Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

[Natural Citizen]

Normally this would be an economics discussion but since it's a consequence of pure politics and the force of government, I think it's best shared in politics.

Anyway. As it turns out, billionaires MADE $3.9 trillion during the pandemic, while workers LOST $3.7 trillion. Some may recall discussion with regard to the historic transfer of wealth during the so-called pandemic.


Two links...

Billionaires made $3.9 trillion during the pandemic — enough to pay for everyone's vaccine

The increase in wealth of the 10 richest billionaires could pay for everyone worldwide to get the COVID-19 vaccine, per an Oxfam report on inequality.

www.businessinsider.com

Covid-19 has cost global workers $3.7tn in lost earnings, says ILO

Women and young workers bear brunt of job losses and reductions in hours, says UN labour body

www.theguardian.com

One word...

Pft.

 

[Moonglow]

I managed to lose nothing. It only took me fifty years but I finally caught on.

 

[Mac1958]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

 

[harmonica]

.....that's usually how it has been all the time, yes? the rich get richer....poor get poorer? ...companies can do very badly, but the CEOs/etc get mucho $$$$

Bank Got Bailout, CEO Got Golden Parachute

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

www.propublica.org

A Short History of Golden Parachutes

We have ‘80s corporate raiders to thank.

hbr.org

 

[harmonica]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

hahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaha
PANDEMIC!!!!!!!!!!!! get it?????? socialism ALSO fails during a pandemic
DUH

 

[pknopp]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

 

[gipper]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

It won’t be addressed. Our government and the two gangs are controlled by the ultra wealthy. As such, they do the bidding of the ultra wealthy. It’s been going on for a long time.

 

[Mac1958]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people. If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

Sure, but this exists along a continuum. And the longer we fail to address the holes in capitalism, the further along that continuum towards full socialism we'll go.

 

[harmonica]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

 

[wamose]

Democrats pander to the rich for their money. Democrat politics is played by kissing rich asses and using the media to convince the poor that they are Democrat's #1 priority. In reality, Democrats want to keep the working man poor, pissed off and dependent on government.

 

[pknopp]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people. If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

Sure, but this exists along a continuum. And the longer we fail to address the holes in capitalism, the further along that continuum towards full socialism we'll go.

You can't really address holes in something that doesn't even exist.

 

[Natural Citizen]

For the record, the merge of corporation and state is called fascism.

 

[Mac1958]

And the longer we fail to address the holes in capitalism, the further along that continuum towards full socialism we'll go.

You can't really address holes in something that doesn't even exist.

Well, it's pretty much swiss cheese at this point, but I'd definitely rather save it.

 

[pknopp]

For the record, the merge of corporation and state is called fascism.

We are seeing that play out with the reaction concerning those who want to play in the markets but not accepting the rulers, rules.

 

[pknopp]

And the longer we fail to address the holes in capitalism, the further along that continuum towards full socialism we'll go.

You can't really address holes in something that doesn't even exist.

Well, it's pretty much swiss cheese at this point, but I'd definitely rather save it.

No one is going to do that.

 

[gipper]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people. If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

Sure, but this exists along a continuum. And the longer we fail to address the holes in capitalism, the further along that continuum towards full socialism we'll go.

You can't really address holes in something that doesn't even exist.

True enough. I find it strange anyone believes we live in a capitalist economy.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

 

[SweetTea]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people. If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

Sure, but this exists along a continuum. And the longer we fail to address the holes in capitalism, the further along that continuum towards full socialism we'll go.

What you fail to understand is that what the Democrats preach is what leads us down this path. Equity of outcome instead of equity of opportunity is now pounded into kids heads from pre-school. They won’t ever stop. We could give everyone their own small home with a small car and they would be complaining that some have bigger homes and nicer cars. Much like the over-use of ”racism” has caused further division and is pushing us to far in the opposite direction, the over-use of “wealth-inequality” has pushed us too far down the road towards pure Socialism.

 

[gipper]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

And lots of Fascism too.

 

[pknopp]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people. If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

Sure, but this exists along a continuum. And the longer we fail to address the holes in capitalism, the further along that continuum towards full socialism we'll go.

What you fail to understand is that what the Democrats preach is what leads us down this path. Equity of outcome instead of equity of opportunity is now pounded into kids heads from pre-school. They won’t ever stop. We could give everyone their own small home with a small car and they would be complaining that some have bigger homes and nicer cars. Much like the over-use of ”racism” has caused further division and is pushing us to far in the opposite direction, the over-use of “wealth-inequality” has pushed us too far down the road towards pure Socialism.

It is akin to the Little Boy who Cried Wolf except instead of the wolf attacking the sheep, the wolf attacks all the town people below who ignored the warnings from the little boy.

That's because the government is giving the few million dollar vacation homes.