Democratic Rep Jeff Van Drew meets with Trump to bend the knee.
- Thread starter hanimmal
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I understand freedom is dawning there and legalization might make it worth moving back one day. Ya could eventually be able to openly grow some award winning plants there, they do call it "The Garden State" at least on the licence plates!
Having a grow in Oklahoma might be stressful, not exactly a pot friendly place, people have been put away for life over pot in places like that! The Devil's weed with its roots in Hell kinda stuff...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What have we learned?
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
He voted with Nancy 92% of the time I think I read, it blows.
But to me it looks like the guy was just an opportunist who understood he could get a seat running as a Democrat, and now is going to flip to Republican to ride the Reussian/Trump trolling push that is happening in the very red districts (which is what he is in). So many reasons why he did it, but I am immediately suspect of anyone that knows the intel and jumps to big daddy Trump to save them as being in on the Russian online trolling campaign. Hopefully people will vote him out next year, there are plenty of highly qualified people that can run for the Democrats seat there. OR they can beat him in 2022? when everything is exposed.
Communist Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I think you misunderstand me. I'm an advocate for a progressive tax. The ones who make the least pay almost zero to zero taxes, where as the richest pay the most, all the way to 100%. Because yes, I believe there should be a maximum allowable income, and if you make a penny more, then all that income is taxed at 100%.
But then to keep corporations and billionaires from taxing us in return, there needs to be forms of price controls done properly, with ceilings and floors on all goods and services.
Yes, I think it's very sad New Jersey looks worse than Chernobyl, minus the radiation. The fact we allow corporations and the police to subjugate us into abject poverty, which causes ruin and rampant crime, is beyond reproach. It's disgusting.
doublejj
Well-Known Member
vote republicans out....
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nothing new. Pad, I will explain it very simply for you.
There are a lot of districts in this country that are much more conservative than the more liberal districts in California.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
NJ Democrats did and ended up with one anyway
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
So you would stop people from producing a product that has obvious customers for it that are choosing to purchase because you don't think people should earn money past some arbritrary point? What would that benefit people. We see what happens when you place disincentives like your talking about. And poor folks end up generally paying more in tax percentages than the wealthy (needs to be said because the trolls who will use this as an excuse for racism if not said).
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
with someone voting 90+% with the Democrats instead of a Republican?
Communist Dreamer
Well-Known Member
No one needs $110 billion. That's just plain disgusting, and anyone with that much money is a hoarder doing it for political and power reasons, not for making a product or service people need.
Would you stop working and rather become homeless if you could no longer make $2 million a year? Think about how silly what you said is. There's a point where above $X is just plain greed for no reason. That point may vary for most, but society as a whole could agree where that lies.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I have no concept of what that money would be like having, but what if someone had that and needed it to do something wonderful for the planet, but didn't could not earn enough to do it. That IMO is a worse situation than a handful of super wealthy people living off the fat of the land as others use their wealth to build their own while paying a little of it back to the rich guy for speeding up his ability to build theirs.
No what I am saying is once I made that say $2 million, why would I keep working for the rest of the year, why would I increase production of my business, meaning another company would have to open up and utilize more resources that may be more efficient to just let the other guy make it.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
He serves his district, not San Francisco.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
He doesn't get it. He thinks left wing radicals can control what goes on in Peoria or NJ or wherever.
Communist Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't cap what you make at something stupid like $100k, but at the same time allowing our current free for all system isn't the way either. Maybe if what you're doing is actually so wonderful, then we could have grant systems that pay for the equipment and extra employees you need. But the government owns the excess, and has a person from the government look after and make sure no funny business goes on, like making your own version of TrumpU and claiming it's "for the betterment of humanity!"
That's all I'm saying. I don't disagree with what you say, mostly, but our current social Darwin capitalism way isn't working. Neither is our semi-socialist way working either.
Like my favorite was Bernie going after Bezos for his atrocities against humanity. While he gave them more pay, Bezos retaliated with firings and gave his remaining employees less hours, so what was the point?
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
One of the economic lessons from the Soviet Union was from farmers.
There was a reduction in the field production rates, turned out the farmers had no incentive to do much more than not be yelled at by the government, so the fields would look great on the outer rings near the roads that the 'managers' would drive and the inside was shit. We have better tech to watch people now, but at the end of the day it is the same, people work harder when they have something to gain (or lose) from it. Any ceiling is going to eventually be arbritrary and counter productive.
I disagree with the 'it isn't working bit'. This is a great propaganda trick:
Notice, 50.3% down to 42.2% is being shown here as the Median, or just the very middle number and the area around it (which seems stupid but whatever without have the full dataset it is all smoke and mirrors).
So they use this to say the size has fallen.
50.3% of 205.1 million is 103.1million people, 42.2% of 309.3million is 130.5 million people
So 30 million people have been added to the middle class (according to this measure) since 1970.
This is how this propaganda game is played. Which argument are you trying to make, mangle facts to fit it, write bullshit articles with these stats, and sell it (by having online tools flood every feed you read with it) to you in whatever 'camp' you decide to be in.
I can either say, 30 million people have been added to the middle class since the civil rights movements of the 70's.
or as in the 50 years that those libs took over, the middle class has shrunk by 8%!
Communist Dreamer
Well-Known Member
The extreme of what happened during Soviet Russia isn't what I'm advocating for. I'm calling for a bit more socialist programs like we had with FDR's New Deal, but updated and improved based upon advances in economic, sociology, and psychological theories.One of the economic lessons from the Soviet Union was from farmers.
There was a reduction in the field production rates, turned out the farmers had no incentive to do much more than not be yelled at by the government, so the fields would look great on the outer rings near the roads that the 'managers' would drive and the inside was shit. We have better tech to watch people now, but at the end of the day it is the same, people work harder when they have something to gain (or lose) from it. Any ceiling is going to eventually be arbritrary and counter productive.
I disagree with the 'it isn't working bit'. This is a great propaganda trick:
Notice, 50.3% down to 42.2% is being shown here as the Median, or just the very middle number and the area around it (which seems stupid but whatever without have the full dataset it is all smoke and mirrors).
So they use this to say the size has fallen.
View attachment 4437490
50.3% of 205.1 million is 103.1million people, 42.2% of 309.3million is 130.5 million people
So 30 million people have been added to the middle class (according to this measure) since 1970.
This is how this propaganda game is played. Which argument are you trying to make, mangle facts to fit it, write bullshit articles with these stats, and sell it (by having online tools flood every feed you read with it) to you in whatever 'camp' you decide to be in.
I can either say, 30 million people have been added to the middle class since the civil rights movements of the 70's.
or as in the 50 years that those libs took over, the middle class has shrunk by 8%!
Taking a few billion from Bezos, cutting our defense spending in half, and eliminating or at the very least cutting back on corporate welfare, would go a long way to reaching a compromise of my communist dream.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
There was someone in early America who argued that rich people should not be able to hand down their wealth, I forgot who it was.
I am ok with taking the tax rate up to a significantly higher percentage for a very high annual dollar amount, but never 100%, absolutism doesn't work in reality.
Communist Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Limiting yearly earnings so you don't make $2 billion a year, is hardly absolutism.
There's also a compromise that I think is a good idea, and better than what we currently have.
It's called maximum liquid wealth. Where an individual after earning a maximum amount has to invest the excess to investments that benefit others, not their business ventures directly. But they can only dip into those investments and convert them to liquid wealth, if during any year their liquid wealth is below the maximum allowed.
That would give the person an incentive to become more altruistic by consequence, because they'd want their humanitarian investments to thrive, just in case their personal greedy enterprise happens to fail. So it's still a win for them, and a win for all of humanity.
It also satisfies your complaint that those who want to but can't because of this limitation, which would no longer exist as an excuse, since you're still free to make as you want, but not just for your own personal greed.