, ruled by oligarchs and dynasties (who just ended the estate tax on keeping their fortunes generation after generation), where they are at war with the people and democracy, and own the government as well as the money in society?

The right wing might be too clueless to realize they are fighting for plutocracy, but they are just the same.

The market pays them what they are worth. Would you like the government to implement controls on wages and potential earnings? Should athletes, entertainers etc all have caps on their earnings to help reduce inequality? Same with doctors and lawyers?

My lawyer buddy bills at $1K/hr because he's in demand due to being very good at what he does. Who would you like to see determine what he should be paid if not the market?

 

[Craig234]

The market pays them what they are worth. Would you like the government to implement controls on wages and potential earnings? Should athletes, entertainers etc all have caps on their earnings to help reduce inequality? Same with doctors and lawyers?

My lawyer buddy bills at $1K/hr because he's in demand due to being very good at what he does. Who would you like to see determine what he should be paid if not the market?

I might as well type to the local dog, for all you are understanding my posts. You post like a parrot, ideology squawwwwwwwk ideology squawwwwwwwk market rate squawwwwwwwwwwwwwwk, it's sad. Wasting my time and yours.

 

[cawacko]

Bush accelerated trickle down and it almost caused another great depression. The Repubs were into jacking up the debt to kill SS and medicare ,even before Bush. Now with the house and senate, Trump is cleaning us out so the real job of fundamentally changing America into the plutocracy the wealthy are building can get finished. It is ugly times for the people if they get it locked in.

The federal reserve and their easy money policies caused the crash (along with gov't policies pushing home ownership)

 

[cawacko]

No, that's not why. But of course you speak in vague generalities. If they made half as much, would they still be good at what they do and paid for it? Are they not because they don't make twice as much?

As I've told you repeatedly you just have no idea about issues like distribution of wealth.

Imagine a group of 20 workers. They make widgets, 8-12 a day, but one guy is the best and makes 20 a day of the best quality.

Should they all be paid the same? Perhaps - but you can pull out the right-wing lecture on how that doesn't reward the guy to make the most. OK, no problem.

Should all of their salaries be given to the one guy and the rest get nothing? Maybe that's a little too much 'wealth concentration'?

How about they get just enough to keep them working, and he gets 5 times much as the rest? Maybe still too much bonus? Should he be given 100% more matching his work? 20% more? 250% more?

The things is, as fun as it might be to bicker all day why one number is right and others aren't, they're all still workers, which is very unlike the real issues.

Instead imagine he's given all of the money made from their work and he decides how much to promise each of them in advance, the minimum to keep them working, and he keeps the rest - and he doesn't have to make any anymore.

That would make him the owner. Pretty nice. And there can only be a small number of owners - if they're all owners, there's no one making widgets and no income.

Now, you might say, hey, his income isn't secure. Well, for small businesses, that's true. Lots of competition, low margins, the heart of our economy.

But there are industries, military companies making tens of billions, big pharma making tens of billions, telecom making tens of billions, let's just take the Fortune 500. There's some competition, but the CEO of these companies isn't really faced with too much
loss. On average they're making hundreds of times the average worker under them, up from 25 times historically, and they have damn nice exist packages of hundreds of millions if they destroy the company generally.

Why? Because the system has been 'rigged' for them. It's abuse of power. They take care of each other. They aren't too concerned about Joe Q. Public, and that's the comparison.

The discussion about how much to differentiate rewards for workers is long gone by the time we're talking about the comparison to CEO's.

And our system of 'private enterprise' and 'private property rights' and 'deregulation' doesn't have a lot of measures for countering the abuse of power and preventing a few from gaining nearly all the wealth. And as they've gained more and more, they've learned to use to gain even more - to buy public opinion, to buy government, to protect their rigging.

About the only measure is taxation. There can be very rare things like 'public boycotts' that might affect especially bad actors, but even then it's too rare to mention, almost totally ineffective. No other measures really exist despite claims of 'public choice'. The internet and cable providers are among the least liked companies; yet they have near monopolies in their areas and just won a major victory with the killing of net neutrality and are making a fortune and about to make more.

We have a choice - a society with moderate inequality or a society with extreme inequality. Democracy functions with the former, and not the latter.

So what kind of country do we want? A country where there is some culture of those with the most returning enough to help those with the least, with a strong middle class and lots of competing small to moderate businesses, a high rate of growth and innovation and opportunity and a good safety net?

Or a plutocracy, with huge inequality, killing off many more at the bottom, far more poverty for most, a weak and small middle class with little power, ruled by oligarchs and dynasties (who just ended the estate tax on keeping their fortunes generation after generation), where they are at war with the people and democracy, and own the government as well as the money in society?

The right wing might be too clueless to realize they are fighting for plutocracy, but they are just the same.

It's not right wing to support rent seekers. The govt is a contributer to inequality not some agnostic referee. From 30K ft we have massive corporate welfare, we have a welfare system that can make it difficult to get out of poverty and we have zoning codes that benefit existing (richer) homeowners etc.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

When too few have too much, it creates oppression, tyranny, it destroys democracy, it creates economic slavery, it reduces growth and innovation, it weakens the wealth of the public so they can buy fewer goods and increases the percent of people who need to find employment by serving the wealthy, it lowers wages and political rights, and much more.

Many people simply don't have any idea about this issue, and have simplistic notions, such as 'private wealth good, government and taxes bad'.That's as sophisticated as they get. And that view is heavily promoted to them by the wealthy interests.

When any challenge to unlimited concentration of wealth is brought up all they can understand is communism and Mao and Stalin and Castro, and say 'nope'.

All 'handouts' are viewed as waste and wrong except in cases like a paralyzed person. They assume that if the 'handouts' aren't there, the people will become middle class workers or at least make a decent living.

They simply do not understand at all how the economy works and the issues with the few being able to direct so much income to themselves. They don't understand what plutocracy is, why it's bad, or that it's being fought for hard, and happening. To them, the word plutocracy is like Karl Marx ranting about capitalists, nutty left-wing stuff.

A problem with their ignorance is that they simply can't view any need for taxing the rich to balance society and counter the rich receiving so large a share of the income. In their ignorance they can only think that is 'theft' and 'greed' to take other people's money.

Here's an example of what that mentality leads to. In come countries half a century ago, the main industry would be agriculture, like a fruit. An American company would buy practically all the farmable land, pushing families off. It would hire the workers it needed at low wages, expendable and easily replaced, and leave the rest to starve.

Even land it didn't use, it would own and keep idle and prevent the hungry people from farming, because it didn't want any risk of competition.

It would use its wealth to install a government that worked for it, and pay Washington to protect it. it would have its military and police serving the interests of the company, not the people.

If workers tried to grow on that land, they'd be arrested. If they resisted violently or with sabotage, they'd be called terrorists and killed. If there were elections and someone who served the people more were elected, they might be overthrown, possibly by the US, such as the leader of Guatemala was when he tried to have some land reform.


Little did he know, I wonder, that the arrangement for all the land in his country to be owned by a US company had been arranged by the US Secretary of State and his brother, the head of the CIA, and that they and many other senior officials had financial stakes in the company.

It was in this environment that John Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

Yes, what was needed was the government to step in, and implement land reform - to take unused land and let the people live and farm on it. Not to simply look only at the wealth of the company and say they could have it all regardless of the impact on the people.

But today, so many Americans have no idea about the problem of too much concentration of wealth, of why the government has a needed role in representing the interests of the public against the wealthy, the need for a balance in the distribution in wealth.

That balance can be improved by a number of measures, including taxation and labor rights and public investment in things like education, and simply in strong democracy so that government represents voters instead of rich donors.

For much of American history, there was no question about these issues. Even if the powers didn't follow them they at least paid them lip service - look how 'collectivist' and 'socialist' our core democratic slogans have been - 'of the people, by the people, for the people', 'e pluribus unum' (from the many, one), 'with liberty and justice for all', etc.

At times, the people have acted on these principles - the progressive movement of the early 20th century against the gilded age, the election of a Democratic super-majority in response to the Great Depression that radically changed our government (for the better), etc.

But why has America lost its mind on the basic idea that too much for too few is a problem? Because there has been a massive propaganda campaign to sell the public on the libertarian and plutocratic ideology, with 'think tanks' and mass media bombarding the messages 24x7, until now it's the accepted 'normal' politics. The Republican Party has been taken over and some Democrats.

Who cares if 90% of the media is owned by a handful of corporations? The public just knows they like their big corporation products, their big corporation entertainment, and don't like politics.

The Republicans just cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, in order to reduce taxes on the rich. Why? Because they opposed Democrats' Medicaid expansion to everyone by challenging it in court; and when they won a partial victory to let states decide whether to expand Medicaid, most Republican states decided not to - so cutting the $1 trillion comes almost entirely from Democratic states.

Pure partisan politics at the expense of millions of people's healthcare who can least afford it. Many Americans will be killed by that action alone.

How many times can taxes on the rich be lowered and allowed by cutting spending on the public and adding to the debt and raising taxes on the public? What will it take for the American people to realize the policies will bring plutocracy?

People need to learn the simple idea that too much inequality is a disaster and needs to be counteracted by the people and the government, and that it's neither wrong nor theft to do so.

Or, they can learn to be serfs again, as mankind has usually been before the liberal American politics created a middle class like never before. At some point, even lip service won't be needed.

so go out and get more.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

We were talking about this in the car on the drive home yesterday. That's exactly what my husband believes as well. He has very little regard for what he calls the "ignorant rural" voters who disdain education and all things that they don't understand. He was a farm boy who spent his first two decades among them. He believes that electing Trump was the last hurrah for them, and that come 2020 the pendulum will swing back towards progressive values. Hope he's right.

lol.......but you're a UPer.......you ARE the ignorant rurals......

 

[Craig234]

It's not right wing to support rent seekers. The govt is a contributer to inequality not some agnostic referee. From 30K ft we have massive corporate welfare, we have a welfare system that can make it difficult to get out of poverty and we have zoning codes that benefit existing (richer) homeowners etc.

That is ALL the right wing really is today - a synonym for plutocrat. 'The government' can increase inequality or equality depending who it's serving - it doesn't necessarily do either. Currently it represents plutocrats. The answer is to change who it represents, not to remove the chance of the people having a government represent them. The welfare system makes it far easier - even possible - for people to leave poverty, you're wrong about that.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

lol.......but you're a UPer.......you ARE the ignorant rurals......

No doubt. Living in a rural place for one year, after having spent a lifetime in an urban/suburban environment, instantly transforms one into a drooling idiot like yourself. Got it.

 

[cawacko]

That is ALL the right wing really is today - a synonym for plutocrat. 'The government' can increase inequality or equality depending who it's serving - it doesn't necessarily do either. Currently it represents plutocrats. The answer is to change who it represents, not to remove the chance of the people having a government represent them. The welfare system makes it far easier - even possible - for people to leave poverty, you're wrong about that.

If you really care about inequality you have to get over the democrat/Republican partisan mindset. Because both parties contribute to policies that bolster inequality.

As far as welfare there are lots of articles and studies about how it traps people so I'll just post one. But seeing your interest in taxes some on welfare face marginal tax rates of 100% when trying to move off welfare and into a job.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...rs-short-term-help-and-long-term-poverty/amp/

 

[Craig234]

If you really care about inequality you have to get over the democrat/Republican partisan mindset. Because both parties contribute to policies that bolster inequality.

As far as welfare there are lots of articles and studies about how it traps people so I'll just post one. But seeing your interest in taxes some on welfare face marginal tax rates of 100% when trying to move off welfare and into a job.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...rs-short-term-help-and-long-term-poverty/amp/

I care about policies, not parties, but the fact is that the right policies are closely aligned with one party, and that means a Democrat/Republican difference.

I'm open to criticism on various issues on welfare, but not when they're used as a weapon in the war for plutocracy. The imperfections in welfare are a drop in the bucket to big plutocracy issues. Fixing welfare and fighting plutocracy are not in conflict.

What we just had passed was a plutocrat Republican bill that lowers taxes on the richest-in-history wealth by $5 trillion MORE by adding $1.5 trillion to our debt and cutting Medicaid by $1 trillion from the status quo plans and other cuts for the people.

That is not justifiable in any whatsoever by citing flaws in welfare.

It is simply a massive wealth grab and redistribution that will kill many people and impoverish many.

 

[Boris The Animal]

Quite the opposite. They'd learn that the only right turns the country has taken were in the Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt eras, and the 60's. And what a disaster every Republican has been for the people.

You would be another Communist moron who wants permanent one party Leftist rule and destroy the Conservative majority in this country?