A capitalist system is OK but with strict rules it obvious many rules are being broken. Taxes for one which support the social programs the US has. If corporations can pay no tax then the entire system slowly collapses. I don't live in the US my country has strong social programs but is still a capitalist system.
Make the companies pay for the food stamps and other social programs that their employees use, and make it non-deductible. Force the companies to stop seeing the programs as a way to replace spending money on their employees' paychecks.
It's mind blowing to me that politicians agree to be interviewed by Jon. Like, if I was a politician I would pay an intern just to make sure I'm not in the same state as Jon ever.
Distribute the profits AFTER you pay your workers a living wage. It's unbelievable how fucked this country is, all the way to the Secretary of the Treasury.
In order for this to be a TRUE free market system, the workers need to be truly free to quit and go elsewhere. Tying health care to employment makes that difficult and is an impediment to the free market. If they REALLY wanted this to be a proper fully lubricated free market system, they would implement government provided healthcare. As is, the American economy is reinventing slavery.
The fact that Americans accept this horrendously corrupt and unjust system while also being against Universal Health Care proves to me that we are indeed living in Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World. This is what makes me sick about pop culture. Americans will tolerate this advanced form of slavery as long as they can have Taylor Swift and whatever Prime Time garbage the network crank out.
Where Jon falls short is he doesn't go beyond questioning the system itself, merely criticizing the market as not being "free". But it is. Monopolies are the natural result of profit-driven economies. The companies that rose to the top lobby against regulations that would mitigate some of that damage. Profit should be distributed according to a mandate of the masses. Workers should own the means with which they produce, and democratically decide what to do with the full value of their labor.
The problem isn’t the number of parties, it’s the money that’s allowed to corrupt the system. You could have 32 parties, but if they can be bribed, you’re right back at square one.
»Funny« variation of that: 1-€-jobs as part of the Hartz IV social security concept in Germany. On the one hand it is law, that people using social security are required to do whatever is necessary to get a job. And if the government can find you such a job, that pays 1-€ and hour, rest of missing income is payed by tax payers, that is OK. The company on the other hand gets a worker that is required to work fully, like anywhere else, but pays 1 lousy € an hour. If this isn't an unfair market...
That's simply not true. 1-€-jobs must be "in public interest" and can only be offered by charity or non-profit organizations. Futhermore these organizations are not allowed to replace a full-time job with a 1-€-job. These jobs usually require no qualification and have a reduced number of hours worked per day.
That.... doesn't make sense to me at all. Intuitively, I feel that would mean the government is propping up a system that caused high unemployment numbers... But I suppose its better than what we do in the states where a person has to show they go interview for a job, they purposefully fuck it up, and just keep collecting unemployment whilst contributing nothing back to society.
You can do that here to, same way. And on the contrary: It is a means to make things look better than they actually are. Because technically these people count as on full-time job, while at the same time on social security. Since 2000 the entire job market created loads of jobs, that actually don't pay enough for a living. Minimum wage has not always been a thing here, so before then it was simply a shitty way of polishing statistics and making peoples lives miserable on purpose. »Go get a job«.
Ok. But is our response to the Dems doing “next to nothing” going to be “actually doing nothing”? Incumbent Dems still have to run against other Dems to stay in office. Don’t let apathy replace our sympathy.
like I said, absolutely everyone should vote, but it's gonna take a lot more than keeping the not fascists but still hardline capitalists in power to make a real change. organize your workplaces, do mutual aid in your communities, maybe some industrial sabotage which for legal reasons I'm joking about. vote, but if we stop there we've already failed.
He forgot to mention that the owners took their money and bought a football team. So fuck the Broncos I hope they have nothing but loosing seasons from now till the Waltons sell them.
He also owns a crap ton of land in the St Louis and surrounding area supposedly and keeps raising the rental rats to where even big chains like best buy are like "screw that, were just not gonna keep our store there"
Yes. Nobody held a gun to the taxpayers' heads and forced us to offer WalMart's workers food stamps and supplementary welfare. If nobody could afford to work at WalMart and they can't get any workers, they would be forced to raise wages or go under. We chose to let them do this.
Issue is its not an either or situation. Yes, we help their workers because it's the right thing to do, even while it enables the corporation, which is the wrong thing to do. So we should focus on righting the wrong, not ending the right. My uneducated opinion would suggest laws (details not included) that require any company that has workers on welfare to fix this within a certain timeframe or be increasingly penalized monetarily/have their taxes increased to cover the cost to taxpayers.
The thing is, their first course of action (probably successful) would be to argue that's a bill of attainder. As they don't control the threshold for "on welfare," they are at the mercy of the state to decide whether or not they are breaking the law. Even assuming that fails in court, and it probably won't, the lawsuits will tie it up for years before it's implemented. Then, on the off chance the lawsuit fails, they will fix it. But they'll fix it by firing their lowest-paid (1/n)
workers and piling their work onto other workers. If that doesn't work, they'll outsource the work to private contractors, on short-term contracts so the contract agencies (not WalMart) can keep laying the workers off between jobs, thus fixing it as far as WalMart is concerned. They are more agile than any legislature and will pay for better lawyers.
I don't think it would fit a bill of attainder (though with this SCOTUS that may not matter) as the gov't can and often does fine corporations for things through its various commissions. They'd have to go about it the right way. The law itself could address such loopholes. As could unions (debatable as that may be with how weakened they are). Other options include going back to the days of high corporate taxes coupled with numerous deductions, with livable wages by region being a generous one.
Not sure that entirely makes sense either... welfare is a kinda broad term and eligibility is based on a number of factors including household, not individual income. So like, should a business who pays an employee lets say, 20/hour have to pay that 50k because that person is married to some one unemployed, therefore their house hold income allows them to get welfare benefits? So under your proposition that person now went from making 40k to 90k a year? Why? Because their partner as no jerb?
The most sensible thing to do is to raise the minimum wage so that people who are working can afford to live and do not need to be subsidized by the government.
I think you overestimate how little you have to make to qualify for welfare, it's very low. Also, there is a good number of people who think minimum wage is for teens, I know that less than half are teens, but that will be the argument. If you fine the business, you could get more support.
No, I looked up the income limits. Given its based on HOUSE HOLD income you can easily have a situation where you're going "Oi you're a bad company taking advantage of the welfare system." Meanwhile the situation is they are paying their employee a fair pay, but that person happens to live with adults who aren't working. So its not that company's fault the house hold income is shit. So it makes more sense to just make every company pay fair wage.
The most sensible thing to do is tough love. If the workers willingly agree to be screwed, why should they be able to come to the legislature and complain that they've been screwed? Support universal basic income (both universal, and BASIC) so that nobody can be forced to work a terrible job just to survive. Then they can bargain for conditions that don't amount to being screwed, while also doing (if that's all they want) minimal work to add some minimal spending money to their lives.
Because they don't have the choice for a better job because the laws enable shitty jobs to be the norm? Its why we have labor laws and the like. If you don't have regulations, people get taken advantage of. Those laws only exist because people demanded better. The minimum wage needs to be raised. It was originally implemented at a level that was specifically meant to assure a person could make ends meet. It has not kept pace with inflation and has lost significant buying power.
Workers willingly agree to be screwed because its an uneven power dynamic, the only way to even it out is to demand law makers hold corporations gun point and pay a fair pay.
Ha I don't think he wants to be president for one second. I think the office of president (and other powerful offices) should be compulsory. Right now I wouldn't willingly vote for anyone currently running for president. We should be allowed to vote for whoever we want and then they have to act as president. This is the only way the most qualified people will be in the office. This will never happen, but it could prevent people that want the power getting it.
He does more good not being President than he is as one. The President has a lot of power, but less power than you think. A President would need to play politics behind the scenes and galvanize Congress to pass laws. Trump did as much damage as he did because he had the backing of the Republican Party in everything he did, but without it he would have been ineffectual 90% of the time (the 10% being the executive powers the President has).
The posters and placards were the best part of that. "I'm mildly annoyed with this" "I'm mad as hell but mostly in a passive aggressive way" "Somewhat irritated by extreme outrage"
I doubt he wants it. The people who want power are rarely the ones anyone would want to have it. The people we would want to have power know what harm it could do and don't wish to wield it unless they must.
Zelenksy wasn't a very well-regarded president before Russia invaded. He was unpopular and was seen as weak and ineffective. After Russia invaded he was able to use his skills as an entertainer to rally his country and the world to his side. Running a country during peace-time is in some regards a lot more difficult that running a country at war.
Have you heard of the Peter Principle? It's an observation that people who are competent keep getting promoted until they find themselves in positions where they are incompetent. A good president needs to be able to direct and wrangle a large and unwieldy bureaucracy. Trump and Obama were largely ineffectual (respectively) because of their lack of experience doing that. Leave Jon Stewart to do the job he is good at, and let people with government experience to do theirs.
You need more than that. Trump had a House and Senate and the backing of the GOP and he was still largely ineffectual because of his lack of experience. Biden got a lot more done in two years than Trump did in 4.
If anything, it would be nice to see him rip politicians for behaving the way they usually do. I bothers me a lot that when they act like assholes, they are treated like what they're doing "is just politics". No, what they're doing is dragging everyone to the bottom in a quest for money/relevance and a bit of time in the spotlight.
I'm not so sure, he could singlehandedly bring to light some serious fundamental issues that corporate/establishment Dems don't want to talk about and force the public consciousness leftward in many ways. Who the president is absolutely matters here.
Not even a high school education in 50’s, 60’s. Taxes higher, way higher for rich. Yet we were building interstate hwy and sending men to the moon. Average household could afford college. Then democrats pushed equal rights and the racists went GOP that has always been about business ppl rather than working ppl. And business people are marketing people who know how to separate “fools and their money”. So now we have MAGA idiots supporting grifter billionaires who don’t give a shit about them.
My grandfather had an 8th grade education and supported a family of five by himself. The man couldn't remember if hello or yellow "had the 'w' in it" but he could afford three children and a SAHM and a house and a dog and a second car, on a single income. I've got a college degree in a science and every day I'm thankful I have no desire for kids, because I could never hope to afford them.
This was the life I grew up in, but ended abruptly in 1999. The company Dad worked for was preparing to buy out a competitor and started massive layoffs ahead of Christmas to boost their stock value. He was a whistleblower and got blackballed for life.
I hate the replies to things like this that are all, well cell phones, internet, tvs, cable/streaming services, ect. Keep you from doing those things. Do they add up, yes but not that much!
It's disingenuous to say entertainment costs are the reason, though. Entertainment is the only sector where price drops in place with things like the cost of manufacture, it's a sector less affected by inflation. The reason we feel the cost of entertainment so acutely is because every other cost is rising faster than wages are. The affordable cost of entertainment has a purpose--making us forget that.
Exactly! Stuff just straight-up costs more while we make less. Our effective buying power is basically half of what it should be, and the excess goes right to the ultra-wealthy.
Your buying power is way less than half today: From the Era mentioned where you could support a family of 5 on a single low education job - $1 in 1980 is worth $3.70 today. Low wages plus almost 1/4th of our dollars buying power. We're the poorest and hardest working and its all to keep a few dozen shitballs ultra delux mega fucking stupid god damn rich beyond belief.
We also can't always do our job unless we have internet and cell phones. At least my husband's job, he can be out in his work van for hours just to come home to emails, a living service log, and customer phone calls to make.
Change how we vote. Look at candidates in a new way. Example: Bernie Sanders has a life long record of fighting for equality, equity, and generally what's rights, or Joe Biden a man who is about as generic as butter and has been a blue cons his whole career. The choice was clear, but the US chose Biden in the primary bcuz he "could beat trump". Bernie was smashing Trump in the polls, but corporate media said only Joe had a chance. Voting based on fear of change is what gets us in this mess.
Bernie proposed to tax companies with more than 50 or so people for 100% of what the government pays their employees take in on social programs like food stamps and welfare. Walmart is the welfare queen, the workers are welfare serfs.
Start by changing your system to take every person into account. One person one vote. Not voting is also a vote, for no one. With no candidates (coalitions allowed) in majority, re-elections are held. Repeat until there are candidates worth voting for.
Watch more videos, or better yet clips of videos, of people who espouse opinions that we agree with! Seriously, I agree with everything Jon Stewart says, but the problem is that the overwhelming majority of his audience, like me, already does.
Single them out, call for a boycott and make sure it is understood to be in response to their pay scale. In short, wreck their stock value. If enough We the People get together to destroy a single large corporation over this issue the rest will get the message. Period. Nothing else will work, not even a Union (although still a good idea, look what govt did to the RR strike, both parties).
Unionise. The reason worker wages have fallen so far is because companies have held all the cards at the negotiating table for so long that they've swung the deal WAY off kilter.
Use our consumer power to support companies that reflect our philosophies. Not a perfect plan-but if enough of us did it consistently it would have an impact
Let’s do like the olden days before unions when disgruntled workers would just break down the front door of their greedy boss then cut his head off in front of his family.
Unionize. Strike. See how much money they can distribute to shareholders if they don't make any in the first place. You need to realize that Walmart is nothing without their workers and use that power to negotiate better wages and conditions. And that will only work if you confront them as a group. One worker is easily replaceable, many workers aren't.
Create a new market that won’t allow companies to exist in this way on the platform. The market would only allow companies on it that meet higher social thresholds like ensuring the workforce salaries are tied to executive salaries and stock ownership.
Absolutely nothing. There’s not a single action you can do that will make billionaires stop wanting money. NONE! Will never happen. Greed runs the planet; always has, always will.
Walmart shares are currently 154 USD. An ETF like HSBC MSCI world UCITS ETF USD is currently 27 euros. Solution: buy the ETF (beware transaction costs and related bank shenanigans). The ETF is a bucket that tracks hundreds of companies and automatically replaces some with others. Eventually Walmart will crash and burn. The ETF will carry on, unless we go full mad max or extinct.
Ofcourse, most Walmart employees are already in a position where they cant spend say 200 or 500 a month on buying ETF's. (invest a fixed amount at fixed intervals). But if you still got some financial leeway, and have some cash saved up, it's a possibility. (you're supposed to hold on to the ETF for at least 5 years, my plan is to hold for 15 years and then start selling say 20% of the yearly gain)
You local politicians (congress, senate, etc) are just people. They have home addresses that are easily accessed. They have families. Do with this information what you will.
Okay cool, keep up with voting and protests and boycotts and everything else that isn’t working. Politicians are inherently evil and act as a cancer to humanity as a whole. We can remove this cancer fairly easily, but everyone seems afraid to do something. Threaten them. Given that they treat all of us as disposable and less-than, it’s the least they deserve.
No, it isn't. The 2nd was written to guarantee arms for a well regulated militia. Not every tom dick and asshole to pretend they could fight off a modern government. Get it thru your head already.
Vote, but just like how unemployment works, companies should have to pay into the funds like welfare and the cost of the food and of course pay taxes. Get rid if the loopholes where they claim losses through legal maneuvers, and pay 100% of their taxes on all profits every single year.
Even under orthodox economics this is recognized as a market failure that the government should correct. The true cost of Walmart doing business isn't being captured - the same way that a factory dumping waste in the river isn't incurring the cost that the people downstream and the greater population bear. But they also teach you in econ class that gov't action isn't politically feasible - most optimal solutions in econ aren't.
Yellen knows this and I feel like that's the part left unsaid. The obvious solution under the orthodox economic model in this case is for the government to make appropriate regulations so that companies like Walmart will be responsible for the true costs of their business, but I'm guessing Yellen thinks that's so beyond the realm of possibility it doesn't bear mentioning.
How do we fix this? 1) We implement term limitations to keep the EXTREMELY old men out of office who make policies on topics they don't understand. 2) we ban lobbying so billionaires cannot pay and gift congressmen and judges to pass policies on their behalf. 3) we ban all forms of jerrymandering because all that does is give unfair advantages to voting. Districts should be very simple and include entire neighborhoods. And 4) Vote out all republicans. Bonus 5) Remove 2 party system.
Get our friends to vote every time, no excuses. Run for office. Organize, educate. Avoid giving money to corporations. Buy local, reduce, reuse, recycle. Drive less. Buy some Bitcoin as a hedge for the bleak future.
It is if you're uninformed and regurgitate uninformed opinions. I'm an environmentalist btw. Bitcoin finances electrical infrastructure and creates sound decenralized, deflationary money under no one's control. Legislation needs to ensure electrical infrastructure is environmentally sustainable, this is important and political. When load is high mining is less profitable and frees capacity which otherwise just costs money during off-peak load. This improves the overall capacity.
don't waste your money on Bitcoin. Buy my coin instead. I offer You'reAFuckingIdiotForBuyingCrypto Coins I guarantee you that they will increase four bajilliondy percent in perceived value after you've purchased them. In fact, the more of your money you dump into my coin the more you will perceive they are worth. it's perfect!
Buying local is all well and good in areas with diversity. In many rural areas walmart or amazon are the only options. All the other shops have been closed for years.
I said Bitcoin, not crypto. Big difference. Here's just one data point. All the big asset managers have recently filed for Bitcoin spot ETFs. Fidelity, Invesco, ARK Invest, Wisdom Tree, Valkyrie and the $10 trillion asset management firm BlackRock.
the republicans decided to destroy this country back with nixon and reagan. They aren't the only problem but they've been the biggest problem since then. get rid of them and a lot of the other problems become much more manageable.
American capitalism is among the worst flavours. If you have unions snd safety nets and significant income tax without massive and valueless corporate subsidies it can sort of work out.
Nah. As someone not living in the US capitalist assholes like Walmart aren't just a Us problem and they didn't get their power just from Republicans. This is a world wide billionaire issue. We need to rise up globally.
And when dems don't do anything about? Because let's be clear, they haven't done anything I'm thier current term and Obama didn't do shit about in his 8 years... then what?
Don't do anything about what? Here in MI, we have for 1st time in decades Dem trifecta in Gov mansion and Lege. We got rid of a 1931 anti-abortion law (tho Dem AG wasn't enforcing it), we are investing in infrastructure, and we repealed right-to-work. Biden signed the biggest climate investment bill in a generation, is soft-landing inflation without increasing unemployment, and just canceled billions in student loans. You want better? Dem parties have candidate recruitment committees. Join it.
Yes but also from someone not living in the US that's not going to solve anything long term. Your Democrats are just the opposite side of the same coin. Strong social movements and strong unions will go a long way to improving the system more
Nope. This is not a partisan issue. Democrats are also super corrupt. Voting out republicans changes nothing. The real problem is money in politics. Student debt, the economy, and many other problems are the result of broken systems. They aren't fixed cuz everyone in d.c. is bought off. First we need campaign finance reform. Get all the lobbyists and corporate backers out of Washington. Get the money out of politics, and politicians will focus on the needs of the people.
Andrew Yang had an good idea I don't think got enough press. Democracy dollars. Each voter is assigned a certain amount of money ($100 for example), and they can assign it to the candidate of their choosing. Imagine if politicians were forced to run campaigns ONLY using those funds. No personal money or corporate/private donations. All of a sudden, politicians would care more about what the average American would think on issues. Right now everyone yells into the void for change. Money talks.
This would also help voter apathy. Many people don't vote because they feel (whether or not it's true) that their vote doesn't count, since they live in an overwhelming red or blue state. They might vote anyway if they knew registering would literally financially support their candidate, helping them buy more ads for their candidate, etc.
Hb83, you're right that voting out republicans would not instantly fix everything and turn the US into a utopia. Democrats in the US are still center-right politicians, they're spineless, they're submissive to lobbies and whatnot. However, to say that removing republicans "changes nothing" is so incredibly dumb that I feel the need to tell you to eat shit, you stupid scumbag. Republicans are obviously significantly worse for the working class than Democrats.
We've already had years when the Democrats had the majority in Congress. We've had 8 years of Obama. If republicans were "significantly worse" why aren't things "significantly better" when democrats are in charge? The changes have been minimal at best, but keep drinking the cool aid. Republicans are only as bad as they are because the broken system allows them to be. They are a symptom, not the problem. You already admit democrats are bought off also. Money in politics is the real problem.
Not enough. Put it all the way back up to 90%, close loopholes and lock up tax havens. The way progressive tax brackets work, they still keep the majority of their money even with a 90% rate at the highest bracket.
NO. Primary them. There’s an important difference. When you primary them, you replace them with more progressive candidates. When you “vote them out”, you replace them with a conservative.
But when there is only a limited choice by design, how do we ensure the shortlisted candidates include someone progressive, when these limited lists are designed precisely to stop that?
"The people all voted for the lizards, not because they liked the lizard they voted for, but because if they didn't, the wrong sort of lizard might win."
Those of us who absolutely fucking hate the idea of the job, but hate facists more, could start running, and try to organize via social media and other methods to start creating viable replacements and/or additions to, the existing shit parties, then when we get in office, enforce a national ranked choice system, ideally finding a way to abolish the party system, but thats not realistic cause it would be blocking people from organizing at all.
There’s not limited choice. Plenty of non republican/democrats run. You ensure it by voting candidates you actually want instead of just saying “no other party can win so I will just vote for someone who supports corps like an idiot”. Or “they are too far left so they won’t be able to win so I’ll vote on a candidate that is right of center and be confused on why corporations continue to fuck me in the ass”
dghughes
A capitalist system is OK but with strict rules it obvious many rules are being broken. Taxes for one which support the social programs the US has. If corporations can pay no tax then the entire system slowly collapses. I don't live in the US my country has strong social programs but is still a capitalist system.
GerbilHereReportingLiveFromRichardGeresAss
It's just a form of slavery. That's why the conservatives love it. It's economic and financial slavery disguised as the 'free market'.
ManhattanHarper
She’s full of shit. Corporations and shareholders exist because of laws made by Americans. They are not some law of nature we all must live with.
ArnokTheMadWizard
Make the companies pay for the food stamps and other social programs that their employees use, and make it non-deductible. Force the companies to stop seeing the programs as a way to replace spending money on their employees' paychecks.
Vamp13
It's mind blowing to me that politicians agree to be interviewed by Jon. Like, if I was a politician I would pay an intern just to make sure I'm not in the same state as Jon ever.
theoriginalandbestddps
Distribute the profits AFTER you pay your workers a living wage. It's unbelievable how fucked this country is, all the way to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Leokerr
Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, can you taste the Freedom?
Jace99
Corporate America also gets massive welfare payments from the taxpayers in bailouts. They fuck around, WE find out.
jridley
In order for this to be a TRUE free market system, the workers need to be truly free to quit and go elsewhere. Tying health care to employment makes that difficult and is an impediment to the free market. If they REALLY wanted this to be a proper fully lubricated free market system, they would implement government provided healthcare. As is, the American economy is reinventing slavery.
TripleDane
"is this the optimal way to do it?" "Well they have the right to"... completely negating or not understanding the actual question
AZRAELSBLADE
#itsnotabugitsafeature
HeywouldJablowme
The fact that Americans accept this horrendously corrupt and unjust system while also being against Universal Health Care proves to me that we are indeed living in Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World. This is what makes me sick about pop culture. Americans will tolerate this advanced form of slavery as long as they can have Taylor Swift and whatever Prime Time garbage the network crank out.
ThunderGrumble
The vast majority of Americans support Universal Healthcare.
Safirsera
Well, why are there profits to be shared if the workers haven't been paid a sustainable wage yet? 🤔
Zahnradfee
Indeed. The rich are sucking out the societally produced wealth and hoard it for themselves. They are parasites.
ThailandExpress
Stop saying we have a free market economy, we don't! Not for a long time, if ever. We have a managed economy
rmmmm
FrEeEEEE MaRkEtT
cosmicbovine
Where Jon falls short is he doesn't go beyond questioning the system itself, merely criticizing the market as not being "free". But it is. Monopolies are the natural result of profit-driven economies. The companies that rose to the top lobby against regulations that would mitigate some of that damage. Profit should be distributed according to a mandate of the masses. Workers should own the means with which they produce, and democratically decide what to do with the full value of their labor.
MrStoic100
People have the power to change this but they will get shot.
Greymalum
If the Republicans admit to a problem then they would have to address. They just don't do that.
doctorId
She did admit the problem, that it's a capitalist system
LeftRightThere
You’re assuming they think that it is a problem
daguq
As long as there exists a two-party system, this shit will never change.
SylvesterMarcus
The problem isn’t the number of parties, it’s the money that’s allowed to corrupt the system. You could have 32 parties, but if they can be bribed, you’re right back at square one.
TalkingSnake
I have never looked at her and thought “I would trust her with my money.”
dghughes
That quite arrogant of you to base a person's value on how they look.
maximilianfragglebottom
says the actual talking snake
TalkingSnake
Takes one to know one.
tzahtman
alt86er
»Funny« variation of that: 1-€-jobs as part of the Hartz IV social security concept in Germany. On the one hand it is law, that people using social security are required to do whatever is necessary to get a job. And if the government can find you such a job, that pays 1-€ and hour, rest of missing income is payed by tax payers, that is OK. The company on the other hand gets a worker that is required to work fully, like anywhere else, but pays 1 lousy € an hour. If this isn't an unfair market...
hasdfgb
That's simply not true. 1-€-jobs must be "in public interest" and can only be offered by charity or non-profit organizations. Futhermore these organizations are not allowed to replace a full-time job with a 1-€-job. These jobs usually require no qualification and have a reduced number of hours worked per day.
DefinitelyaHumanNotanAlien
Does Germany not have a minimum wage?
gaenaralhonk
We do, those 1€ jobs were made legal as an exception when we had big issues with high unemployment rates to try and mitigate that somewhat
alt86er
Or more to the point, as a means of pressuring people into jobs, that pay like shit. Very similar as in the US, yet a bit more indirect.
nanyatenyaa
That.... doesn't make sense to me at all. Intuitively, I feel that would mean the government is propping up a system that caused high unemployment numbers... But I suppose its better than what we do in the states where a person has to show they go interview for a job, they purposefully fuck it up, and just keep collecting unemployment whilst contributing nothing back to society.
alt86er
You can do that here to, same way. And on the contrary: It is a means to make things look better than they actually are. Because technically these people count as on full-time job, while at the same time on social security. Since 2000 the entire job market created loads of jobs, that actually don't pay enough for a living. Minimum wage has not always been a thing here, so before then it was simply a shitty way of polishing statistics and making peoples lives miserable on purpose. »Go get a job«.
Imgurlerker
What can we do?
v
maximilianfragglebottom
i mean, yeah, vote, but the dems aren't doing any systemic overhauls either, just cosmetic patches
Frederf
They only advocate as much as change as their voting fraction allows. If D's got 90% next election you'd see a big shift in their "unwavering values".
Imgurlerker
Ok. But is our response to the Dems doing “next to nothing” going to be “actually doing nothing”? Incumbent Dems still have to run against other Dems to stay in office. Don’t let apathy replace our sympathy.
maximilianfragglebottom
like I said, absolutely everyone should vote, but it's gonna take a lot more than keeping the not fascists but still hardline capitalists in power to make a real change. organize your workplaces, do mutual aid in your communities, maybe some industrial sabotage which for legal reasons I'm joking about. vote, but if we stop there we've already failed.
Imgurlerker
lol! You’re all, “I’m joking!” …. or am I?
flounder35
He forgot to mention that the owners took their money and bought a football team. So fuck the Broncos I hope they have nothing but loosing seasons from now till the Waltons sell them.
whyisallthecheesegone
Well they do have Russell Wilson and are in the same division as the chiefs so prospects are good that you get your wish for the next decade or so.
Ryebread91
Don't forget Stan and the rams
AngurProne
What does he own?
MissJane
He also owns the Colorado Rapids, Avalanche, and Nuggets, as well as the premier league team Arsenal. He is massive twat.
Ryebread91
He's married to the Walton's and owns the (formerly) St Louis Rams and moved them out cause we wouldn't give him a new updated stadium.
Ryebread91
He also owns a crap ton of land in the St Louis and surrounding area supposedly and keeps raising the rental rats to where even big chains like best buy are like "screw that, were just not gonna keep our store there"
wdr1977
Let's say profit is fine. Then the question becomes "Can it be considered profit if the bills (basic sustenance of the workers) aren't paid?"
OliverOtter
Yes. Nobody held a gun to the taxpayers' heads and forced us to offer WalMart's workers food stamps and supplementary welfare. If nobody could afford to work at WalMart and they can't get any workers, they would be forced to raise wages or go under. We chose to let them do this.
Wolvenlight
Issue is its not an either or situation. Yes, we help their workers because it's the right thing to do, even while it enables the corporation, which is the wrong thing to do. So we should focus on righting the wrong, not ending the right. My uneducated opinion would suggest laws (details not included) that require any company that has workers on welfare to fix this within a certain timeframe or be increasingly penalized monetarily/have their taxes increased to cover the cost to taxpayers.
OliverOtter
The thing is, their first course of action (probably successful) would be to argue that's a bill of attainder. As they don't control the threshold for "on welfare," they are at the mercy of the state to decide whether or not they are breaking the law. Even assuming that fails in court, and it probably won't, the lawsuits will tie it up for years before it's implemented. Then, on the off chance the lawsuit fails, they will fix it. But they'll fix it by firing their lowest-paid (1/n)
OliverOtter
workers and piling their work onto other workers. If that doesn't work, they'll outsource the work to private contractors, on short-term contracts so the contract agencies (not WalMart) can keep laying the workers off between jobs, thus fixing it as far as WalMart is concerned. They are more agile than any legislature and will pay for better lawyers.
Wolvenlight
I don't think it would fit a bill of attainder (though with this SCOTUS that may not matter) as the gov't can and often does fine corporations for things through its various commissions. They'd have to go about it the right way. The law itself could address such loopholes. As could unions (debatable as that may be with how weakened they are). Other options include going back to the days of high corporate taxes coupled with numerous deductions, with livable wages by region being a generous one.
JustTrollThings
Charge businesses $50,000 for every employee who receives welfare. No way to write it off.
JohnSmitheson
That'll just keep them from hiring people on welfare.
JustTrollThings
If they paid their employees enough to survive they wouldn't be on welfare.
nanyatenyaa
Not sure that entirely makes sense either... welfare is a kinda broad term and eligibility is based on a number of factors including household, not individual income. So like, should a business who pays an employee lets say, 20/hour have to pay that 50k because that person is married to some one unemployed, therefore their house hold income allows them to get welfare benefits? So under your proposition that person now went from making 40k to 90k a year? Why? Because their partner as no jerb?
nanyatenyaa
The most sensible thing to do is to raise the minimum wage so that people who are working can afford to live and do not need to be subsidized by the government.
JustTrollThings
I think you overestimate how little you have to make to qualify for welfare, it's very low. Also, there is a good number of people who think minimum wage is for teens, I know that less than half are teens, but that will be the argument. If you fine the business, you could get more support.
nanyatenyaa
No, I looked up the income limits. Given its based on HOUSE HOLD income you can easily have a situation where you're going "Oi you're a bad company taking advantage of the welfare system." Meanwhile the situation is they are paying their employee a fair pay, but that person happens to live with adults who aren't working. So its not that company's fault the house hold income is shit. So it makes more sense to just make every company pay fair wage.
OliverOtter
The most sensible thing to do is tough love. If the workers willingly agree to be screwed, why should they be able to come to the legislature and complain that they've been screwed? Support universal basic income (both universal, and BASIC) so that nobody can be forced to work a terrible job just to survive. Then they can bargain for conditions that don't amount to being screwed, while also doing (if that's all they want) minimal work to add some minimal spending money to their lives.
nanyatenyaa
Because they don't have the choice for a better job because the laws enable shitty jobs to be the norm? Its why we have labor laws and the like. If you don't have regulations, people get taken advantage of. Those laws only exist because people demanded better. The minimum wage needs to be raised. It was originally implemented at a level that was specifically meant to assure a person could make ends meet. It has not kept pace with inflation and has lost significant buying power.
nanyatenyaa
Workers willingly agree to be screwed because its an uneven power dynamic, the only way to even it out is to demand law makers hold corporations gun point and pay a fair pay.
BeverlyHillsBillie
I'd vote for Jon for President.
matt692007
The worst part is the people that are the best and could do the most good in public office don't want to be there.
ArgumentativeArguerJustBecause
I wouldn't. But then again, I'm not American.
Vercury
Jon doesn't want anything to do with being president.
theskepticinme
I would too. But I think this is the best place for him. Exposing lies in a matter of fact way. I think president would wear on him too hard
FueledBySatan2005
Ha I don't think he wants to be president for one second. I think the office of president (and other powerful offices) should be compulsory. Right now I wouldn't willingly vote for anyone currently running for president. We should be allowed to vote for whoever we want and then they have to act as president. This is the only way the most qualified people will be in the office. This will never happen, but it could prevent people that want the power getting it.
md22mdrx
Recidivous
He does more good not being President than he is as one. The President has a lot of power, but less power than you think. A President would need to play politics behind the scenes and galvanize Congress to pass laws. Trump did as much damage as he did because he had the backing of the Republican Party in everything he did, but without it he would have been ineffectual 90% of the time (the 10% being the executive powers the President has).
iggylights
So many people would. He almost surely could win too which is why he won't do it. He and his family would be instant targets for maga nutjobs
JD67
This ticket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear?wprov=sfti1
EvilleBob
The posters and placards were the best part of that. "I'm mildly annoyed with this" "I'm mad as hell but mostly in a passive aggressive way" "Somewhat irritated by extreme outrage"
psmith00
Don't put him in that position. It would severely curtail the messaging that he is doing.
Thisisbullshitalready
He's too sane to run. But I would also.
Sunshine12345
I doubt he wants it. The people who want power are rarely the ones anyone would want to have it. The people we would want to have power know what harm it could do and don't wish to wield it unless they must.
GWZipper
A comedian could never lead a nation /s
TotallyNotVillain
Zelenksy wasn't a very well-regarded president before Russia invaded. He was unpopular and was seen as weak and ineffective. After Russia invaded he was able to use his skills as an entertainer to rally his country and the world to his side. Running a country during peace-time is in some regards a lot more difficult that running a country at war.
TotallyNotVillain
Have you heard of the Peter Principle? It's an observation that people who are competent keep getting promoted until they find themselves in positions where they are incompetent. A good president needs to be able to direct and wrangle a large and unwieldy bureaucracy. Trump and Obama were largely ineffectual (respectively) because of their lack of experience doing that. Leave Jon Stewart to do the job he is good at, and let people with government experience to do theirs.
Broken08
Literally we all would
MyBigMouth
It would be nice, but you also need a House and a Senate full of Jon's for anything worthwhile to be done.
TotallyNotVillain
You need more than that. Trump had a House and Senate and the backing of the GOP and he was still largely ineffectual because of his lack of experience. Biden got a lot more done in two years than Trump did in 4.
happyguide
He would be good at using the bully pulpit to shame them into action.
DecentUsernameUnavailable
That works on those who feel shame. There seems to be less and less every session.
drosophilamelanogaster
So you're saying you need a Jon Stewart cloning program?
kroske1
Better him than most.
picofemtomicro
God, one can only dream
camn333
If anything, it would be nice to see him rip politicians for behaving the way they usually do. I bothers me a lot that when they act like assholes, they are treated like what they're doing "is just politics". No, what they're doing is dragging everyone to the bottom in a quest for money/relevance and a bit of time in the spotlight.
ChainmailleAddict
I'm not so sure, he could singlehandedly bring to light some serious fundamental issues that corporate/establishment Dems don't want to talk about and force the public consciousness leftward in many ways. Who the president is absolutely matters here.
skapanda616
ArgumentativeArguerJustBecause
The life portrayed by the characters on a sitcom was once a reality.
andaction
Not even a high school education in 50’s, 60’s. Taxes higher, way higher for rich. Yet we were building interstate hwy and sending men to the moon. Average household could afford college. Then democrats pushed equal rights and the racists went GOP that has always been about business ppl rather than working ppl. And business people are marketing people who know how to separate “fools and their money”. So now we have MAGA idiots supporting grifter billionaires who don’t give a shit about them.
plaidporcupine
My grandfather had an 8th grade education and supported a family of five by himself. The man couldn't remember if hello or yellow "had the 'w' in it" but he could afford three children and a SAHM and a house and a dog and a second car, on a single income. I've got a college degree in a science and every day I'm thankful I have no desire for kids, because I could never hope to afford them.
Pokegeologist
This was the life I grew up in, but ended abruptly in 1999. The company Dad worked for was preparing to buy out a competitor and started massive layoffs ahead of Christmas to boost their stock value. He was a whistleblower and got blackballed for life.
Audasity
BuT THe LaWs PRotECt WhiStleBlOWErS!
Pokegeologist
He ruined two careers by doing the right thing. They can't fire you for being a whistleblower. They can get creative with other reasons as to why.
ArkinaRunner
I hate the replies to things like this that are all, well cell phones, internet, tvs, cable/streaming services, ect. Keep you from doing those things. Do they add up, yes but not that much!
BishlamekGurpgork
It's disingenuous to say entertainment costs are the reason, though. Entertainment is the only sector where price drops in place with things like the cost of manufacture, it's a sector less affected by inflation. The reason we feel the cost of entertainment so acutely is because every other cost is rising faster than wages are. The affordable cost of entertainment has a purpose--making us forget that.
ChainmailleAddict
Exactly! Stuff just straight-up costs more while we make less. Our effective buying power is basically half of what it should be, and the excess goes right to the ultra-wealthy.
TheNakedBanana
Your buying power is way less than half today: From the Era mentioned where you could support a family of 5 on a single low education job - $1 in 1980 is worth $3.70 today. Low wages plus almost 1/4th of our dollars buying power. We're the poorest and hardest working and its all to keep a few dozen shitballs ultra delux mega fucking stupid god damn rich beyond belief.
ArkinaRunner
We also can't always do our job unless we have internet and cell phones. At least my husband's job, he can be out in his work van for hours just to come home to emails, a living service log, and customer phone calls to make.
ChainmailleAddict
They need to be treated as essential utilities at this rate.
lrateyourrig
Yes we know. What can we do?
NacLac
Vote
flounder35
Reverse some of the welfare policies from 1994.
LeftRightThere
*Walmart sharehold has entered the chat*
Sulanis
Change how we vote. Look at candidates in a new way. Example: Bernie Sanders has a life long record of fighting for equality, equity, and generally what's rights, or Joe Biden a man who is about as generic as butter and has been a blue cons his whole career. The choice was clear, but the US chose Biden in the primary bcuz he "could beat trump". Bernie was smashing Trump in the polls, but corporate media said only Joe had a chance. Voting based on fear of change is what gets us in this mess.
MrSqaureCan
Vote democrat. Progressive ideally, but any democrat is better than the best republican.
Unclescam
Bernie proposed to tax companies with more than 50 or so people for 100% of what the government pays their employees take in on social programs like food stamps and welfare. Walmart is the welfare queen, the workers are welfare serfs.
HereticNoNumber
Set the minimum wage to 27$ where it should be if it was raised properly along the road to here.
spiceass9000
Well there’s only one party that even acknowledges this, and one party is directly in acting policy to make it worse. So probably fucking vote
SilverFish0
Burn it down.....but we gotta get off our devices soo that's not going to happen
robbieeeeee
Vote blue.
trevalyan
Do not buy one fucking Thing!
CaptainWeaselFox
Do a France
flacoloco
TERM and AGE LIMITS on ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS!!!!
Ikwilstroopwaffels
s l i c e y b o i s
KnightWithShiningCamera
Start by changing your system to take every person into account. One person one vote. Not voting is also a vote, for no one. With no candidates (coalitions allowed) in majority, re-elections are held. Repeat until there are candidates worth voting for.
NomDeImguerre
Raise minimum wage.
NSAgent
Watch more videos, or better yet clips of videos, of people who espouse opinions that we agree with! Seriously, I agree with everything Jon Stewart says, but the problem is that the overwhelming majority of his audience, like me, already does.
Marsmallowmancer
We can do a lot. We just won't because the people who benefit most spend the most money in DC to keep things going the way they are
carlsagansghost
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. The first three haven’t worked.
hj0rtfan
In reality? Be threatening.
CaptainHyperbole
Look to the French and observe their current protests and riots about their pensions. The French don’t take shit from no one.
Miller16of16
Single them out, call for a boycott and make sure it is understood to be in response to their pay scale. In short, wreck their stock value. If enough We the People get together to destroy a single large corporation over this issue the rest will get the message. Period. Nothing else will work, not even a Union (although still a good idea, look what govt did to the RR strike, both parties).
DoubleSunMoonMoon
Unionise. The reason worker wages have fallen so far is because companies have held all the cards at the negotiating table for so long that they've swung the deal WAY off kilter.
pleaseacknowledgethecat
Use our consumer power to support companies that reflect our philosophies. Not a perfect plan-but if enough of us did it consistently it would have an impact
Polymathena
Stop electing their Puppets
ImAnActionBirb
Vote Jon in for president (if only he’d run)
VindictiveBathToaster
Let’s do like the olden days before unions when disgruntled workers would just break down the front door of their greedy boss then cut his head off in front of his family.
SheepySleepySmuggler
Is it "call any alternative to the current Corporate 'socialise costs, privatise profits' Socialism or Communism"?
SecondSince
Kill all the shareholders.
Alaaraaf
Rebill employers for the subsidy. Plus an administration fee at a commercial rate.
DukePhelan
Have we tried suspending the rich from a tree branch and hitting them with sticks until the money falls out?
sakasiru
Unionize. Strike. See how much money they can distribute to shareholders if they don't make any in the first place. You need to realize that Walmart is nothing without their workers and use that power to negotiate better wages and conditions. And that will only work if you confront them as a group. One worker is easily replaceable, many workers aren't.
AtlasFutureOverthrowsAmerica
Create a new market that won’t allow companies to exist in this way on the platform. The market would only allow companies on it that meet higher social thresholds like ensuring the workforce salaries are tied to executive salaries and stock ownership.
JustinSane6
Absolutely nothing. There’s not a single action you can do that will make billionaires stop wanting money. NONE! Will never happen. Greed runs the planet; always has, always will.
minant
Dead billionaires want for nothing
Turdsandwich10
Stop rent seeking?
Tminus1622d
Walmart shares are currently 154 USD. An ETF like HSBC MSCI world UCITS ETF USD is currently 27 euros. Solution: buy the ETF (beware transaction costs and related bank shenanigans). The ETF is a bucket that tracks hundreds of companies and automatically replaces some with others. Eventually Walmart will crash and burn. The ETF will carry on, unless we go full mad max or extinct.
Tminus1622d
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/WMT/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWNvc2lhLm9yZy8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALulbAI_9uSvhN1xLG-Pxcdww9DmNbOEMqyE2-GKrhYCBpE_NIYPjPC_u_yaRbwmGFYlbzCaYYqmgPb_6UJ31P5JXKxEQ180efQvE4fSISLUI9HPq_2YVcaaWMTo_pJAuCNw9AXDYPpCwB0rDbk2lleecofMWyia-f8B-eHkkDDV
Tminus1622d
Ofcourse, most Walmart employees are already in a position where they cant spend say 200 or 500 a month on buying ETF's. (invest a fixed amount at fixed intervals). But if you still got some financial leeway, and have some cash saved up, it's a possibility. (you're supposed to hold on to the ETF for at least 5 years, my plan is to hold for 15 years and then start selling say 20% of the yearly gain)
Tminus1622d
https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B4X9L533#overview
randomdudefromtheinternet
Eat the rich
DeusExSpockina
Change the laws. That’s exactly what she’s saying. The system as it is sucks.
Itsnothathard
Stop voting Republican is step one.
noahklicks
Boycott businesses that use this practice and vote for politicians who want to raise minimum wage and taxes on corporate profits.
euphoriamint
End gerrymandering with non-partisan redistricting, establish ranked choice voting
cragath
Do? But the lady already stated that it's how things are, i.e. not a problem /s
JCBalance
Seems like the first step is to tally all of the social benefits their workers receive due to being underpaid and tax them that exact amount.
JCBalance
But that's a job for the government, which would take a long time if started at our level by voting
BillHubbard
Learn from the French. Strike, Revolt, Vote.
dancingbarefootonlego
Eat the rich.
Nathanyel
I don't like the taste, can I just do my regular thing of putting them in the fridge for a week, then throw them out?
budamon
We can stop asking questions and start making demands in an organized manner.
hazzard2theworld911
You local politicians (congress, senate, etc) are just people. They have home addresses that are easily accessed. They have families. Do with this information what you will.
lurkyloos
No personal offense intended, but this is what Donald Trump is doing to his enemies. We can be better than that.
hazzard2theworld911
Okay cool, keep up with voting and protests and boycotts and everything else that isn’t working. Politicians are inherently evil and act as a cancer to humanity as a whole. We can remove this cancer fairly easily, but everyone seems afraid to do something. Threaten them. Given that they treat all of us as disposable and less-than, it’s the least they deserve.
lurkyloos
I feel you. The frustration is shared.
FetaForMoses
Revolt.
LetMeGoogleThatShtForYou
That's what the guns are for, yet the ones that have them use them for the wrong reasons and the one's that know are too cowardice to use them
CheeseB0t
No, it isn't. The 2nd was written to guarantee arms for a well regulated militia. Not every tom dick and asshole to pretend they could fight off a modern government. Get it thru your head already.
AjKaramba
Would be great, but people who are too lazy to vote or too stupid to understand who is real enemy will always be the problem.
FetaForMoses
Motivate. Educate. You are not too lazy or too stupid help.
Someshithead241
Do it then
acme64
i've been revolted
cepacolusmaximus
Change is NEAR: Never Elect Another Republican
Voygt
Vote, but just like how unemployment works, companies should have to pay into the funds like welfare and the cost of the food and of course pay taxes. Get rid if the loopholes where they claim losses through legal maneuvers, and pay 100% of their taxes on all profits every single year.
ActualTttony
Vote. It's the only recourse we have
spacecowboyein
Even under orthodox economics this is recognized as a market failure that the government should correct. The true cost of Walmart doing business isn't being captured - the same way that a factory dumping waste in the river isn't incurring the cost that the people downstream and the greater population bear. But they also teach you in econ class that gov't action isn't politically feasible - most optimal solutions in econ aren't.
booOfBorg
Capitalism IS socialism for shareholders.
spacecowboyein
Yellen knows this and I feel like that's the part left unsaid. The obvious solution under the orthodox economic model in this case is for the government to make appropriate regulations so that companies like Walmart will be responsible for the true costs of their business, but I'm guessing Yellen thinks that's so beyond the realm of possibility it doesn't bear mentioning.
TheJossiWales
How do we fix this? 1) We implement term limitations to keep the EXTREMELY old men out of office who make policies on topics they don't understand. 2) we ban lobbying so billionaires cannot pay and gift congressmen and judges to pass policies on their behalf. 3) we ban all forms of jerrymandering because all that does is give unfair advantages to voting. Districts should be very simple and include entire neighborhoods. And 4) Vote out all republicans. Bonus 5) Remove 2 party system.
SleepyHollowAppleTree
Joxtacy
I love the little heart you put your head through.
TigerThong
stop shopping at Walmart
IceCubeSandwich
…and then steal from Walmart
Audasity
cant afford not to
nachosyndicate
I understand that not everyone can. But that’s why I haven’t shopped there in decades.
sylphysylph
When Walmart is the only affordable food for rural people, that’s not a reasonable solution
xenocrisis0153
Shoplift from Walmart. Technically it's merch we've ALREADY PAID FOR.
BlargKing
Believe me I'd like to but their groceries are the cheapest where I live by a significant margin :/
xmsbeanx
Same! I hate Walmart with a passion but I can't afford to shop anywhere else!
junkgoof
Fortunately they aren’t as ingrained in Canada. I just don’t go there.
booOfBorg
Get our friends to vote every time, no excuses. Run for office. Organize, educate. Avoid giving money to corporations. Buy local, reduce, reuse, recycle. Drive less. Buy some Bitcoin as a hedge for the bleak future.
CleverGroom
Reduce, reuse, recycle, drive less...and buy Bitcoin? I guess irony really is dead.
booOfBorg
It is if you're uninformed and regurgitate uninformed opinions. I'm an environmentalist btw. Bitcoin finances electrical infrastructure and creates sound decenralized, deflationary money under no one's control. Legislation needs to ensure electrical infrastructure is environmentally sustainable, this is important and political. When load is high mining is less profitable and frees capacity which otherwise just costs money during off-peak load. This improves the overall capacity.
KR1570F
don't waste your money on Bitcoin. Buy my coin instead. I offer You'reAFuckingIdiotForBuyingCrypto Coins I guarantee you that they will increase four bajilliondy percent in perceived value after you've purchased them. In fact, the more of your money you dump into my coin the more you will perceive they are worth. it's perfect!
Onebigcanuck
Buying local is all well and good in areas with diversity. In many rural areas walmart or amazon are the only options. All the other shops have been closed for years.
booOfBorg
Consider organizing and collectively buying food from farmers, then distributing it locally.
bananabonanza3
All of that, but not the last one? Why do you think Crypto is a good idea at all after all the shit Cryptobros have been through?
booOfBorg
I said Bitcoin, not crypto. Big difference. Here's just one data point. All the big asset managers have recently filed for Bitcoin spot ETFs. Fidelity, Invesco, ARK Invest, Wisdom Tree, Valkyrie and the $10 trillion asset management firm BlackRock.
Sebastopol140
1 - Vote all republicans out.
Rogerwilco1974
Yes, but no, because it's been that way since way before the GOP became the GQP. It's happened through democrat presidencies as well as Republican.
KR1570F
the republicans decided to destroy this country back with nixon and reagan. They aren't the only problem but they've been the biggest problem since then. get rid of them and a lot of the other problems become much more manageable.
prfesser
2 - Every fucking one. Not 'most', not 'all but this guy who did this little thing', but all.
thealmightywalrus420
Don't act like they don't all benefit from this scheme. Pelosi has a better track record than Warren Buffet.
CraicFiend87
Capitalism is not only an American problem.
junkgoof
American capitalism is among the worst flavours. If you have unions snd safety nets and significant income tax without massive and valueless corporate subsidies it can sort of work out.
veesee
Nah. As someone not living in the US capitalist assholes like Walmart aren't just a Us problem and they didn't get their power just from Republicans. This is a world wide billionaire issue. We need to rise up globally.
WilliamKeith
But for a first, achievable, step, which you actually have the power to do without engaging in a fantasy, you can vote Republicans out.
veesee
And when dems don't do anything about? Because let's be clear, they haven't done anything I'm thier current term and Obama didn't do shit about in his 8 years... then what?
WilliamKeith
Don't do anything about what? Here in MI, we have for 1st time in decades Dem trifecta in Gov mansion and Lege. We got rid of a 1931 anti-abortion law (tho Dem AG wasn't enforcing it), we are investing in infrastructure, and we repealed right-to-work. Biden signed the biggest climate investment bill in a generation, is soft-landing inflation without increasing unemployment, and just canceled billions in student loans. You want better? Dem parties have candidate recruitment committees. Join it.
Guttfunk
2 - Then keep voting for the party left of the Democrats, repeat until satisfied (you might not want to go all the way to a communist revolution)
Sebastopol140
A party left of the democrats?
Guttfunk
Yes, exactly. Such as a social democratic party, for example
Sebastopol140
A party left to the democrats that you can vote for without wasting your vote and helping republicans getting elected?
XeononSolomon
Yes but also from someone not living in the US that's not going to solve anything long term. Your Democrats are just the opposite side of the same coin. Strong social movements and strong unions will go a long way to improving the system more
mmmerf1
Nope.
TalkingSnake
The dem party is center right on the scale. The progressives in office are where the dems are supposed to be.
Hb83
Nope. This is not a partisan issue. Democrats are also super corrupt. Voting out republicans changes nothing. The real problem is money in politics. Student debt, the economy, and many other problems are the result of broken systems. They aren't fixed cuz everyone in d.c. is bought off. First we need campaign finance reform. Get all the lobbyists and corporate backers out of Washington. Get the money out of politics, and politicians will focus on the needs of the people.
Hb83
Andrew Yang had an good idea I don't think got enough press. Democracy dollars. Each voter is assigned a certain amount of money ($100 for example), and they can assign it to the candidate of their choosing. Imagine if politicians were forced to run campaigns ONLY using those funds. No personal money or corporate/private donations. All of a sudden, politicians would care more about what the average American would think on issues. Right now everyone yells into the void for change. Money talks.
Hb83
This would also help voter apathy. Many people don't vote because they feel (whether or not it's true) that their vote doesn't count, since they live in an overwhelming red or blue state. They might vote anyway if they knew registering would literally financially support their candidate, helping them buy more ads for their candidate, etc.
djzapz
Hb83, you're right that voting out republicans would not instantly fix everything and turn the US into a utopia. Democrats in the US are still center-right politicians, they're spineless, they're submissive to lobbies and whatnot. However, to say that removing republicans "changes nothing" is so incredibly dumb that I feel the need to tell you to eat shit, you stupid scumbag. Republicans are obviously significantly worse for the working class than Democrats.
Hb83
We've already had years when the Democrats had the majority in Congress. We've had 8 years of Obama. If republicans were "significantly worse" why aren't things "significantly better" when democrats are in charge? The changes have been minimal at best, but keep drinking the cool aid. Republicans are only as bad as they are because the broken system allows them to be. They are a symptom, not the problem. You already admit democrats are bought off also. Money in politics is the real problem.
Dellaaa
Mitch. He tied up Congress and admitted it.
KR1570F
gotta love a both-siders with their head so far up their own bottom.
TalkingSnake
Step 2 - vote out all establishment democrats who are functionally republicans.
080080
step 2 is almost as important as step 1.
ElbowDeep
Then increase tax limit back to 70% plus so that money is actually used, rather than hoarded
Alvatore
Not enough. Put it all the way back up to 90%, close loopholes and lock up tax havens. The way progressive tax brackets work, they still keep the majority of their money even with a 90% rate at the highest bracket.
danishjuggler21
NO. Primary them. There’s an important difference. When you primary them, you replace them with more progressive candidates. When you “vote them out”, you replace them with a conservative.
TalkingSnake
You get that, but assume “vote them out” meant “don’t vote and let even worse people win”
rchcopper
But when there is only a limited choice by design, how do we ensure the shortlisted candidates include someone progressive, when these limited lists are designed precisely to stop that?
SixFingersOnMyRightHand
"The people all voted for the lizards, not because they liked the lizard they voted for, but because if they didn't, the wrong sort of lizard might win."
Renza0
Those of us who absolutely fucking hate the idea of the job, but hate facists more, could start running, and try to organize via social media and other methods to start creating viable replacements and/or additions to, the existing shit parties, then when we get in office, enforce a national ranked choice system, ideally finding a way to abolish the party system, but thats not realistic cause it would be blocking people from organizing at all.
tropicanajones2
There’s not limited choice. Plenty of non republican/democrats run. You ensure it by voting candidates you actually want instead of just saying “no other party can win so I will just vote for someone who supports corps like an idiot”. Or “they are too far left so they won’t be able to win so I’ll vote on a candidate that is right of center and be confused on why corporations continue to fuck me in the ass”
chromed
You run for office. Yes you. If there isn't a progressive choice you make one.
Theoneandonlydickpoop
Unfortunately, everyone be feels powerless to change anything and always forgets these are real options.
TalkingSnake
Then we vote blue no matter who into oblivion as corpo cunts make this world unlivable.
darkninja2992
Blindly voting blue is just going to cause problems. Politicians can say they're blue but stand for everything red
LTJJD
Vote in primaries. Run for office yourself, donate to progressive candidates, volunteer for progressive candidates.
Theoneandonlydickpoop
People almost have NO idea thanks to media about how powerful local elections can be.