stopdropandprole

joined 9 months ago
[โ€“] [email protected] 37 points 2 days ago (3 children)

same reason people say "unalive" and "fuggen" and "child ๐ŸŒฝ".... the Internet has become a place for self censoring idiot babies afraid of being algorithmically demonitized/banned

corporate monopolies of all popular platforms has kneecapped actual free speech by training entire generations to be afraid of violating terms of service, I guess

[โ€“] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

this.

and also, "tHiNk oF tHe cHilDrEn!!"

[โ€“] [email protected] 50 points 3 days ago (1 children)

i don't want billionaires to live on this planet anymore:/

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

yeah! with penalty fees and interest! and make him do it every year, again and again, forever. we could have it be due before April 15 or smthg.

while we're at it, make all his billionaire pals pay too!

it's a novel concept I just came up with... I'm calling it "taxes". doubt it will ever catch on though, at least not in America.

[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

if i was make a video game or fictional novel about this sort of thing, I'd also add:

  • leave phone at home
  • cameras can read license plates automatically now
  • establish an alibi in advance
  • purchase supplies with cash (don't use an ATM close to where you buy the supplies)
  • wear unremarkable clothes (pick something up at a thrift store)
  • wear nitrile gloves
  • destroy clothes/gloves immediately afterwards (burning eliminates dna)
  • have an escape plan and a backup plan
  • memorize maps and bus routes in advance (no phone)
  • if leaving on foot, pass through areas with no cameras such as wilderness or spillways but which you can explain your presence (eg, looking for a lost pet)
  • don't brag about shit to anyone

oh yeah, memorize phone numbers for a lawyer and or close friend who you can call if you're picked up on suspicion and detained.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

During the 2008 political primary season, it sought to run three television advertisements to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie, a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

I was being a little tongue in cheek about Hillary's role, mostly speaking to the fact that her desire to seek power endlessly and run for president against Obama in '08, is what led to the creation of the eponymous film which was the basis for Citizens United filing a suit in court. it might have happened anyway, eventually, but it's not widely appreciated how much harm she and the DNC have done to our political culture, including losing to Trump so spectacularly in '16.

every significant Democrat has said they're opposed to Citizens United... none of them have actually done anything to accomplish overturning it. actions speak louder than words. same with Roe v Wade, they had decades to codify it and failed.

my whole point is not about what they oppose or support, it's that they're ineffectual in either direction. they routinely fail at shaking up the system and manipulating the courts in favor of the 99% of Americans who they claim to support. meanwhile the GOP runs roughshod over jurisprudence and the courts and civil liberties. Dems are still better than GOP by miles and miles, but nowhere near adequate as an opposition political party.

[โ€“] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

precisely. the distribution of wealth is a more important indicator of economic health than simply looking at the national debt or total tax revenues. imo we need to increase taxes on the ultra rich, not because we need to reduce the deficit but because taxes prevent the obscene accumulation of wealth (and the resulting regulatory capture epitomized by modern American oligarchy).

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Congress dropped the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% and gained more tax revenue when it was set to 70%.

anyone have a source for this claim of increased revenue? if so, was it just a temporary effect with longer term structural implications? besides, wouldn't the solution to evasion have been increased enforcement? taxes aren't just about revenue, they're a redistributive force in the economy and arguably their main purpose isn't to fund the government but to prevent the obscene accumulation of wealth and reduce inequality.

your argument falls flat upon historical analysis. if high tax rates were bad, and lowering them 'fixed it' then explain all the massive social benefits from 1940-1980:

Taxing the ultra rich is how America funded higher education, built the highway system, funded social welfare, uplifted 2 generations, built a global manufacturing and technology economy, and created a prosperous middle class. this all happened before Reagan and coincide with top marginal rates between 50-95 percent.

inequality has skyrocketed since Reagan and the policies which dismantled new dealism. I hate the Democrats who helped facilitate the rise in inequality and the gutting of social welfare programs (Clinton especially) but to claim that reducing the top marginal rates was an unequivocal good thing is a pretty extreme narrowly focused claim. those who say so based on a loosely held 'I've done the math' argument are merely using a rhetorical gotchya - it's not a sufficient socioeconomic historically supportable argument. if it was, show me all the benefits that increased tax revenue provided from 1990-present. I'll wait.

low tax rates are precisely how we got to people like Trump, Musk, Buffet, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Thiel and the incredible rise in number of hundred millionaires and billionaires who are now destroying our social safety nets even more so they can flatter their egos and act out middle aged divorced guy power fantasies.

inequality is why people can't afford things and is presently the single biggest problem of our society. taxes do make a difference in combatting that. Regean had a role in creating this system, whether you like it or not.

the power to tax is the power to destroy. we build prosperity by keeping oligarchs in check.

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

John McCain and Hillary Clinton (yes, her) are more responsible for the bill that hand delivered gave us Citizens United to the supreme court than anyone in the DNC (which doesn't draft legislation, they mostly just~~take bribes~~ fundraise for pro-corporate/pro-Israel lobbies and suppress progressives and independents.)

they're responsible for crafting immensely unpopular platform after platform, such as killing single payer healthcare, enabling a half senile Biden campaign, sabotaged the progressives and Bernie (twice), and gave us fucktards Schumer and Pelosi who are among the most ineffectual hated politicians in America.

please stop trolling this "vote for DNC to defeat fascism" nonsense. THEY HAD 8 YEARS TO PREPARE A TACTICAL RESPONSE TO TRUMPISM AND YET HERE WE ARE.

[โ€“] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

once these assholes are dead by whatever means necessary, we can solve the whole Social Security problem (and many others) by restoring top marginal rates to the levels that built a strong safety net and prevented runaway wealth accumulation in the 1%

during WWII the wealthiest paid between 80-95%. from the New Deal until Reagan destroyed the country in the 80s, top rates were well above 50 percent.

Taxing the ultra rich is how America funded higher education, built the highway system, funded social welfare, uplifted 2 generations, built a global manufacturing and technology economy, and created a prosperous middle class. we did it by keeping oligarchs in check. in a strictly enforced progressively tiered system, top marginal tax prevents the obscene accumulation of wealth

[โ€“] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

it's all about how the regulations are designed... for the benefit of corporations? or regular people?

for example, there could easily be rules placing caps on the amount of advertising that's allowed on any given platform. no fucking way now the government will ever put that cat back in the bag now that the 20 percent of GDP comes from tech monopolies fueled by advertisements.

view more: next โ€บ