Rioting results from the inability to be heard or represented by anyone. The Democrats are said to represent them, those no one hears. Mr. Trump as Republican represents those who seek to protect what they have, not those who have nothing. Democrats and journalists deride Mr. Trump’s personality but not his protecting the haves at the expense of the have nots, actions that should be perceived even by the blind. Mr. Trump like Mr. Reagan has sought to eliminate government regulation so that business can thrive. His willingness to openly deride the causes of US.’s economic malaise appeals to those suffering its effects, those the Democrats are thought to represent; many of whom see The President as their saviour “all that they have”. His campaign against regulation they willingly accept believing that what’s good for business is good for themselves, those it employs: the least expensive workers wherever they’re found, not concerned that those profit inhibiting regulations were devised to make the market more just for those not managing a profitable business or an NGO.
They who say they will advance the interests of voters, wage earners or the middle class; say they too are wage earners, average women, or average people of colour, or socialists; not professionals seeking to advance their fortune in government service like Mr.Trump debt managing, and Mrs. Clinton masquerading in the 2008 Democrat primary as a ‘coal miner’s daughter” .
In today’s news: the Trump-Biden race tightens: the Democrat-Republican contest heightens.
National Museum of American Jewish History files for bankruptcy protection
by Stephan Salisbury, Updated: March 2, 2020- 10:30
Why did media wait till now?
Where is Malta’s Barabas and his wealthy friends?
Reminds me of Black Lives Matter one group but two worlds.
They and their lawyers own the income tax system. Tariff them instead and pay people what they’re worth so they can afford food and shelter.
Try not to overpay just for knowing the right people, or because the rich can make money from someone’s media image. Then you won’t need to tax the rich.
Socialism, programs, income tax aid the concentration of wealth, billionaires, easily eliminated by a just wage.
The idea of taxing high income earners seems to be what people believe would produce social justice and achieve a society that is the opposite of one that encourages income growth and the ability to purchase experts to nullify attempts to impose limits on financial power. Money not muscle provides power to dominate. Only a few individuals and their cohorts have this power. The majority not among that group of high earners are encouraged to take a chance to gamble in hopes that they might acquire greater wealth by chance than do others by large incomes, knowing the right people or inheritance.
The idea of taxing high incomes is the solution to social inequality say they calling themselves socialists. But everyone knows, even socialists, that money buys the expertise that protects large incomes from taxes.
The idea of socialism imagines a society in which work is done for the betterment of everyone in a society not just the individual. It is the idea that the best in humanity is achieved through work that everyone can emulate and enjoy the benefits of.
But when people are not valued for being able to better all members of society those who do nothing that improves the lives of any one , not even themselves, get most of the money. In that society acquisition of money/capital is a game in which everyone is after the same money.
Elizabeth Warren, “The Massachusetts Democrat, a progressive who’s advocated for a wealth tax and has made income inequality a mainstay of her platform,”
Income inequality is the result of remuneration inequality, people being paid more than their labor is worth. Such inequality exists because societies lack just systems of value and the will to live by them. Without such values people are paid according to the impulse of powerful friends by whom they are favoured and celebrated, while the majority underlings are required to conform to regulations and academic abstractions to land a job.
The idea of taxing the income of the wealthy is what they who call themselves socialists prescribe to produce social justice. But income tax provides opportunities for them with capital to purchase experts to protect their money from taxes. The “flat tax” was thought to be the solution by them who did not profess socialism, for a flat tax would eliminate the loop holes that experts use to protect the money of the wealthy.
Today’s socialists include individuals of great wealth. Russia and China are socialist states where individuals of great wealth are given notoriety and honour because they are wealthy. The phrase Russian oligarch acknowledges that there are a number of wealthy Russians who are members of that cast , that oligarchy . China is still called Communist China, yet it gives power to its citizens of great wealth. And though he fancies himself to be a wealthy capitalist whose friends are also wealthy, President Trump socialist-like presents himself as the spokesman for the less than wealthy struggling majority who are not among his friends. In a sense income tax has been a gift to the wealthy because their wealth has supported the political and legal experts who’ve designed the income tax laws that protect their income.
Mr Sanders is critical of Disney’s CEO’s pay.
Disney’s CEO says he deserves the millions he is paid because he makes thousands of jobs.
Someone who agrees with his pay scale compares what the CEO does to what a good street sweeper might get paid presumably the lowest of the low compared to the highest of the high. I’m prejudiced though; a good sweeper is worth more than a CEO or an accountant. There are no more sweepers, at least not in my neighborhood. Maybe they’re plentiful at Disney’s all created by CEO’s even before the current CEO was born, whose stratospheric income Mr. B. Sanders doesn’t like.
Once imagined as the internet of ideas that worldwide web of computers has morphed into a spidery war of mystery and characterless pseudonyms where ones personal friends and relatives invade transparently, the concreteness of their being fading beyond the stratosphere into cyberspace.
I’m writing this because I can’t stop thinking of what I witnessed on Canada’s business news channel as Mr. Morneau read his third Trudeau, Liberal Government budget while Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau; looking like a boy whose parents had insisted that he attend a function he didn’t understand, sat looking distracted in a lower corner of my video image. Media reactions to that budget seemed vacuous summaries of points various journalists had remembered of Mr Morneau’s speech omitting questions such as, why does Canada need that, and why should Canadians have to buy it. Only the standard, who’s going to pay for it cliché suggested someone might have found fault in an indebted government using taxes to pay for luxury programs only the better off middle class earner might favour, though the federal NDP leader yet perhaps too abstractly, may have “hit the nail on the head” when he suggested that Morneau’s planned expenditures would not help those who are most in need.