Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Leeja Miller" channel.

Can we please, please, for the love of all that is sacred and good in this world, stop calling right-wing demagogues "populists"? Donald Trump is not just the opposite side of the same coin as Bernie Sanders. Actual populism involves addressing the needs of the people. No self-respecting populist would ever push a tax cut for the rich that made W look like Robin Hood in comparison. As Ruy Teixeira noted, left (or real) populism focuses on injustices in the system that favor the rich; whereas right (or fake) populism uses some other to demagogue against in order to divide working people to benefit the top.
1
@KeesBoons A simple search on YouTube will help you find it.
1
UBI is one of these programs where the details are very important. The two most important are what to do with existing programs and how it is taxed. The worst forms of UBI that must be avoided are those that are intended to replace the existing social safety net. The best programs act as a supplement, and the worst act as a replacement. Looking at the latter, Friedman saw it as a way to get rid of existing programs, and Yang made his version either/or, and refused to say which programs people would have to forego in order to receive benefits except to say that it was a total of 125 programs with only six mentioned: TANF, SNAP, LIHEAP, SSI, daycare subsidies, and housing subsidies. So, if you're part of the other 119, you end up finding out that you get less than you expected or nothing at all. As far as payment goes, the best would be things like taxing profit from those who benefit from automation. The absol worst is a consumption tax, because that disproportionately affects the poor, which means that at best you are hitting the gas and brakes at the same time, and at the worst you are increasing wealth inequality. The most regressive forms of taxation are consumption-based, such as sales or a VAT. If you are also finding ways to make sure that "everyone" doesn't include the poor, it's the worst of both worlds.
1
@rodmiller6872 What damage did Trump do? Well, aside from literally trying to destroy democracy on the way out the door, there was tearing up the pandemic response plan, making states bid for PPE, a tax cut that made Reagan and Bush look like Robin Hood, and stealing nuclear secrets. What good did Wilson do? Child labor laws, increased enforcement of antitrust laws, and the framework that had we listened would have prevented WWII and when we did listen it did prevent WWIII.
1
@mikealvord55 Not that good at what?
1
@lilyscarlet2584 What downward trend specifically started in the 1940s and accelerated in the 1960s?
1
@lilyscarlet2584 Oh, so things that happened that you don't like ideologically rather than whether or not those things actually worked for the American people. Got it. I must say that it is quite telling that you cite civil rights laws as a big contributor to the downfall of American society. And despite the fig leaf of the gold standard, that was fully abandoned in 1971, not the 1960s, you're not fooling anyone.
1
@avedic Sadly, I'm wondering if the problem is that too many on the left would rather be pure than get some of what they want. We get poll after poll showing that people agree with us, but too many are too lazy to do the necessary work. If you keep waiting on the world to change, you're going to be waiting for a long time.
1
In 2000, exit polls showed that Nader voters would have voted for Gore over Bush by a margin of 16-26% (37-21 or 43-17). If you add 16% of Nader's total in Florida to Gore, he wins by 15,050 votes, meaning Nader made it close enough to steal. No, it's not every vote, but it's far more than not.
1
@greatesttoysevermade3693 "Many" doesn't mean all. In 2000, exit polls showed that Gore would have won a net of 16% (37-21) to 26% (44-18) of Nader voters when asked who they'd vote for if he wasn't on the ballot. 16% of Nader's Florida total was 15,587. Add that to Gore's total, and he wins by 15,050, so the chicanery to throw it to Bush wouldn't have mattered. Nader also made states like Washington and Oregon a lot closer, meaning Gore had to otherwise use money there to play defense that could have been used elsewhere.
1
@ZachariahWiedeman The coastal elite thing is ridiculous, but Obama did some things to screw workers over in office. After a bunch of Wall Street executives who took TARP money got these obscene bonuses, Obama said "contracts are sacred." However, when the auto industry was in trouble, Obama told the UAW they had to make sacrifices. I think you can trace the loss of the House and several governor's mansions in the Great Lakes area to that. He also offered up Social Security in 2011 as part of a "grand compromise" with Republicans on the budget. Obama did some good, but there were some parts of his record that were extremely problematic.
1
@RobTaylor-ry2fk If you don't like them, vote them out. Why should we get rid of someone that people like because of some arbitrary limit? And why would the people vote for someone that different if you forced someone out for being there too long?
1
@RobTaylor-ry2fk It's not their money they spend. As to the point about rich people, arguably nobody has done more for poor people than FDR, and he was born into a very rich family. Nobody currently has done more for or fought for more people than Bernie Sanders, and he's been in Congress for 33 years (16 House, 17 Senate). I don't want to get rid of him because of some arbitrary term limits.
1
Funny how many of this people claim to be against war or genocide, but they have no problem with a candidate so cozy with Putin, a war criminal attempting just that in Ukraine.
1