We Found That Elusive Socialist Fox News Has Been Warning Us About
By: Klaus Marre (WhoWhatWhy)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Klaus Marre06/29/25
Republicans have spent decades trying to scare Americans into believing that socialism is just around the corner. Under Donald Trump, parts of it are now here.
For nearly a century, Republicans have characterized everything and everyone they don't like as "socialist." Social Security? Socialism! Medicare? Socialism! Health insurance for all? Socialism! Joe Biden's infrastructure bill? Socialism! Bernie, AOC, and now Mamdani? Socialists!
"Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years," President Harry Truman said all the way back in 1952. "Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people."
In recent years, with the help of their media allies, Republicans have revived that bogeyman once more and conditioned their supporters to believe that the threat of "socialism" is everywhere.
Of course, that only works because their gullible voters/audiences don't understand what socialism is, and, more importantly, what it is not.
Socialism is a utopian economic and political system in which the people own all property and resources. The few times it has been tried, it hasn't worked as advertised because humans are greedy (ironically, this is also why unrestrained capitalism doesn't work).
For example, in the Soviet Union, in Cuba, and, more recently, in North Korea and Venezuela, a one-party political system and complete state control of the economy have resulted in chaos, poverty, and repressive governments.
Socialist leaders, who really are just one type of authoritarian, want to nationalize businesses, suppress an independent media, control all institutions, dictate which ideologies can be taught, and plan the economy in a way that leads to rationing and shortages of goods.
In other words, actual socialism is indeed something to be worried about, which is why, contrary to the claims of all of those talking heads on Fox News, nobody in his right mind in the US is advocating for it.
So it's instructive to consider just what socialism is not: It is not socialism to want people to be able to afford housing, to have health insurance, to put food on their tables, and to get an education without going into crippling debt.
That's just sensible and compassionate governing.
Now, you might say: "But wait a minute, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City, are calling themselves Democratic Socialists. What's up with that?"
Yes, that is correct. However, Democratic Socialists are nothing like actual socialists in the way Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels envisioned them.
Instead, they want a democratic society with a healthier market economy that leads to a more equitable distribution of wealth.
There are quite a few models of those in Europe. For example, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, and Germany come to mind. These are places where "medical debt" is unheard of, students can go to college for free, workers have considerably more power, and people are generally happier than in the US.
And, because less wealth is accumulated at the very top, a greater number of people live comfortably. Conversely, in the US, there are more really rich people, but the poverty rate is also higher, millions of people lack health insurance, and the social safety net has gaping holes. If the US adopted similar policies and started properly taxing the rich, there would be more opportunities and economic safety for tens of millions of Americans.
Speaking of Americans, when they get a say in the matter, e.g., via referendums, they generally support "socialist" policies like Medicaid expansion, which is why Republicans are working so hard to deny them opportunities for direct democracy.
There is, however, one politician in the US today who is acting like the kind of socialist that Fox News keeps warning us about.
Is it Sanders? Or AOC? Or maybe Mamdani?
Not even close.
It's Donald Trump.
Since taking office in January, he has done and said things that look and sound familiar to those who have studied failed socialist states.
For example, Trump is trying to dismantle or undermine institutions that are not ideologically aligned with him. These range from courts and government agencies to law firms and media organizations.
He and his allies are also scrubbing government websites to eliminate unwanted narratives.
In addition, he is using the power of the state to pressure universities into doing his bidding.
Now, you might say that those are just the actions of any authoritarian, and that is certainly correct. As we noted before, that label certainly fits the leaders of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela.
However, Trump is also embracing some of the economic ideals of these countries. He has repeatedly told Americans that they may have to make sacrifices as a result of his policies, for example that little girls might just have to make do with fewer dolls.
Furthermore, Trump is also using the power of the state to pressure private enterprises. Earlier this year, he cautioned retail giant Walmart not to pass on the cost of his arbitrary tariff policy to consumers. More recently, he warned oil producers to "KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN," when his military strike on Iran threatened to increase the cost.
Another example is that Trump has personally prevented the government from enforcing the ban of the social media site TikTok, which allows the Chinese company to continue operating in the US.
Speaking of China (another authoritarian regime with roots in socialism), perhaps the most egregious example of Trump's embracing state control of a business took place in the same week as the executive order related to TikTok.
In order to sign off on Nippon Steel's acquisition of US Steel, which the president approved two weeks ago, the Japanese company issued something called "a golden share."
Essentially, the holder of such a golden share gets a special ownership stake in a business that allows him to veto certain corporate decisions. These golden shares are very common in China, where they allow the government to maintain a great degree of control over companies that are supposedly private enterprises… like TikTok.
This is obviously not in line with America's private enterprise model, which is why Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — not otherwise known as a red-eyed radical — had some things to say about golden shares in January.
"If a company has a 'golden share structure' it means that one of the shareholders is Xi Jinping, the head of the Chinese Communist Party. He owns you and makes all the decisions," Graham stated back then, before vowing that he would introduce legislation "that prevents any company that has a 'Chinese golden share' from being listed on any American exchange and further, remove any existing company that has a golden share structure from any American exchange."
The craziest part is that Nippon Steel did not issue its golden share to the US government, but rather to Trump personally (for as long as he is president), according to documents it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
What this boils down to is that Trump now has personal control over the decisions of a public company.
Imagine what would happen over at Fox News if a Democrat would do any of these things.
But, of course, this isn't about what is actually a socialist policy. Rather, it's about scaring voters into believing that an ideology they themselves believe in is dangerous — an ideology that calls for a fairer distribution of wealth between a country's richer and poorer people, and providing, among other benefits, a stronger social safety net. It is the kind of policy that might be found in a country run by, say, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Tags
Who is online
237 visitors
Yes it is.
Goebbels...
Mamdani Declares: Billionaires Have No Right to Exist
That is not what he said...
Well, here's the quote:
Honest quotes have never mattered to most MAGA.
Twisting reality to suit their fascism is what the far right has always done best.
Polling shows Trump’s legislation – which he has dubbed the “Big, Beautiful Bill” – has a big problem with public opinion, and that is looming over the debate as the Senate’s version of the legislation approaches the finish line.
Fewer than 30% of voters support the bill in three recent polls by Pew , Quinnipiac and the Washington Post-Ipsos .
Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' has a big public opinion problem
Um, yeah. Still the same old socialism we hate but with a twist. Rather than the state owning and managing production, which never goes well, we let the business owners run it, since they are more capable. Then all the state has to do is redistribute the profits as they see fit, since they get to decide what's "equitable".
Have things been equitable with billionaires, wall street manipulators, and corporate ceo's deciding what is equitable? What is equitable about a ceo making 500 times what a worker does?
A couple of problems with your questions here. First, I don't actually care about those things. That is, I don't see them as the problems that you do. There's always going to be those who have more and those who have less and there's nothing you can do to change that without death and oppression that won't change anything anyway. It will only change who has more than the other guy. History has shown this time and again since recorded history but the Left can't seem to learn the lesson.
Second, I cast no blame on the billionaires for being billionaires. I may question what they do with their billions but not for them having it. I think the real problem is the politicians. It was a deliberate, bipartisan effort towards globalization by our own politicians that caused the offshoring of American businesses. Now, not only are there few good jobs for average people because of it, we're ridiculously, even criminally dependent on others for critical supply chain requirements.
I don't spend one single second being concerned with how rich Bezos, Musk, Soros or any of the others are compared to myself. I am far more concerned as to why we keep electing the clowns we do, on both sides of the isle, since they demonstratably do not have our best interests at heart and, in fact, are a wholly owned subsidiary of global business concerns. Trump might be an exception but his narcissism keeps holding him back, in my opinion. His tariffs could be more effective than they have been if our freaking government would combine it with policies that would make reshoring businesses back to the US (or foreign investors as well) more inviting and doable, but they don't. They don't, in my opinion, because they belong to the global business elite.
And as to how they acquire those billions? Did they innocently buy those politicians you seem to blame everything on? It takes two crooks for that tango dance.
In the manner you're suggesting, of course. No argument there. But I put that down to the nature of the beast. I find the politician far, far more culpable, as they chose to sell themselves.
Taxing the shit out of the very wealthy is no more immoral than not taxing them.
I read that a wealth tax on fortunes over 50 million dollars could pay for free college for every young American.
If that is true I am all for it.
=
13,698 years
that is how long it would take to count Elon Musk's personal fortune, if it was counted one dollar per second, 24 hours a day.
Good Lord. Offering a bribe is ok because the bribee doesnt have to accept it?
Extensive Polls Find Americans Support Taxing the Wealthy
We examined more than 55 national and state polls across six categories of tax reforms: the billionaire tax, wealth tax, raising the top marginal tax rate, millionaire surtax, capital gains taxes, and the estate tax and related dynasty trust reform.
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67 percent) Americans supported the tax including 84 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of Independents, and 51 percent of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of fiveAmericans supported the tax including 78 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and 51 percent of Republicans. State polls on the wealth tax sampled more moderate and conservative voters and show overall high levels of support with slightly less support from Independents and Republicans.
If the majority of Americans support a fairer tax code, why hasn’t policy changed to reflect what the public wants? There is ample evidence that the excessively wealthy wield their outsized influence to shape policy and public perception in order to protect their dynastic wealth and consolidate their power ever more.
We are at a turning point in our nation’s history. Everyday more people are connecting the dots between the road blocks we personally face in achieving the American Dream and the excessive power of the extremely rich. We experience the impact of excessive wealth at the grocery check-out counter, as our kids enroll in higher education, as we get our paychecks, seek housing, and do any number of life’s essential tasks.
The excessively wealthy wield their power to profit in ways that profoundly impact our day-to-day lives, while pinning the blame for hardship on new immigrants, Black and brown people, and American families struggling to make ends meet. The facts and public opinion are clear. Excessive wealth cannot continue to grow unchecked. Our democracy and our future depend on making fundamental change.
Tax reform is the most promising tool we can wield to fix the American economy so it works for everyone. Our report makes clear that raising taxes on the rich is not only necessary – it’s popular! Taxing the wealthy is not a fringe idea, and despite the mantra that major tax reform does not have sufficient support, it is actually well supported by the American public.
A wealth tax is more popular with the American people than the Big Beautiful Bill is, by a mile.
I disagree. It's as moral as my going onto Bezos's property and taking his most expensive car just because I don't have as much as he has. That's what we call "stealing". Just because the government does it doesn't make it any less an act of stealing.
And I read that if I rob a bank and don't get caught, it can pay for everything I want without ever working again. But because I have a conscience, I'm not all for it.
Lose the wealth envy. You'll be happier.
Didn't say that. But, as far as that goes, it is the politicians that have enacted legalized bribery laws, right? On both sides.
Should the 1% determine public policy, or should the 99% ?
Taxation is NOT theft, no matter how high the rate is . Libertarians think the only fair tax rate is zero. In what country has libertarianism ever worked?
Don't care. Just because the majority of a mob decides to take an action doesn't, by being a majority, make that action moral. Just ask Germany, North Korea, Russia and a bunch of other citizens of such countries.
Taxation is not mob action. 70% of Americans think there should be a wealth tax. Something like 35% of Americans like the Big Beautiful Bill.
Don't know how to argue with someone who can make such a statement. Reeks of futility.
In what country has any system of government worked? Every last one of them becomes corrupted. The trick, JR, is to recognize that corruption will always be a part of government, but a good government will learn how to mitigate it, not eliminate it, as eliminating it is impossible. This is because people are not altruistic. We suck in a lot of ways. Leftists think people are basically good and can live good moral lives willingly if they just have the right education. Nope. Rightists recognize that we're fundamentally flawed and the best that we can do is try to manage things accordingly.
Bullshit, when a mob gets together to vote someone in to steal money for them it is a mob action, people who believe in stealing from others because they are too stupid or lazy to end earn it themselves have no integrity or honor.
The Trump administration decimated the white collar crime division of the Justice Dept. That is how your right wing president is "managing" it.
Uhhh. You just said taxation is not a mob action and then went straight into using a statistic indicating 70% of the mob support a wealth tax. You get that, don't you? You're literally saying we should have a wealth tax because most people support it (according to you and whatever your sources say).
Why is it that, when you're losing an argument, you just switch to some unrelated subject, as if that will save it?
LOL
Better than letting tax policy be dictated by the wealthy.
Give me every last bit of your money.
The way you talk people might assume the wealthy in the US don’t already pay a disportionately high percentage of Federal Income Tax in relation to their percentage of AGI.
And they would be wrong and you know it.
What a strange idea. Who told you life is equitable?
What's equitable about Taylor Swift making 500 times what her roadies make?
During the course of your life, you could have done any number of things. You could have learned to invest in stocks like Warren Buffet. You could have learned to develop real estate like Donald Bren. You could have learned to invest in oil and gas like Harold Hamm, or the pipelines that carry those things like Kelcey Warren. You could have learned how to run a business and then started your own, like tens of millions of other people.
Any one of those things could have made you a multimillionaire. About 15 million of your fellow Americans took one of those paths.
You had roughly the same opportunities to make your fortune as most people do. That's far more "equitable" than the vast majority of people in the rest of the world will ever experience.
Are these the same people who told you Michael Blomberg's campaign budget was enough to give every American $1,000,000?
Why would it be one or the other?
No, it's not theft. But taxation for the sake of your bitter feelings is unjust. And stupid.
I'm not going to answer such disingenuous silly comments. Have fun talking to yourself.
Your argument , to do that word great disservice, is to say that anyone who didnt "succeed" to the level of earning a high income is a failure in some way and thus deserves to be taken advantage of by the rich. That was also the position taken by the wealthy during trumps favorite era The Gilded Age, when it was known as social darwinism.
No, that's your definition and your projection, which explains a huge amount of your irrational objection to other people having money.
That is incorrect. Perhaps you are confusing modern-day Libertarianism with the concept of anarcho-capitalism. Libertarians seek to minimize the role of government in the freedom/liberty of an individual, yet not eliminate it completely. A limited government approach very much touted among our countries' founders including Thomas Jefferson. Most of our founders would be astounded and dismayed to see what a behemoth our Federal Government has become today.
Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, suggest we eliminate government entirely arguing that the state is inherently coercive and an infringement upon individual liberty. They hold that individual rights are paramount in a free society, also not much different from what our founders believed after witnessing the atrocities under other forms of government not centered on individual rights/liberty. A good overview of libertarianism vs. anarcho-capitalism can be found in economist/historian Murray Rothbard's book "For a New Liberty - A Libertarian Manifesto" or perhaps his book "Ethics of Liberty".
Rothbard's books delve into some past cultures where stateless or minimally governed libertarian and free market societies thrived for considerable periods of time until overrun by outside pressures of more authoritarian states. Some examples include medieval Iceland, the French colony of Acadia in Nova Scotia, and early Celtic Ireland. Worth a read, very interesting points of view particularly if individual rights and liberty are high on one's priority list. His criticisms of the ever growing State are more poignant now than they were when he wrote his book in the early 1970s.
I would guess that the smaller the group is the more likely a "minimally governed libertarian and free market society" would be successful in that form of government. Conversely, the larger a society, the harder it would be as each would be either more or less homogenous in their worldviews, respectively.
Indeed, people will have differing interests and priorities despite the size of the society, and that can certainly work in a society where individual economic and social freedom is paramount and people use their rights responsibly. People in such a society (large or small) need only agree on one thing in common, a desire for individual autonomy and the right to make choices without interference or coercion, as long as those choices do not infringe on the equal rights of others. Liberty and true freedom require effort, responsibility, accountability and respect for the same rights of others. Other than that, the rest of their world views are as free to differ as they desire, to the extent they don't compromise or encroach upon the rights of their neighbors.
Has anyone other than a libertarian said "taxation is theft" ?
Yes - An anarcho-capitalist in the vein of Murray Rothbard, as I have already pointed out. Modern Libertarians will concede that a minimal government might be required to protect individual rights, property rights, and perhaps for national defense (since the rest of the world might not embrace the concept of liberty the same way), hence some reasonable level of taxation might be required to support such functions. Only anarcho-capitalists will insist/maintain that such functions could be provided by private industry or cooperatives without what they see as the coercive influence of the State, and without taxation.
Some highly taxed folks I know (some R, some D, some independent like me) have been known to call some taxes "highway robbery" from time to time as well. Honestly John, it is just something that folks say who in April pay close to 40% of the income in taxes (much more than that if you add up ALL taxes and unsubsidized health care premiums), and then have to listen to folks like you who say they aren't paying enough. They don't really believe that zero taxes is the right amount or that ALL taxes are theft, they're just working hard and trying to provide for their families, just like you and me.
Theres the problem. We live in a welfare state, as all modern capitalist societies are. There HAS to be a strong social safety net, it is not optional, yet you dont even mention it as something taxes should provide.
Seeing as how you are such a staunch defender of lower and middle class Americans where was your outrage at biden and the dem party for allowing in millions of illegals? It’s not the upper class that is hurt most by illegals, it’s the lower and middle classes.
And just how do you think it got that way? We've built bureaucracies, restrictions, regulations, taxes so onerous that more and more folks can't keep up with rising prices of housing, food, fuel, medical care, everything they need to stay ahead in the quagmire we've built around them. We keep taking more taxes and throwing more money at it, but why does it always demand more and with little improvement?
There doesn't HAVE to be a mega bureaucracy that largely caused the need in the first place, and then is ushered in as the only entity that can administer the "solution". Churches and non-profit organizations in inner cities at one time administered much of the safety nets in our communities (food, clothing, education, medical care). That is until the government stepped in and started to make demands and those folks said fuck it, you do it then. Safety nets can be provided in many ways, they don't have to all come from the State where forced contributions (taxes - and don't balk at that, it is what it is) filter down to the needy in the most inefficient and easily politically manipulated manner. Some of it works, don't get me wrong, but a lot of it is corrupt and inefficient IMHO.
Private charity would be utterly totally and completely incapable of meeting the need.
bing co-pilot
🏛️ What the Welfare State Does
Modern welfare states provide systematic, large-scale support including:
Unemployment insurance
Healthcare subsidies
Social Security and pensions
Housing assistance
Food aid (e.g., SNAP)
This infrastructure is universal, legally mandated, and funded through taxation. It’s designed to be predictable, comprehensive, and (ideally) non-discriminatory.
💸 Could Private Charity Cover That?
In theory: Private charity could step in—especially for localized, immediate needs. Throughout history, religious organizations and philanthropists have played huge roles in education, hospitals, and food aid.
In practice: There are major limitations:
Given the chance, they're going to skip right over this.
But it's the absolute heart of the issue.
It is very difficult to get a good read on anything to do with taxes, especially if you drill down through the data to find out on a more granular level the differences that exist. I know there are quite a few splash dash graphics out there that purport to explain how much each portion of the public pays in taxes but what about the underlying data that they are based on?
I went down a rabbit hole (as I am want to do) to find out.
I will spare you the details, but I ended up :
Which led me to this table:
Please notice a peculiarity about this table: The information contained within the table is estimated "based on samples", so the whole first column of data is interpolated.
Sorry, I saw a shiny thing and just had to tell someone!
And now I will get down to the real reason I am commenting. If you look at this graph from
You will notice that the Debt as %GDP is as high as it was in the post WWII era. Call me silly, but shouldn't we look at adopting a similar tax strategy?
I refuse to call you silly my friend, but as you can see from your FRED graph, the sharp rises in debt as a % of GDP occurred during the WWII war effort, the recession of 2008-2010, and during the Covid shutdowns. Each were eras of huge government expenditure with little production for domestic purposes going on. The recovery after each was not due to high marginal tax rates, it was due to people getting back to work rebuilding the domestic economy, both increasing the GDP while also increasing tax revenue at the same time. The primary contributors to the recovery of the debt as a percentage of GDP after WWII were strong economic growth, budget surpluses resulting from fiscal discipline (not spending more than revenue collected) and low interest rates.
According to your first table the top 50% of taxpayers today pay 97.04% of the Federal income tax revenue, meaning the other 50% pay the remaining 3%. Throw in State income taxes and those numbers trend toward the bottom 50% paying little to no income tax at all while also collecting other government services. That disparity has been becoming more and more progressive over the years, while the total tax revenue has continued to lag far behind government spending (the year over year deficit of course the primary contributor to the debt). How long do you figure that trend can be sustained? The more progressive the tax revenue collection has become, the worse the Debt as a percentage of GDP gets, especially when the economy slumps, and the slower it is to recover.
Not so fast. We had a 90% plus top tax bracket that went to 70% ish in the 60's and ended up around 50% in 1980. I am sure that those tax rates contributed a large amount to the fact of the reduced ratio. In the 80's, taxes were cut and the ratio started to move upward again. Ever since GHW Bush, the Republican mantra has been "we will grow our way out of debt while cutting taxes". It has not worked. It takes economic growth and taxes to lower the ratio.
Looking at this Graph of GDP Since 1947
we see that the economic growth has been occurring at a very steady rate.
And this one
shows that the rates falling from 70% to 28% might just have had something to do with the fact that the graph in my first post correlates very well with the rise in US Debt.
Agreed, but tax cuts were not the dominant factor in the rise of debt as a percentage of GDP. What else was happening at that time? Massive increases in defense spending to overwhelm and eventually topple the Soviet Union. Insufficient domestic spending cuts and high interest rates were also a factor as we were coming off the high inflation of the 70's and dealing with the increased social program spending associated with the recession of the early 80's. Even the global economic issues of that time had a significant impact.
Rising costs of Social Security and also the expanding Medicare system that started in the late 60's and early 70's, were also a big factor in the early 80's
Blaming rising debt or debt as a percentage of GDP on tax cuts alone, or even as a primary cause, does not paint an accurate picture by any stretch of the imagination. Spending is always the controlling factor as it is what necessitates additional tax revenue in the first place. The type of spending is irrelevant in the discussion of deficits and debt and that is why both parties have made matters worse in the last few decades.
Again, your FRED chart shows max and min marginal tax rates, not effective or even average tax rates that weren't all that different from today's average tax rates that you so kindly provided in your chart at #3.1.38 . Depending on the source and their method of computation the effective tax rates of the top percentiles in the 50's were perhaps a little bit higher than today, but there are many more of those folks now too.
Generally speaking, I don't mind the idea of closing a few loopholes in the tax code so that the average and effective tax rates of those in higher brackets is bumped up a bit, perhaps even to match the effective rates of the 50's that were MUCH lower than the marginal tax rates shown in your chart. Marginal tax rates mean nothing when it comes to actual revenue collected. Check out THIS article and let me know what you think. I think it summarizes my points on this subject quite well. I tend to agree in principle with their conclusions as follows, but in no way do I think the spending part should be overlooked:
I think that too much time and money is spent on trying to game the system and to avoid taxes. The tax system, as most systems, depends on the good faith of the participants. This gaming of the system I would point to as part and parcel of just why health care costs increased by so much and is to a large degree why the bureaucracy built up.
My takeaway is if you can afford an accountant to tie all of the various strings of your finances into a big, impenetrable knot, then you can pay a decreased amount of taxes and the government be damned. That is not a good faith action.
I do agree with " reduce credits, deductions, exemptions, and exclusions " but it seems that the feckless MAGA Congress has no stomach for this at all.
Have a great 4th!
Perhaps, but make no mistake, many Congresses before, controlled by both parties, are the ones who carved out the credits, deductions, exemptions, exclusions and shelters in the tax code in the first place.
You too my friend!
lol. Socialism will work this time! I swear![✘]
bizarre
If you vote for socialists like Johnson or mamdani, that’s what you want. It’s the ignorant economics with racism on top.
This seems closer to Chicago or Portland than NYC but I guess kooks come from places.
If only everyone would pay their fair share. S/
Here is a question for our left leaning friends here.
Do you think you pay your fair share, and if you do think so, how do you know?
Reason I am asking is because there is probably a left leaner out there with less who probably thinks you don't pay your fair share.
How to you counter this?
Please don't hold your breath waiting for an answer, it could be a very long time...
Right. I’m still waiting to hear what that is.
I tell them to stop whining and get a job.
It is the usual crickets from the left
Right. If some immigrant (legal) can go from poverty in his own country to owning a business within the first couple of years of being here, why can't our people who were already here?
Because they are lazy, entitled, stupid?
It is beyond debate that there are more people who will always be workers than ever bosses or business owners. Should they be exploited because they are not entrepreneurs ?
It is an eternal myth that everyone can become rich, or even well off. The idea of everyone being rich is an oxymoron.
Because some foreigner was let in and took that opportunity from a Citizen who was already here.
Exploited? Is the waitress who works her butt off for tips and has a good attitude exploiting the waitress making much less due a surly attitude and lazy work ethic? Nope. You don’t have to be an entrepreneur to make good money. You just need to be willing to work hard and not have your head up your ass. There are plenty of examples of this such as working a trade. Exploited? For most people that’s just a bunch of socialist hogwash to help the lazy and entitled feel better about their bad decisions or shitty work ethic.
The world needs ditch diggers to John.
Nah, the real oxymoron is an expectation of equal pay for every job.
that citizen had his chance but he blew it
But they are still Citizens and should not be pushed aside by foreigners.
those foreigners are only taking the jobs the citizen won't do
If there are no foreigners to do those jobs, the jobs will have to be made attractive to Citizens (better conditions and pay), automated, changed or just not done because it is not worth it.
Which will raise consumer prices.
Citizens will get jobs which will make the USA a better place. We need to take care of and have jobs and be the land of opportunity for Citizens not outsiders.
Could lower unemployment and welfare costs and make better working conditions and get our prople off their butts
right
Employers are going to be slow to pay living wages to citizens after all these years of paying the immigrants as low as they could.
Where are these jobs? The good paying ones? The good manufacturing jobs left in the 80's
Does not change the fact that consumer prices will increase.
That is how capitalism works. Prices stay low by producing at lower costs. Producing at lower costs means lower costs of resources and that includes human beings.
Would lower unemployment for those willing to work. As time goes on, we will indeed see more people who want to work but are unable to find jobs due to advancements in technology (in particular, AI).
I do not see this getting anyone 'off their butts'. Today we have plenty of jobs in construction and other labor-intensive trades (for example) but too many in the younger generation do not want to do this kind of work. They already have the opportunity to work in meaningful jobs but choose not to take advantage of it.
They took advantage of cheap foreigners, and it eventually became a problem.
got to start with something to get back to better times
If you've got a solution I'm sure the president wants to hear it
He can make me Director of DODGE (Dept of Doing Government Effectually), first I had to figure out how to get another "D" in DOGE name to go with Charger.
I will need a good Deputy Director to keep me from getting too carried away
There is plenty of waste in government. If our worthless politicians really wanted to address this problem properly they would be in it for the long haul and properly fund a non-political program to do this.
The key steps are:
In result, this will take at least a year before results start happening; the program itself would be continuous. It would be heavy (with large returns on investment) during the opening years, but then would scale back into a steady state (less expensive, less intrusive) which will 'renew in place' to keep processes effective.
This kind of professional approach will never happen with our idiot politicians who deal in super-short-term initiatives and only on those that would benefit them politically. But this is the right way to reduce waste and fraud.
You are right, before doing anything some time must be taken to study the problem and make a starting plan.
They want to show something quick but charging like a wild bull in a china shop makes a big mess and makes people mad
You keep making this claim. Who is being exploited, how, and by whom?
Not everyone. Anyone. See the difference?
That's not how that works.
When I shut down my company three years ago the biggest reason was we couldn’t find enough people willing to work the trades. Not even willing to get free training to become a qualified journeyman. A process that takes about four years.
There are plenty of jobs out there but you have to accept hard work and lower pay until you are fully trained and qualified. Two stumbling blocks for many of our younger generation.
Therefore, I scoff at the no jobs assertion. This is a problem nationwide.
If they were not here it would not even be brought up
I agree.
In the meantime we have large group of young white men and women who don't want to work, get married or have kids.
We have a large group of white male employers who only want to hire people who look like them and have the same work ethics.
Which is why we have so many immigrants willing to work hard, party hard but quietly and making as many babies as they can.
Without them we have no future. We have always depended on new immigrants for better and worse.
Of all the nations in South America, one stood on the verge of becoming a first world nation. Then the people were seduced by Socialism.
They never recovered.[ ✘ ]
So who do you say the enemies of the state are?
C'mon. Name some Names.
Everyone opposed to the deep blue state
Yep, include on the list; commies, pinkos, reds ….[✘]
You said:
And then you said:
[✘]
[deleted][✘]
Going to be tough to discuss politics when democrats keep supporting racist politicians whose positions violate the sites terms of service.
I thought AOC & Bernie Sanders were self-proclaimed Socialists. Didn't the DNC deep-six the Sanders campaign twice because they thought a Socialist couldn't win?
You know what I think is happening: The democrat party has become a party of enclaves. They can only win in big cities.
Yep, Bernie Sanders ….. estimated net worth of around 3-5 million.
Socialism for thee but not for me.
Sanders made 2.5 million of that from book sales ... effing capitalist.
appreciate the support.
Still waiting for my cut of that though ….. he can redistribute any old time now.