The 2022 Midterms

[ronntaylor]

Unbelievable comment, holy shit what a reveal

Is it though!! Look at posting histories here and elsewhere.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Hold on, there is meaning.
fascism
făsh′ĭz″əm
noun

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator*, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

* Trump is our wannabe dictator and the GOP who reluctantly supports him as a path to the continued holding of National power.

How ironic coming from the GOP who are officially against big government, until that means they can no longer be elected honestly. They are just against current government, when they are not getting their way, gaming the system for their advantage. It’s just a power play, an enabling argument, along the lines of the States Right’s argument, as in The Civil War was not about Slavery, it was about State’s Rights (to have slavery), as if that makes a difference. In essence it’s about “My Right“ to get my way, which is selfish, self serving, and anti-Democratic.

When do you become anti-Democratic? For GOP leadership, it’s when you can’t be elected democratically, then we see what happens, undermining civil and voting rights, suppressing the votes from the demographics who don’t support your policies.

Full blown fascim is evil, it’s is about excerting physical power against and control over those who disagree with you, including long incarcerations without representation, and murder. It is lawless in the traditional sense, crafting laws that benefit their group personally and politically, and it is completely the end of holding power, justifies the means.

Fascism fundamentally is the anthesis of Democracy. It’s about forcefully holding power, and it starts by cheating, underlining laws that hamper your ability to hold power. Not yet full blown fascist, IMO, GOP leadership is on a fascist path attempting to put all the pieces in place to complete the evolution. This includes not speaking out against Donald Trump and his Jan6 insurrection, and embracing elements, such as white supremicist militias who would eagerly start the civil war on command and advocate violence as a means of maintaining white privilege and control.

As far as every Republican a fascist, that is not the case. Significant numbers seem to be abandoning the GOP, but not enough. A significant part of Republican leadership appear to be afraid of their base not voting for them, if they are not extreme enough, and they are in gaming the system mode. Election board members around the country in the face of threats have resigned, being replaced by 2020 election deniers. When enough key positions are filled by loyalists, then all bets are off regarding continued American democracy,

It can be honestly asked, if you support a racist leader, does that make you a racist? Yes, it does, or at a minimum it makes you self serving, allowing racism for self percieved advantage, part and parcel of White Privilege.

And the same thing goes for Republican leadership today and fascism as we watch those in charge of the GOP undermine the will of the majority, lie their asses off, declare their willingness to overthrow elections when they lose, forging ahead with undermining civil and voter rights, legislating corruption, and undermining the Constitution as it exists today so they can continue to hold power. If you support a political party that embraces such tactics, what can be legitimately said about that and you?

In today's world you wouldn't even be allowed to call Hitler, Hitler because Hitler is no Hitler.

 

[Joe]

Is it though!! Look at posting histories here and elsewhere.

Those of us who have paid attention knew the little fascist was fascist since MR.

Others are too busy playing wordle with someone that would have them killed in a heartbeat.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

On Truth Social Trump posted “MAGA doesn’t vote for stupid people with big mouths,” in response to a candidate DeSantis endorsed who is anti-Trump.

That’s actually the definition of exactly who MAGA votes for.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Also, with you and the media referring to every Republican as Fascists, it is quickly losing its meaning.

What else do you call it when they want to overturn an election based on nothing but conjecture and install a leader? It's certainly not democracy.

 

[Huntn]

Is it though!! Look at posting histories here and elsewhere.

First time I heard that Fascism (along the lines of Me>We) is better than Socialism (We>Me) said so simply as a philosophy. But thinking like the Right Wing, sharing designed in an economic system is dispicable. I guess taking over by force and stripping away human rights is the clear winner. Just keep the peons at the oars so the worthy people (namely me) can live it up.

 

[Deleted member 215]

I say this every year, but I just turned in my vote-by-mail ballot in one of the many drop-boxes in my town of 30,000.

Oh no--FRAWWWWD!!!

Conservative heads are exploding, I know.

 

[lizkat]

I say this every year, but I just turned in my vote-by-mail ballot in one of the many drop-boxes in my town of 30,000.

Oh no--FRAWWWWD!!!

Conservative heads are exploding, I know.

Not sure why I put a laugh on that post... for the first time in my life when I walked out to the road and put my absentee ballot in my mailbox for pickup, it crossed my mind to wonder about the political lean of the rural route mail carrier. So it's not just conservative heads exploding over balloting this year, I guess. And how silly. I mean in my case all I have to do if I have concerns about disposition of my ballot is go online after awhile and look up whether it has been received and processed. And if not, I have recourse, right up to voting day.

 

[GermanSuplex]

We already have socialism anyways, especially when it comes to to the wealthy and well-connected getting tons of money from taxpayers all the time.

Serious question - do you think Donald Trump has received more money from the federal government than he's put in, in the form of loan forgiveness, tax write-offs, bankruptcies, etc.?
I would wager the answer is almost certainly yes. It's conjecture on my part, but I would almost put money on it, and I'm sure he's not alone.

I bet the U.S. spends far more on the wealthy than they do on free school lunches, tuition loan forgiveness, food and rental assistance, etc.

A perfect window of this are the PPP loans. You have republicans who got hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions in loans forgiven - free money from the federal government - bitching and moaning that someone somewhere is going to get 10k or 20k forgiven. What is the difference? There is none, beyond whatever convoluted justification they think of as to why its bad for others but perfectly acceptable and reasonable for them.

 

[Alli]

Those of us who have paid attention knew the little fascist was fascist since MR.

Others are too busy playing wordle with someone that would have them killed in a heartbeat.

I think that’s a tad harsh. You might want to consider toning it down a bit.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

We already have socialism anyways, especially when it comes to to the wealthy and well-connected getting tons of money from taxpayers all the time.

Serious question - do you think Donald Trump has received more money from the federal government than he's put in, in the form of loan forgiveness, tax write-offs, bankruptcies, etc.?

To answer your question - yes. He also went to one of his properties almost every weekend he was in office and charged the Secret Service exorbitant rates to stay there. Of course he's not alone. Hedge fund managers have the carried interest loophole. Big farmers and oil companies get subsidies. In fact the tax code is so large and complex because of all the giveaways to special interests.

And billionaire team owners get cities to help build their stadiums so they can make more billions. The stadiums are supposed to create jobs, bringing taxes, etc. but, from: The Economics of Sports Stadiums: Does public financing of sports stadiums create local economic growth, or just help billionaires improve their profit margin?

Unfortunately, the subsidies have not created the local impact that they promised. To understand why, let’s consider the Atlanta Falcons’ new stadium, which cost $2 billion for construction—$700 million of which was paid by local taxpayers. While proponents may talk about a multiplier effect, several theoretical and empirical studies of local economic impact of stadiums have shown that beliefs that stadiums have an impact that matches the amount of money that residents pay are largely unfounded. The average stadium generates $145 million per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community. As such, the prevalent idea among team owners of “socializing the costs and privatizing the profits” is harmful and unfair to people who are forced to pay for a stadium that will not help them.

 

[Herdfan]

Unfortunately, the subsidies have not created the local impact that they promised. To understand why, let’s consider the Atlanta Falcons’ new stadium, which cost $2 billion for construction—$700 million of which was paid by local taxpayers. While proponents may talk about a multiplier effect, several theoretical and empirical studies of local economic impact of stadiums have shown that beliefs that stadiums have an impact that matches the amount of money that residents pay are largely unfounded. The average stadium generates $145 million per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community. As such, the prevalent idea among team owners of “socializing the costs and privatizing the profits” is harmful and unfair to people who are forced to pay for a stadium that will not help them.

Dollars to dollars I would agree that stadiums don't pay back anywhere near what they cost.

But unless no cities had teams, where do you think companies are going to locate their HQ. Probably in a city with a team because the execs like to own boxes and host parties.

I just think it is really hard to quantify as there are so many variables.

On the other hand, several owners have shown they can do it with private funding.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

To answer your question - yes. He also went to one of his properties almost every weekend he was in office and charged the Secret Service exorbitant rates to stay there. Of course he's not alone. Hedge fund managers have the carried interest loophole. Big farmers and oil companies get subsidies. In fact the tax code is so large and complex because of all the giveaways to special interests.

And billionaire team owners get cities to help build their stadiums so they can make more billions. The stadiums are supposed to create jobs, bringing taxes, etc. but, from: The Economics of Sports Stadiums: Does public financing of sports stadiums create local economic growth, or just help billionaires improve their profit margin?

Unfortunately, the subsidies have not created the local impact that they promised. To understand why, let’s consider the Atlanta Falcons’ new stadium, which cost $2 billion for construction—$700 million of which was paid by local taxpayers. While proponents may talk about a multiplier effect, several theoretical and empirical studies of local economic impact of stadiums have shown that beliefs that stadiums have an impact that matches the amount of money that residents pay are largely unfounded. The average stadium generates $145 million per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community. As such, the prevalent idea among team owners of “socializing the costs and privatizing the profits” is harmful and unfair to people who are forced to pay for a stadium that will not help them.

Some party/body should run on raise the taxes on the rich AND lower them for everybody else. I know it won't happen because of corruption, but it seems like a winning platform.

I think it's 100% horseshit when some pundit says "people don't want to tax the rich because they see themselves as being rich someday." That's conveniently only said by somebody who is already rich and benefits from the status quo. Next message is "They'll come for you next" if you tax the rich more. Fine, then say you are actually going to lower the taxes of those who aren't rich. Do you think people want their savings now or possibly when they reach a level that is never going to happen? I'm going to go with the former.

 

[Roller]

Beats socialism.

I don't know if you're a student of history, particularly the rise of the Nazis' brand in post-WW I Germany. People I've spoken to who lived through this period all say they refused to believe society would dive to the depths it did, in part because the changes were gradual at first. We may not get to that point in the U.S., but some of the signs are there, including the moves to make voting a sham and the ongoing increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric and acts. I'm not saying all Republicans are fascists or racists, but many on the right are promoting anti-democratic and anti-Semitic practices, like refusing to accept the results of elections if they lose, and blaming their ills on the Jews.

Socialism isn't a single, unified ideology, at least in the many ways the term is used nowadays. When I think of socialism, the system in many Scandinavian countries comes to mind, particularly the provision of universal health care. How is that worse than fascism? Do you truly not want free and fair elections and have you and your family live in a society that cares about and ensures everyone's well-being, not just the people with the means to afford it?

 

[Herdfan]

I don't know if you're a student of history, particularly the rise of the Nazis' brand in post-WW I Germany. People I've spoken to who lived through this period all say they refused to believe society would dive to the depths it did, in part because the changes were gradual at first. We may not get to that point in the U.S., but some of the signs are there, including the moves to make voting a sham and the ongoing increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric and acts. I'm not saying all Republicans are fascists or racists, but many on the right are promoting anti-democratic and anti-Semitic practices, like refusing to accept the results of elections if they lose, and blaming their ills on the Jews.

Socialism isn't a single, unified ideology, at least in the many ways the term is used nowadays. When I think of socialism, the system in many Scandinavian countries comes to mind, particularly the provision of universal health care. How is that worse than fascism? Do you truly not want free and fair elections and have you and your family live in a society that cares about and ensures everyone's well-being, not just the people with the means to afford it?

Yes, we are in the pot being brought to a slow boil. Just like the frog.

I for one don't get the anti-Semitic stuff. But then again I am not a religious person so I really don't care who or what your worship. I don't know if the GOP or Dems are any better or worse, but I do know that two very anti-Semitic people in Congress are Dems and the GOP is generally more friendly to Israel.

The Scandinavian counties do have a working model of socialism. But let's look at the taxes they pay using Sweden as an example (and only because I thought of it first). Nationally the rate is 20% on all income over around $5,000 and the average municipal tax is around 32%. Not to mention the VAT tax of around 25% on most goods. Do you really think that level of taxes would fly in the US? I understand you do get something for it, but given the high cost to the individual, how many people do you think would chose this over our current system.

Sweden (and other Scandanavian countries) have not gone as far with Socialism where the government controls most means of production. So people can own businesses and gain wealth.

On the far end of the scale is Venezuela where the government took over the oil business and turned a country that should be as rich as any in the world to one where people are eating zoo animals.

As for fair elections, I am old enough to remember Election day being a big deal. I went with my grandmother to vote and we entered the booth and she pulled all the levers. But it was an occasion. Schools were out and people took it seriously. And everything was fine. Now we can't seem to give people enough ways to vote, but if you dare question any of these new methods, you are labeled an election denier when all you want is to make sure the elections are fair.

I am sorry if I can't imagine a reason that one person should be dropping off 20 ballots while wearing rubber gloves. I think voting is a right, but one that comes with some level of work. If it means that much to you, then you should be willing to at the very least be slightly inconvenienced.

 

[Citysnaps]

We may not get to that point in the U.S., but some of the signs are there, including the moves to make voting a sham and the ongoing increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric and acts. I'm not saying all Republicans are fascists or racists, but many on the right are promoting anti-democratic and anti-Semitic practices, like refusing to accept the results of elections if they lose, and blaming their ills on the Jews.

And let's not forget the great replacement theory where believers (there are many in the US) assert that immigrants and non-whites are gaining in number and crowding out whites in society while having what they believe are adverse consequences in elections. And resulting in hate crimes across the country. White supremacy and supremacists are real. And dangerous.

 

[Pumbaa]

The Scandinavian counties do have a working model of socialism. But let's look at the taxes they pay using Sweden as an example (and only because I thought of it first). Nationally the rate is 20% on all income over around $5,000 and the average municipal tax is around 32%. Not to mention the VAT tax of around 25% on most goods. Do you really think that level of taxes would fly in the US? I understand you do get something for it, but given the high cost to the individual, how many people do you think would chose this over our current system.

I know this thread is about the 2022 Midterms, but I have to ask… $5,000? I thought you guys used annual income when discussing income, not monthly income?

For 2022 the threshold for paying Swedish state tax is 540,700 SEK (around $48,500 today, $65,800 in 2021, darn exchange rates) of taxable annual income after deductions for an individual. You can live a pretty sweet life in Sweden if you make enough money to pay state tax (something like 150% of the median income).

I could point out a bunch of sweet “something for it”, like medicine capped at 2,400 SEK ($215)/year, healthcare capped at 1,200 SEK/year, going to university without paying for it, etc., and that you as an employee are entitled to a minimum of 25 days paid vacation/year, but this is not the thread for it and it wouldn‘t really matter anyway. Just bringing over the tax percentages and applying them to your current situation without actually considering what you get for it is either beyond stupid or intentionally dishonest. If the masses realized how much they would gain from it (and you allowed them to vote fairly), your beloved current system would be fucked.

In any case — Quite sad to hear that you prefer fascism over democracy with a marginal tax rate of 32%/52% on average and a VAT of 25% on most goods and “something for it”.

 

[Hrafn]

I know this thread is about the 2022 Midterms, but I have to ask… $5,000? I thought you guys used annual income when discussing income, not monthly income?

For 2022 the threshold for paying Swedish state tax is 540,700 SEK (around $48,500 today, $65,800 in 2021, darn exchange rates) of taxable annual income after deductions for an individual. You can live a pretty sweet life in Sweden if you make enough money to pay state tax (something like 150% of the median income).

I could point out a bunch of sweet “something for it”, like medicine capped at 2,400 SEK ($215)/year, healthcare capped at 1,200 SEK/year, going to university without paying for it, etc., and that you as an employee are entitled to a minimum of 25 days paid vacation/year, but this is not the thread for it and it wouldn‘t really matter anyway. Just bringing over the tax percentages and applying them to your current situation without actually considering what you get for it is either beyond stupid or intentionally dishonest. If the masses realized how much they would gain from it (and you allowed them to vote fairly), your beloved current system would be fucked.

In any case — Quite sad to hear that you prefer fascism over democracy with a marginal tax rate of 32%/52% on average and a VAT of 25% on most goods and “something for it”.

Maths, details, and facts are tricky little buggers.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Yes, we are in the pot being brought to a slow boil. Just like the frog.

I for one don't get the anti-Semitic stuff. But then again I am not a religious person so I really don't care who or what your worship. I don't know if the GOP or Dems are any better or worse, but I do know that two very anti-Semitic people in Congress are Dems and the GOP is generally more friendly to Israel.

The Scandinavian counties do have a working model of socialism. But let's look at the taxes they pay using Sweden as an example (and only because I thought of it first). Nationally the rate is 20% on all income over around $5,000 and the average municipal tax is around 32%. Not to mention the VAT tax of around 25% on most goods. Do you really think that level of taxes would fly in the US? I understand you do get something for it, but given the high cost to the individual, how many people do you think would chose this over our current system.

Sweden (and other Scandanavian countries) have not gone as far with Socialism where the government controls most means of production. So people can own businesses and gain wealth.

On the far end of the scale is Venezuela where the government took over the oil business and turned a country that should be as rich as any in the world to one where people are eating zoo animals.

As for fair elections, I am old enough to remember Election day being a big deal. I went with my grandmother to vote and we entered the booth and she pulled all the levers. But it was an occasion. Schools were out and people took it seriously. And everything was fine. Now we can't seem to give people enough ways to vote, but if you dare question any of these new methods, you are labeled an election denier when all you want is to make sure the elections are fair.

I am sorry if I can't imagine a reason that one person should be dropping off 20 ballots while wearing rubber gloves. I think voting is a right, but one that comes with some level of work. If it means that much to you, then you should be willing to at the very least be slightly inconvenienced.

I know that the higher tax rates look shocking in comparison, but let’s parallel that with what the fed is attempting to do. They’re raising interest rates to decrease demand which also ultimately just means more money for the banks in interest. Now imagine raising taxes which would also decrease demand but the people would also get something in return as opposed to just the banks. It would also help fight inflation and the US being the world’s big consumer addict that it is would eventually find a way to return to that lifestyle but at overall relative lower prices. A lot of the economy inside and outside the US can’t survive if we’re not constantly buying shit.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

The Scandinavian countries do have high tax rates, but from what I have heard they are not generally unpopular because they get value for their taxes: health care, education, good public transit, generous family leave, etc. They don't live in fear of going bankrupt if they get sick. I think if Americans were more aware of these things and could depend on their government to actually govern instead of engaging in corruption and partisan fighting, they might be more accepting of higher taxes. As it is now, they won't get the value for higher taxes and just be in more of a financial bind.