Ana Kasparian (TYT) leaves the Democratic Party; UPDATE: Ana now works for PBD on rightwing view type show, It's over

[MAKAVELI25]

Increase the tax burden on the wealthy, reduced taxes on the middle class and the lower class. I would go as far as do a radical estate tax where you could only pass a few million to descendants and the rest would go back to the state.

Reform capital gains taxation for the uber wealthy.

Increased tax breaks for corporations hiring employees so that that the dichotomy of mass hirings increases stock prices versus investors rewarding layoffs.

Increased investments in small businesses, universal health care access, free community college and if you do well, a four year and graduate schooling would also be subsidized based on GPA.

Increased subsidies for starter homes builders, increased funding and artificially low rates for first time home buyers.


I’m no economist but those are my spitballing ideas.

My ideal world would be where a family can be supported by one income, can still own a house and a car while someone else could still become uber rich through hard work or ingenuity but once you die it’s “game over” and most of your assets go back to the state for the betterment of society

I think these are all good ideas, but they are also arguably socialist (universal healthchare and free community college is right out of the AOC/Bernie playbook). I don't think there is a way to structurally address wealth inequality without doing it in a socialist way.

 

[wire28]

You continue to prove the point. Most of the people you’re arguing with are more educated or successful than you based on your posting history. The most educated capitalist nations in the world having further left economic policy than the US. So what did you “grow” up and learn? How to parrot right wing economic talking points? You think you have it all figured out and you don’t actually know much at all. What a waste.

Ahh the old I got more money and more bytches then you argument. Let’s try to keep things respectful in here

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Ahh the old I got more money and more bytches then you argument. Let’s try to keep things respectful in here

Yeah, @No1 that was unnecessary, breh.

 

[wire28]

Increase the tax burden on the wealthy, reduced taxes on the middle class and the lower class. I would go as far as do a radical estate tax where you could only pass a few million to descendants and the rest would go back to the state.

Reform capital gains taxation for the uber wealthy.

Increased tax breaks for corporations hiring employees so that that the dichotomy of mass hirings increases stock prices versus investors rewarding layoffs.

Increased investments in small businesses, universal health care access, free community college and if you do well, a four year and graduate schooling would also be subsidized based on GPA.

Increased subsidies for starter homes builders, increased funding and artificially low rates for first time home buyers.


I’m no economist but those are my spitballing ideas.

My ideal world would be where a family can be supported by one income, can still own a house and a car while someone else could still become uber rich through hard work or ingenuity but once you die it’s “game over” and most of your assets go back to the state for the betterment of society

Is this the part where I agree with your overall premise but because we are on a message board I argue with you and call you out your name for the next 6 hours?

 

[Outlaw]

I think these are all good ideas, but they are also arguably socialist (universal healthchare and free community college is right out of the AOC/Bernie playbook). I don't think there is a way to structurally address wealth inequality without doing it in a socialist way.

My understanding of socialism is the seizure of the means of production from private to public/collective ownership and I’m against that idea.

I’m for capitalism but I’m for a responsible form of capitalism that is anti corruption, monopoly and there’s a clear path for upward mobility.

I think there are certain things that should be guaranteed by the state, education and healthcare are two things that fall under that category IMO

 

[MAKAVELI25]

My understanding of socialism is the seizure of the means of production from private to public/collective ownership and I’m against that idea.

I’m for capitalism but I’m for a responsible form of capitalism that is anti corruption, monopoly and there’s a clear path to upward mobility.

I think there are certain things that should be guaranteed by the state, education and healthcare are two things that fall under that category IMO

I'm not an expert, but seizing the means of production sounds more like communism than socialism. I would say Trump taking ownership of US companies is actually more communist than anything Bernie has ever suggested.

But the policies you were suggesting sounded like they could come right out of the AOC 2028 platform..

 

[wire28]

I think these are all good ideas, but they are also arguably socialist (universal healthchare and free community college is right out of the AOC/Bernie playbook). I don't think there is a way to structurally address wealth inequality without doing it in a socialist way.

Funny how 90% of the arguments are amongst people who actually agree with each other on 90% of things

 

[wire28]

My understanding of socialism is the seizure of the means of production from private to public/collective ownership and I’m against that idea.

I’m for capitalism but I’m for a responsible form of capitalism that is anti corruption, monopoly and there’s a clear path for upward mobility.

I think there are certain things that should be guaranteed by the state, education and healthcare are two things that fall under that category IMO

Could I have a brief moment of your time brother

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) -

Working towards a better future for all.

www.dsausa.org

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Funny how 90% of the arguments are amongst people who actually agree with each other on 90% of things

Which is why I don't like the centrist/progressive battles that go on on here. Some posters are genuinely idiots/self-serving and they need to be called out on it.

But I have no idea why the moderates nd the more progressive posters have so much vitriol towards one another. I'm no saint and I've been guilty of this behavior myself, but it doesn't make sense. We're all part of the same coalition.

 

[Outlaw]

I'm not an expert, but seizing the means of production sounds more like communism than socialism. I would say Trump taking ownership of US companies is actually more communist than anything Bernie has ever suggested.

But the policies you were suggesting sounded like they could come right out of the AOC 2028 platform..

Which is why I don't like the centrist/progressive battles that go on on here. Some posters are genuinely idiots/self-serving and they need to be called out on it.

But I have no idea why the moderates nd the more progressive posters have so much vitriol towards one another. I'm no saint and I've been guilty of this behavior myself, but it doesn't make sense. We're all part of the same coalition.

I agree. I wouldn’t consider myself a centrist, I would consider myself center left but I’m willing to moderate my positions or who I support to win elections because ultimately that’s what matters most.

That type of political strategy is where the fracture between thecoli “Blue MAGA” and “progressives” lies.

Aspirationally I want America to become a more social democratic country with more social programs while still having a robust capitalistic economic engine but I know for that to happen Republicans as currently constructed cannot win elections on a consistent basis.

Progressives want to focus their ire for the most part on Democrats but IMO Republicans are the true foil to any type of progress.

Withholding votes like what happened with Gaza recesses us as a society, and that type of purity testing while failing to see the forest from the trees has soured me from the progressive ideology rhetorically and why I don’t identify as them.

I would label myself as a pragmatist.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

I agree. I wouldn’t consider myself a centrist, I would consider myself center left but I’m willing to moderate my positions or who I support to win elections because ultimately that’s what matters most.

That type of political strategy is where the fracture between thecoli “Blue MAGA” and “progressives” lies.

Aspirationally I want America to become a more social democratic country with more social programs while still having a robust capitalistic economic engine but I know for that to happen Republicans as currently constructed cannot win elections on a consistent basis.

Progressives want to focus their ire for the most part on Democrats but IMO Republicans are the true foil to any type of progress.

Withholding votes like what happened with Gaza recesses us as a society, and that type of purity testing while failing to see the forest from the trees has soured me from the progressive ideology rhetorically and why I don’t identify as them.

I would label myself as a pragmatist.

I agree with most of what you’re saying, but I think a political party should stand for more than just winning elections. I know you and I see the trans issue differently, but I still want Democrats to remain a party that defends populations who are underserved, unprivileged, and discriminated against. I don’t want to support a party that is willing to abandon any vulnerable group for electoral gain.

 

[Outlaw]

I agree with most of what you’re saying, but I think a political party should stand for more than just winning elections. I know you and I see the trans issue differently, but I still want Democrats to remain a party that defends populations who are underserved, unprivileged, and discriminated against. I don’t want to support a party that is willing to abandon any vulnerable group for electoral gain.

I agree. Democrats should be a strong party that stands up for the “weak” but the Dems need to have power to wield the power of defending the marginalized groups.

I’m not anti-trans, my personal philosophy is that you should be able to do what you want with your life as long as you don’t do harm to others.

However I would defend the rights of Cis women before allowing trans women to encroach on their rights. Philosophically negative freedom is a thing. If you allow trans women to complete with cis women in high level sports then you’re harming cis women’s ability to compete and win on an even playing field.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

I agree. Democrats should be a strong party that stands up for the “weak” but the Dems need to have power to wield the power of defending the marginalized groups.

I’m not anti-trans, my personal philosophy is that you should be able to do what you want with your life as long as you don’t do harm to others.

However I would defend the rights of Cis women before allowing trans women to encroach on their rights. Philosophically negative freedom is a thing. If you allow trans women to complete with cis women in high level sports then you’re harming cis women’s ability to compete and win on an even playing field.

I think that’s a reasonable stance, and I understand why some posters take issue when I draw parallels between trans rights and the civil rights movement.

But I hope people are able to see the bigger picture:

1. Republicans focus on the sports issue because it polls well for them. But if you actually listen to what they say, it’s not just about sports. The broader goal is to push trans people out of public life. That’s why they target public bathroom access—if you can’t safely or legally use a bathroom, you’re effectively prevented from going out in public at all.
2. The same people who are aggressively anti-trans are also driving the anti-DEI agenda. A note to the unserious poster who keeps linking to Christopher Rufo: it’s the same movement, the same playbook, the same goals.

 

[Loose]

I agree with most of what you’re saying, but I think a political party should stand for more than just winning elections. I know you and I see the trans issue differently, but I still want Democrats to remain a party that defends populations who are underserved, unprivileged, and discriminated against. I don’t want to support a party that is willing to abandon any vulnerable group for electoral gain.

It's the nap/ Chris cuomo style politics , which is the problem that I have with many of blue maga here. It's " deciding to win" PAC style politics, it doesn't matter if what it takes to overwhelmingly win compromises your entire national parties image as long as you win. If something doesn't poll well doesn't go with the popularism mindset, that thing has to be cut out of the messaging.


I have much more issues with that then the capitalism moderate versus progressive nonsense etc


They call capitulation politics pragmatism

 

[88m3]

I’m not familiar with the geography of NYC, is this similar to what you were referring? @88m3 I ironically stumbled upon this fukking around on IG

I wasn't aware of some of these! Good stuff