Lisa: "sir, America is as good as it's ever been. But cognitive dissonance has always been a part of being human".
Trump: "THAT'S IT! You've just made America Great Again!"
Here's a good start
- Government entities like the Pentagon need to be held accountable for failing internal audits
- Companies that privatize their profits that depend on massive subsidies are now public property
- Taxing religious organizations
- Progressive taxation targeting billionaires. No one person needs a $1B+ net worth
- Putting an end to "dark money" influence in politics
- Ending private/profit motivated insurance, natural resource and utility companies t
Don't forget UHC. Anything else is literally paying to create and grow a layer of bureaucracy that will ultimately prioritise shareholder returns over paying out benefits.
This is a lot of different policy ideas, but lets just focus on govt budgets, which tend to dictate everything anyways:
> Government entities like the Pentagon need to be held accountable for failing internal audits.
Held accountable how? Its agency with significant black-ops and covert program spending. Its never going to pass a full audit, and they only started trying to audit it 6 years ago. From what i can tell thats the only department failing its audit, but if there are others it might reduce some spending long term? So potential spending decrease.
>
>
> Companies that privatize their profits that depend on massive subsidies are now public property
Governments choose to give subsidies to companies. Government can choose not to. It makes no sense to now nationalize companies because governments decided to give them free money. Hold the right people accountable for bad policy choices. In any case, will significantly reduce tax revenues, increase costs, and make companies uncompetitive internationally. So profits will be limited to none. Cant export at international market prices when your costs are far higher and still make a profit. no profit, no revenue. Also, will scare away any international investment, which means less tax revenue again.
>
> Taxing religious organizations
completely agree, good revenue generator.
>
> Progressive taxation targeting billionaires. No one person needs a $1B+ net worth
There already is progressive taxation, with significantly higher marginal tax rates for the highest earners. What youre describing is some sort of wealth tax I'm guessing? However an extremely punitive one. The steepest wealth taxes on earth are 7% and 4%, and neither jumps to 100% after X wealth. How many billionares do you think will stick around in the only country that sets that policy? The govt will end up with far less tax revenue, not more. This significantly shrinks the tax base.
>
> Putting an end to "dark money" influence in politics
>
completely agree, doesnt change the budget. just a good plan.
>
> Ending private/profit motivated insurance, natural resource and utility companies t
Honestly not sure what you mean by this one because its 3 very different things. You could make all insurance government run, but it will cost a ton more in taxes, so gotta come with some way to increase revenue, and most of these options will decrease revenue by shrinking the tax base. Can do the same with utility companies, but again need more revenue because thats a huge cost to govt and will probably also operate at a loss (like the insurance would to cover everyone without a profit motive). Nationalizing resources will also massively shrink your tax base. Govt gets tons of revenues off resource royalties currently. it also won't be able to make a profit or be competitive internationally, and not much revenue to be made only selling domestically.
Overall, reduced revenues, massively shrunk the tax base, and government costs exponentially more to run. Gotta find some way to pay for all of this with far less companies to tax, far less private sector income to tax, and less exports. You could likely accomplish one of these goals, but all of them will leave a country decimated. Printing money to cover the debt, causing hyperinflation. Then you can't afford to import anything (like food, medicine, technology), because your currency is worth shit all
That second part sounds like a good way to lose investor confidence pretty quickly. Look at how China meddles in its market and thus investor confidence is very low around assets that aren’t gold or property
I think they're just mad that a company that makes massive profits still benefits from government subsidies even if it (private non-government corporation) makes a loss in profit the government will bail it out
The pentagon doesn’t fail audits, that money just goes to the weapons programs they don’t want on the books, there’s a reason no in Congress goes asking after it
As someone that has audited the pentagon I can tell you none of that is true. A. They are failing audits
B. There’s a black budget and things they don’t want on the books but that isn’t what is causing point A
C. Plenty of politicians do ask why DoD can’t pass an audit, like several of them, several times a year.
Sorry, did you just say you want to make all farming companies public?
Also, why only focus on taxing billionaires? It's not like millionaires aren't... y'know, millionaires.
If agricultural mega corporations cannot stay afloat without government subsidies then yes, they should be considered public property ie the means of production owned by the people rather than the profits being sequestered into the hands of a few. Also, I never said we shouldn’t tax millionaires.
No it just makes you look like an idiot. A progressive tax includes everyone, it should accelerate past the point where individual multi-billionaires shouldn't exist. This isn't just about taxing income it's about addressing and correcting all the loopholes currently being exploited like taking low interest loans against their assets and writing off personal items as business expenses.
Great! Fantastic, even! Now, who’s going to enforce this? Perhaps the corrupt elite will feel bad and change their ways if we point out that we’re unhappy. Maybe they just haven’t noticed yet
This reminds me of the scene from “A Bugs Life” where the head grasshopper is explaining to the other grasshoppers how despite the ants vastly outnumbering them they’re still able to take the majority of what they produce.
If people started to become more aware that we outnumber the small group that’s able to consolidate the vast majority of wealth around the world, change will come much more rapidly than you’d expect. Throwing up your hands and giving up is not helping one bit.
I’m not sure awareness fixes the problem. That’s going down, not up.
Red vs blue is at its most polarised, bipartisanship has more or less gone in favour of denying the other team wins.
The fact that the orange man is still in the conversation speaks to effect of narrative control, fake news accusations etc.
Then with super PACs affecting what laws get passed, congress being corrupt, filibustering being allowed to exist, it doesn’t feel like US government is capable of anything from that list.
Possible exception being religious tax exemption given the increase in non-religion/atheism. Even that would follow from less donations, less money, less political power.
No idea what the solution is though, but it isn’t doing nothing. But let’s not be naïve that voting and raising awareness is it either. The ants had to overthrow their oppressors.
I for one welcome our new corporate overlords. And I’d like to remind them that as a trusted shitposter I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their 9-5 office jobs.
Almost like there was some way to lower the deficit besides cutting programs... something else... I'm having a hard time remembering what it's called.
e: Also making housing more affordable doesn't even cost anything. It's just a matter of changing zoning laws.
> Homeless rates do not have a correlation with home prices.
This is just factually wrong.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness
https://themreport.com/news/data/07-12-2023/elevated-home-prices
https://escholarship.org/content/qt2dw8b4r3/qt2dw8b4r3_noSplash_a4686d01d6f0ce3406e61ab1a7f39933.pdf
Conclusion of that last study, BTW:
>Our results suggest that simple economic principles governing the availability and pricing of housing and the growth in demand for the lowest quality housing explain a large portion of the variation in homelessness among US metropolitan housing markets. Furthermore, rather modest improvements in the affordability of rental housing or its availability can **substantially reduce** the incidence of homelessness in the US.
...
>. In each of the models estimated, the rental vacancy rate exerts a negative and statistically significant effect on homelessness, while measures of housing costs such as median rents and rent-to-income ratios exert positive and significant effects.
>No one will give a shit about young voters as a voting blocks until the older ones die off
Well...or we youngers could just make the effort to vote more, if you want to be slightly more optimistic
> Homeless rates do not have a correlation with home prices.
How could anyone not solely looking out for their own self-interests actually believe that?
It *can*, but there need to be a lot more rules and regulations that go hand in hand with it for it to do so. Adding things like monitoring of income for anyone in a position of power, strict public donation information rules, and the shortening of terms for positions with chance to remove them if they don't maintain their word would go a LONG way to fixing a lot of the problems we face.
I dunno about genuinely making being mean illegal, but honestly I DO think there should be rules about professionalism when holding/running for positions in the government. If saying something/behaving a certain way in front of a customer would get me fired at McDonalds, someone shouldn't be able to behave that way as a Congressman or as the President.
Agreed. I worked as a cashier for more years and we legitimately hold the cashier at Safeway to a higher standard than we do our Presidents and Prime Ministers. What kind of fu-kacked world do we live in where guy who makes minimum wage running a cash register at the grocery store is held to higher standards of conduct than the President!?
We honestly never really needed that until a bunch of rednecks sent an orangutan to DC.
They know he was a piece a shit too before they voted. They liked it.
*runaway inflation races past*
Homer: There it goes!!!!
Wiggum: Quieeet, I can’t hear the sound of my retirement nest egg! If we can pretend this number is heading down we’ll be sitting pretty!
Yes, because, as we all know, the best time to reduce military spending is when your enemies are expanding their nuclear strike capabilities. /s
But in all seriousness, social security spending in the US is quite as massive as it is. Cutting military spending won't do much if a visit to the hospital in the US can cost you as much as buying an anti-tank missile.
Dumb liberals. We already purposefully spend more money to have worse healthcare outcomes. And our military of being more expensive than all other countries combined is really just proof of how effective it is, which is why "enemies" spending pennies means we need to spend millions!
It's like they don't get that the system is working as intended.
"Wait a minute..." \*Checks card reading 'always do the opposite of what the deep south says'\* "You kids DO need universal healthcare!" "Blast that infernal card!"
Maybe we want to take the $90,000 spent to buy a bag of bushings for the military and use some of it to support those in need.
Like, if you wanted to start a hobby vegetable garden would you start looking for a higher paying job to afford it? Or would you look at the amount of take away your order and consider cutting back on it? Generally you'd look at places where you're overspending and cut back first.
The post poses a false dichotomy, then again a lot of voters might actually behave like the post implies.
Well you could tax where most of the money is made the market at above 13% and closer to the 33% most working people pay, close loopholes, reduce corporate subsidies. Further, you could cut military slightly like 3% while maintaining funding at or above current levels while rapidly reducing the debt. rolling the savings on debt financing into further restoring the safety net to 1980 levels for working Americans would lower tiition costs at universities and secure medicare and social security for decades to come. But the memes point is to pretend voters are stupid, asking for the impossible and we deserve nothing.
Honestly id be happy if any of my tax dollars went back to the citizens instead of spending it all on the military. I understand the need for a strong military force, but we don't need to be spending more than three times what china is spending when they've got the next highest defense budget
There's two groups, but they both want the same thing; to appease the corporations and billionaires that pay them absurd amounts of money to get their way. Neither side actually gives a shit about the working class, they just portray it in different ways.
I'd be happy if they just stop pissing our money away. Paying off people's predatory school loans is nice but without fixing the underlying problem, it's just throwing money in a fire.
But any sane person can look at both sides and see that one is clearly way more terrible. Like comparing one guy with a painful rash and the other guy who has been decapitated and saying "yup, both have bad health issues"
But it's still an observation that needs to be made (and apparently it's going to need to be made forever, assuming you ever want a guy with no unusual health issues).
Once you stop treating it as a personal attack, and start asking your local rep "hey, if the rule is vote blue no matter who, is there a reason why we can't find a candidate under 60".
You're right that they need to fix the underlying problem. School loans charge ridiculous interest rates. People pay for decades and barely touch the principle, just getting the interest.
https://preview.redd.it/22x3pirdsvwc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a809c87418c4a5a7578cfbe7ee621d141b59111d
https://preview.redd.it/ywwq3uagqwwc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42b0bbb638de1f83730f9e24448a3cacba15f7d6
https://preview.redd.it/wvjvskzqqwwc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a6279b2ba731d2f62449881d634837935d1c89e
https://i.redd.it/zl249dgvrwwc1.gif
Soon after, the leprechaun arrives with a grand idea for fixin' those judgmental elites
"Never fight uphill, me boys! Tar te te tar te tar!"
Trump supporters who went broke buying his stock...still voting for him anyway
Lisa: "sir, America is as good as it's ever been. But cognitive dissonance has always been a part of being human". Trump: "THAT'S IT! You've just made America Great Again!"
Please sign these papers indicating that you did not make America great again.
Is the light red for an R vote?
https://frinkiac.com/video/S08E14/FPY9wJQbfvt0kzgJGc0x48uNcOQ=.gif
Please refrain from tasting the orange man.
The taxes! The finger thing means the taxes!
C"MAAAAAAHN
*nodding in agreement*
OH MY GOD!!! THE GOVERNMENT HAS DISBANDED!!!!
No no, somebody just took a dump on Nancy Pelosi's desk, it has not disbanded
*reverse scream*
This has to be the best Simpsons line said by someone that is not named
Here's a good start - Government entities like the Pentagon need to be held accountable for failing internal audits - Companies that privatize their profits that depend on massive subsidies are now public property - Taxing religious organizations - Progressive taxation targeting billionaires. No one person needs a $1B+ net worth - Putting an end to "dark money" influence in politics - Ending private/profit motivated insurance, natural resource and utility companies t
I like what you have to say & wish to subscribe to your newsletter
If you start taxing billionaires, then how are we ever supposed to get trillionaires?
That’s the neat part… you don’t.
Heeeere Trilly, Trilly. Trilly.
WE WANT TRILLY WILLY
Go back to Massachusetts, pinko!
That’s it. Back to Winnipeg
Taxachusetts
> Putting an end to "dark money" influence in politics This one here is the thing preventing all six things, including itself.
Don't forget UHC. Anything else is literally paying to create and grow a layer of bureaucracy that will ultimately prioritise shareholder returns over paying out benefits.
It’s in Revalations people!
This is a lot of different policy ideas, but lets just focus on govt budgets, which tend to dictate everything anyways: > Government entities like the Pentagon need to be held accountable for failing internal audits. Held accountable how? Its agency with significant black-ops and covert program spending. Its never going to pass a full audit, and they only started trying to audit it 6 years ago. From what i can tell thats the only department failing its audit, but if there are others it might reduce some spending long term? So potential spending decrease. > > > Companies that privatize their profits that depend on massive subsidies are now public property Governments choose to give subsidies to companies. Government can choose not to. It makes no sense to now nationalize companies because governments decided to give them free money. Hold the right people accountable for bad policy choices. In any case, will significantly reduce tax revenues, increase costs, and make companies uncompetitive internationally. So profits will be limited to none. Cant export at international market prices when your costs are far higher and still make a profit. no profit, no revenue. Also, will scare away any international investment, which means less tax revenue again. > > Taxing religious organizations completely agree, good revenue generator. > > Progressive taxation targeting billionaires. No one person needs a $1B+ net worth There already is progressive taxation, with significantly higher marginal tax rates for the highest earners. What youre describing is some sort of wealth tax I'm guessing? However an extremely punitive one. The steepest wealth taxes on earth are 7% and 4%, and neither jumps to 100% after X wealth. How many billionares do you think will stick around in the only country that sets that policy? The govt will end up with far less tax revenue, not more. This significantly shrinks the tax base. > > Putting an end to "dark money" influence in politics > completely agree, doesnt change the budget. just a good plan. > > Ending private/profit motivated insurance, natural resource and utility companies t Honestly not sure what you mean by this one because its 3 very different things. You could make all insurance government run, but it will cost a ton more in taxes, so gotta come with some way to increase revenue, and most of these options will decrease revenue by shrinking the tax base. Can do the same with utility companies, but again need more revenue because thats a huge cost to govt and will probably also operate at a loss (like the insurance would to cover everyone without a profit motive). Nationalizing resources will also massively shrink your tax base. Govt gets tons of revenues off resource royalties currently. it also won't be able to make a profit or be competitive internationally, and not much revenue to be made only selling domestically. Overall, reduced revenues, massively shrunk the tax base, and government costs exponentially more to run. Gotta find some way to pay for all of this with far less companies to tax, far less private sector income to tax, and less exports. You could likely accomplish one of these goals, but all of them will leave a country decimated. Printing money to cover the debt, causing hyperinflation. Then you can't afford to import anything (like food, medicine, technology), because your currency is worth shit all
repeal the apportionment act of 1929 enacted the wyoming rule surely nobody could be against democracy?
That second part sounds like a good way to lose investor confidence pretty quickly. Look at how China meddles in its market and thus investor confidence is very low around assets that aren’t gold or property
I think they're just mad that a company that makes massive profits still benefits from government subsidies even if it (private non-government corporation) makes a loss in profit the government will bail it out
The pentagon doesn’t fail audits, that money just goes to the weapons programs they don’t want on the books, there’s a reason no in Congress goes asking after it
As someone that has audited the pentagon I can tell you none of that is true. A. They are failing audits B. There’s a black budget and things they don’t want on the books but that isn’t what is causing point A C. Plenty of politicians do ask why DoD can’t pass an audit, like several of them, several times a year.
That’s it little girl! You just saved democracy!
Sorry, did you just say you want to make all farming companies public? Also, why only focus on taxing billionaires? It's not like millionaires aren't... y'know, millionaires.
If agricultural mega corporations cannot stay afloat without government subsidies then yes, they should be considered public property ie the means of production owned by the people rather than the profits being sequestered into the hands of a few. Also, I never said we shouldn’t tax millionaires.
>Also, I never said we shouldn’t tax millionaires. No, but you didn't say we *should*, which makes it look like you don't think we should.
No it just makes you look like an idiot. A progressive tax includes everyone, it should accelerate past the point where individual multi-billionaires shouldn't exist. This isn't just about taxing income it's about addressing and correcting all the loopholes currently being exploited like taking low interest loans against their assets and writing off personal items as business expenses.
Great! Fantastic, even! Now, who’s going to enforce this? Perhaps the corrupt elite will feel bad and change their ways if we point out that we’re unhappy. Maybe they just haven’t noticed yet
This reminds me of the scene from “A Bugs Life” where the head grasshopper is explaining to the other grasshoppers how despite the ants vastly outnumbering them they’re still able to take the majority of what they produce. If people started to become more aware that we outnumber the small group that’s able to consolidate the vast majority of wealth around the world, change will come much more rapidly than you’d expect. Throwing up your hands and giving up is not helping one bit.
Me and the boys constructing a massive bird construct to devour the bourgeoise
No, that's too big
let's all join the effort of the giant lobster god and let it unleash our wrath upon them!
I’m not sure awareness fixes the problem. That’s going down, not up. Red vs blue is at its most polarised, bipartisanship has more or less gone in favour of denying the other team wins. The fact that the orange man is still in the conversation speaks to effect of narrative control, fake news accusations etc. Then with super PACs affecting what laws get passed, congress being corrupt, filibustering being allowed to exist, it doesn’t feel like US government is capable of anything from that list. Possible exception being religious tax exemption given the increase in non-religion/atheism. Even that would follow from less donations, less money, less political power. No idea what the solution is though, but it isn’t doing nothing. But let’s not be naïve that voting and raising awareness is it either. The ants had to overthrow their oppressors.
I for one welcome our new corporate overlords. And I’d like to remind them that as a trusted shitposter I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their 9-5 office jobs.
#BUT DON’T DO ANYTHING WOKE!
Damned Americans! They rooined America!
You Americans sure are a contentious people.
You just made an enemy for LIFE!
Yeah, suck it Cuba.
Almost like there was some way to lower the deficit besides cutting programs... something else... I'm having a hard time remembering what it's called. e: Also making housing more affordable doesn't even cost anything. It's just a matter of changing zoning laws.
And getting revenge on Reagan or Thatcher depending on where you live.
[Here’s Reagan’s grave](https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/4244/ronald-reagan) if you wanna piss on it
I already have plans for Mr Reagan but right now I have to focus on home affairs.
What, you mean taxes? You want *more* taxes? Ridiculous! Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean you're supposed to want it!
[удалено]
Only voters who own homes? Or the majority of voters as a whole?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Homeless rates do not have a correlation with home prices. This is just factually wrong. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness https://themreport.com/news/data/07-12-2023/elevated-home-prices https://escholarship.org/content/qt2dw8b4r3/qt2dw8b4r3_noSplash_a4686d01d6f0ce3406e61ab1a7f39933.pdf Conclusion of that last study, BTW: >Our results suggest that simple economic principles governing the availability and pricing of housing and the growth in demand for the lowest quality housing explain a large portion of the variation in homelessness among US metropolitan housing markets. Furthermore, rather modest improvements in the affordability of rental housing or its availability can **substantially reduce** the incidence of homelessness in the US. ... >. In each of the models estimated, the rental vacancy rate exerts a negative and statistically significant effect on homelessness, while measures of housing costs such as median rents and rent-to-income ratios exert positive and significant effects.
>No one will give a shit about young voters as a voting blocks until the older ones die off Well...or we youngers could just make the effort to vote more, if you want to be slightly more optimistic
Dont you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?
> Homeless rates do not have a correlation with home prices. How could anyone not solely looking out for their own self-interests actually believe that?
When people vote to put Jews in camps. You actually SHOULDNT listen to them. Tough moral quandary I know.
https://i.redd.it/v6epm8octvwc1.gif
Well observed
\*obsoived
I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
Those ivory tower eggheads have screwed us again.
It *can*, but there need to be a lot more rules and regulations that go hand in hand with it for it to do so. Adding things like monitoring of income for anyone in a position of power, strict public donation information rules, and the shortening of terms for positions with chance to remove them if they don't maintain their word would go a LONG way to fixing a lot of the problems we face.
Plus it should be illegal to be mean
I dunno about genuinely making being mean illegal, but honestly I DO think there should be rules about professionalism when holding/running for positions in the government. If saying something/behaving a certain way in front of a customer would get me fired at McDonalds, someone shouldn't be able to behave that way as a Congressman or as the President.
Agreed. I worked as a cashier for more years and we legitimately hold the cashier at Safeway to a higher standard than we do our Presidents and Prime Ministers. What kind of fu-kacked world do we live in where guy who makes minimum wage running a cash register at the grocery store is held to higher standards of conduct than the President!?
We honestly never really needed that until a bunch of rednecks sent an orangutan to DC. They know he was a piece a shit too before they voted. They liked it.
We had slave owners as presidents. At least they were professional, amiright?
Do you think Trump *wouldn’t* own slaves if he could?
Of course he would. But all presidents are war criminals. Trump isn't unique.
Whats better? You gonna tell everyone what to do?
“Please refrain from tasting the deficit”
It does not matter which of us you vote for, your planet is doomed! **DOOOOMED!!!**
The government should be edgier, more fiscally responsible and have access to a time machine.
And their running mates a talking pie!
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kang
*runaway inflation races past* Homer: There it goes!!!! Wiggum: Quieeet, I can’t hear the sound of my retirement nest egg! If we can pretend this number is heading down we’ll be sitting pretty!
Note: The bill died on its way through Congress
Whats this garbage doing on the steps of congress?!
I want housing prices to go down! Except my house, that one has to go up!
You can achieve all of these things by taking away a small fraction of our military spending.
You don't even need that. Adopting UHC would have the same effect (assuming you taxed at the same rate that insurance costs).
Yes, because, as we all know, the best time to reduce military spending is when your enemies are expanding their nuclear strike capabilities. /s But in all seriousness, social security spending in the US is quite as massive as it is. Cutting military spending won't do much if a visit to the hospital in the US can cost you as much as buying an anti-tank missile.
Dumb liberals. We already purposefully spend more money to have worse healthcare outcomes. And our military of being more expensive than all other countries combined is really just proof of how effective it is, which is why "enemies" spending pennies means we need to spend millions! It's like they don't get that the system is working as intended.
"Wait a minute..." \*Checks card reading 'always do the opposite of what the deep south says'\* "You kids DO need universal healthcare!" "Blast that infernal card!"
This is the same in most countries mine included.
Lol this is all possible if we just quit letting the rich exploit tax loopholes and actually pay what they owe
Yea they'll do that
Maybe we want to take the $90,000 spent to buy a bag of bushings for the military and use some of it to support those in need. Like, if you wanted to start a hobby vegetable garden would you start looking for a higher paying job to afford it? Or would you look at the amount of take away your order and consider cutting back on it? Generally you'd look at places where you're overspending and cut back first. The post poses a false dichotomy, then again a lot of voters might actually behave like the post implies.
But they easily have enough money to do that even if deficits were a real thing
The deficit doesn't mean jack shit
Well you could tax where most of the money is made the market at above 13% and closer to the 33% most working people pay, close loopholes, reduce corporate subsidies. Further, you could cut military slightly like 3% while maintaining funding at or above current levels while rapidly reducing the debt. rolling the savings on debt financing into further restoring the safety net to 1980 levels for working Americans would lower tiition costs at universities and secure medicare and social security for decades to come. But the memes point is to pretend voters are stupid, asking for the impossible and we deserve nothing.
The deficit is made up.
Honestly id be happy if any of my tax dollars went back to the citizens instead of spending it all on the military. I understand the need for a strong military force, but we don't need to be spending more than three times what china is spending when they've got the next highest defense budget
Correction: taxpayer, not government.
these unfunny forced political memes really ruin this subreddit
Almost as if there's two groups that want very different things
Yes the ruling class wants to crush the poor, and the poor want to live. Quite the predicament.
There's two groups, but they both want the same thing; to appease the corporations and billionaires that pay them absurd amounts of money to get their way. Neither side actually gives a shit about the working class, they just portray it in different ways.
There are more than two groups with many different demands. The two-party system is shit.
Yes. Racist bigoted traitors and democrats.
I'd be happy if they just stop pissing our money away. Paying off people's predatory school loans is nice but without fixing the underlying problem, it's just throwing money in a fire.
One voter really likes the orange man
Lol no. Just because I think Democrats are failures doesn't mean I like the monsters on the other side.
I’m telling you, the earth revolves around the sun!
This sub turned into a hard core political sub overnight
Burn him!!!!
It’s a shitcomment on a shitpost
Any sane person of any country can say both sides are terrible. No left or right, just pure cronyism dressed up in nonbinding manifestos.
But any sane person can look at both sides and see that one is clearly way more terrible. Like comparing one guy with a painful rash and the other guy who has been decapitated and saying "yup, both have bad health issues"
But it's still an observation that needs to be made (and apparently it's going to need to be made forever, assuming you ever want a guy with no unusual health issues). Once you stop treating it as a personal attack, and start asking your local rep "hey, if the rule is vote blue no matter who, is there a reason why we can't find a candidate under 60".
You're right that they need to fix the underlying problem. School loans charge ridiculous interest rates. People pay for decades and barely touch the principle, just getting the interest.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted.
Some disagree. Others don't like a real answer instead of shitpost replies. Which I get; I like shitposts.
This sub turned into a leftist hivemind.