Canary in a coalmine story from Germany about the dangers of right-wing authoritarian ideologies being allowed to take root in the police and military. THIS is why the warning signs we have of it in this country need to be taken deadly seriously. This network was planning mass assassinations, on the heels of an already successful murder. Anyone who thinks this can't happen here is hopelessly naive:
Trump's a moron who embarrassed the country yet again on the international stage.
Trump was asked by The New York Times about Russian president Vladimir Putin’s comments about Western liberalism being "obsolete".
What Putin was referring to is liberalism in the Western world, which consists most of Europe and the United States. In this usage, “liberalism” refers to individual rights, equality before the law, and democracy and consent to be governed, in contrast to a dictatorship or populism or minority rule that Putin and Trump prefer.
Trump replied that “He’s sees what’s going on, I guess, if you look at what’s happening in Los Angeles, where it’s so sad to look, and what’s happening in San Francisco and a couple of other cities, which are run by an extraordinary group of liberal people,” Trump told the Times.
Trump, who should be part of the defense of democracy against dictatorship, is so dumb he thinks "Western liberalism" literally means liberals on the west coast. It’s astonishing that the leader of the U.S. could be this helplessly stupid.
In regards to the video above. First of all, I saw the Birtherism 2.0 tweets about Kamala Harris materialize almost as they happened that night. They WERE bots, and the reason I know this is because the same tweet was being copy and pasted, word for word, by multiple Twitter accounts.
And I also happen to know for a fact that there was a coordinated effort (akin to review bombing, which we are all familiar with here) in online polls in favor of Gabbard and Yang that doesn't REMOTELY reflect reality. Because I am still a frequent visitor at certain liberal sites. And their polls were coming in at something like 35% of having Gabbard and Yang as the winners each night, which is inconceivable given the make-up of who usually posts there and their views. I've been involved in these places since the middle of the Bush years, and so have many of the people who participate there. I know what their politics and preferences are. They are NOT Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard.
And seriously, people who have made full-throated support of Republican economic policies and pro-life judges for the last two years are now in favor a guy whose main policy platform is sending EVERY American $1000 a month and supports getting rid of the Hyde Amendment?? Some of us weren't born yesterday. I have come to the realization much too late for my liking (better late than never) of what the support for Gabbard and Yang among people who previously were die-hard Trump supporters is all about. Trump doesn't win in 2016 without Jill Stein being on the ticket. The push from the 4chan, "intellectual dark web", etc etc online community has nothing to do with wanting them to win, or any of their ideas. It's so that one of them can be pushed to run as a third party spoiler. Even a cursory amount of time spent on 4chan (or the darker places of the web) will reveal that the alt-right troll brigade views sowing discord among the liberal ranks as a tactic, and that posing as liberals online attempting to do so is encouraged behavior (they learned well from the Russians). I don't even have strong objections one way or another to Gabbard or Yang. I simply believe most of their supporters are actively working to push them for the sole purpose of helping Donald Trump. And I already suspected this, but this Tim Pool video has convinced me for a certainty., because now I can clearly see the shape of how this is going to play out. Go ahead and read the comments, going from top to bottom on that video. They basically all the say the EXACT same thing, as if being copy and pasted from a script. "Didn't vote for him in 2016, love him in 2020". Bull.....shit. Literally hundreds of people commenting they were Democrats until these last two debates. Get out of here with that nonsense. If the people in that video comment section are reliable Democratic voters then I'm an NFL football player.
The Yang Gang isn't going to show up at the Iowa caucuses. They aren't going to knock on doors in New Hampshire and South Carolina. No, Twitter isn't real-life, but neither is 4chan. My advice to liberals is to IGNORE the concern trolling coming from the places I mentioned above AND the metric ton of it coming from Never-Trump media personalities thinking they can will Biden into being the nominee. Do not trust these people, because they aren't on your side, and are walking into a party 3 hours late and bitching about how the chip dip and drink selection isn't to their liking. Support who you support and don't be taken in by these transparent mind-games.
I can see an ordinary American not knowing the meaning of "Western liberalism," but no one working in foreign policy would normally make that mistake.
Well Trump doesn't work so he gets a pass.
You kid but this is deadly serious - the cult-like excuses people make for the guy. "He never said that!" "oh he did well he didn't mean it!" "oh he did well you misunderstood it!" etc etc there's no end to the twisting in knots people do to fool themselves on behalf of the guy with a lifetime of lies and cons.
Here's an interesting proposal in favor of a wealth tax (specifically mentioning a variant proposed by Warren). It's pretty short and readable. What's interesting is that the proposal is aimed at members of the super-rich (roughly the top 0.1% of the country), but is also by members of that group.
I expect that references to the need to address the climate crisis and health needs will be an immediate turn-off for some, but the letter also addresses more structural issues - like the desire to strengthen American democracy and make some impact on the historic process of concentration of wealth.
The letter expresses a desire to make this a shared proposal by all Presidential candidates. Unless something happens to Trump that's not going to happen, but I think the reasoning that this is an issue that transcends party politics is sound. In a situation where the top 0.1% of the country have as much wealth as the bottom 90%, the financial pressures that can be brought upon legislators not to change the existing system are enormous. Change is therefore unlikely to happen unless it's possible to effectively near-universally agree a need for that change ahead of bringing forward any specific proposals.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a more pie in the sky idea than Andrew Yang's proposal to give every American adult $1000 a month. When most people talk about a "living wage", what they want is some dignity in what their employers are paying them, and for worker pay to even REMOTELY keep up with productivity.
I ran some quick math on this (based on about 200 million Americans over 18). This is a 2.5 trillion dollar proposal before you even consider logistics. How is this ever going to pass?? Republicans already are hell-bent on destroying the meager welfare programs that are actually needed. I suppose the argument behind everyone getting the money is that it negates the overall effect of being able to say someone doesn't "deserve" it, since everyone will be in the same boat. But this plan, simply on a base monetary level, costs more than twice as much as Social Security and is in the realm of the cost of Medicare and Medicaid COMBINED.
He also supports Medicare for All. I am not opposed to either of these ideas on principle. However, I am also not opposed to learning how to levitate or gaining the power of invisibility. My problem with Yang (and to a lesser extent Bernie) is they have these massive, earth-shaking proposals and clearly haven't thought one ounce about how they would ever pass them, and I know Warren is at least making this calculation. Walk before you, is what I'm saying here.
The fact that some UBI plans have been canceled is not a testament to the flaws of the concept; it is a testament to the damage wrought by the opposition. The problem isn't so much "this plan can't work"; the problem is "politicians cancel the plan." It's a legitimate issue, but the blame doesn't like with the proponents.
There are more elegant ways of addressing inequality than a universal basic income plan, but I view a UBI as superior to the status quo, which appears to involve little or no action on the subject of inequality. The minimum wage remains stagnant and unions still don't have the power to fight for better wages as they did in decades past.
As I've seen moderate solutions fail to become law, I have grown more receptive to drastic solutions. It's not obvious to me that we could get bipartisan support for any bill that aimed to address inequality. A moderate plan will encounter the same opposition as a more drastic plan.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a more pie in the sky idea than Andrew Yang's proposal to give every American adult $1000 a month. When most people talk about a "living wage", what they want is some dignity in what their employers are paying them, and for worker pay to even REMOTELY keep up with productivity.
I ran some quick math on this (based on about 200 million Americans over 18). This is a 2.5 trillion dollar proposal before you even consider logistics. How is this ever going to pass?? Republicans already are hell-bent on destroying the meager welfare programs that are actually needed. I suppose the argument behind everyone getting the money is that it negates the overall effect of being able to say someone doesn't "deserve" it, since everyone will be in the same boat. But this plan, simply on a base monetary level, costs more than twice as much as Social Security and is in the realm of the cost of Medicare and Medicaid COMBINED.
He also supports Medicare for All. I am not opposed to either of these ideas on principle. However, I am also not opposed to learning how to levitate or gaining the power of invisibility. My problem with Yang (and to a lesser extent Bernie) is they have these massive, earth-shaking proposals and clearly haven't thought one ounce about how they would ever pass them, and I know Warren is at least making this calculation. Walk before you, is what I'm saying here.
Bernie said once President he will go to Democratic naysayers states your West Virginia and meet and greet and get the people behind Medicare For All and get them to put pressure on obstructive elected officials.
Exactly why should the Federal Government give everyone a basic minimum income? If a person chooses not to graduate high school--and don't tell me there aren't alternatives to graduating from high school or else I will have to locate all the alternate plans and show them to you--then it is not the government's responsibility to say "well, you failed, so here is $1000 each month for free". Also, don't tell me that dirt-poor people cannot graduate or I will have to point out all the people with whom I graduated who were dirt-poor. I can see giving assistance to those who have physical or mental developmental difficulties which would prevent them from attaining self-sufficiency but those people are almost always in some assistance program already.
"Income inequality" is a problem only if you *choose* to think it is a problem. I don't concern myself with how much money other people make and plenty of people make more than I do, especially since I got downsized last January, so why do other people worry about how much someone else is making? Yes, it would be a good idea for corporations to give raises and bonuses to rank-and-file employees but it would also be a good idea for all corporations to become employee-owned, giving the employees shares in the company with each paycheck--knowing that you are working for yourself and your own future increases both morale and productivity...but corporations are not going to change their natures simply because I have a good idea.
Exactly why should the Federal Government give everyone a basic minimum income? If a person chooses not to graduate high school--and don't tell me there aren't alternatives to graduating from high school or else I will have to locate all the alternate plans and show them to you--then it is not the government's responsibility to say "well, you failed, so here is $1000 each month for free". Also, don't tell me that dirt-poor people cannot graduate or I will have to point out all the people with whom I graduated who were dirt-poor. I can see giving assistance to those who have physical or mental developmental difficulties which would prevent them from attaining self-sufficiency but those people are almost always in some assistance program already.
"Income inequality" is a problem only if you *choose* to think it is a problem. I don't concern myself with how much money other people make and plenty of people make more than I do, especially since I got downsized last January, so why do other people worry about how much someone else is making? Yes, it would be a good idea for corporations to give raises and bonuses to rank-and-file employees but it would also be a good idea for all corporations to become employee-owned, giving the employees shares in the company with each paycheck--knowing that you are working for yourself and your own future increases both morale and productivity...but corporations are not going to change their natures simply because I have a good idea.
I’d say to simplify things.
You can scrap a good amount of social programs and replace it with one single one where everyone benefits then the trade off in the long run might be more beneficial.
It’s also simple to implement by giving everyone a $12,000 credit on their personal income tax forms, then do the math from there.
It can improve innovation greatly as well, as people can chase dreams instead of devoting all their time making money just to make ends meat.
But I am against it because I never believe throwing money at a problem is an answer and greed will kick in other places such as affordable housing.
Once landlords know everyone in a region is making a minimum $1000 per month, rent will be minimum $1000 per month because people will pay that.
Other luxury goods would also increase in price because more people would have more disposable income. This might increase job growth, but if corporations are taking the brunt of this tax burden then they’d have to offset those losses in others areas.
It is a novel concept with both pros and cons, but I think the cons outweigh the good.
@deltago: The extra money will indeed get diverted to some extent. When Americans have more spending money, companies can charge higher prices, whether it's for a slice of bread or an apartment, and they will gleefully do so. But not all of that extra money will get siphoned off by companies; much of it will remain in the hands of the people, because companies don't have quite the bargaining power to dictate the terms. Whether the net effect would be worth the cost is another question, and while my first guess would be "yes," I can definitely understand the reasons others might say "no."
@Mathsorcerer: You seem to be operating under the assumption that people's incomes are low because they do not have enough education or training. This is not true. The youngest generation is the most educated and yet has the highest unemployment, the lowest wages, and the smallest net worth. I know lots of people who are far better educated than the average American and yet make well below the median wage despite working full time. Better educated people do make more money, but that doesn't mean they make a lot.
The reality of our world is that no, companies don't pay you higher wages just because you deserve them, or even because you make that much money for them. Companies pay you as little as they can get away with, because every dollar they pay their workers is a dollar they can't give to the company leadership. In the absence of strong unions, employers determine wages, and their self-interest is to keep them low.
When I worked at the local homeless shelter, my job was to help people find work and get back on their feet. I think most people would agree that that kind of job does contribute a certain amount to humankind, and I recommend it to anyone who can spare a few hours a week, but the free market says that work is worth nothing--it pays a grand total of $0/hour.
As a teacher, my job will be educating the new generation and preparing them for the modern world. Most people would probably say that's an important job, but the wages are below the median despite demanding above-average training and education.
An analyst in the finance industry, by contrast, literally does nothing but shuffle money around and drain resources from other people. A stockbroker literally does nothing but cheat people out of their money. The free market says those jobs are worth up to millions of dollars a year.
The reason is simple. We don't live in a world governed by karma.
It would be really nice if we did, but we don't. We don't live in a world where companies decide, simply out of the generosity of their hearts, to pay people as much as they're worth. We live in a world in which companies act in their own self-interest, and their self-interest is to pay low wages until they have no choice but to do otherwise.
The reason everyone needs to have a certain minimum income is because life costs money, and the cost of living goes up every single year. We tolerate a certain amount of inequality on the grounds that some people do earn more than others, but it isn't obvious to me that one person who makes 10 times as much as another person is actually worth 10 times more.
Other modern countries have much lower income inequality than us. I do not believe it is because American poor people are vastly inferior to poor folks in western Europe. I do not believe it is because American rich people are vastly superior to rich folks in western Europe. I think it's because, unlike those countries, most of us place our trust in the wisdom and benevolence of the invisible hand. A lot of us treat capitalism as a god to be worshiped instead of a tool to be used.
The notion that hard work and intelligence inevitably result in success is one of the greatest myths in our national culture. The notion that success is inevitably the result of hard work and intelligence is one of the greatest self-delusions of the American upper class. On average, they help, but we make a mistake when we assume that they're the only or even the primary determinant of success. Social scientists have long found that the biggest determinant of economic success is how much money your parents made--not your IQ, not your education, and not how hard you worked to get where you are.
I've known a lot of rich people and a lot of poor people, and the difference between them is a lot smaller than rich people like to think.
If nepotism and inherited money was in a boxing match against hard work and education, and the parameters for winning were who would make more money, I'd put my bet on the person benefitting from the former rather than trying to achieve the later coming out on top 100 times out of 100. The family running the White House (and make no mistake, it is the family and not just Trump) are Exhibit A. Anyone else see the video of Ivanka trying to barge her way into a conversation with world leaders yesterday as if she has any qulaifications whatsoever besides being the President's daughter??
I'd prefer to base the argument about structural problems in the economy on wealth inequality rather than income inequality. The tax system in the US doesn't take much account of wealth and the result is that the wealthier you are, the less tax you pay as a proportion of that wealth. That means there's a built-in tendency for the rich to get richer - not as a result of hard work or intelligence, but simply because they're already rich.
Over time that tendency has resulted in a significant increase in concentration of wealth. There's some statistics about that here. For instance this graph shows that the wealth of the top 10% has increased a bit over the last 30 years.
The top 1% have done a lot better (and if the graph showed it, you would see the top 0.1% have done even better). The bottom 90% now hold 10% less of the nation's wealth than 30 years ago.
That pattern is much more pronounced in the US than most countries and is the result of decisions about the allocation of resources across society made during the Reagan presidency. You could of course argue that such decisions were necessary at the time. Even if this were the case, that does not mean that they are still necessary today though - but changing things is complicated by the political system in the US. Given the extent to which wealth dominates politics, change is unlikely to occur just because most people want it - even if it were generally agreed that the current system had become actively harmful.
I posted the letter from a number of super-rich people advocating for an increase in tax on the super-rich. It's perhaps worth noting here, that even if most super-rich people believe they should pay more tax, that still would not make it happen if a relatively few individuals were actively fighting that. The situation is a bit odd in that, in order to get change to happen, some of the super-rich would probably need to spend considerable amounts of money to convince the government to tax them more .
I'd prefer to base the argument about structural problems in the economy on wealth inequality rather than income inequality. The tax system in the US doesn't take much account of wealth and the result is that the wealthier you are, the less tax you pay as a proportion of that wealth. That means there's a built-in tendency for the rich to get richer - not as a result of hard work or intelligence, but simply because they're already rich.
Over time that tendency has resulted in a significant increase in concentration of wealth. There's some statistics about that here. For instance this graph shows that the wealth of the top 10% has increased a bit over the last 30 years.
The top 1% have done a lot better (and if the graph showed it, you would see the top 0.1% have done even better). The bottom 90% now hold 10% less of the nation's wealth than 30 years ago.
That pattern is much more pronounced in the US than most countries and is the result of decisions about the allocation of resources across society made during the Reagan presidency. You could of course argue that such decisions were necessary at the time. Even if this were the case, that does not mean that they are still necessary today though - but changing things is complicated by the political system in the US. Given the extent to which wealth dominates politics, change is unlikely to occur just because most people want it - even if it were generally agreed that the current system had become actively harmful.
I posted the letter from a number of super-rich people advocating for an increase in tax on the super-rich. It's perhaps worth noting here, that even if most super-rich people believe they should pay more tax, that still would not make it happen if a relatively few individuals were actively fighting that. The situation is a bit odd in that, in order to get change to happen, some of the super-rich would probably need to spend considerable amounts of money to convince the government to tax them more .
When Obama once said that Reagan was fundamentally more consequential than Clinton or either Bush, he wasn't offering praise but stating a simple truth. Despite his attaining something close to sainthood post-Presidency, his legacy is an abject disaster in the long-term. He set in motion the destruction of unions. His time in office was the beginning of the end of manufacturing and small farms. His economic policies ushered in a permanent money funnel to the top. But most importantly of all, he convinced a vast portion of the populace that the government was their enemy, and that private corporate solutions were preferable in all cases, without exception.
This is not a couple of questionable jokes. It's rank misogyny and racism of the most grosteque form imaginable, nor is it a small number of agents. Almost 10,000 of them are part of this group. There are only 20,000 agents in the country. You can do the math, but that is 50%. Actively engaging in stuff that I should probably post a spoiler warning about. But to be clear, there are posts here that feature doctored photos of AOC participating in a glory-hole with detained immigrants and of Trump forcing her to perform oral sex on him. And that's really just the tip of the iceberg here.
Trump Has Lovefest w/ Kim Jong Un at North Korean Border - Tucker Carlson Makes Terrible Excuses!
-Includes comparison of Fox News Coverage of Obama with North Korea vs. Fox News propaganda for Trump with North Korea. You may be surprised that it was Obama=bad, Trump=majestic! They need to be stripped of the "NEWS" from their name, they are Republican TV.
The International Atomic Energy Authority has confirmed that Iran has now exceeded the stockpile of enriched uranium it is allowed under the JCPOA. The European nations have said that any violation of the agreement will bring consequences. However, what they haven't said is that Iran is not actually in violation of the agreement.
The point is that the agreement required actions on both sides. Iran only agreed to restrict its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief. They are very clearly not getting that relief at the moment, so they have no obligation on their side. That's specifically stated in more than one place in the agreement, e.g. this in clause 26 "The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part."
Iran has said their next step will be to increase the extent of the enrichment - at which point things start getting really dangerous. Israel has said many times they will use force to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons, so the chances of armed conflict are high - and any conflict once started has the potential to spiral out of control.
I know lots of people who are far better educated than the average American and yet make well below the median wage despite working full time.
Personal disclosure time: unfortunately, I am one of those people at this time. I got downsized in January, being sent from "making above the national average including bonuses" to "making below the national average". It sucks and I sometimes have a difficult time being thankful for what I do have, but in the meantime I have feelers out to get back over the median again. Even if there were a union I could join here I wouldn't do it because, to me, unions cause a lot more problems than they solve.
*************
If Democrats want the rich to pay more in taxes then why do they keep raising taxes on gasoline, a regressive tax which will punish poor people more than it will rich people?
California has a new brief background check to purchase ammunition. According to this law, I could not simply give you some rounds---we would have to go to a dealer, the dealer takes possession of the rounds, then you go through the background check, and if you pass then you can receive the ammo from the dealer at no cost. How, exactly, will they police this? Are they going to be looking into my garage when I pass you a box of rounds to take with you on your deer hunting trip this fall? What if I drive over to Nevada, buy ammo there, then bring them back? Weak law is weak.
Personal disclosure time: unfortunately, I am one of those people at this time. I got downsized in January, being sent from "making above the national average including bonuses" to "making below the national average". It sucks and I sometimes have a difficult time being thankful for what I do have, but in the meantime I have feelers out to get back over the median again. Even if there were a union I could join here I wouldn't do it because, to me, unions cause a lot more problems than they solve.
Same(except for the union part). I also make less than my education level would indicate. On the flip side - I live in a place with a low cost of living.
One of the challenges in dealing with country wide economic markers are things like cost of living.
I'm in favor of raising the minimum wage, but it really should be tied to (1) inflation and (2) purchasing power parity to adjust to living standards--ideally by city (or county for rural areas), but at least by state. Otherwise we run the risk of squeezing business owners in one state where the minimum is too high while failing to protect low-wage workers in another state where the minimum is too low.
In general, I think income-related laws should have automatic cost of living and inflation adjustments based on government-collected data, simply because legislators are slow to amend and pass bills. I just looked it up and the last time the federal government changed the minimum wage was July 24, 2009. The 10-year anniversary is in three weeks and three days.
10 years is a lot of time to go without adjusting a minimum wage to inflation.
The International Atomic Energy Authority has confirmed that Iran has now exceeded the stockpile of enriched uranium it is allowed under the JCPOA. The European nations have said that any violation of the agreement will bring consequences. However, what they haven't said is that Iran is not actually in violation of the agreement.
The point is that the agreement required actions on both sides. Iran only agreed to restrict its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief. They are very clearly not getting that relief at the moment, so they have no obligation on their side. That's specifically stated in more than one place in the agreement, e.g. this in clause 26 "The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part."
Iran has said their next step will be to increase the extent of the enrichment - at which point things start getting really dangerous. Israel has said many times they will use force to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons, so the chances of armed conflict are high - and any conflict once started has the potential to spiral out of control.
Trump unilatererally pulled us out of the Iran deal. There is no deal anymore. Without us, it's not valid anymore. Iran's free to make nuclear weapons now that Trump freed them from the deal and we have no rights to complain anymore.
Makes you wonder why North Korea knows better than to sign a deal with Trump after he pulled us out of the Paris accords and the Iran nuclear deal.
@Mathsorcerer You also a an advantage in that you 1)Already have a job, and probably had one befor ethe recession. Do you have a salary? Work full time? Get benefits? Every one of those is a HUGE advantage that a lot of people don't have. Oftentimes not because of a lack of education or hard work.
Heck, the fact that you are ABLE to work at all, is HUGE. So many people in this country are disabled and unable to work, at zero fault of their own.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/28/german-far-right-group-used-police-data-to-compile-death-list?CMP=share_btn_tw
Trump was asked by The New York Times about Russian president Vladimir Putin’s comments about Western liberalism being "obsolete".
What Putin was referring to is liberalism in the Western world, which consists most of Europe and the United States. In this usage, “liberalism” refers to individual rights, equality before the law, and democracy and consent to be governed, in contrast to a dictatorship or populism or minority rule that Putin and Trump prefer.
Trump replied that “He’s sees what’s going on, I guess, if you look at what’s happening in Los Angeles, where it’s so sad to look, and what’s happening in San Francisco and a couple of other cities, which are run by an extraordinary group of liberal people,” Trump told the Times.
Trump, who should be part of the defense of democracy against dictatorship, is so dumb he thinks "Western liberalism" literally means liberals on the west coast. It’s astonishing that the leader of the U.S. could be this helplessly stupid.
Well Trump doesn't work so he gets a pass.
And I also happen to know for a fact that there was a coordinated effort (akin to review bombing, which we are all familiar with here) in online polls in favor of Gabbard and Yang that doesn't REMOTELY reflect reality. Because I am still a frequent visitor at certain liberal sites. And their polls were coming in at something like 35% of having Gabbard and Yang as the winners each night, which is inconceivable given the make-up of who usually posts there and their views. I've been involved in these places since the middle of the Bush years, and so have many of the people who participate there. I know what their politics and preferences are. They are NOT Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard.
And seriously, people who have made full-throated support of Republican economic policies and pro-life judges for the last two years are now in favor a guy whose main policy platform is sending EVERY American $1000 a month and supports getting rid of the Hyde Amendment?? Some of us weren't born yesterday. I have come to the realization much too late for my liking (better late than never) of what the support for Gabbard and Yang among people who previously were die-hard Trump supporters is all about. Trump doesn't win in 2016 without Jill Stein being on the ticket. The push from the 4chan, "intellectual dark web", etc etc online community has nothing to do with wanting them to win, or any of their ideas. It's so that one of them can be pushed to run as a third party spoiler. Even a cursory amount of time spent on 4chan (or the darker places of the web) will reveal that the alt-right troll brigade views sowing discord among the liberal ranks as a tactic, and that posing as liberals online attempting to do so is encouraged behavior (they learned well from the Russians). I don't even have strong objections one way or another to Gabbard or Yang. I simply believe most of their supporters are actively working to push them for the sole purpose of helping Donald Trump. And I already suspected this, but this Tim Pool video has convinced me for a certainty., because now I can clearly see the shape of how this is going to play out. Go ahead and read the comments, going from top to bottom on that video. They basically all the say the EXACT same thing, as if being copy and pasted from a script. "Didn't vote for him in 2016, love him in 2020". Bull.....shit. Literally hundreds of people commenting they were Democrats until these last two debates. Get out of here with that nonsense. If the people in that video comment section are reliable Democratic voters then I'm an NFL football player.
The Yang Gang isn't going to show up at the Iowa caucuses. They aren't going to knock on doors in New Hampshire and South Carolina. No, Twitter isn't real-life, but neither is 4chan. My advice to liberals is to IGNORE the concern trolling coming from the places I mentioned above AND the metric ton of it coming from Never-Trump media personalities thinking they can will Biden into being the nominee. Do not trust these people, because they aren't on your side, and are walking into a party 3 hours late and bitching about how the chip dip and drink selection isn't to their liking. Support who you support and don't be taken in by these transparent mind-games.
You kid but this is deadly serious - the cult-like excuses people make for the guy. "He never said that!" "oh he did well he didn't mean it!" "oh he did well you misunderstood it!" etc etc there's no end to the twisting in knots people do to fool themselves on behalf of the guy with a lifetime of lies and cons.
I expect that references to the need to address the climate crisis and health needs will be an immediate turn-off for some, but the letter also addresses more structural issues - like the desire to strengthen American democracy and make some impact on the historic process of concentration of wealth.
The letter expresses a desire to make this a shared proposal by all Presidential candidates. Unless something happens to Trump that's not going to happen, but I think the reasoning that this is an issue that transcends party politics is sound. In a situation where the top 0.1% of the country have as much wealth as the bottom 90%, the financial pressures that can be brought upon legislators not to change the existing system are enormous. Change is therefore unlikely to happen unless it's possible to effectively near-universally agree a need for that change ahead of bringing forward any specific proposals.
https://www.newsweek.com/fake-biden-campaign-website-being-run-secretly-trump-campaign-operative-report-1446693
----
Bad enough we got Russia and Trump himself spreading misinformation and disinformation but he's apparently employing people to create fake news.
I know this must be earth shattering to anyone who's ever heard Kellyanne Conway or Sarah Sanders propaganda.
I ran some quick math on this (based on about 200 million Americans over 18). This is a 2.5 trillion dollar proposal before you even consider logistics. How is this ever going to pass?? Republicans already are hell-bent on destroying the meager welfare programs that are actually needed. I suppose the argument behind everyone getting the money is that it negates the overall effect of being able to say someone doesn't "deserve" it, since everyone will be in the same boat. But this plan, simply on a base monetary level, costs more than twice as much as Social Security and is in the realm of the cost of Medicare and Medicaid COMBINED.
He also supports Medicare for All. I am not opposed to either of these ideas on principle. However, I am also not opposed to learning how to levitate or gaining the power of invisibility. My problem with Yang (and to a lesser extent Bernie) is they have these massive, earth-shaking proposals and clearly haven't thought one ounce about how they would ever pass them, and I know Warren is at least making this calculation. Walk before you, is what I'm saying here.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612640/universal-basic-income-had-a-rough-2018/
There are more elegant ways of addressing inequality than a universal basic income plan, but I view a UBI as superior to the status quo, which appears to involve little or no action on the subject of inequality. The minimum wage remains stagnant and unions still don't have the power to fight for better wages as they did in decades past.
As I've seen moderate solutions fail to become law, I have grown more receptive to drastic solutions. It's not obvious to me that we could get bipartisan support for any bill that aimed to address inequality. A moderate plan will encounter the same opposition as a more drastic plan.
Bernie said once President he will go to Democratic naysayers states your West Virginia and meet and greet and get the people behind Medicare For All and get them to put pressure on obstructive elected officials.
"Income inequality" is a problem only if you *choose* to think it is a problem. I don't concern myself with how much money other people make and plenty of people make more than I do, especially since I got downsized last January, so why do other people worry about how much someone else is making? Yes, it would be a good idea for corporations to give raises and bonuses to rank-and-file employees but it would also be a good idea for all corporations to become employee-owned, giving the employees shares in the company with each paycheck--knowing that you are working for yourself and your own future increases both morale and productivity...but corporations are not going to change their natures simply because I have a good idea.
I’d say to simplify things.
You can scrap a good amount of social programs and replace it with one single one where everyone benefits then the trade off in the long run might be more beneficial.
It’s also simple to implement by giving everyone a $12,000 credit on their personal income tax forms, then do the math from there.
It can improve innovation greatly as well, as people can chase dreams instead of devoting all their time making money just to make ends meat.
But I am against it because I never believe throwing money at a problem is an answer and greed will kick in other places such as affordable housing.
Once landlords know everyone in a region is making a minimum $1000 per month, rent will be minimum $1000 per month because people will pay that.
Other luxury goods would also increase in price because more people would have more disposable income. This might increase job growth, but if corporations are taking the brunt of this tax burden then they’d have to offset those losses in others areas.
It is a novel concept with both pros and cons, but I think the cons outweigh the good.
@Mathsorcerer: You seem to be operating under the assumption that people's incomes are low because they do not have enough education or training. This is not true. The youngest generation is the most educated and yet has the highest unemployment, the lowest wages, and the smallest net worth. I know lots of people who are far better educated than the average American and yet make well below the median wage despite working full time. Better educated people do make more money, but that doesn't mean they make a lot.
The reality of our world is that no, companies don't pay you higher wages just because you deserve them, or even because you make that much money for them. Companies pay you as little as they can get away with, because every dollar they pay their workers is a dollar they can't give to the company leadership. In the absence of strong unions, employers determine wages, and their self-interest is to keep them low.
When I worked at the local homeless shelter, my job was to help people find work and get back on their feet. I think most people would agree that that kind of job does contribute a certain amount to humankind, and I recommend it to anyone who can spare a few hours a week, but the free market says that work is worth nothing--it pays a grand total of $0/hour.
As a teacher, my job will be educating the new generation and preparing them for the modern world. Most people would probably say that's an important job, but the wages are below the median despite demanding above-average training and education.
An analyst in the finance industry, by contrast, literally does nothing but shuffle money around and drain resources from other people. A stockbroker literally does nothing but cheat people out of their money. The free market says those jobs are worth up to millions of dollars a year.
The reason is simple. We don't live in a world governed by karma.
It would be really nice if we did, but we don't. We don't live in a world where companies decide, simply out of the generosity of their hearts, to pay people as much as they're worth. We live in a world in which companies act in their own self-interest, and their self-interest is to pay low wages until they have no choice but to do otherwise.
The reason everyone needs to have a certain minimum income is because life costs money, and the cost of living goes up every single year. We tolerate a certain amount of inequality on the grounds that some people do earn more than others, but it isn't obvious to me that one person who makes 10 times as much as another person is actually worth 10 times more.
Other modern countries have much lower income inequality than us. I do not believe it is because American poor people are vastly inferior to poor folks in western Europe. I do not believe it is because American rich people are vastly superior to rich folks in western Europe. I think it's because, unlike those countries, most of us place our trust in the wisdom and benevolence of the invisible hand. A lot of us treat capitalism as a god to be worshiped instead of a tool to be used.
The notion that hard work and intelligence inevitably result in success is one of the greatest myths in our national culture. The notion that success is inevitably the result of hard work and intelligence is one of the greatest self-delusions of the American upper class. On average, they help, but we make a mistake when we assume that they're the only or even the primary determinant of success. Social scientists have long found that the biggest determinant of economic success is how much money your parents made--not your IQ, not your education, and not how hard you worked to get where you are.
I've known a lot of rich people and a lot of poor people, and the difference between them is a lot smaller than rich people like to think.
Over time that tendency has resulted in a significant increase in concentration of wealth. There's some statistics about that here. For instance this graph shows that the wealth of the top 10% has increased a bit over the last 30 years.
That pattern is much more pronounced in the US than most countries and is the result of decisions about the allocation of resources across society made during the Reagan presidency. You could of course argue that such decisions were necessary at the time. Even if this were the case, that does not mean that they are still necessary today though - but changing things is complicated by the political system in the US. Given the extent to which wealth dominates politics, change is unlikely to occur just because most people want it - even if it were generally agreed that the current system had become actively harmful.
I posted the letter from a number of super-rich people advocating for an increase in tax on the super-rich. It's perhaps worth noting here, that even if most super-rich people believe they should pay more tax, that still would not make it happen if a relatively few individuals were actively fighting that. The situation is a bit odd in that, in order to get change to happen, some of the super-rich would probably need to spend considerable amounts of money to convince the government to tax them more
When Obama once said that Reagan was fundamentally more consequential than Clinton or either Bush, he wasn't offering praise but stating a simple truth. Despite his attaining something close to sainthood post-Presidency, his legacy is an abject disaster in the long-term. He set in motion the destruction of unions. His time in office was the beginning of the end of manufacturing and small farms. His economic policies ushered in a permanent money funnel to the top. But most importantly of all, he convinced a vast portion of the populace that the government was their enemy, and that private corporate solutions were preferable in all cases, without exception.
The comments are cuttingly (and sadly) so true.
https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-border-patrol-facebook-group-agents-joke-about-migrant-deaths-post-sexist-memes
This is not a couple of questionable jokes. It's rank misogyny and racism of the most grosteque form imaginable, nor is it a small number of agents. Almost 10,000 of them are part of this group. There are only 20,000 agents in the country. You can do the math, but that is 50%. Actively engaging in stuff that I should probably post a spoiler warning about. But to be clear, there are posts here that feature doctored photos of AOC participating in a glory-hole with detained immigrants and of Trump forcing her to perform oral sex on him. And that's really just the tip of the iceberg here.
-Includes comparison of Fox News Coverage of Obama with North Korea vs. Fox News propaganda for Trump with North Korea. You may be surprised that it was Obama=bad, Trump=majestic! They need to be stripped of the "NEWS" from their name, they are Republican TV.
The point is that the agreement required actions on both sides. Iran only agreed to restrict its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief. They are very clearly not getting that relief at the moment, so they have no obligation on their side. That's specifically stated in more than one place in the agreement, e.g. this in clause 26 "The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part."
Iran has said their next step will be to increase the extent of the enrichment - at which point things start getting really dangerous. Israel has said many times they will use force to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons, so the chances of armed conflict are high - and any conflict once started has the potential to spiral out of control.
Personal disclosure time: unfortunately, I am one of those people at this time. I got downsized in January, being sent from "making above the national average including bonuses" to "making below the national average". It sucks and I sometimes have a difficult time being thankful for what I do have, but in the meantime I have feelers out to get back over the median again. Even if there were a union I could join here I wouldn't do it because, to me, unions cause a lot more problems than they solve.
*************
If Democrats want the rich to pay more in taxes then why do they keep raising taxes on gasoline, a regressive tax which will punish poor people more than it will rich people?
California has a new brief background check to purchase ammunition. According to this law, I could not simply give you some rounds---we would have to go to a dealer, the dealer takes possession of the rounds, then you go through the background check, and if you pass then you can receive the ammo from the dealer at no cost. How, exactly, will they police this? Are they going to be looking into my garage when I pass you a box of rounds to take with you on your deer hunting trip this fall? What if I drive over to Nevada, buy ammo there, then bring them back? Weak law is weak.
Same(except for the union part). I also make less than my education level would indicate. On the flip side - I live in a place with a low cost of living.
One of the challenges in dealing with country wide economic markers are things like cost of living.
In general, I think income-related laws should have automatic cost of living and inflation adjustments based on government-collected data, simply because legislators are slow to amend and pass bills. I just looked it up and the last time the federal government changed the minimum wage was July 24, 2009. The 10-year anniversary is in three weeks and three days.
10 years is a lot of time to go without adjusting a minimum wage to inflation.
Trump unilatererally pulled us out of the Iran deal. There is no deal anymore. Without us, it's not valid anymore. Iran's free to make nuclear weapons now that Trump freed them from the deal and we have no rights to complain anymore.
Makes you wonder why North Korea knows better than to sign a deal with Trump after he pulled us out of the Paris accords and the Iran nuclear deal.
Heck, the fact that you are ABLE to work at all, is HUGE. So many people in this country are disabled and unable to work, at zero fault of their own.