4 ms·

Your argument must not be very convincing if need to refer to your opponents using slurs. Using a wealth tax to nationalize corporations sounds like exactly wh

Your argument must not be very convincing if need to refer to your opponents using slurs. Using a wealth tax to nationalize corporations sounds like exactly what we should be doing.

NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
>Using a wealth tax to nationalize corporations sounds like exactly what we should be doing. You want Trump and company in charge of it all? Or are we finally back to "the next time Democrats win it will be forever!" wishful thinking? I mean, even if you want to nationalize everything, it's as if you dreamt up the worst possible way to go about doing that so that they've cratered first and started hemorrhaging all their talent in the leadup.
- QuercusMax 5mo ago
  So let's not even think about how to build a better world because the administration we have right now is garbage? We need a wealth tax, ONLY public financing of elections (no PAC money, no "I'm a billionaire so I can spend as much as I want on myself"), and many other reforms. Nationalizing critical industries and sectors is also something we should be pursuing.
  - sokoloff 5mo ago
    > no "I'm a billionaire so I can spend as much as I want on myself" To me, that would seem extremely difficult for Congress to pass a law restricting individual speech in this particular way that would pass First Amendment muster, and I don’t think we should be at “let’s just set aside the Constitution when it clearly says something we don’t like” because I don’t think that ends well in today’s political climate (or any other, but it’s especially bad now).
    - vineyardmike 5mo ago
      We already have laws that limit how much you can give to someone else’s campaign. We’ve already crossed that threshold in terms of “free speech”.
      - sokoloff 5mo ago
        Passing a law that restricts the amount of my own money that I can spend talking about myself seems especially directly a 1A violation.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
        An old law, belonging to a set of laws which have been eroded over the decades such that it's surprising this one hasn't been set aside already. Both Congress and the courts have changed in ways that won't ever let that be passed again, or let it stand if it somehow is snuck into law. That era is over, you will never succeed in bringing it back. And if you think anything's going to change in November, you're going to be really disappointed.
  - randallsquared 5mo ago
    From the standpoint of 1926, we built the better world and you're living in it. It's hard to imagine how much better off we all are, but it's not a law of nature, and with enough damage to markets and production, we can get back there again!

Your argument must not be very convincing if need to refer to your opponents using slurs. Using a wealth tax to nationalize corporations sounds like exactly what we should be doing.

NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago

>Using a wealth tax to nationalize corporations sounds like exactly what we should be doing. You want Trump and company in charge of it all? Or are we finally back to "the next time Democrats win it will be forever!" wishful thinking? I mean, even if you want to nationalize everything, it's as if you dreamt up the worst possible way to go about doing that so that they've cratered first and started hemorrhaging all their talent in the leadup.

QuercusMax 5mo ago
So let's not even think about how to build a better world because the administration we have right now is garbage? We need a wealth tax, ONLY public financing of elections (no PAC money, no "I'm a billionaire so I can spend as much as I want on myself"), and many other reforms. Nationalizing critical industries and sectors is also something we should be pursuing.
- sokoloff 5mo ago
  > no "I'm a billionaire so I can spend as much as I want on myself" To me, that would seem extremely difficult for Congress to pass a law restricting individual speech in this particular way that would pass First Amendment muster, and I don’t think we should be at “let’s just set aside the Constitution when it clearly says something we don’t like” because I don’t think that ends well in today’s political climate (or any other, but it’s especially bad now).
  - vineyardmike 5mo ago
    We already have laws that limit how much you can give to someone else’s campaign. We’ve already crossed that threshold in terms of “free speech”.
    - sokoloff 5mo ago
      Passing a law that restricts the amount of my own money that I can spend talking about myself seems especially directly a 1A violation.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
      An old law, belonging to a set of laws which have been eroded over the decades such that it's surprising this one hasn't been set aside already. Both Congress and the courts have changed in ways that won't ever let that be passed again, or let it stand if it somehow is snuck into law. That era is over, you will never succeed in bringing it back. And if you think anything's going to change in November, you're going to be really disappointed.
- randallsquared 5mo ago
  From the standpoint of 1926, we built the better world and you're living in it. It's hard to imagine how much better off we all are, but it's not a law of nature, and with enough damage to markets and production, we can get back there again!