Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 30,219]

Trump Spreads Baseless Conspiracy Theory That Democrats Are Withholding Hurricane Aid in “Republican Areas” of North Carolina

He also claimed “Biden and Harris…have left Americans to drown in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and elsewhere in the South.”

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-spreads-baseless-conspiracy-theory-north-carolina-hurricane

 

Donald Trump, who’s never heard a baseless, unhinged conspiracy theory he didn’t proceed to amplify, claimed Monday that he’s gotten word that Democratic officials are purposely withholding aid from “Republican areas” of North Carolina ravaged by Hurricane Helene, a claim that does not appear to have any basis in fact and wildly politicizes a natural disaster that has killed at least 100 people.

On Truth Social, the ex-president wrote to his followers that he was “heading to Valdosta, Georgia, in order to pay my respects and bring lots of relief material, including fuel, equipment, water, and other things, to the State.” Then he threw this in: “I was also going to stop into North Carolina, which has really been hit hard. I have a lot of supplies ready for them, but access and communication is now restricted, and we want to make sure that Local Emergency Management is able to focus on helping the people most affected, and not being concerned with me. I’ll be there shortly, but don’t like the reports that I’m getting about the Federal Government, and the Democrat Governor of the State, going out of their way to not help people in Republican areas. MAGA!”

Later, he outrageously claimed, “Biden and Harris…have left Americans to drown in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and elsewhere in the South.”

Not surprisingly, Trump did not provide any evidence for any of these reports, which the New Republic notes “don’t seem to have any factual basis,” and that “Much of North Carolina votes Republican, so it would be near impossible for any relief efforts to occur that would neglect conservatives.” Additionally, the state’s Democratic governor has deployed the National Guard and Joe Biden pledged “every available resource, as fast as possible, to your communities, to rescue, recover, and to begin rebuilding.” Last week, the president declared an emergency in North Carolina and, per the White House, “ordered Federal assistance to supplement State, tribal, and local response efforts due to the emergency conditions resulting from Hurricane Helene beginning on September 25, 2024, and continuing.”

Trump was tied with Kamala Harris in North Carolina, according to a CNN poll conducted earlier this month, so it’s not at all surprising that he would use a horrific natural disaster to try and score political points. Also not surprising: that he hasn’t mentioned that, during his time in office, he trashed local officials in blue states hit by hurricanes and wildfires, and, according to a former official, wanted to cut off federal aid from California because state residents didn’t support him.

Aside from…everything else…Trump apparently doesn’t know when hurricane season is

 

It’s a concept of a plan

 

Elsewhere!

Trump Wants to Lock Up Kamala Harris Now

New York • Read More

Rudy Giuliani’s Daughter: Trump Took My Dad From Me. Please Don’t Let Him Take Our Country Too

Vanity Fair • Read More

Tim Walz Is Expected to Bring Receipts About JD Vance’s Antiabortion Stances to VP Debate

Vanity Fair • Read More

NYT endorses Harris as “the only choice” for president

Politico • Read More

Donald Trump’s Battleground Strategy: Sow Chaos and Confusion at Every Turn

Vanity Fair • Read More

Montana Senate Fate Could Make or Break a Harris Presidency

NYT • Read More

Trump falsely says Georgia’s governor was unable to talk to Biden about storm damage

NBC News • Read More

Edited October 1, 2024 by Vesper

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

Israel has no end game no strategy -just attack and kill people in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and now Syria.just to keep Netanyahu in power

Like a fat kid in the playground that has been  given coshes, zombie knives and hammers to attack the other children, while its encouraging parents (the US) have said 'Attack the other kids son, if they fight back, we'll step in, and give you more weapons.'

[Vesper 30,219]

Russia to raise defence budget by 25% to highest level on record

Draft documents say defence and security will make up 40% of government spending as Putin continues war against Ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/30/russias-defence-spending-to-rise-by-25-next-year-the-highest-since-the-cold-war

Russia is to increase its spending on defence by 25% to its highest on record, as Vladimir Putin vows to continue his war efforts in Ukraine and further escalate his standoff with the west.

The latest planned increase in spending will take Russia’s defence budget to a record 13.5tn rubles (£109bn) in 2025, according to draft budget documents published on Monday on the parliament’s website. That is about 3tn rubles more than was set aside for defence this year, which was the previous record.

Taken together, spending on defence and security will account for about 40% of Russia’s total government spending – or 41.5tn rubles in 2025.

The 2025 budget suggests Putin has embraced what economists have dubbed “military Keynesianism”, marked by a significant rise in military spending, which has fuelled the war in Ukraine, spurred a consumer spending boom and driven up inflation.

“This increase is confirmation the economy has switched to a war footing, and, even if the war in Ukraine ends soon, channeling money to the army and a bloated defence sector will remain a top priority,” the Bell, a leading Russian outlet specialising on the economy, wrote in its newsletter.

“It’s clear that spending on the military and security will exceed combined expenditure on education, healthcare, social policy and the national economy,” it added.

According to the draft budget, social spending is expected to decrease by 16% from 7.7tn rubles this year to 6.5tn rubles next year.

The massive Russian investment in the military has worried European war planners, who have said Nato underestimated Russia’s ability to sustain a long-term war. Meanwhile, Ukraine is facing uncertainty over the level of future support from its closest allies.

This has increased confidence in Moscow, where on Monday Putin boasted that “all goals set” in what Russia calls its special military operation “will be achieved”.

Putin’s speeches over the last year have been marked by growing confidence as Russian troops make creeping gains in eastern Ukraine.

Recently, he has taken a hardline stance, demanding Ukraine’s unconditional surrender and calling for the “denazification of Ukraine, its demilitarization, and neutral status”.

Analysts believe the long-term economic outlook for Russia is far gloomier than it was before the invasion.

The Kremlin’s pivot toward China and other markets, sanctions-busting and other workarounds cannot make up for direct access to western markets or technology.

Russia’s military spending boom has sent inflation surging at home, forcing the central bank to raise borrowing costs, while the country struggles with acute labour shortages as Moscow pumps fiscal and physical resources into the military.

[cosmicway 1,333]

The Arabs are idiots.
With peaceful means they would have won their case against Israel decades ago.
Not to "put Israel into the sea" of course but to gain compensations.
The Arab world stretches from the Atlantic ocean to Iraq and beyond.
Initially the Americans supported them and they wanted to finance the construction of the Assouan dam, but Nasser declared war ...
The Americans would never let such a huge part of the world to go under Soviet influence or Putin's influence.
The Arabs brought everything upon themselves and are continuing to do so.

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

37 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

The Arabs are idiots.

All 315 million of them ? I am sure they wouldn't be as disingenuous to 15 million bubbles

[cosmicway 1,333]

8 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

All 315 million of them ? I am sure they wouldn't be as disingenuous to 15 million bubbles

They are more or less all anti-israel.
Those people I have met that come from the emirates in somewhat mild terms. Those from Egypt in the Nasser years or from Iran now, strongly antisemitic.
So yes, all of them.

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

6 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

They are more or less all anti-israel.
Those people I have met that come from the emirates in somewhat mild terms. Those from Egypt in the Nasser years or from Iran now, strongly antisemitic.
So yes, all of them.

Anti Israel is not anti semitic. Semites are Arabs btw

[cosmicway 1,333]

Just now, Fulham Broadway said:

Anti Israel is not anti semitic. Semites are Arabs btw

Whatever.

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

7 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

Whatever.

Brilliant erudite answer.

 

[cosmicway 1,333]

7 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Brilliant erudite answer.

 

We more often say anti-hebrew for an enemy of the Jews.
Antisemite became the trend, though perhaps it should n't if the semites include more people.

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

As the US proxy Israel attacks Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, they are still slaughtering children in tents in Gaza... just to keep Netanyahu from arrest and in power

France calls for permanent ceasefire in Gaza after dozens killed

 

The French foreign ministry “strongly” condemned the latest Israeli attacks that killed dozens of civilians including on an orphanage and school in northern Gaza and a family home in the southern city of Khan Younis.

“For several weeks, civilian infrastructure where populations find refuge has been repeatedly targeted by the Israeli army,” it said.

“In the face of need for absolute emergency in Gaza, France reiterates its call for the unconditional immediate and permanent ceasefire, which must allow the massive and unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid.”

Medical sources say at least 79 people were killed in the Strip overnight and early morning.

[Vesper 30,219]

please sign if this is something you agree with

 

EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE - Central online collection system

https://eci.ec.europa.eu/038/public/#/screen/home

Over the past months, you have stood with us in our mission to implement a European tax on the ultra-rich to fund a just ecological and social transition. Thanks to your support, we have already gathered over 340,000 signatures across the EU.

But we are not there yet! With only 7 days remaining until the campaign closes on October 9, we need one final push to increase this number as much as possible. Every signature counts.

We kindly ask you to go the extra mile by sharing this initiative with everyone in your network – friends, family, colleagues, neighbors. Spread the word and encourage them to sign and support this vital cause for more social justice in Europe.

Taxing great wealth to finance the ecological and social transition.

 

[Vesper 30,219]

How Trump’s energy policies could set America back decades

Joseph Stiglitz  1st October 2024

Just as Donald Trump’s overall economic strategy is based on nostalgia for a bygone era, his fossil-fuel-centered energy policies would represent a quixotic attempt to reverse history.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/how-trumps-energy-policies-could-set-america-back-decades

 

The outcome of the US presidential election in November will have an enormous impact on both the country and the world, and not least on efforts to combat climate change. While Donald Trump lacks a coherent platform, he clearly stands far apart from Vice President Kamala Harris on the issue.

Earlier this year, Trump reportedly “requested $1 billion in campaign contributions from fossil-fuel industry executives, promising in turn to roll back environmental regulations, hasten permitting and leasing approvals, and preserve or enhance tax benefits that the oil and gas industry enjoys.” Even if Trump is not an outright climate-change denier, he belongs to a broader school of politicians and commentators who do not think that we need to worry about it. His vision for “Making America Great Again” is to make the United States an even larger polluter, an even larger producer of fossil fuels, and an even bigger laggard behind Europe and much of the rest of the world. 

Both science and technology are working against the fossil-fuel industry. The cost of renewables has plummeted, and under normal circumstances, this would have driven down the price of fossil fuels. But because Russia is such a large supplier of petrochemicals, the war in Ukraine has distorted the market.

If elected, Trump would probably sell out Ukraine, or at least arrange a temporary ceasefire, thus facilitating a greater flow of oil and gas. He also wants to reverse the US Inflation Reduction Act and increase hostilities with China, which produces many of the world’s solar panels and other critical inputs for decarbonization. A major slowdown of the green transition in the US is thus a real risk, even before considering the possibility that Trump would further increase the already massive US subsidies for fossil fuels.

Trump’s first term already offered a preview of what an overtly fossil fuel-friendly America would mean for the rest of the world. He endorsed climate-change deniers in Brazil and a host of other countries, and the US withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. In the years thereafter, progress on global climate cooperation clearly slowed.

But eight years after he first assumed office, the economic and security implications of climate change have become even clearer. Europe and Japan seem resolute in their commitments to tax imports from major carbon polluters, and though Trump would probably retaliate for these policies, US allies can take some comfort in the fact that he would have imposed tariffs on them in any case. 

Ironically, often-vilified multinationals might play a crucial role in sustaining the green transition. The leaders of these companies recognize the realities of climate change, and they know that they must operate in multiple jurisdictions. If they do not join in the broader green transition, they will lose out now, and even more so in the future. 

Even within America, the largest and most important states have already passed legislation pushing firms to decarbonize their operations and reduce their carbon footprints. That means large companies operating in multiple states are already pursuing and adopting green technologies and business practices – and for the same reasons that multinationals will.

Yes, there will be aggressive attempts by some fossil-fuel companies to roll back these regulations. But there will also be stronger civil-society efforts, including through the courts, to hold companies accountable for the damage they have wrought. Smart business leaders will recognize the folly of resisting the inevitable. Even in the oil and gas industry, some companies are already changing their business model to phase down fossil fuels and invest in renewable energy. 

Thus, global politics, science, technology, sound corporate management, and the climate itself all weigh against Trump’s love of fossil fuels. Four decades ago, many assumed that tropical countries would bear the brunt of the costs, owing to their already high temperatures. They indeed are affected, with some facing desertification and others poised to become uninhabitable. But they are hardly alone. The US has already suffered enormous damage, and by the end of the century those losses are estimated to be between 1-4% of GDP annually. 

It makes far more sense to do what we can now to limit this damage than to make the same kinds of repairs year after year. Four decades ago, we thought the cost of combating climate change would be very high. But low-cost renewables and the emergence of other new technologies have changed everything. The cost of renewable energy is low and falling, and it would be even lower and falling faster with a greater public commitment to the green transition and the investments it requires. 

Make no mistake: there will be a green transition. The only questions are how fast it will proceed, and how much damage we will incur if it is delayed. Trump will attempt to throw a wrench in the process. He wants the fossil-fuel industry’s support, and the industry will view its campaign contributions as a high-return investment. A Republican-controlled Congress would, of course, do whatever Trump says. 

The resulting pro-fossil-fuel environment would facilitate fossil-fuel investments, but since these have long time horizons, many would become stranded assets. American taxpayers thus may wind up paying thrice for the blunder. In addition to the direct and hidden subsidies during the Trump administration and the direct and hidden compensation for stranded assets sometime in the future, they also will have to deal with the resulting lack of energy and climate security. 

Elections always matter, but this one matters more than most.

[Vesper 30,219]

Inequalities unmasked: disparities across the EU

What should Europe do about inequality? The start is to recognise some of its citizens are more equal than others.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/inequalities-unmasked-disparities-across-the-eu

1. 

Left behind: workers in Athens protesting during a general strike in April against rising costs and low wages (Vedat Yeler / shutterstock.com)

 

In her political guidelines for the next European Commission, outlined in July, its now reappointed president, Ursula von der Leyen, presented ambitious priorities for the next five years. Among them was an emphasis on fairness in the modern economy and the need to address social inequalities.

While public reaction to inequality manifests itself in protests, the impact goes much deeper, permeating workplaces, degrading the labour market and increasing tensions in society. Making progress is fundamental to restoring European citizens’ trust in institutions and their faith in the future.

The proposed new college of commissioners has drawn some criticism for the lack of a singular portfolio focusing on equality and whether the approach to social and economic issues is adequately holistic. In fact, many inequalities in Europe are transversal, manifesting themselves not just in gender, identity and income, but also between generations and among regions and member states. Tackling them requires consensus, not just on policy but also in terms of public support.

Gender inequalities

The gender employment gap, at 10.7 per cent in 2022, has narrowed over time: 69.3 per cent of working-age women across the EU are employed, compared with 80 per cent of men—a transformation from a generation ago. There has however been stagnation in recent years and the continuing differential costs an estimated €320 billion annually in lost earnings and welfare contributions and the impact on the public finances.

Two out of three net new jobs in the EU over the last two decades have been taken up by women, and this increase has been strongest among women over the age of 30. The impact has been at the top and the bottom of the wage distribution: while women are increasingly represented in high-paying jobs, low-paying jobs formerly dominated by men are also becoming dominated by women.

Although female employment has been growing more quickly than for men in the highest-paying jobs (the top quintile by average wage), women remain under-represented as managers in almost all economic sectors and this is where the gender pay gap is greatest. While women still earn 13 per cent on average less per hour than men, at managerial levels there is an even larger gap—23 per cent—notwithstanding younger women increasingly outperforming younger men in educational attainment. Variable forms of pay, linked to performance or shareholding, are increasing more rapidly among men than women, which could further widen the gender gap.

But gender inequalities in employment stretch well beyond labour-market segmentation and pay gaps. The working conditions and job quality women and men experience across countries, sectors and occupations also vary greatly. Men report higher quantitative demands at work, whereas women are much more likely to report exposure to emotional demands or find themselves in disturbing situations.

Women also tend to work fewer paid hours than men and adjust their working time to the needs of their families. The proportion perceiving their work-life balance positively (82 per cent) is thus similar to that for men (80 per cent). Women however experience more conflicts between working and private life: they worry more about work, feel more exhausted and have a bigger burden of housework to face (74 per cent of women did daily housework and cooking in 2021, compared with 42 per cent of men). And overall, when paid and unpaid work are combined, women do eight full-time weeks more work per year than men.

Income inequality 

The share of population living below the poverty income threshold increased in two-thirds of EU member states between 2006 and 2021 and in more than half, amid the pandemic, in the latter year. Non-income data for 2022, focusing on the early stages of the cost-of-living crisis, showed households facing growing financial difficulties, especially those most vulnerable. On average across EU countries, 44 per cent of those in the bottom income decile faced reported difficulties to make ends meet in 2022, compared with 3 per cent in the top decile. Single-parent households were more at risk of energy poverty and women living alone more likely to be affected by it.

Yet there is vast disparity across countries. The 13 member states that joined the EU since 2004 have experienced increasing convergence and remarkable income growth. In many cases, this growth has been stronger among lower-income earners, reducing income inequalities.

Income growth has been more moderate among the 14 older member states, especially among the lowest earners in many cases, leading to growing income inequalities, even in more egalitarian Scandinavia. Mediterranean countries present the most disappointing picture of income growth between 2006 and 2021 (albeit in some inequality declined); hence they failed to match the newer member states in convergence towards higher national incomes. 

The welfare state plays a very important role in cushioning market inequalities, which are reduced by an average of 42 per cent across member states by taxes and benefits. This inequality-reducing effect is stronger in most Scandinavian and continental welfare states, as well as a few central-and-eastern European countries, while weaker in others among the latter and Mediterranean EU members. 

Age-related inequalities

The ageing of Europe’s population will continue to have implications for employment, working conditions, living standards and welfare. But the extent to which these are subject to an intergenerational divide is a different matter. For instance, while during the pandemic mental health deteriorated for people of all ages, young people and the over-80s were those most severely affected. 

More young people lost their jobs then than any other age group. There has since been a recovery but at a slower pace and with the individual psychological consequences and the loss of independence of unemployment experienced at a young age. The share of older workers in the labour market has meanwhile grown since 2007. This has been driven by employment expansion among the over-50s, especially women—albeit inadequate pensions and the rising cost of living may have been drivers here in turn.

Incomes have grown most since 2008 for the over-60s. In southern Europe, the income of this oldest group has increased while that of the youngest has fallen. By contrast, in eastern-European countries those under 60 have fared better than their elder peers in recent years. Both decreases and increases in income have however been less common among older people, for whom pensions are a stabiliser.

On the critical issue of housing, renting has increased generally but especially among those aged 30-39, rising from 38 per cent to 45 per cent between 2010 and 2019. Home ownership was already more common among those over 40 than those below. Housing costs increased more for renters (by 23 per cent) than for homeowners (by 8 per cent) between 2010 and 2019, deepening the gap between the two groups.

Rural-urban divide

The farmers’ protests across member states earlier this year placed rural­–urban differences in sharp focus. Over the past decade, employment has increased more rapidly in urban than in rural areas and in general the rate is persistently higher in cities. Median incomes are also higher in urban areas in almost every member state. The rural-urban income gap has thus increased by almost 20 per cent in ten years.

There is also a growing gap in accumulation of ‘human capital’, affecting available individual pathways to employment. Across the EU, 55 per cent of city dwellers aged 25-34 have third-level education, compared with just 34 per cent of their counterparts in rural areas. 

A digital divide is also evident—in both skills and infrastructure. Those living in cities are more likely to have digital skills and a computer in their home and enjoy significantly better broadband connections.

Rural residents are however less likely to be overburdened by housing costs or to live in a dark dwelling and can better afford to keep their homes warm. They also suffer less from problems in their neighbourhoods, from pollution and grime to crime and vandalism. 

Addressing inequalities

Inequalities persist across the EU, ranging across gender and employment pay gaps, intergenerational disparities and rural­­-urban differences. While EU-wide income inequality declined significantly between 2006 and 2021—due to convergence between new and old members—the share of population below the poverty threshold increased in most member states. The gap between the rich and poor continues to grow in some countries.

Concentrated efforts and targeted policies are urgently needed to mitigate such deep-rooted inequalities and create a fairer future. A champion of equality within the commission could lead the way—but, regardless, the transversal nature of the challenge means that for every member of the incoming college it should be a priority.

Edited October 2, 2024 by Vesper

[cosmicway 1,333]

8 hours ago, Vesper said:

please sign if this is something you agree with

 

EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE - Central online collection system

https://eci.ec.europa.eu/038/public/#/screen/home

Over the past months, you have stood with us in our mission to implement a European tax on the ultra-rich to fund a just ecological and social transition. Thanks to your support, we have already gathered over 340,000 signatures across the EU.

But we are not there yet! With only 7 days remaining until the campaign closes on October 9, we need one final push to increase this number as much as possible. Every signature counts.

We kindly ask you to go the extra mile by sharing this initiative with everyone in your network – friends, family, colleagues, neighbors. Spread the word and encourage them to sign and support this vital cause for more social justice in Europe.

Taxing great wealth to finance the ecological and social transition.

 

I 'm not signing this.
It is communist claptrap.
Why does n't it call for less tax on the ultra poor ?

[Vesper 30,219]

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

I 'm not signing this.
It is communist claptrap.
Why does n't it call for less tax on the ultra poor ?

You clearly do not understand what communism actually is.

None of that post, and NONE of the things I approve of, represent, or advocate for are remotely 'communist', neither in nature nor in practice.

You just use the term 'communist' as a catch-all smear, and have broadened it out (in terms of application) to the point of meaninglessness.

I say this having observed your posts for years.

You sound like a huge chunk of the American RWers TBH, who ludicrously think that the US Democratic Party is somehow a communist organisation, or at least socialist in nature (95+ per cent of them cannot, when asked real time and deprived of using a quick internet search, give a correct and coherent defintion of either communism or socialism, and most all think they are the same thing), when at best it has some (and they are fairly feeble at this point) marginal elements of social democracy within it, but nothing to the levels of the Nordic Model, etc, in the EU and elsewhere.

 

[cosmicway 1,333]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

You clearly do not understand what communism actually is.

None of that post, and NONE of the things I approve of, represent, or advocate for are remotely 'communist', neither in nature nor in practice.

You just use the term 'communist' as a catch-all smear, and have broadened it out (in terms of application) to the point of meaninglessness.

I say this having observed your posts for years.

You sound like a huge chunk of the American RWers TBH, who ludicrously think that the US Democratic Party is somehow a communist organisation, or at least socialist in nature (95+ per cent of them cannot, when asked real time and deprived of using a quick internet search, give a correct and coherent defintion of either communism or socialism, and most all think they are the same thing), when at best it has some (and they are fairly feeble at this point) marginal elements of social democracy within it, but nothing to the levels of the Nordic Model, etc, in the EU and elsewhere.

 

No, I don't think the dems are communist or we would be speaking Russian now.
Now this propaganda stuff I know like false coin.
It ends up with taxing the poor, invariably.

Funny thing was in 1993, with the "doctors of Kolonaki" (posh district of Athens - Belgravia of Athens).
According to the socialists those million making doctors should have been taxed a lot more than they were.
I was scratching my head and said to the pasok supporters "listen here, what about doctors in working class neighbourhoods ? you think those are ok ?".
They did n't like  such comments, so I was a "... black reactionary".
After the election true to form they applied the tax, but hey: Principal victims were the poor sponge divers, the chestnut vendors and the people who sell kites to the kids on clean Monday.
The rich doctors as such were affected by one half or by one third.
The same movie has played many times since then.
As for the commies their reaction was "serves them right for being capitalists and not doing the revolution".

So I 'm not signing any such claptrap.
In addition if you tax the rich companies will close down.
How do you mean to separate viability of industries from "taxing the rich" ?

[Vesper 30,219]

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

In addition if you tax the rich companies will close down.

ridiculous

[cosmicway 1,333]

17 minutes ago, Vesper said:

ridiculous

They will. Dead easy.
Anyway relating to companies doing commerce they pass all the extra cost to the consumer,
If you tax Amazon then a book that costs $ 20 + vat now will cost $ 25 + vat and that's it.
 

Edited October 3, 2024 by cosmicway

[cosmicway 1,333]

23 minutes ago, Vesper said:

ridiculous

Anyway, your idea is more money for the poor, not sheer jealousy I assume.
This works in part.
Not much but it works in part.
But it's more money for the parties, the party hacks and the government employees.
That's the people who would also benefit from a real communist system.
The others are overtaxed and become poor.
So make your petition "untax the poor" before you talk about the rich.

Edited October 3, 2024 by cosmicway