protect this man at all cost
This is horrible. The worst. *presses the vote for Zohran button harder
If I was in that position, I’d try to be right amap.
You’d think they’d at least try something like:
- Pay for your neighbours’ child care
- Give aways to baby mamas
- $30 minimum wage (4x national minimum)
At this point they probably don’t even need to. America is in full “Nine (gasps) Eleven (cheers)” mode. Why waste the effort to spin the narrative when the Fox logo in the bottom right corner of the screen says it all?
- Pay for immigrant childcare with your tax dollar
- Defunding police and giving money to black teen mothers
- giving free handouts to lefties
It was supposed to be a joke, but just look at them.
Of course, this isn’t Socio-economics, but RACISM against WHITE people!
You assume Fox News viewers actively think about what they’re seeing on the screen rather than emotionally reacting to what the talking heads are telling them to fear.
CNN did enough free advertising for Trump in 2016 to help him win the primary.
Never underestimate the power of “freak factor” news becoming free ads.
Reminds me of an ad (!) German conservatives (CDU) made. I don’t remember all the details, but it showed the politician as he stated something like: What the social democrats want to do would make housing in Berlin affordable again, thus removing real estate from the free market.
These people are in it so deep, they think that the common man would hate that just as much as they do.
Making me want to move to NYC
Stop threatening me with a good time.
No, they are getting fed propaganda that these good policies are evil socialism and are therefore bad.
You’re talking as if fox news viewers can think for themselves.
Fox could really point at a democrat and be like “this fucker thinks it’s his job to govern well, can you believe it? Fuck him, right?!” and at least 40 percent of the viewers would be shaking their heads in angry disgust
Years ago they flashed up some bullet points of the ideas that AOC was talking about. Then quickly took them down when they realized that people would want those.
Shows how tone deaf they are on the regular that they keep making really excellent one slide promos of democratic socialism and think it shows bad things.
More that it shows which side of the class divide they represent. Those things are good for the working class but that intrinsically makes it bad for the owning class. The goal of FOX, and the rest of mainstream media, is to condition people to believe that their personal interests align with that of the owning class instead of the working class.
Either that, or there are people working menial jobs at Fox News who hate it but need the paycheck, and when they’re told to make a graphic they do something like this.
One idea I really want to see percolate into the Zeitgeist? A national wealth cap. We can have a world without billionaires. Though, they did kill the last guy who tried it.
My justification for it is simple. We do not allow people own nuclear weapons. We don’t care how intelligent or moral a person is. We don’t make them take a bunch of classes or earn a difficult-to-obtain license. We simply accept that no individual, however sane and moral, should have access to that level of power. It is simply too great a risk. Yet people like Bezos or Musk have so much wealth that they can, all on their own, cause a level of damage comparable to a nuclear weapon. Hell, those two have built actual privately owned machines with the explosive capability of modest nuclear devices. There is such a thing as a strategically dangerous level of wealth, where the wealth of a single individual makes them a national security risk. No one should have level wealth and power, period. The only way to obtain such power should be through democratic elections.
I would set such a cap at 1000x the median household income. That way it automatically grows with inflation, and it’s a simple enough rule that it can be explained to anyone. Someone with an 8th grade education can understand what such a cap means. 1000x is not only a nice round number, but it also represents a nice break between wealth earned through working and wealth earned through labor arbitrage and hoarding. 1000x the median household income is about $80 million today. If a neurosurgeon or other members of our highest paid, most educationally-demanding fields were to work their entire life, live like a pauper, and invest every penny? They would still struggle to reach that 1000x cap. The only way to reach that level of wealth is to be born rich, to make your business arbitraging the labor of others, or to be a CEO of some sort. It’s the kind of wealth that even the most frugal and well paid of workers would struggle to ever get near.
1000x the median household income. Everything beyond that is taxed at 100%. The ultra wealthy can either pay the tax, spend all their extra dollars, or get really into philanthropy. (Oh, and if you donate funds to a charity that you or your heirs control, that charity’s assets counts towards the 1000x cap.) It really doesn’t matter what they do with the extra money. The goal is to prevent the accumulation of strategically dangerous fortunes.
Tax the billionaires out of existence. And if they flee the country? So be it. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out. And while they can leave, their wealth is largely in ownership of businesses that can’t so easily be moved. The Waltons can leave the country if they want, but they can’t take Walmart with them.
I have been thinking on an absolute wealth cap on income and savings. It should be for both individuals and corporations. The corporations can have their cap increased by hiring employees, based on the wage of the employee. Employees themselves have income ranks, so someone like a CEO is capped at $100,000 a year, while a waitress is at $40,000. UBI for someone who doesn’t work is at $10,000 annually. This forces the economy to control inflation and price goods according to what income levels that companies want to reach. UBI can also supply generic items, shelter, and services, so that money is used solely for luxury items or lifestyle upgrades. This gives workers the ability to strike or protest, since society isn’t holding their wellbeing hostage.
Also, companies can sponsor an income lotto to increase their caps, that gives individuals increased income ranks without having to work. This helps address the workers that are replaced by AI. We need that sort of mechanism for an automated society, else many people will suffer terribly.
You’re suffering from what I might call liberal disease or the wonkish fallacy. If you’re going to propose some policy that would radically transform society, you need to KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. Forget the Everything Bagel Liberalism. Don’t try to solve every social ill with one policy. Don’t try to make it perfect. Don’t add a bunch of provisos and loopholes, even if those loopholes are made with good intentions. People lose track of your goals, and they become understandably suspect that you’re trying to pull a con on them with all this fine print.
That’s why I propose a 1000x median household income cap. It’s simple, clear, and understandable by anyone. If the basic outline of your policy cannot be understood by someone with an 8th grade education, then you are failing at writing policy.
I disagree. It IS simple, especially compared to what we have now as a society. We are so used to traditional capitalism, steeped in it for decades of our entire lives, that rules that depict a different way are strange and foreign. Also, merely raising 1,000x income by cap alone is bad, because it undoubtedly leaves room for exploitation, nor does it address it the snowball effect of capitalism.
We need a means to dictate the everyday wellbeing of people, ensure that they can obtain prosperity, and never have their wealth become a toxic substance. That means rules and engineering.
Anyhow, some slides of what I have in mind.
UNIVERSAL RANKED INCOME
Me: “if your policy isn’t understandable by someone with an 8th grade education, you’re doing it wrong.”
You: “Here’s my slide deck.”
Cool. Let me ask you this: what philosophies and rules did the founding fathers set down in the founding documents for America?
Those are WAY wordier than what I put here, and they worked for a couple of centuries. Brainpower isn’t the issue here, it is the ethical intent and devising rules that naturally lend themselves to be self-enforcing, that matters.
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to embrace this weird caste system you want to create.
Caste systems don’t allow ordinary people to change their lot in life. What I am proposing is that jobs have codified incomes, education PAYS people to learn, citizens guaranteed an income even if they don’t have a job, universal benefits that apply to migrants, everyone pays taxes that increase with their income rank, and that companies pay 100% taxes once their income or wealth expands past a cap based on the people they are employing, that naturalization for citizenship is automatic for migrants.
The only caste I want to create, is that everyone has prosperous agency. That requires the creation of wealth floors and ceilings, ensuring workers can vote for leadership and what income they are owed, and so forth. Mechanisms intended to destroy the ratchet effect of wealth and the influence of a powerful few.
Castes are all about ensuring specific people are strong at the expense of everyone else.
The biggest problem is, according to our current laws, investments aren’t income. Thus musk and besos are likely already under that 1000x number.
You’re confused. I didn’t say maximum income, I said maximum wealth.
“I would set such a cap at 1000X average household income”
I don’t think you understand the difference between income and wealth.
The other option is the billionaires.
YUCK, livable wage!? Phuey, I spit in your general direction
Landlords be licking their lips for $5000 a month rents
It’s already much worse than that in LA due to how many people were displaced due to the fires. Whatever landlords are allowed to get away with in California ripples out to the rest of the country and Canada soon after.
I got news about that… Rent caps and socialized housing is on the platform too.
Dont threaten me with a good time
But the idiots who watch fox news see these as negatives anyway. It’s only “advertising” to people who wouldn’t watch that tripe to begin with.
My parents support the MAGA people, and they watch Fox News. However, I’m pretty sure they’d agree with these. (They might be confused about the minimum wage being so high and think that’s bad though.)
They effectively have adopted my cousin (she isn’t adopted, but they have full custody of her), and my mom at least loves the social benefits they provide — much less than it costs to take care of a person, but useful. They’re told socialism is bad, but when you just talk about the policies they generally like them. A lot of people are just wrongly educated and made to be scared of concepts when the actual ideas are things they agree with.
I can already imagine my maga uncle: “$30 an hour to do what!? Flip burgers!? Fucking kids these days are so lazy, they should be grateful to make $5 an hour!”
This isn’t some masterstroke from Mamdani, it’s just Fox News laundering his ideas through the fascist filter.
This is a classic mistake partisans of all types make. The supporters of our enemies are not a monolith. Sure, most will react negatively but some will like these ideas.
A lot of republicans support the party because they mistakenly think Trump and his allies are fighting against some evil cabal that controls society to make their lives miserable. These policies can help break through that misinformation, if it is shared through avenues that reach people. Fox News, for all its flaws, is one such place.
Geriatrics with multiple pensions screaming about ‘whose gonna pay for it!?!’
“but hOw wiLl wE paY fOR iT?”
Besides the real answer being: return on investment,
I think the better question is how can we live like this?
I think the better question is: why does get 20 mansions while there is still 1 homeless child?
Another good question is: did anyone ask how we’d pay for the bombs dropped on Iran, or given to Israel?
And that’s why Zohran is great. He answers questions like this so well that interviewers stop asking, because they’ll just be teeing him up to explain his platform in simple, easily understood detail
