Eat the Rich

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 53857
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Eat the Rich

Unread post by Vrede too »

I Raised Millions for Democrats. At the DNC, I Realized They're the Party of the Rich | Opinion

In my 30s, after years of heavy involvement in Dem Party politics, I came to many of the same conclusions the writer has. Both parties are beholden to the fat cats and corporate interests, even more so since Citizens United.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 22163
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Eat the Rich

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2024 11:55 pm
I Raised Millions for Democrats. At the DNC, I Realized They're the Party of the Rich | Opinion

In my 30s, after years of heavy involvement in Dem Party politics, I came to many of the same conclusions the writer has. Both parties are beholden to the fat cats and corporate interests, even more so since Citizens United.
I would suggest the author consider that one or the other of two - two - political parties are going to govern. That's it. Wishing for something else won't make it true. Wishing for a party of working people who miraculously come up with enough money to win elections ainagonna make it happen. So she can consider what the Dems have done that she considers positive and consider what repugs do in office. Then she can vote for the Dems, clay feet and all, or vote for the repugs. Or drop out entirely, which is a vote for the repugs.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 53857
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Eat the Rich

Unread post by Vrede too »

O Really wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2024 12:16 am
I would suggest the author consider that one or the other of two - two - political parties are going to govern. That's it. Wishing for something else won't make it true. Wishing for a party of working people who miraculously come up with enough money to win elections ainagonna make it happen. So she can consider what the Dems have done that she considers positive and consider what repugs do in office. Then she can vote for the Dems, clay feet and all, or vote for the repugs. Or drop out entirely, which is a vote for the repugs.
She doesn't say how she will vote. I suspect that she is still repulsed by the RepuQs. Rather, it sounds like she will no longer devote her life to the Dem Party. I wasn't as hardcore as her, but I reached the same conclusion. I made the conscious decision to focus on the issues I care about, instead. Maybe she'll work with a union or otherwise for economic justice. For me it's often meant working with and sometimes for Dems, but being a Party hack was just too much of a compromise of my values.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 22163
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Eat the Rich

Unread post by O Really »

Just curious, without the support of the "elite rich" party members, which I suppose technically includes me, and refusing legal PAC contributions, how many elections does the author think the "People" are going to win?

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 53857
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Eat the Rich

Unread post by Vrede too »

O Really wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2024 1:50 pm
Just curious, without the support of the "elite rich" party members, which I suppose technically includes me, and refusing legal PAC contributions, how many elections does the author think the "People" are going to win?
Does she say that she doesn't want "the support of the 'elite rich' party members"? Where?

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 22163
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Eat the Rich

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede too wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2024 4:55 pm
O Really wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2024 1:50 pm
Just curious, without the support of the "elite rich" party members, which I suppose technically includes me, and refusing legal PAC contributions, how many elections does the author think the "People" are going to win?
Does she say that she doesn't want "the support of the 'elite rich' party members"? Where?
Probably not. Maybe she just want them to give money and then shut up.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 53857
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Eat the Rich

Unread post by Vrede too »

O Really wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:24 pm
Vrede too wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2024 4:55 pm
O Really wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2024 1:50 pm
Just curious, without the support of the "elite rich" party members, which I suppose technically includes me, and refusing legal PAC contributions, how many elections does the author think the "People" are going to win?
Does she say that she doesn't want "the support of the 'elite rich' party members"? Where?
Probably not. Maybe she just want them to give money and then shut up.
Works for me ;)

I read it more as being about what to add - an affirmative action (my words) for the working class - rather than what to subtract. Why is it that young Black men are proving to be the toughest Blacks for Kamala to sway? Maybe they're not seeing the benefits of Dem rule and some lean to an agent of chaos like Dolt .45.



User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 53857
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Eat the Rich

Unread post by Vrede too »

America's top 10% controls 60% of the wealth. The bottom half holds 6%.

The top 10% of wealthy Americans now control 60% of the nation’s wealth, while the poorer half of the country holds only 6%, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office....

The report found wealth inequality on the rise, even when you factor in Social Security:

* The top 10% of Americans held 60% of all wealth in 2022, up from 56% in 1989.
* The top 1% held 27% of all wealth in 2022, up from 23% in 1989.
* Families in the bottom half held only 6% of wealth in both 1989 and 2022.

The analysis “is stating the obvious, that wealth in the United States is concentrated, and getting more so,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “This has been in the makings, really, for two generations, maybe three. And the trendlines are disconcerting.”
:cry: :puke-left:
... Most Americans believe there is too much economic inequality in America, according to a 2020 report from Pew Research. More than half of Americans also believe rich people and corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes....

Whitehouse, the senator who requested the report, is using the findings to argue for higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, echoing the Harris platform.

In 2017, then-President Trump signed legislation that lowered taxes across all income groups, with wealthier taxpayers benefiting the most, according to the nonprofit PolitiFact. Those cuts are set to expire at the end of 2025.

"Our corrupted tax code has helped enable a few ultra-rich individuals to capture for themselves more than a quarter of our nation’s wealth, undermining the American middle class and hollowing out local communities," Whitehouse said.

Trump has said he will extend the cuts if voters reelect him. Harris has pledged to extend most of the cuts, but to raise tax rates on the very wealthiest Americans, and on wealthy corporations.

Some economists have urged both parties to consider even steeper taxes. In one recent analysis, researchers found that the government could raise $1.8 trillion over a decade by restoring the higher tax rates of 1997.

“It would raise trillions and bring the tax code back to an era of fiscal responsibility and strong economic growth,” said Zidar, who joined in the research.
:happy-cheerleaderkid:
(Kyle) Pomerleau, at the American Enterprise Institute, concurs that taxing the wealthy could raise funds and shore up Social Security – to a point....
:wtf: Who is he and what has he done with the old AEI?

Post Reply