Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez suggests up to 70% tax on the wealthy

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,788
3,484
460
Which means it should operate like a business.
Again, this is a stupid sentiment, as businesses waste billions on stupidity every year. Why do you think business works so much more efficient than the government?

If anything, businesses are far more wasteful with their resources than government.
 
Jun 26, 2018
769
490
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
If anything, businesses are far more wasteful with their resources than government.
This may take the cake for the dumbest post of the year. Just take a look at how poorly school boards use your local tax dollars.

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/42716407.html/

And that's a drop in the bucket when you look at the waste at the national level. The Department of the Treasury was short $25 BILLION in 2003. At least when private industry wastes money, it is their own.

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/top-10-examples-government-waste
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,788
3,484
460
This may take the cake for the dumbest post of the year. Just take a look at how poorly school boards use your local tax dollars.

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/42716407.html/

And that's a drop in the bucket when you look at the waste at the national level. The Department of the Treasury was short $25 BILLION in 2003. At least when private industry wastes money, it is their own.

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/top-10-examples-government-waste

The thing is data shows that the private sector is at least no more efficient or even less.

https://newint.org/features/2015/12/01/private-public-sector

By now privatization has been thoroughly scrutinized – there are numerous studies, surveys and, indeed, surveys of surveys of its effects. The consistent conclusion: there is no evidence of greater efficiency.2 So, the best outcome one can hope for is that private-sector ownership or involvement is no worse than what the public sector provides – hardly a turn-up for the books. The largest study of the efficiency of privatized companies looked at all European companies privatized during 1980-2009. It compared their performance with companies that remained public and with their own past performance as public companies. The result? The privatized companies performed worse than those that remained public and continued to do so for up to 10 years after privatization.2
 
Jan 11, 2016
641
225
240
We've also seen that too much government hinders the free market. And that attempts to redistribute wealth through the government most oftentimes fail. Government could take a lesson from private industry and learn to operate efficiently and effectively.
Direct redistribution of wealth doesn't work well,. because it often hinders the motivation for individuals to strive for excellence, or at least the reward.

But equality of opportunity, on the other hand, maximizes competition, innovation, and reward for effort. And equality of opportunity doesn't happen in a real free market system. It only happens through a kind of artificial correction to help those inherently disadvantaged by lack of resources. This doesn't necessarily mean handouts per se, but things like investing in education, for example, have huge benefits to the economy as a whole because we have more qualified people competing in the workplace.

The libertarian bent to American right seems really disconnected from this reality, because it often assumes the free market to be some kind of meritocracy in and of itself, and that's clearly not the case. Sometimes people just sort of work this problem backwards too, so they see a guy like Trump who has money and just assume that he must be smart and have earned that money, rather than merely inheriting a lot, losing most of it, and then getting a TV gameshow and licensing his name to real business people.
 
Jan 11, 2016
641
225
240
This may take the cake for the dumbest post of the year. Just take a look at how poorly school boards use your local tax dollars.

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/42716407.html/

And that's a drop in the bucket when you look at the waste at the national level. The Department of the Treasury was short $25 BILLION in 2003. At least when private industry wastes money, it is their own.

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/top-10-examples-government-waste
Yes, but private-run charter schools that receive public funds are even worse.

It's important to draw a distinction between a private business that succeed or fail on the marketplace and private contractors that provide needed government services and send the taxpayers a bill. Because the latter are absolutely notorious for waste, because that's what they're designed to do. For them taxpayer expense and profit are one in the same.

And there are going to be services that we need the government to provide, and service that, in collectivizing, become easier to fix costs for.
 
Last edited:
Jan 11, 2016
641
225
240
Charters aren't private. They are public schools. By definition.
No, there are public charters and charters run by private corporations who fleece the government and under-deliver because that is their profit motive. If you want to argue that they are still "public" in some sense because they take taxpayer money, then you're playing a semantics game that won't serve you well when the argument loops back around to privatizing government services.

My point here is simple: Private companies offering a service to consumers may be able to do things more efficiently and at a cheaper cost than the government, and in some cases they do (parcel services might be a good example). And they're free to do that on the open market. But when it comes to essential services like running schools and prisons, privatizing social security, etc, the profit motive doesn't work like that, because it's still taxpayer dollars, and their profit motive is to keep costs up and under-deliver on services. This sort of privatization is inherently less efficient by design.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
769
490
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
No, there are public charters and charters run by private corporations who fleece the government and under-deliver because that is their profit motive.
That's not true. They are public schools set outside a district. They still take public fund, cannot charge tuition and are subject to state and federal accountability. They are not private at all.
 
Jan 11, 2016
641
225
240
That's not true. They are public schools set outside a district. They still take public fund, cannot charge tuition and are subject to state and federal accountability. They are not private at all.
They are privately owned and run. They are private in the same sense as, say, private prisons or indeed absolutely any fucking thing that conservatives have suggested privatizing.

And yes that's distinct from a public-facing company that provides a service to consumers, but that's literally my entire point, so let's not talk in circles anymore.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
965
381
205
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-1080874



It’s amazing to me that people don’t realize that there isn’t enough money you can extract from rich people to fund all these pie in the sky programs. They will eventually come for the middle and upper middle class people who think this stuff doesn’t affect them.


It’s also scary to me that ideas like this are becoming mainstream Democratic Party ideas.
The problem is that right now the monetary system is a way of rationing out resources, not everyone can live like a multimillionaire. Though just about anyone can invest early and retire a millionaire or multimillionaire.

There aren't enough resources, the resources are finite, and the capitalist system at least allows a fraction to live in luxury, others to aspire to it, and for it to be reasonably attainable.(well unless your mental faculties are lacking and can't manage resources, system does penalyze mismanagement and stupidity.). On a communist system the luxurious lifestyle would be reserved to political cronies and none would have reasonable means of attaining it.
Again, this is a stupid sentiment, as businesses waste billions on stupidity every year. Why do you think business works so much more efficient than the government?

If anything, businesses are far more wasteful with their resources than government.
Here is the rub with that kind of circular logic. The businesses that weren't run efficiently, probably were run out of business. What we desire is government to operate like a successful business. And cut taxpayer waste.
Even successful businesses, give execs large bonuses and salaries, and generate large profit. They agree to pay 10+M golden parachutes should their ceo fail entirely and have to be fired for incompetence or negligence, while giving millions for good performance. Perform good or bad the ceo ends up ridiculously wealthy. Profit is basically excess or waste. Maximization of profit entails overcharging for something really worth as small of a fraction of the actual price as possible, that is basically what it is.

A company that only keeps the necessary profit to serve as reserve for times of hardship, but reinvests most of its so-called profit, will outcompete one that simply maximizes profit. Future R&D and future support being financed into the cost of a product, might not necessarily be considered actual profit, but the customer paying for the continued existence of the company and its products as well as future revisions.

A company where the Execs are 100% dedicated to its survival and are willing to work for a fraction or even take hits on their salary for the benefit of the company will outcompete one where the execs are dedicated primarily to their personal wellbeing.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
769
490
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
They are privately owned and run. They are private in the same sense as, say, private prisons or indeed absolutely any fucking thing that conservatives have suggested privatizing.
No, they are not. What a pathetic attempt to demonize privatization. Private schools are private and run way better than the PUBLIC charters. And state run prisons are FULL of waste. Terrible example.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
965
381
205
I think actual price should include not just past R&D but future R&D support and future product design replacement costs. Such that, the true costs, reveal profit for what it is the excess that is being asked as reward from the system.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
965
381
205
Again, that's a good thing. Incentive drives innovation. That's why capitalism will always trounce socialism in terms of prosperity and progress.
But that is also why good amount of competition is necessary, to reign in profits, to force reinvestment and innovation, rather than stagnant overpriced or planned obsolescence products and services
 
Jan 11, 2016
641
225
240
No, they are not. What a pathetic attempt to demonize privatization. Private schools are private and run way better than the PUBLIC charters. And state run prisons are FULL of waste. Terrible example.
That's literally what privatization is, though. You're pretending to draw some invisible line without telling anyone what it is, while completely ignoring my point that private government contractors have an inherent profit motive for waste.

Competition for consumer dollars is what keeps costs down in a private business, but privatization of government services doesn't have that. They aren't getting money from consumers, so for them maximizing profit is about getting as much as they can from government and putting as little of it as possible into delivering those services. It maximizes waste. It supposed to maximize waste, at least from the perspective of the one running the business.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
769
490
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
That's literally what privatization is, though.
You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Private schools are not under the approval of state and federal boards. They can accept tuition and do not accept public funds. Charter schools were some government officials bad idea to COMPETE with private schools.

Competition for consumer dollars is what keeps costs down in a private business, but privatization of government services doesn't have that.
That's not true at all. Government as an entity IS a consumer. Government is able to shop around for quotes from private enterprises to find the best use of public tax dollars. There is plenty of competition between private firms to win government bids. That's why we don't have a government service that builds roads or buildings. Government pays private industry to get those things done. As it should.
 
Jun 26, 2018
769
490
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
But that is also why good amount of competition is necessary, to reign in profits, to force reinvestment and innovation, rather than stagnant overpriced or planned obsolescence products and services
Right. That's what the free market provides. If government provided all these goods and services, we would be stuck with no choices and no competition providing government incentive to get better.
 
Jan 11, 2016
641
225
240
You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Private schools are not under the approval of state and federal boards. They can accept tuition and do not accept public funds. Charter schools were some government officials bad idea to COMPETE with private schools.
YES EXACTLY THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR LIKE 5 POSTS. One is a privatized public service and the other is a private business, and those are two completely different things, and the former is a fucking terrible idea.

We on the same page?
That's not true at all. Government as an entity IS a consumer. Government is able to shop around for quotes from private enterprises to find the best use of public tax dollars. There is plenty of competition between private firms to win government bids. That's why we don't have a government service that builds roads or buildings. Government pays private industry to get those things done. As it should.
But that isn't how it works in practice. There aren't just multiple businesses the government can patronize, they're awarding companies contracts to deliver services that don't exist yet, and then they're locked in. Which is why private prisons and charter schools end up costing too much and under-delivering. Privatized public services are not the same thing as private businesses which is something you keep fucking saying and then forgetting in the same breath. Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,454
1,902
365
Does anybody actually think it's fair that our top tax bracket maxes out at like $500,000, and that someone making $10,000,000 a year really ought to pay the same tax rate as someone making $500,000?

That just isn't the America we live in. There's a fraction of a percent of people who control most of the wealth of the country who aren't being taxed like it. That's the problem. It's not about raising taxes on you or anyone you've ever met, it's about raising money on the people for whom money is practically an infinite resource.
I'm fine with charging people making millions more than someone at 500k, etc. My issue is that I have only two choices. Side A - who says they want the rich to pay more but then end up making me pay more in the end. Or Side B who wants to give the rich a big cut and me a small cut. Those choices suck, but side B wins until side A gets it shit together and stops pretending the "middle class" makes 20-35k a year.
 
Jan 11, 2016
641
225
240
Charter schools are public. And privatized public services are carried out by privately owned companies. You really don't know what you're talking about.
You can't be this dumb, dude. We've been through this. There are public charters and private charters, and the private charters are carried out by privately owned companies.

Like who are you trying to convince with this amnesia act where I have to keep pointing out the see obvious points to you? Do you think I forgot the shit I said two posts ago? Or do you think no one knows how to scroll up? What is the point of this bullshit act?
 
Jan 13, 2018
560
740
245
Poll: Majority Backs AOC’s 70 Percent Top Marginal Tax Rate


"some centrist pundits pronounced the Democratic Party dead by political suicide: National Journalreporter Josh Kraushaar argued that, while congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s profane call for Trump’s impeachment was getting more attention, Ocasio-Cortez “calling for a 70 percent tax rate on the nation’s most-watched news show a whole lot more politically damaging for Ds.”

There was never much evidence for this assessment. In public opinion polls, raising taxes on the rich consistently ranks as one of the most popular ideas in American politics. "

"[...]The idea was “popular in all regions of the country.” Southerners backed it by a 57-to-43 percent margin, while 56 percent of voters in rural zip codes agreed that the socialist congresswoman was onto something. Even 45 percent of self-identified Republicans approved. "
It's just one poll. But this is with the poll listing it incorrectly and not even including the word "marginal" which drastically changes the definition of the policy, and with the entire mainstream media arguing against this, it is still a very popular policy. Who could have seen that coming?
 
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2012
1,337
128
505
Everyone
Don't use appeal to authority to make your case. Especially with a soft science like economics. We also had (and still do have) top economists vouching for good ol' supply side Reaganomics even after it demonstratively was/is a failure.

I don't see how creating a 70% tax bracket for people making 10 million dollars per year is going to do raise much revenue or deal with wealth inequality though. People getting income of 10 million per year are just going to shuffle the deck so they don't get that much as income anymore and they will earn it through other means. We are again, talking about a tax proposal that will affect only about 2000 households in the US.

If you want to deal with wealth inequality you have to go after wealth, not income.
I think it is a psychological tactic - today you are rich if you make over 10 million, next year over 5 million, then 1 million, etc etc.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,748
1,737
240
I wonder if the democrat base will ever grow up and learn the lesson to not hand over power because of superficial idiotic "youngest women ever in congress, everything for everyone and free, minoritiy, muh first muslim women, muh genitals, muh victim" crap and instead focus on what the person actually thinks and wants to do... judging by recent trends and elections probably not any time soon.
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
16,156
1,429
835
I wonder if the democrat base will ever grow up and learn the lesson to not hand over power because of superficial idiotic "youngest women ever in congress, everything for everyone and free, minoritiy, muh first muslim women, muh genitals, muh victim" crap and instead focus on what the person actually thinks and wants to do... judging by recent trends and elections probably not any time soon.
I may not have understood a single word that you just said, but I do understand this:

“The fear is, it’s like going in to talk to the FBI, anything you do or say can be used against you,” said one lobbyist for a major bank.

---

Finally, there's a fucking beast in the white house, someone who is actually like the people they represent. Now I don't agree with her 70% top tax or quite a few other things, but AOC is fearless, gotta respect that. She's gonna be a fine leader
 
Last edited:
Likes: Miku Miku
Jan 13, 2018
560
740
245
I may not have understood a single word that you just said, but I do understand this:

“The fear is, it’s like going in to talk to the FBI, anything you do or say can be used against you,” said one lobbyist for a major bank.

---

Finally, there's a fucking beast in the white house, someone who is actually like the people they represent. Now I don't agree with her 70% top tax or quite a few other things, but AOC is fearless, gotta respect that. She's gonna be a fine leader
Yeah, these quotes are fucking great.

Anyone should be happy to see lobbyists running scared from a populist. Doesn't matter if you're left or right. This is great. This is exactly what politics needs. This is draining the swamp.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,206
1,139
340
Moore Park Beach
Likes: Miku Miku
Jun 20, 2018
1,748
1,737
240
Awesome stuff. Wonder what Peolsi and the rest of DNC thinks since these banks are BIG donors. :)

Maybe that is what they need in order to revitalize the DNC. But do not for one second think the current DNC will allow the money spigot to be threathened or turned off without a brutal and bloody fight.
Get popcorn. It is going to be wild.

Oh yes it is what they need, this charade and naive people actually swallowing is indeed what they need and know will "revitalize" the dems via votes, i mean thats the purpose of the lie.
 
Last edited:
Jan 13, 2018
560
740
245
Oh yes it is what they need, this charade and naive people actually swallowing is indeed what they need and know will "revitalize" the dems via votes, i mean thats the purpose of the lie.
Income inequality has surpassed the great depression. It's not all a lie man. We can disagree on how to address it (or if to address it at all), but she is speaking to a really popular sentiment right now.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,206
1,139
340
Moore Park Beach
Income inequality has surpassed the great depression. It's not all a lie man. We can disagree on how to address it (or if to address it at all), but she is speaking to a really popular sentiment right now.
Yes, but income equality is not so much 10 people like Soros, Gates and Bezoz making a lot more than everyone else but rather that the middle class is going away/have gone away
and are replaced by either 1%-ers in the tech industry versus the bottom 10%.
See places like San Fransisco where gentrification due to rich tech engineers pushing the poor working class out of their areas. Making it too expensive for them to stay in the places they grew up
and lived their whole lives.

There is an obvious conflict of interest brewing between the liberal rich 1%-er and the working poor that are getting gentrified.


I think the problem is the erosion of the middle class. Without a middle class there is little opportunity for working poor to elevate themselves, if the next step up the ladder has to skip the traditional middle class and enter rich tech liberals instead.
This erosion and erasure of the middle class can well end up making permanent the situation for poor will stay poor and rich will stay rich for a long time. That is dangerous.
If social mobility upward for the poor is no longer viable, what other options remain for them to improve their situation?
 
Jan 13, 2018
560
740
245
There is an obvious conflict of interest brewing between the liberal rich 1%-er and the working poor that are getting gentrified.
Anyone paying attention saw that already 3 years ago when the DNC conspired to steal the primary from Bernie.

Let's get specific about this erosion of the middle class. The problem is simple. TAXES. The taxes are fucked. The rich need to be taxed more, end of story. The middle class doesn't just erode for no reason. The middle class didn't even exist until after WWII when marginal top tax rates were 90%+. Anything AOC is proposing is based on a consensus of modern economists, and is likely more moderate than what is really needed.

People who can't see that need to get beat on election day. It's time to fight aggressively. Wall Street is scared for good reason. People are fucking tired, and we're coming for the establishment without apology. Economic liberals are going to mobilize hard after the theft of 2016.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,206
1,139
340
Moore Park Beach
Anyone paying attention saw that already 3 years ago when the DNC conspired to steal the primary from Bernie.

Let's get specific about this erosion of the middle class. The problem is simple. TAXES. The taxes are fucked. The rich need to be taxed more, end of story. The middle class doesn't just erode for no reason. The middle class didn't even exist until after WWII when marginal top tax rates were 90%+. Anything AOC is proposing is based on a consensus of modern economists, and is likely more moderate than what is really needed.

People who can't see that need to get beat on election day. It's time to fight aggressively. Wall Street is scared for good reason. People are fucking tired, and we're coming for the establishment without apology. Economic liberals are going to mobilize hard after the theft of 2016.
I think it is more complex than just that higher taxes are required. And I don't really agree that taxation will solve the problem. But that is not important. Lets shift focus.

The rich 1%. Pretty much everyone in tech is now in the 1%, or better. That is a lot of people, over a hundred thousand people, easily, just in the Bay Area alone..
Working poor being priced out onto the streets of San Fransisco is not due To Bill Gates moving in but thousands, tens of thousands of 1%ers
from Google, facebook, ... moving in and gentrifying the areas.
Not just pricing them out of their homes but also converting the cheap food stalls into artisian coffee venues that the poor can not afford to frequent.

Right now, these 1%ers are super liberal and are on the same side of the working poor that they displace.
My question is more, how long until the working poor starts to dismiss the idea that these 1%ers are on their team, fighting for equality, and will they turn against eachother.
At some stage the displaced poor really must realize that there is a conflict. Their "team-mates" from the liberal 1% is who is displacing them. Not Bill Gates.

Will they turn against eachother? Will the working poor turn against these people and tell them "you are not our allies, you are actually the cause of our hardship."
 
Jan 13, 2018
560
740
245
I think it is more complex than just that higher taxes are required. And I don't really agree that taxation will solve the problem. But that is not important. Lets shift focus.

The rich 1%. Pretty much everyone in tech is now in the 1%, or better. That is a lot of people, over a hundred thousand people, easily, just in the Bay Area alone..
Working poor being priced out onto the streets of San Fransisco is not due To Bill Gates moving in but thousands, tens of thousands of 1%ers
from Google, facebook, ... moving in and gentrifying the areas.
Not just pricing them out of their homes but also converting the cheap food stalls into artisian coffee venues that the poor can not afford to frequent.

Right now, these 1%ers are super liberal and are on the same side of the working poor that they displace.
My question is more, how long until the working poor starts to dismiss the idea that these 1%ers are on their team, fighting for equality, and will they turn against eachother.
At some stage the displaced poor really must realize that there is a conflict. Their "team-mates" from the liberal 1% is who is displacing them. Not Bill Gates.

Will they turn against eachother? Will the working poor turn against these people and tell them "you are not our allies, you are actually the cause of our hardship."
This is bigger than California. It is establishment DNC neoliberal politics that have governed the party since Bill Clinton in the 1990s. This hit the manufacturing bases in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania before any tech booms in California.

The poor will still be priced out of top tier areas like San Francisco. The point is softening the blow for everyone else, so people have a shot at basic services.

Way bigger than anything happening with Google and Facebook employees is the nationwide delaying of marriage, children, families, economic progression of any kind, let alone saving for buying a house or retirement. The basics of building a life are out of reach for the overwhelming majority of the population.

It is taxes. It's not complicated. The taxes must be raised. I am purposely simplifying it. This isn't an elusive issue. This is the fight.
 
Jun 13, 2017
723
735
210
This is bigger than California. It is establishment DNC neoliberal politics that have governed the party since Bill Clinton in the 1990s. This hit the manufacturing bases in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania before any tech booms in California.

The poor will still be priced out of top tier areas like San Francisco. The point is softening the blow for everyone else, so people have a shot at basic services.

Way bigger than anything happening with Google and Facebook employees is the nationwide delaying of marriage, children, families, economic progression of any kind, let alone saving for buying a house or retirement. The basics of building a life are out of reach for the overwhelming majority of the population.

It is taxes. It's not complicated. The taxes must be raised. I am purposely simplifying it. This isn't an elusive issue. This is the fight.
This is happening a lot in Europe as well.
 
Last edited:
Jan 13, 2018
560
740
245
This is happening a lot in Europe as well.
That's true, but Europe is not the economic marketplace that the US is. And Europe is ahead on healthcare, college, life expectancy.

Economic productivity has continually gone UP. The US is the richest country in the history of existence. There is more than enough to raise the standard of living on some basic issues. It's not controversial. Without any fanfare, both parties agreed to a defense spending INCREASE of more than what Bernie's college plan costs for the entire country. That's just the increase, not the total defense budget.

People need to wake up and stop backing down from asking for a better life.
 
Jun 13, 2017
723
735
210
That's true, but Europe is not the economic marketplace that the US is. And Europe is ahead on healthcare, college, life expectancy.

Economic productivity has continually gone UP. The US is the richest country in the history of existence. There is more than enough to raise the standard of living on some basic issues. It's not controversial. Without any fanfare, both parties agreed to a defense spending INCREASE of more than what Bernie's college plan costs for the entire country. That's just the increase, not the total defense budget.

People need to wake up and stop backing down from asking for a better life.
My point was that there's other reasons besides taxes of why people are starting families when they're older and are having way less kids.
Even though I support healthcare I vehemently oppose free college.
 
Likes: Miku Miku

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,206
1,139
340
Moore Park Beach
This is bigger than California. It is establishment DNC neoliberal politics that have governed the party since Bill Clinton in the 1990s. This hit the manufacturing bases in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania before any tech booms in California.
Thankyou for a good post. I cut it down in the reply not in disrespect but to go on another tangent. I hope you don't disagree too much.

Near 30 years ago, as a student at a European university, I worked school holidays in a Car manufacturing plant. Most of the time I was "left door station" just before paintery.
My job was to attach the left side doors to the car. One week was work from 4am to 1pm, every other week was 1pm to 10pm. Or something like that.

Joining the union was pretty much mandatory. As was signing up as a paying member for the left party.


Today it seems the left hates industry work. They hate people working in factories. They hate blue collar work.
What happened?
Who today stands up for the working class. who stands up for and tries to help industry workers to get a better life?

I myself am very wealthy now. But I will never vote left today. I did every year until ~10 years ago.
Many of my friends that are still poor working class, they will never vote left today either.

Why and when did the left parties switch from being "we help and protect the working class" to become "we hate the working class and only do identity politics going forward"
Why does the left hate the working class today?


EDIT: we need a new labor party to represent the working class.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Miku Miku
Jan 13, 2018
560
740
245
EDIT: we need a new labor party to represent the working class.
I agree. I try to not focus so much on identity in a party, and focus entirely on the specific issues I want to see moved forward. I will vote republican if they push policies I want. Trump ran against TPP and the wars, and I commended him for that in his campaign. All I care about is the specific policies.

I'm not wealthy, but I'm doing okay. 3 degrees, good job. But it's really just a matter of objectively looking at society as a whole, and trying to think through what the best policies will be. "Free market" oligarchy is not the best policy, and there's tons of alternatives to that if people will just get specific and start organizing.
 
Feb 6, 2018
86
60
185
Why and when did the left parties switch from being "we help and protect the working class" to become "we hate the working class and only do identity politics going forward"
Why does the left hate the working class today?
.
Utterly delusional. The left gave the working class nothing but misery and destitution and starvation and even after a hundred years they still believe in the same philosphy that inflicted on them all that misery. 100 years of history makes it exceptionally clear they never gave a damn about the 'working class.' They never cared when the working class was being shot climbing over walls or drowning in the sea to escape tyranny, they pissed on their graves and glorified and apologized for their tyrants.

And of course they hate them - they're white. They represent to the left power, privilege, western civilization, etc... This was never obvious because they didn't have their new toys - blacks/hispanics/asians/women/LBGTWHATEVER/blah blah blah - there was not enough of a critical mass to abandon the white working class they never were for. Now there is.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,514
7,663
825
Australia
This notion that democrats hate whites, while being a majority white party has never not been funny to me.
Self-hatred is a major part of identity politics. The current iteration of Democrats have wholeheartedly embraced identity politics as their platform. The party leaders aren’t participating in the self-hatred but they’re cynically utilizing it for political gain.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,206
1,139
340
Moore Park Beach
Go girl go.

Go all in. Very very few people earn that kind of money as income so even if you tax them at 100% income tax it will still just be pocket change as far as the country go.
I think George Soros declares his income is 1$ / year. Yeah, taxing him at 70% will not bring more money for the schools.

Go further and smash these rich oppressors.
Do a new tax on wealth, not income.
Anyone with a total wealth of 10M or more, directly or indirectly, has to pay a new annual wealth tax on 3% on their total wealth.

That will bring money that can fund stuff. And probably also CIA black-site operatives in the middle of the night :)
Go full nuclear and smash the rich oppressors!!!
 
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2018
86
60
185
This notion that democrats hate whites, while being a majority white party has never not been funny to me.
I think it has more to do with culture/values than race, the left hates western civilization and the US and that's what matters most. Marxist whites are very different than conservative whites. The working class may not believe in individualism or know much about political ideology but they love and are proud of their country, that's something the left finds offensive. You'll rarely see white working class burning American flags, as opposed to leftist whites. It's a good bet that it'd piss them off, while the leftist whites either wouldn't care or support such an act. That's the difference.
 
Last edited: