Exactly. And many of them do not work.Urwrongx1000 wrote:There are different types of rich people.
You'll have to demonstrate that.Most "rich people" work 60-100 hours per week.
A large percentage of poor people are children. There is also the working poor which is more and more common in the US. As the corporations globalized and did not feel any loyalty to the parent nation and the support they got from that nation, wages went down, jobs got moved out of the US, and you had more working poor and unemployed.Most "poor people" do not work at all, beggars, criminals, welfare mothers, etc. which is why they are poor.
I don’t want to hear Democrats pretending that the fact that Biden’s son got a do-nothing $600k per year corporate handout is unremarkable. It is wrong
The son of a longtime US senator gets his start as a lawyer with one of the biggest corporate donors to his dad’s campaigns; a friend of his dad’s gets him a job in the Clinton administration, and then as a lobbyist; later, while his father is vice president, he is given a $50,000 per month seat on the board of a Ukrainian energy firm, despite lacking any clear energy expertise. How does this all happen? It happened the same way that Chelsea Clinton became a “special correspondent” for NBC News, and Jenna Bush got a job as a Today show host, and the Trump children got jobs overseeing a real estate empire. It happened the same way, for that matter, that George W Bush – objectively, a flailing dumbass – became the governor of Texas and then the president of the United States.
To cut into their profits, which they own By Right, is theft. It's the socialists and communists of the world, who are a threat. And the first casualty is Freedom.
Gloominary wrote:increase them on big businessmen, especially ones who've benefitted from fractional reserve banking, illegal immigration, offshoring, unsocial corporatism and vulture capitalism.
I am not sure this even needs to be done. I would want their bullshit gaming the system banking and finance wealth production for no labor or value production bs cut off. Then we could see. People assume this is just a given in capitalism, but its not. And much of it was added after the formation of the US, for example.Gloominary wrote:We're not talking about increasing taxes on doctors, engineers and miners, or at least I'm not, they're upper middle to lower middle class, I'm talking about increasing taxes on the upperclass, the richest 1%, and redistributing it in the form of affordable housing, free education, universal healthcare and supplementary income for working and middle class citizens, not for alcoholics, (prescription) drug addicts, the idle poor and illegal migrants.
Another area is yes, taking the idea that corporate charters are a priviledge back into action. The founders of the US were not just concerned about government tyranny. They had see what the giant pseudocorporations like the East India company could do and did do. Corporate charters included the idea that the company follow the law, for example. Well, that idea is gone and the conservatives who refer to the founders never seem to complain about this.Perhaps don't increase taxes on wages at all, increase them on big businessmen, especially ones who've benefitted from fractional reserve banking, illegal immigration, offshoring, unsocial corporatism and vulture capitalism.
To cut into their profits, which they own By Right, is theft. It's the socialists and communists of the world, who are a threat. And the first casualty is Freedom.
It's like a taboo to even question these things for certain parts of the right. They think that capitalism must have central banks. Their are illiterate when it comes to money creation out of nothing. They choose not to notice how we have an oligarchy that decides when we go to war, for example, and is essentially anti-democratic, abroad and domestically. If you criticize these facets of elite's warped version of capitalism, then you supposedly are communist and want the USSR to come back now in the WEstern hemisphere.Don't forget about the central bankers, corporatists and military industrial complexes of the world.
Fucking A right. The commons is not a lefty thing. It was presumed by the founders. Of course one can try to figure out where the line is drawn, but conservatives, if they want to conserve traditions and uphold founder ideas and intentions would not just be pro all privitization.And it depends on how you define property.
If you define all property, or some forms of property collectively, then it's not theft.
There's always been and probably always will be some public property.
Fixed Cross wrote:classes aren't entities, and that entities sink and rise from one class to the other. Meaning class struggle is fundamentally impossible.
People struggle, not classes.
History has proven though that the class does not amount to a group.
Fixed Cross wrote:Which part of Scandinavia?
Norway is loaded with oil and has very scarce population, so it is no trouble to provide welfare.
Unions work, definitely, and they actually form groups. But this does not make of the whole working class one group. For example, look at the ruthless hatred between Social Democrats and Communists and inability to look beyond their ideological strife at national interests in Germany, in the 1930s.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:On the contrary. People are much more willing, in general, to fight alongside work friends regardless of "ethnicity" (I guess we're all 19th century anthropologists now...) against some, say, uncle they fucking hate.
It's been a while, but I think this is a point Nietzsche made in "Beyond Good and Evil" - that "wrong" is socially defined by what the other tribe with whom they war does differently to them.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users