Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Status Coup News"
channel.
-
13
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The "messenger" is smearing anyone who doesn't whole heartedly agree with his tactics. The woman who took out the #2 corporate Dem, who got challenged again by a DCCC backed corporate Dem and won, who started her own progressive PAC, who just used that PAC to get even more progressives elected to congress, who's a member of the DSA which has been holding M4A rallies, ... she's a "shill"?
If you, at all, doubt the strategy of the political mastermind who promoted Trump as better than Clinton, and claimed the moon would fall into Lake Michigan before Trump fills multiple scotus seats, then you're a "fake", "sellout", or "shill"? Piss off Jimmy Dore.
The moron doesn't even know it would be possible for Pelosi, or even McCarthy, to win, if things weren't done just right, and somehow coordinated with both Republicans and all the corporate Dems. The speaker has to win the majority of votes cast, not the majority of the house. House members abstaining changes the number of votes needed to win. His plan isn't risk free. Considering forcing a vote guaranteed to lose not worth the potential risks, doesn't make someone a "shill".
2
-
@Aj-zr8dz Jimmy recently argued himself that corporate Dems would rather lose to Republicans than deliver to progressives. That's an argument against his own plan. If they'd rather things fail to the right than succeed to the left, that indicates progressives have less political leverage than he's claiming they have.
I get that people are frustrated with the slow build up of progressives in congress, wish it could go faster, etc., but remember that Jimmy has an agenda too ... the People's Party. Making out like progressives aren't doing what they can, that they're "fakes", that they're "shills", etc., because of a tactics disagreement, plays into his argument for a People's Party ... which would have to start from scratch, and have even less power. He thinks fascists and neolibs are samesies, even promoted the fascist as a better option, in 2016. He thought Jill Stein had an actual shot at becoming president. He underestimates just how horribly worse Republicans can be, and overestimates how much influence and power underdog progressives, or third parties, have.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most isn't all. There will be a pocket of people already collecting $1000 per month, or more, in assistance who will be worse off if most things cost at least 10% more. Any plan to help the poor shouldn't hurt some of the poor. Also, a single parent's $1000 per month isn't going to go nearly as far as a single non-parent's $1000 per month. Any plan for the poor that doesn't factor in children, and give an increase for children, is crap, especially if things for the children will cost at least 10% more. We exempt basic staples here in Canada, but that doesn't include clothing, which growing kids can plow through, toys, or other entertainment.
On top of having a negative effect on some amount of poor people, he is completely bullshitting that a VAT is a way to make corporations like Amazon "pay their fair share". Corporations simply collect the tax and pass it along to government. The consumers pay the tax.
Many who do end up in the plus will actually spend their extra money on corporations like Amazon, making Amazon even more money. That, in turn, will make people like Bezos even more money, and the more money someone has, the more they hoard. Hoarded money isn't affected by a VAT. The upper middle class and lower end rich, who already spend a lot but don't hoard as much, will be the ones paying into the VAT the most, as a percentage of their income/wealth.
Yang's plan, as is, will hurt some poor people, hurt the upper middle class and low end rich, while making giant corporations and the super rich even richer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@dorothypage77 You and Yang are lying, saying a VAT is a way to tax corporations. You seem to be clueless as to how a VAT actually works. Let's say Amazon currently buys a product from a manufacturer at $100, sells it for $200, and pockets $100. With a 10% VAT added, they'd pay $100 + $10 VAT, and the manufacturer would send $10 to the government. Amazon would still sell for $200 but with a $20 VAT added, so the final consumer pays $220. Amazon gets paid back $10, and sends $10 to the government. The government gets $20, but Amazon still pockets $100. So, explain how that's actually taxing them.
Half the things you pointed at people spending UBI on (in a totally different UBI plan than Yang's) wouldn't pay into a VAT. That's actually not a good thing, for Yang's scheme. His scheme is totally dependent on increasing VAT revenues. His plan starts with massive deficit spending, no way to pay for a third of his UBI, and requires a ton more VAT revenue to be generated, than is currently generated. Food, housing, savings, debt ... will totally screw his plan. Also, what they bought doesn't say who they bought it from. Amazon is selling some groceries and household products. Amazon sells school books. Buying at WalMart would be no better. It would make giant corporations richer, and a VAT not a way to actually tax them.
1
-
@dorothypage77 You're still lying. Just to be clear, I'm Canadian. I've been paying a VAT for almost 30 years, and have operated a business with a VAT. Don't even bother trying to explain to me how it works. We also have staples exempt, here, but there's still a VAT on electricity, clothes, toys, phone service, internet service, cable service, all other forms of entertainment, snack foods and pop, alcohol, etc., etc., etc. If you don't think any of those things costing more will leave some people worse off, then you're pretty daft.
To cover the full cost of the UBI, he is totally relying on the economy growing by trillions and generating hundreds of more billions from future VAT. At the outset, a third of his UBI won't be paid for, and will run a deficit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aj-zr8dz Do you mean build coalitions by doing things like having your progressive PAC help get more progressives elected to congress, or do you mean build coalitions by calling other progressives "fakes", "sellouts", and "shills" over a tactics disagreement?
Ideas from discussions? AOC reaches 10m people (40x more than Jimmy) with every tweet, not to mention other social media. Her enemies even help spread her ideas all the time. Jimmy "trending" one thing, that barely anyone outside progressive circles is talking about, that has mostly just caused infighting, doesn't even compare. His retweets are mostly in the hundreds, and not over 2k. She had a single M4A tweet retweeted 70 fucking thousand times. That's worth more than 35 of Jimmy's few most shared tweets.
What the ... ? People Party pusher, Jimmy Dore, pitted himself against progressives in congress. In 2016, he also pushed the Green Party, even pushed Trump over Clinton. He obviously doesn't actually give a fuck about winning anytime soon. He's obviously fully prepared to start from scratch, and even willing to let a "maniacal fascist", and a psycho fascist cult, run the show, and let the Democrat party fail, for however many years it would take for a third party to even get one seat in congress, let alone enough seats to pass any of their own bills. And, yes, he pointed at how much popularity Bernie gained in a little amount of time, and tried arguing Stein could possibly do it too, and maybe even become president.
https://amp.reddit.com/r/jillstein/comments/4vwr6p/jimmy_dore_president_jill_stein_its_more_possible/
Trump has dropped more bombs than Obama, and Dubya killed more people than both of them combined. Who are these worse neolibs you speak of?
You say I'm misrepresenting him, etc., over and over, but don't really get into detailing how, exactly. It's funny, though, reading a Dore fan go on about "character assassination", while defending Dore.
Yeah, so let's trash the most progressive politicians in congress!!! That'll show those oligarchs!!!
1
-
1