Y’know, the only reason the Democrats struggle to win at all is that sometime in the post-Nixon era they collectively decided to stop standing up for labor’s buying power. When they did this, (which helped them a lot in terms of their ability to get corporate donors to finance their elections), it meant that working people would go from having 1 party represent labor to 0 parties doing that.
In the 50s an entry-level job that a high-school graduate could get would support a family, buy a home and a couple of cars, and pay out a retirement. Today, that job won’t even pay for an apartment without roommates.
That right there is the whole reason the GOP is a viable political party at the federal level- with both parties beholden to corporate donors, winning elections is more or less a matter of spending money on campaign ads attacking the other party because neither party has to do anything that voters want
In the 50s an entry-level job that a high-school graduate could get would support a family, buy a home and a couple of cars, and pay out a retirement.
While I agree with the general thrust that more needs to be done for the average worker, your comparison of these times completely falls on its face if you speak to anyone with firsthand experience. It shouldn’t be used because it is just noise, not relevant to the world we live in.
My dad grew up in the 50s and lives with me, due to his age/health. Here’s a mix of his take and current data:
Homes have tripled in size on average. Providing for a family involves machines that take on 16 hours per day of household chores, which are expensive and taken for granted. Electricity and television, to say nothing of the internet, are taken for granted. Cellular phones are taken for granted.
6 children would live in a 3 bedroom house - I know this because this is how my uncles grew up in the 50s. The vast majority of people did not have a “couple of cars.” They had one car and the entire family packed into it without seatbelts.
You can absolutely live like it’s the 50s right now. Cancel your cable, internet, and phone. Do not own a dishwasher, wash your laundry by hand, and only bulk-buy groceries in the forms of cereal grains, meat, eggs, and vegetables. Buy nothing pre-made. Mend your own clothes. Cook everything from scratch. Don’t have air conditioning.
If this sounds like a poor, miserable existence, it’s because almost everyone lives a standard of living unimaginable in the 50s except in science fiction, and that standard is expensive.
That’s why we should help people - because our standard of living rose and we no longer see the 50s as acceptable, not because tradwives and nuclear families made the world safe for one white guy to provide for his family. We are the richest country in the world and our standard of living should be a cudgel we wield in soft-power diplomacy.
As my dad said when I read him this post: “this going back to the past shit is about the stupidest shit in the world.”
Do not own a dishwasher, wash your laundry by hand
this ends up costing more where I live - its actually cheaper to run a dishwasher daily.
source: I own a dishwasher and my water bill is only like $30 - $40 in the US.
Sorry but I do all of that and it’s not any better at all. No washer/dryer, no washing machine, I live in a fucking garage and pay more rent than anyone in the 50s paid mortgage.
Houses that are glorified sheds in flood zones in the worst parts of town go for 300k+. I’m not even entry level and I can’t afford the cheapest garbage excuse for a house out here without becoming house poor. I can’t even “move where it’s cheaper” because WFH people did and now it’s not cheaper. The areas that are truly cheap, are so because there’s no work to be had around them. Can’t appreciate the low cost of an area when your unemployed.
I specifically said it wasn’t better. That’s what “massively increased standard of living” implies.
It is cheaper though, which is why you do it. I agree it sucks.
That we should make it easier to achieve a massively better life than the 50s is the intent of the post you are replying to.
I absolutely agree. I think the “smaller houses” bit just sent me off on a rant because I keep hearing that argument as a way to dismiss current housing price issues, but it’s just not the reality I see when I look at glorified sheds selling for 300k.
Well there’s also a dramatic under-supply of housing as well.
A tripling in housing cost resulting in average houses costing $80k or so, which would approximately align with price increase/sqft would be much more tenable for people.
Still, it’s a higher standard of living and more expensive though, and should be taken into account when looking to provide the right economic conditions for people. That’s why I brought that up.
Bottom line is, as always, fuck NIMBYism and build more. Big houses, small houses, multi-family housing, all of it.
You can absolutely live like it’s the 50s right now.
No, you can’t . You can’t send your kids to a state college or university today and expect them to work their way through on part-time minimum wage and graduate without debt. Pensions are a thing of the past. Unions have been decimated and their protections have been unavailable to most workers for decades now. Today, banks are regulated by private trade associations made up of- you guessed it- banks. Today, employers buy back their own shares (which was made illegal in the 1930s and brought back in 1982) at labor’s expense. Today’s median wage buys you less than minimum wage did then.
My post above was not a call to go back to the 50s, (fuuuuuck that) it was a call to recognize that the buying power available to labor has been squeezed so hard that the middle class as a demographic is shrinking and that in turn probably causes people to lose faith in democracy. When both major parties have worked together to dismantle labor protections and to deregulate finance, is your democracy really working for you, or for corporate power?
Yes, today it’s normal to buy things that didn’t exist then, and most fatal childhood diseases have been all but wiped out, and bigger houses and a housing inventory shortage is a thing, but that’s not the whole picture by a long shot. Raw material inputs (like lumber, and basic foodstuffs) cost more in normalized labor purchasing power terms and that’s probably largely because of corporate mergers in the supply chain and wage standards have not kept up with basic costs.
I think it’s remarkably silly that so many Americans that long for the 50s to come back think they’re gone because the Democrats embraced civil rights or because of feminism and not because they joined the GOP in dismantling the New Deal.
Roughly 50% more people go to college now than in the 50s and 60s: https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics#college-enrollment-statistics
That’s why college is more expensive now. It used to be something you paid for to go, and now there are loans. This drove up demand and changed the financial incentive structure. It’s the #1 reason why I believe college should be free for the lower three quintiles.
Pensions are a crap idea and always were. Today my wife and I are straight up cashing in her pension because it’s worth more in an IRA.
Share buybacks are good for companies, workers, and the market in general - which protects 401(k)s as well. Not sure why that’s an issue for you?
Unions are expanding again and I hope that really takes off.
I definitely do not see how the New Deal was “dismantled” or that the Democrat party of today had anything to do with it. The New Deals/Great Society were a defining time for conservatives and many conservative Democrats left the party over it.
That’s why college is more expensive now.
Back then, states funded their colleges- tuition wasn’t the primary funding mechanism. But, shortly after desegregation, that funding started to dry up now that brown people could benefit and the politics of keeping college cheap became fraught (and educating a multiracial egalitarian society became ‘communism’, which nicely dovetailed with the red scares of the time).
Then, as prices went up, loans became a thing- but loans were routinely discriminatory on things like race, gender, etc. So, when they made loans less discriminatory and easier to get, that’s when your answer became accurate: we all watched an army of MBAs swoop in and become middle-management of universities that transformed themselves to capture a share of all that available money.
Yeah, college got expensive because loans got easy to get- but the reason for loans in the first place was in large part that the right wanted to gatekeep education because they saw an educated public as a threat.
I definitely do not see how the New Deal was “dismantled”
Then you’re not looking. Glass-Steagall? Repealed under Clinton. Enforceable financial regulations? Deregulated quietly on a bipartisan basis since the 90s. Labor relations? Unions have been gutted and wage protections neglected, so much so that it became difficult to form unions. Antitrust? When the Democrats swept congress after Nixon, they retired the Democrats’ expertise on antitrust enforcement. The then-new dem leadership became fascinated with pivoting towards the center, such that the Democrats stopped representing labor and became the party of professionals. With 0 parties representing the working class and both parties engaged in the project of deregulation and privatizing public goods and services, several major parts of the New Deal were quietly neglected or just not enforced.
Today, banking is to a much greater extent regulated by private consortiums composed of… yes, bankers than it was then. The same fox that guarded the henhouse prior to the Great Depression was put in charge, and it wasn’t long before we had another depression-scale collapse.
As of the early 1970s, the robust trust-busting of the 1930s onward was quietly discontinued; the ‘watergate-baby dems’ (who were elected in the wake of Watergate) weren’t excited about monopoly enforcement. On their watch, enforcement was largely defunded. Non-enforcement of The Packers and Stockyards act eventually led to today’s state of affairs, in which there are just 4 conglomerates in the market between farm and grocer. This pattern isn’t limited to the meat industry, it is happening everywhere- middlemen control supply chains, ‘vertical integration’ and mergers and acquisitions mean producers are squeezed. That’s just plain down on the neoliberals getting hold of the Democratic party and letting corporations reassert dominance.
The New Deals/Great Society were a defining time for conservatives
If by that you mean conservatives hated everything about it and called it communism and conducted non-stop red-scares and moral panics to fight it, I suppose you’re right. That bit where conservative dems left the party- yeah, that coincided with the democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement too, and that party realignment broadly energized the American right under the GOP banner (where before that, both parties had conservative and progressive wings)
As things stand right now, the GOP’s platform is “let’s pick a scapegoat to exhume the lower classes’ frustrations”, while the Democrats’ is “let’s not do that”. It’s no wonder why the Dems can only garner around ~27% of all elegible votes (vs the Republicans’ ~25%), most of their voters don’t particularly like their politicians nor their policies, they just don’t want to be governed by fucking crazies.
Most Dems do like their representatives and their policies and that’s why those representatives win primaries
Unfortunately progress is making and eating gradually less shitty sandwiches until all of humanity individually decide we don’t like the taste of shit.
“Oh no no no, you misunderstand, we’re the party of WORKING the lower CLASSES to death, gotta read that fine print”. - Lionel Hutz, GOP Supreme Court Justice Candidate
For anyone that wants to really know exactly what the conservatives plan to do against the American people, read their ”Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership."
At least read the Forward, but here’s the whole PDF:
https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
The rhetoric just in the Forward is frightening, disgusting, and dangerous.
We MUST vote for the Democrats if we’re going to maintain any semblance of real freedom for everyone and not just conservative white people.
I’m not American, but reading the Foreword was just plain scary to me since it comes from a major party. There’s nothing about economics and all about moral outrage. You guys need to diversify your parties somehow.
Yeah, by voting 3rd party. But the vast majority are too stupid to realize that they need to be apart of the change they seek instead of voting for the “lesser evil”.
Bruh. I’m so fuckin sick of this 2 party bullshit.
“We Must vote for the Democratic party”
How about no. Fuck the Democratic & Republican party.
I’m sick of the two party system also but also recognize that’s the system in place. Requires voting reform for that to ever change, which I support. I’m still going vote for democrats in the meantime because anything else, to include third party or abstaining, is ultimately supporting the republicans whether one wants to admit it or not.
If enough people, 5% of the population, voted 3rd party in one election, it gives the 3rd party the ability to get on the ballot in every state. This goes a long way.
Neither side wants ranked choice voting. Neither side is going to give up power.
We have to vote something different to change the 2 party system. Not going to change itself.
I’m sick of voting which seems to go nowhere.
How about we all just do something instead.
Exactly!
So what’s your plan to stop the US from turning into Gilead? Wear lots of black clothes and whine about it?
I can’t speak for the previous commenter, but I know that not voting for either party is my plan. Everyone that votes out of fear of “the bad one getting elected” is part of the problem. How about something you can vote for instead of something you’re voting against?
Thanks for enabling fascists because you can’t be bothered to do the bare minimum.
No, the people enabling fascists are the ones voting for them. I don’t take that notion of enabling fascists to heart at all in this context, not sorry either. For the record, when the Democrat party undermines citizens almost as badly as Republicans, it occurs to me that they’re not my party anymore. Thinking railworker strike, trade deals, erosion of support for US jobs, and lacking the spine to push through socialized medicine. I’m also thinking about how Bernie should have won the nomination instead of Hillary but the undemocratic superdelegates supported her against the will of the popular vote anyway, with the literal explanation of the superdelegates being that they are there to stop undesired grassroots efforts from being successful…and here you’re pretending they’re somehow not fascist themselves?
Dream on, we need the two parties thrown out, and to quit bickering amongst citizens and unite against the true enemy - billionaires who want us to vote the way we have been.
Dream on, we need the two parties thrown out
I’m sure you’ll get right on that, right?
Every time I vote, and have done so for the past 6 years. Sucks that all the other sheep don’t wake up.
Democrats almost got rid of abortion entirely.
both parties can fuck off.
deleted by creator
The fuck are you talking about?
Thaaaank you. Looking at you getting downvoted cause idiots don’t understand we can do something better than this two party bullshit.
But you’re supposed to pick a side and be willing to literally lay down your life for them and their cause! Ra ra, go team go. Otherwise you’re just part of the problem according to either side.
I agree with you and I’ll go a step further and say fuck all politicians in general. Today, they’re all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power. They’ll all tell you what you want to hear. They’re all experts in half truths. Never trust a politician.
Politicians are owned by their constituents, who they overwhelmingly vote in alignment with.
The whole “politicians are owned” thing just doesn’t show up in any data whatsoever.
I’m curious as to how being a politician is even a job? Do they get salary? If so, from what? How do they pay their mortgages?
Politicians are almost all paid (some things like city council aren’t necessarily paid). Many politicians have “day jobs” they only leave once they reach a level of office where they can live off the pay.
Speaking very broadly, the cutoff is generally “state rep or higher” or “in a big city” where you can lean on politician as your main source of income.
I like how “day job” is in quotes. That makes it seem even sketchier than I originally thought lol
what kind of “day jobs” are we talking about here? Are they in an office?
And yeah, how do they have time to be a politician if they have that day job going?
I’ve worked with local politicians in office settings, as salespeople (trained a city councilwoman as a saleswoman once), etc. They also sometimes own businesses (a bit of selection bias there because that “plays” really well to the electorate).
Most political jobs that aren’t state/federal arent very demanding of time. School board, local government, etc, is generally unpaid/low pay and very much part time. If you can carve a couple nights a week, you can work in local gov.
Take one look at who the biggest lobbyists in the US are. Then compare that to the most glaring issues we have in the US. I’ll wait.
Here’s a link of the top US lobbies, and I’ll go ahead and spoil that it isn’t what you’d think - for instance, no energy lobby makes the list.
Also, you’d think actual votes would be more along lobbyist lines than constituent lines but they are not.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
NAR for instance would absolutely love zoning changes that create more homes to sell. That’s a lobby we should listen to.
But again, we don’t, because getting re-elected is always of paramount importance.
You’re joking right? https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/
From your own source. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/02/oil-and-gas-industry-spent-124-4-million-on-federal-lobbying-amid-record-profits-in-2022/#:~:text=The oil and gas industry,slightly when adjusted for inflation.
And for you last point about NAR, I have doubts. I could see home builders and home buyers benefitting from zoning changes. It would drive down costs of a new home, open up more choices for home buyers, and put construction companies to work. Realtors are middle men who work off commissions. The more they can sell a house for the more commission they make. Realtors have a vested interest keeping the market balanced in their favor.
Realtors with more property to sell make more than realtors with less property to sell. Do you know actual realtors? The vast majority are not selling a few multi-million houses and calling it a year.
Look at what they lobby for: https://www.nar.realtor/advocacy/federal-advocacy/all-federal-issues
A recent NAR study estimates that the U.S. has developed an “underbuilding gap” of at least 5.5 million housing units over the last 20 years. This translates into more than $4 trillion in underinvestment in housing. Even relatively modest steps taken now to reduce this gap will unleash tremendous economic activity and create millions of new jobs.
Multi-family housing proposals are a core plank of their program, for instance - and yet politicians don’t listen to them because their constituents don’t want them to
I’m not sure what you think you’re arguing when you call me out my link then share data that agrees with my link.
Your preconceived notions are incorrect, and lying about data doesn’t make it correct
(Side note, I found it hilarious that the “Forward” felt like it was 1000 pages down. And reading that much BS made me feel gross.)
Ok so, the Project 2025 thing is terrifying. Their Forward is terrifying. They have no plan for making this country better for anyone except themselves. They state very clearly they want to delete anything they don’t like.
They want to ban books and open discussions.
They want to deny racism exists or ever existed.
They want to deny that biology exists outside of their narrow minded beliefs.
They want to force a single religion on everyone.
They cite problems and point the finger at everyone except themselves.
As if it wasn’t abundantly clear at this point based on their ACTIONS what Republican rule will be… And yet we still have millions of people fully invested in that cult of hate and fear.
You forgot unions outside of ones held for public servants. It’s no coincidence the strongest unions and best worker protections are for judges, police and firefighters.
The fun part is that the democrats are neither
You either vote for the Bad Party, vote for the Very Bad Party, or organize a coup to overthrow the government and install a political class which frees the US from the two-party system and maybe implements ranked choice voting too.
The third option seems kinda hard, so what you gonna do?
Third option. The easiest path is usually not the best
Last time that worked in a first-world country was over 200 years ago. And I’m pretty sure Louis XVI didn’t have 30% of the population hailing him as a god and putting his face on shirts.
You can organize and pull up a movement but I heavily doubt you’ll manage one big enough in the next 14 months, so what you gonna do at the election? Stay home and let Very Bad Party win, possibly strengthening the power of state military and making a revolution even harder?
First of all, I’d be eating popcorn on a couch while your country plunges into chaos, just like I’m already seeing your country tearing itself apart and rotting. Second, what does Louis XVI have to do with I suppose Trump? Why do you have to bring that two-parties bs? Do you get brainwashed as kids to swear allegiance to the two-party system?
Not my country either. Not very enthusiastic at seeing what is probably the least bad superpower in the world narrowing the gap with the others though.
I’ll spell it out for you: the French Revolution worked because pretty much the entire country was dead set on overthrowing the government. Current US is very different, you’ll never get all the population to band together because a large chunk of people actually like who’s in power (or has the potential to be). You (or rather, an American that thinks like you) have next to zero chance of changing the system with a coup, the best bet is still to keep voting the least bad candidate hoping that maybe one day someone actually good will show up.
Or maybe vote whatever third party you can to stop supporting this human centipede of a political system
Which will be a 100% useless vote unless a ridiculously huge amount of people suddenly decide to do the same, because of gerrymandering and other shitty practices that ensure the two-party system stays in place. The third place at last election would’ve needed 40x the votes to get elected. It’s basically just giving a vote to the opponent of whoever you would’ve voted, unfortunately.
I absolutely support voting smaller parties in parliamentary systems where even getting 5% actually amounts to something, but in the US system it’s just counterproductive.
That third option sounds like 4 steps forward, three steps back
Overthrow the government in order to… change just one thing about how the government works??
How about we overthrow the government, gut the whole thing and rebuild it with the proletariat in charge, and let it wither away once class is abolished
Changing the way future governments are elected is the most important thing. That way people can actually vote for what they like and not for what they dislike less.
Then once that’s in place stuff will definitely get better unless the whole country is stupid and reelects people who bring back the old system.
Not to mention, “the proletariat in charge” is a very utopic system and no country ever managed to successfully put it in place. The proletariat in charge of actually deciding who’s in charge is already more feasible.
You call revolution utopic. To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing anything but sliding back to where it started.
And yes, countries have successfully put it in place. The US sadly didn’t allow them to continue existing.
It baffles me that you don’t feel patronised when you’re told you have so much choice, when all you get to do is pick between two pre-chosen representatives of the ruling class. To choose which dick fucks you, but no choice in whether you’re fucked.
You call revolution utopic. To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing anything but sliding back to where it started.
…you don’t know what utopic means, do you?Nvm I can’t readAnd yes, countries have successfully put it in place. The US sadly didn’t allow them to continue existing.
Give me one example of a country that actually did that then. I’m curious.
It baffles me that you don’t feel patronised when you’re told you have so much choice, when all you get to do is pick between two pre-chosen representatives of the ruling class. To choose which dick fucks you, but no choice in whether you’re fucked.
…I’m literally saying that’s bad. Breaking the two-party system and implementing RCV is LITERALLY aimed at obtaining actual democracy instead of the farce we call so. But we don’t necessarily need communism to do that.
…you don’t know what utopic means, do you?
I can’t even imagine the depths of arrogance necessary to say this. You’re so convinced you’re right, so dogmatic in your belief that reformism is a realistic strategy, that your first response to a person doubting its possibility is to question their vocabulary. It’s almost funny.
Give me one example of a country that actually did that then. I’m curious.
The Chinese revolution achieved proletarian rule through the Mass Line.
…I’m literally saying that’s bad. Breaking the two-party system and implementing RCV is LITERALLY aimed at obtaining actual democracy instead of the farce we call so.
It’s aimed at it, but it will be woefully ineffective. Don’t get me wrong, if it’s proposed, I’d back it. I’m for the idea, not against it. But if you think the bourgeois state will allow a genuinely radical party into the system, you’re living in a dreamland.
But we don’t necessarily need communism to do that.
I’m not necessarily talking about communism.
I can’t even imagine the depths of arrogance necessary to say this. You’re so convinced you’re right, so dogmatic in your belief that reformism is a realistic strategy, that your first response to a person doubting its possibility is to question their vocabulary. It’s almost funny.
Ok, I’m very sorry. I somehow read the comment as “To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing something, but sliding back to where it started” and that was clearly someone that didn’t know “utopic” means something that would be good if achievable. I’ve argued with a lot of people with vocabulary issues so I erroneously assumed the worst, my mistake.
The Chinese revolution achieved proletarian rule through the Mass Line.
That’s still not the Proletariat in charge. That’s one single person in power, which may or may not accept suggestions from the Proletariat filtered through his cadres who are all trained to follow his ideals. If the entire population decided Mao had to die, he still wouldn’t have killed himself. That’s not what “being in charge” means.
It’s aimed at it, but it will be woefully ineffective. Don’t get me wrong, if it’s proposed, I’d back it. I’m for the idea, not against it. But if you think the bourgeois state will allow a genuinely radical party into the system, you’re living in a dreamland.
It can’t be ineffective at bringing democracy. In that utopic hypothesis that a coup in the US actually happens and the new government is all on board with making RCV work, there’s nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.
But let’s not forget that this was all a gigantic what-if to explain what would have to happen to actually have an option that’s better than “vote for Least Bad Party”, I don’t think it’s feasible either.
I guess it could be done as soon as pigs fly
Wake up to the boot on your neck. That’s what’s whispering to you that change can’t happen.
Stop proselytizing me into your political religion, tankie
Mate I’m no tankie. Swing and a miss. I’m not proselytising, and I have no religion. It’s just sad to see people simply accept that things can’t change. Such a defeatist mindset.
You have no self-proclaimed religion because it would take your religion’s place, and that won’t be allowed
Didn’t the Democrats just get free pre k in Colorado? You NEVER see Republicans wanting to do this. I am sure Republicans right now are trying to stop this free schooling for kids that helps working class people.
Stop voting for Republicans. They are Un-American and not for our democracy.
First, I’m not American and thus have an outside perspective of how shitty your politics are
Second, since when is having an opposition party against democracy? After all, you can only have one. If you removed the only opposition party you have you’d get the opposite of a democracy
You NEVER see Republicans wanting to do this.
Oklahoma, Florida, and Alabama not only already have it but the enrollment of students is higher than Colorado’s.
Fuck Republicans but your statement is inaccurate.
removed by mod
Where is the meme though?
There isn’t one. A subset of Lemmy users have decided to go down the Reddit path where anything and everything MUST be politically related. Ideally it would be 24x7x365 coverage of “Republicans Evil” and nothing else.
I actually don’t mind that. Life is inherently political, and Republicans truly do suck. I’m more upset that something is labeled a meme when it’s not a meme at all.
no no no he has it all wrong. It’s the party of the WORKING class. E.g. they are going to put you all TO WORK.
Keeping the wealth with the wealthy means you get to work for them. They’re in charge don’t you see? We’re just their worker bees. There’s enough of us that we don’t need healthcare. Education is a luxury for the children of the wealthy elite, NOT the workers. The dumber and more ignorant the worker the less they need to offer them in compensation. If you don’t know better, you don’t ask for more!
It’s all about being the smartest in the room. Why do good things for people when you can just fuck them over and have them sing your praises? This is why they want to teach that slavery taught valuable skills. They want to enslave us, and they are slowly doing that generation after generation with income disparities. Pretty soon we’ll work our whole lives just to subsist and owning a home will be only afforded to the wealthy elite. The rest of us will work for them in the form of rent and they will be our land LORDS.
It’s definitely the party of workers. More workers! Work for your owners!
So I felt like I had helped pushing debt relief forward in the US, hope that is okay with you folks here.
And I would agree with the image. But can I be risky and question some things? I can delete my post if people don’t like it.
But, Ok regarding tax increases on wealthy and corporations: won’t they just find loopholes? Heck wasn’t the tax rate raised to like 80% for the wealthy as one point in the US?
I would prefer if culture steps away from tax the rich to either simplify tax rules or remove loopholes, which I would think both sides of voters in the US would be happy for? (Assuming both sides hate the current tax system)
Or assuming politicians are in in the loopholes too, making the tax easier or the loopholes more complicated that labor wise it would be better to just pay taxes?
How do you think loopholes creep into the tax laws? It’s done by politicians who accept bribes from lobbyists who work for the mega corporations and the ultra wealthy. Yes those kind of politicians are in both camps. But one side is full of them and the other is slightly less full of them. Vote for better politicians and show up to every election even the local ones. That’s how you can put a “radical” into power who might want to do something about the current system. And those “radicals” aren’t a member of the Republican Party.
✊agreed
Sorry… why do you think people on the left wouldn’t be in favor of removing tax loopholes for rich people?
Oh another Q I had was the student debt relief.
Isn’t student debt relief just a short term fix? Yes debt relief is something I would vote for, but Like that money has to go somewhere right? Wouldn’t it be better to lower the cost of the out of control education or health care first to make it easier to provide more affordable universal care in the future?
Unless other country with universal care charge $20 for a cough drop at the distributor level for hospitals, then disregard my statement 😄
Yes, forgiving student loans can realistically only be a one time fix, but:
— most of these are for a previously existing forgiveness program that was managed so poorly no one could qualify
— halting payments as part of COViD relief while continuing to accrue interest means that some people are getting hit with ballooning payments after year of none
But of course the real problem is how to get college education costs back under control. They have been going up much faster than inflation for decades, making a good education much harder to afford than for the rich devious generation
— a big part of this is reduced state spending on education, so public school costs go up as fast as private. States need to start investing more in public universities again. Top tier private schools will always command any price but most private schools would need to compete if public universities were affordable
— some states are starting to offer some amount of college free
Why not give people student debt relief and make college free and have universal healthcare? It’s not like you have to pick one.
How much are you willing to give up of your own pay cheque to fund that?
I’m more than willing to pay more in taxes as it will be offset by not paying my expensive monthly health insurance premium. Even bureaucrats would be better than insurance “for profit” flunkies in deciding what health decisions I’m allowed to make.
I am just going to guess no one will make that happen for another 150 years, but it’s a nice dream isn’t it.
But my rationality is if you start with a long term plan for universal health and education, debt relief would follow suit.
I am just confused why debt relief is headlined and no long term solutions, as if the culture wants to hide long term solutions.
The culture doesn’t want to hide from it, politicians do.
Neat. Thanks! I wonder what it would take to get constituents to pester politicians more about this. Anything I can do to help would be neat!
Debt relief can literally change lives right now. Long term changes are important, but the positive impact on actual current living situations is huge.
Because current measures only make rich people flee elsewhere, which moves the tax burden to the middle class, which becomes poorer due to this and other factors, and then we have a few rich guys living elsewhere and a poor mass
Flee where exactly? If this were national, they’d have to flee the country. And good riddance to them and their hoarding. They improve nothing.
If all the leeches on society fled we’d be much better off. Let them leave. They don’t pay their fair share anyways, and their neoliberal lobbying has destroyed this country.
Exactly.
Tax havens. Ever heard of the Caymans, the Bahamas and so on?
You mean the things they already use and wouldn’t be able to if they lived in the U.S. and the loopholes were closed? What about them?
So you want to suppress freedom of movement?
What? No, I want people to pay taxes in the country they live in. What on Earth are you talking about?
Have you ever LIVED in one of those tax havens? Because I have, and trust me, rich folks ain’t up and moving to a tiny wild west country controlled by black people anytime soon. Especially when they can get the exact same tax havens benefits in Delaware, Wyoming, Nevada…
Stop falling for the propaganda that the Caribbean is causing problems for us. They’re not. Our tax code created the incentives. We’re the problem.
Ireland maybe?
You’re wrong. Accept it. The idea that the rich will flee if we tax them is propaganda perpetuated by the rich to keep us from trying.
There’s actually proof that the rich won’t flee at all. This is a myth.
Yes, they as people don’t move elsewhere, but their companies sure do, and that affects tax collection
Sorry I didn’t intend to bring sides into this, I am referring to the super rich and poor. Not left or right. Is that okay?
I think both voters on both sides would be in favor of removing tax loopholes. But I imagine the wealthy on both sides would be hesitant?
Assuming if you are super rich that takes priority over political parties. Would the Military Industrial Complex be a similar example?
The wealthy are only on one side- their own. The aren’t left or right, they’re just greedy hoarders. Their ideology goes as far as their wallet. They give to politics to get their way and they give to charities to get tax write-offs.
This goes along with some of the scholarship that talks about class morality. The moral calculus of one social class is essentially alien to other social classes. The upper class sees morality as a tool of controlling the masses and of limited personal utility, but middle class and working class have different concepts of morality as well (e.g., perceptions of theft vary dramtically, if I recall correctly). This is a concept I encountered ages ago in an anthropology course, but I can’t for the life of me give you a citation.
Okay good I felt like I was alone in that respect. Sometimes I feel like causing two partiess to fight is what the richest want so they can get away with anything sometimes lol.
But I’m sure that’s not true, and if it is I would be sad people have been tricked into choosing sides and being brainwashed to hate for the gain of others who couldn’t care.
It’s unfortunate that our entire culture has been boiled down to a few wedge issues by people with no interest in bettering the common persons life. Your stance on Gods/Guns/Gays pretty much determines how you’ll vote at this point.
I think he problem is that the wealthy are lobbying for laws to keep their loopholes or make new ones. Unless we can find a way to keep lawmakers from accepting bribes, the lower class will always be at a disadvantage even if we do vote for better taxing of the rich.
Edit to tldr: one of the richest men in the world “ paid a total tax rate of 17.7%, the average tax rate for people in his office was 32.9%.”
— No one is advocating for the old days with 90% tax on the wealthy. We all know that won’t work
— we have a progressive tax, meaning wealthier pay a higher rate, which is good. However many “tweaks” have eroded that so it’s no longer as true. Most people just want to undo those tweaks
— There are multiple tax brackets so you pay a higher percentage as you earn more. I do earn more than average so I pay more, fair. But I’m far from wealthy, so why am I in the highest tax bracket? Why do the Elon Musks of the world pay the same rate on income as my upper middle income?
— our income taxes are more complex than people realize, but many tax cuts of the last few Republican administrations have been for sources of income that mostly benefit the wealthy. Why is my salary income taxed at such a high rate compared to Elon Musk’s capital gains income?
— why do I pay taxes on all my income while a well known real estate grifter can incorporate hundreds of times and play shell games with his money, and claim to be both a billionaire with huge income AND writing off all that income as a business loss to avoid taxed
— but this fiasco really tells the story. How is it that when even one of the wealthiest thinks it’s unfair, we keep doing it? https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/
Interesting stuff to look into, thanks!
There are no loopholes. That’s something they want you to believe.
The tax code is written in a specific way and that’s not a loophole.
Mistakes happen but most of the “loopholes” are there by design.
So the next question is what can be done, like today, where can I go who should should I contact other than my usual reps?
Contact any rep who will listen but that number is about zero.
That’s the issue with two party system.
Our tax system is overly complex. They should just send you a bill or credit like most European systems.
I like to think my support in third parties on the rise in 200 years has helped then 😄
Yeah I’d line to see six or more parties. The problem two is they just claim to be against the other.
I’m a republican but their current policies are just being against the democrats.
You need counter forces to get things done. We’ve been in a stalemate for a long time now with each side blaming the other.
Democrats have a majority and you don’t see all the grand things they’ve been promising because they are full of crap.
Same for the republicans.
If we had six parties. They’d really get judged on what they accomplish.
The party I am registered as primarily focuses on spreading word on Ranked Choice, only because there’s no other way to compete.
I’ll admit I’ve always rejected the idea but I think I’m rejecting it because I don’t understand it. I think I need to read more about it and maybe support it.
I think it may be our best solution since we are stuck in two party limbo.
Yes we do have other parties on occasion but not enough to stir the pot.
I’m an old school republican and the new party just blows. If we have enough mix of parties, I’d with to the one that aligns better with my values.
Lmfao I’m pretty sure liberals also hate the working class, watch them talk about rural people for 5 seconds. The utter disdain for rural working class people is a real thing.
They care about the working clases that votes for them lol. Give imigrants the right to vote so they can vote for me as I give them “free” stuff
There are rural Democrats. You know that, right? It’s not a monolith.
This guy, lol
I didn’t mention political affiliation at all.
You didn’t have to.
Yeah because we all know you’re talking about those liberal Republicans.
They’re all liberals, by definition.
Rural people are the foundation of this country and need the most support for they often are over looked. Probably because they vote for people that don’t have their well beings in mind.
You seem to be implying that the only “real” working class people are rural. Do all the working class folks that live in the burbs and cities not count?
That’s not what I meant to imply at all, but generally there are more blue collars than white out in the sticks. Do you think that’s inaccurate?
I would argue that used to be the case. My parents own a “farm” in Indiana, and most of their neighbors were indeed farmers and farmhands when I was growing up 30 years ago. I’ve visited the farm recently, and was shocked by the gentrification that has happened. None of their neighbors are worth less than $1,000,000 these days. All the old neighbors are gone. The population density didn’t increase, but the prices did, and the price of gas makes it impossible for low paid blue collar workers to live that far out of town. They wouldn’t be able to get groceries.
That may even still be the case west of the Mississippi River, but back east property has gotten so expensive that even the rural areas are turning into havens exclusively for the rich/ wealthy
Rural people as in the people who consistently vote for and cheer for all the vile shit Republicans want to force on us? Gosh, why would we have anything against those people?
deleted by creator
Liberals and progressives are frustrated with many rural conservatives. Changes we advocate not only help us, our neighbors, the less-advantaged, but would even more benefit rurals. Why are you voting against your best interests, and for the blowhard who more blatantly lies, and wants to “take” more from you in favor of the wealthy? Why would you vote for those vowing to disrupt and destroy many of the programs you rely on? Why do you keep voting for the country to step backwards when you’re the first one getting stepped on?
No, they hate rural people in general.
Most of the programs the progressive want do not benefit the rural. They want things such as free college, which means the rural people working trades would be paying for the degrees of the people in the cities.
Very few progressive ideas would benefit the rural areas. That is why you see a backlash from the rural areas. It is a conflict of cultures.
Very few progressive ideas would benefit the rural areas.
Rural electrification. Farm subsidies. Rural mail delivery. Wind farms. And Texas is currently seeing what happens to rural hospitals and clinics when rural areas decide they don’t want anyone’s tax dollars to subsidize healthcare.
None of those are progressive ideas.
Rural areas have electric. Farm subsides predate progressives by a hundred or more years.
Mail is required by law to delivered to rural areas.
Rural areas don’t want wind farms. That’s urban areas that want wind farms.
Rural areas have electric.
And I bet you think they always have. Thank progressives every time you turn on the lights.
Farm subsides predate progressives by a hundred or more years.
In the US? Just how young do you think progressive policy is?
Rural areas don’t want wind farms.
Then why do farmers keep leasing out land to wind companies? Could it have something to do with the fact that it’s a reliable revenue stream that uses a fraction of the land and you can still farm there?
Also, you ignored something:
And Texas is currently seeing what happens to rural hospitals and clinics when rural areas decide they don’t want anyone’s tax dollars to subsidize healthcare.
deleted by creator
Democrats are not liberals 👀
The only reason I dislike them is because they actively vote against their best interests for the people who are fucking this country and planet into the ground. I just don’t understand them… As people, they’re fine. Voters, not so much.
Most people on the left aren’t willing to talk openly and honestly about why we lost and continue to lose so much of the working class.
The answer is almost always something to the effect that it’s because they’re stupid brainwashed rubes, which is highly counterproductive.
The truth is that the elites and elite institutions in this country have utterly failed the working class in every way. The right uses this to stoke class and regional resentment while steadily pushing exploitative policies, while much of the left takes only half measures and views much of what’s important to the working class with basically open contempt.
One of the above tactics has been far more effective than the other.
It never was 🌎 👩🚀🔫👩🚀
It’s just do much more obvious now. The only real values holding this shell of a “party” together are fear and hatred. Emotions >> platforms/issues in modern politics. It’s pathetic, and this complete death grip on a two party system will ultimately kill American democracy.
I’d argue that right up until the three way brawl that was Taft V Roosevelt V Wilson, the Republicans were very much the party of the people. Roosevelt split the party, and all the lefties left the party, mostly to become Communists. Then the 1950s and 1960s happened and the Republicans leap frogged over the moderate right wing Democrats to leap head long into right wing extremism.
Admittedly that was only the first 50 or so years that the party existed.
I’m not American, so I curious why they have only two parties?
Their election system (basically winner-takes-all) pretty much guarantees that it will converge in a two-party system with roughly 50/50 share and people voting for “the lesser evil” rather than their favourite. If a third challenger appears, it will split the voter base of the more close candidate and guarantee a huge victory for the farther candidate (the opposite of what the challenger stands for). So essentially it’s doomed to be a bipartisan circlejerk unless the election system itself is changed.
Correct. Also worth saying that because it was designed by rich white male British colonists over 200 years ago who deliberately made it almost impossible to change, our system is hopelessly outdated and very difficult to upgrade. This is especially true when there are certain demographics that get a ton of over representation through the existing system.
Ranked choice voting seems to be the solution
However, both parties are against it because neither want to give up power
Some states have switched over to ranked choice for some if not all of their elections. Alaska is a big one - nearly every election on the ballot is ranked choice.
Maine also allows it for their presidential elections. Originally, it would have been used for their gubernatorial, state legislature, House, and Senate elections, but the state Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional since the state constitution required a plurality to win.
Nevada is also likely to approve it for their primaries.
Many other states use it to some degree at the local level. Unfortunately, we’re unlikely to see much progress nationwide without a major shift in politics.
There are more parties than two, they just aren’t very popular
That’s a common fallacy. There’s really just one party with 2 factions that pretend fight but really fight when any other party tries to pop in.
Republican party agains “free” (whatever that means) stuff.
Have you tried using a dictionary? Most people know what it means so it seems your education has failed you most spectacularly.
Have you tried being less deliberately obtuse?
deleted by creator
Oh no! How will you ever
survivekeep your foot on the necks of those less fortunate than you?deleted by creator
They don’t understand how paying for things works.
They also don’t understand how incompetent the government actually is.
They think that if you fund the government more, they won’t have any worry again. Just give the government more money and all your problems will be solved.
They also think ‘someone else’ will fund the government, and not them. They’re living in a fantasy land
What they don’t understand is that this ends with everyone being broke and the government still being absolutely incompetent meaning everyone is now even worse off than they were before.
The money needs to stay in the peoples pockets and the governments reach into your life needs to stay as minimal as possible. Trust the people, not the government.
Fund the people, not the government.
Give us our money back and leave us alone
I’ll never understand the sentiment of “our government sucks, so get rid of it”, you’re literally playing directly into the conservatives hands.
Vote better people in to fix the fucking thing
The government is incompetent. Vote for me and I’ll prove it!
-every conservative ever elected
You’ve had 12 years of Democrat leadership with 4 years of Republican squished in there. Are things better now?
Of course not.
Things seemed pretty good with republicans in office to everyone. Now that the democrats are backed, everything’s quickly gone to shit again
Who the fuck thought things felt good when Trump was in office? When did we actually have a Democrat run government? Even right now GOP has thrown a wrench in everything. Who is it everytime the debt ceiling needs to be raised threatens to shut down the government? Even when Biden had the senate and house CONSERVATIVES stopped the Dems agenda. No, no, no, you don’t get to be obstructionists then say, “well why didn’t democrats stop us from shitting on Americans?”
Get out, you fucking disgrace.
When did we actually have a Democrat run government?
The first two years of Obama is when Democrats controlled both houses and the white house. It’s the only reason we were able to get Obamacare and even then the Republican’s obstruction prevented a public option. Republicans even shut down the government trying to avoid paying for it.
Things absolutely did not seem pretty good with republicans in charge
Remember when they got together and rewrote the tax code to help corporations? Remember when they pulled us out of the green new deal? Remember when buddied up to North Korea and Saudia Arabia? Remember when they told us to drink bleach and shove a light up our ass to stop the spread of covid? Remember when they handed out government loans to companies with zero regulation then forgave them? Remember when they put another sexual predator on the Supreme Court? Remember when one broke into the house of the minority leader and attacked her husband with a hammer? Remember when they marched with torches on Charlotte? Remember when they attacked the capital?
The list goes on.
deleted by creator
Are things better now?
Yes they are actually. We’re out of the pointless war Bush started. Unemployment is at the lowest it’s been in decades. Obamacare is a first step toward socialized medicine. Infrastructure is finally getting properly funded and fixed. The largest road blocks have been that 4 years squished in the middle that saw tax cuts on the rich and the republicans in the Senate refusing to raise taxes on the rich.
deleted by creator
-
Right, our current metrics for prosperity in armerica are absolute shit. Economy, unemployment, and stock market mean nothing to the majority of Americans which are living pay check to pay check with 50 years of stagnation in wage increases.
-
The poorest of Americans got fucked when the affordable care act got rolled out because red states REFUSED aid! All by design to undermine the policy.
-
Democrats keep putting forward legislation to help infrastructure and the GOP keeps hiding behind a God damn self imposed culture war.
-
You don’t understand how fiat currency works.
removed by mod
The government never does anything for you. Vote for me and I’ll make sure it does even less!
I actually need the government to ‘help’ me less.
Much much less please. Just let me take care of myself and my family and stay the fuck out of my pockets and my life.
None of us are an “Army of One”, none of us can do it all alone. We need each other. We’re stronger together, than apart.
And part of that means we tithe to each other for common cause, to “lift all boats”.
And we should definitely have intellectually honest conversations to decide what is needed to ‘lift all boats’.
But if one side is just trying to constantly throw wrenchs into the machinery to prevent having to tithe to the common good, then the center will not hold.
I’d rather pay taxes and get healthcare, education, roads, safety nets, social security, armies, research, etc. This can happen. Other countries do it.
Republicans are the ones that say government doesn’t work…and when they are elected they work hard to make sure this is true.
Biden tried to give the working class student loan forgiveness. Republicans stopped it. He is trying again to make this happen for the working class. And I’m sure Republicans are trying to stop it.
But you are paying taxes and not getting those things.
I don’t even know how student loan forgiveness would even work, won’t other generations also have student debt? What about people who already paid for their schooling? Will they get a rebate? Will my kids get their student loans paid for too?
It’s such a ridiculous policy, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Can I get mortgage forgiveness?
We’re paying taxes and could be getting more of these things if republicans didn’t try so hard to stop them
Other countries do it.
And the U.S. is subsidizing their defense. So of course they have money to spend on these things.
No, free means it’s for the wealthy, only
Yeap, exactly
Free means you get taxed for it and then denied due to means testing.
The Republican Party is against:
N
U
U
T
T
S
