blaggle42

joined 5 months ago
[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

t wasn’t really a good run. Wages didn’t keep up with inflation. Even though wages are higher, the buying power with those wages is less.

Generally averages, in my opinion, are not a good measure.

Here is the median:

Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Edit: Maybe this is even better:

Real Median Personal Income in the United States (MEPAINUSA672N) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 36 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

That interviewer is such a push over. Jeeze, who are these people! If you know the image is photo shopped, you say, "No, you are wrong, the image was photo shopped," not, "well it is contested, we'll look into that."

Such a disappointment.

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 5 points 3 weeks ago

I second that. How about we tax Bezos and Musk et al. into "just" millionaire status and then fucking have parties without these Bezo-trucks.

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 15 points 3 weeks ago

Somehow this made it worse. “goddamn Alpha energy” - who are these people. All I want is for the dems to not be rich people faking concern for the poor.

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 0 points 1 month ago

Maybe that could be a plus. Make a large death tax. People die off in your state, and fund the next set of people coming and and more?

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah! Something like this. But with other states involved to reduce risk, normalize costs.

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 6 points 1 month ago

Obama won in a landslide. The democrats owned both houses.

People at the time really thought Obama would be on the the side of the people- not the rich. I mean, come on, he was our first black president; you would have thought he would at least be on the side of the blacks.

If he had been, then Bernie wouldn't have been such a sensation. If he had been, and Hillary was like, "Obama and the DNC has anointed me his successor, and I will continue to do all the great things he has done," Bernie wouldn't have existed. Bernie was the message that Obama had actually failed. Flint was real.

Anyway. If Trump has one Lieberman senator stopping him from getting some signature item, you can bet that their meeting isn't going to end with that signature item being scuttled, it's going to be that Lieberman would be afraid he'll lose everything.

Trump is extreme, but Obama could have made the final push. Same with our black torture rendition site.

For me, seeing Obama is cringe. I wonder if that viewpoint is radical. I mean, Obama is a saint when compared to Trump, but...

Perhaps I am unjustified.

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Yeah.

I also think he could have closed Guantanamo.

And I even think he could have bailed out the people that lost their houses and not the people that owned (banks, through predatory loans) the houses.

I still think he should have nationalized the banks that failed and renamed them to "Bank A" and "Bank B." But no, no consequences for the rich under Obama just like everyone else.

Crazy huh.

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

As far as the first part of your response: Hmm, that's interesting.

As far as the, "Bruh, do you not remember.."

Yes, I remember how Obamacare was passed.

Do you you remember how it seemed like a public option should pass- it had a ton of support- people were rallying behind it.

And then DroopyDog Senator Lieberman had that touted "meeting with Obama" and the public option was scuttled.

From the moment that happened, I thought, "Lieberman's the fall guy. The democrats don't want the public option, and Obama isn't any different from everyone else before him." (think Flint, think Guantanamo, think Bank bailouts, think Bank Bailouts again). If Obama had wanted it, he could have done it. I mean, look at Trump. He didn't.

At the time I was furious with Lieberman and Obama- now, just Obama.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-15-la-naw-health-senate16-2009dec16-story.html

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

But Democrats have majorities in California and NYC and other blue states. The republicans aren't necessary for this to happen. I think?

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ok, I went to that page, and took the "are you eligible test" putting in a few different sets of numbers. This is definitely not a public option.

edit -> Thanks for the link!

[–] blaggle42@lemmy.today 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are they closer to a public option than NY? NY really isn't a public option.

 

I want to know why I'm wrong- because this question has been eating at me for years- and I secretly blame the Democrats for all of the health insurance problems.

Why can't California and New York bind together in an interstate compact, and create medicare for all of their citizens?

California and New York have GDP's above most other countries in the world. In general, democrats hold majorities. Tell me why I shouldn't blame the democrats for:

  1. Doing Obama care half assed, when something like 80% people wanted a public option.

  2. Not just doing it themselves. For instance even NYC by itself has a GDP above Denmark, and NYC is filled to the brim with the super rich.

 

If a “Tax the Rich” party was created:

What do you think it’s platform should be?

Would it need a social agenda?

What conditions would be necessary for you to vote for it?


I originally posted to politics@... but was removed (I guess because not a link)

https://lemmy.today/post/25296202

 

Hey there,

I understand if you don't want to say, but, what lora do you use for Cute 3D Icon?

Thanks

 

I'm wondering about the Luigi line.

Post Trump, it seems as if there is no justice for the rich besides vigilante justice.

Would any of the below qualify for a Luigi? Where is the line? I find the cognitive ethical dissonance of Luigi disconcerting.

The following list is very dark, and super cynical - I apologize in advance.


A pharma company has found a cure for cancer, but suppresses it to make money on treatment. Causing innumerable deaths.

A pharma company has found a cure for Alzheimer's - but suppresses it. Causing suffering.

A pharma company knows a drug treatment is ineffective for some major illness, but pushes it anyway, suppressing other research. Causing suffering.

A pharma company pushes a drug known to cause massive dependence, with insignificant benefit. Causing suffering.

A car company knows an airbag is defective, and does not fix it. Causing thousands of deaths.

An airplane manufacturer creates an airplane with faulty construction, knowingly, and thousands die.

A manufacturing company pollutes a town's water, causing birth defects, general sickness.


This list could go on forever of course. But where is the line post Luigi, post Trump non-trial. What makes one CEO at risk, and another not?

view more: next ›