You know what, f*ck Capitalism...

[Humanist_Activist]

In my 20+ years as a working man, all I've ever observed among myself and my peers, is how our economy finds ways to screw us over.

From one of my earliest jobs at Wal-Mart in the 1990s where I had to sit through anti-union propaganda while they lauded their much touted "open door" policy, but fuck, if you even associate with a union, your fired, while I was being paid barely above minimum wage. To today, at a different retailer, where I had to sit through anti-union propaganda fucking again, listening to the same tired arguments as 20 years ago, while they pay me barely above what isn't even inflation adjusted minimum wage, and part time at that(don't want to pay benefits after all).

I'm actually lucky, my full time job provides benefits, the latest trend seems to be for companies to not hire full time so they don't have to provide benefits. Been there 10 years and I'm literally afraid to try to change jobs, I'm healthy right now, but that could change tomorrow, and I don't know if I can risk 90 days with no benefits and that's being lucky, or being charged and arm and a leg on the market in my state, while having to get not one job, but two more to make up for the lack of hours a part time job provides. I already work 65+ hours a week, not much wiggle room for anything. Hell, I haven't had a proper day off in 3+ months.

How about another great example of our capitalistic system, a former job where I was hired, through temp firm, to work at a plastics factory where, just a month before, they had regular employees, but laid them all off to hire temp worker at a fraction of the wages they paid those full time employees. Yes, I was damn near a fucking scab, and hated myself for it, luckily, or unluckily, within months I got injured on the job but couldn't prove it to their satisfaction, so I was forced to quit and for a while there racked up thousands of dollars in medical bills. This was well before Obamacare, and in my state, if you don't have kids, forget getting Medicaid.

On paper, between the incomes of me and my fiancee, we are "middle class" so much so that I actually owe the government money for taxes for the first time in my life this year(Thanks fucking Trump). But hell, I can't afford to pay that money, but I'm going to have to do so anyways, somehow, anyone know what's cheaper to eat than Ramen, because I had that last night, and it looks like tonight is another night of Ramen.

But if the car needs fixing, or we have yet another medical emergency, then we are screwed. Not like I'm unique in this regard, but for fuck's sake, I'm literally taking daily anxiety medications so I don't fucking break down every night over my fucking finances.

And people are like "Show me a successful Socialist country/society" Motherfuckers, show me a success Capitalistic one.

[safeinOhio]

1. Golden Rule

Those with the gold, rule.

[democratisphere]

2. True.

It is time to share the nuggets.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. True. Nt

[calimary]

12. No kidding. And it's a damn shame.

[Yavin4]

3. You have no capital. Therefore, you have no power and no rights.

That is Capitalism in a nutshell.

[qazplm135]

52. not really

it's humanity in a nutshell.

Name me the time or place where the rich and powerful didn't control everything? Including Soviet Russia.

We have places where it's a little better like Scandinavia, and places where it's worse like here, and then places where it's ridiculous like Russia.

Capitalism is like anything else humans come up with, flawed. But it can work for everyone IF properly managed. We just stopped trying to do that round about the time of Reagan.

[Yavin4]

54. There are several examples throughout human history

of cooperative human living without a power hierarchy. European history is not the only source of history.

[qazplm135]

82. Baloney

Not in any real numbers.

African, Asian, Native American, all had power structures. Middle East, The Americas, Oceania, all had hierarchies.

Tiny little groups/periods are the exception.

[RocRizzo55]

67. You should take a look at Catalonia.

I think that they were on the correct track.

[qazplm135]

83. How so?

How were they on the correct track to a economic Utopia where rich and power had equal power or even roughly equal power?

[RocRizzo55]

88. Please look it up

I apologize, but I am not your personal research assistant. Just google Catalonia and Anarcho-syndicalism and you should be on your way to finding out what you need.

[qazplm135]

89. so I "looked it up"

Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself...Some used to call this 'taking a person for a ride' [paseo] but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of the regular judicial bodies.
—?Juan García Oliver, Anarchist minister of justice, 1936

We do not wish to deny that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction.
—?Diego Abad de Santillán, editor of Solidaridad Obrera

"[T]he Anarchosyndicalists, contrary to common belief, were not without their own plans for the nationwide control and rationalization of production. Rootedly opposed to state control or nationalization, they advocated centralization - or socialization, as they called it - under trade-union management of entire branches of production. 'If nationalization were carried out in Spain as the Socialists and Communists desire,' said one Anarchist newspaper, 'we should be on the way to a dictatorship, because by nationalizing everything the government would become the master, the chief, the absolute boss of everyone and everything.'"[45] The Anarchist solution for this danger of absolute dictatorship was to call absolute dictatorship by a different name. "In the opinion of the Anarchosyndicalists," explains Bolloten, "socialization would eliminate the dangers of government control by placing production in the hands of the unions. This was the libertarian conception of socialization, without state intervention, that was to eliminate the wastes of competition and duplication, render possible industrywide planning for both civilian and military needs, and halt the growth of selfish actions among the workers of the more prosperous collectives by using their profits to raise the standard of living in the less favored enterprises."[46] Of course, one could refuse to call a union with such fearsome powers a "state," but it would need all of the enforcement apparatus and authority of a state to execute its objectives. The "more prosperous collectives," for example, would be unlikely to submit voluntarily to industrywide planning funded by their profits.

So no. Looking it up got me no further to supporting your argument (ironic that you talk of you doing my work for me).

[brooklynite]

4. "show me a success Capitalistic one"

Canada, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, Germany, France, any nordic nation.....

[Humanist_Activist]

5. How many of them rely on a vast underclass of poor laborers to sustain their economies?

I'll give you a hint, its all of them, if your economy depends on a large segment of the population of the world not getting paid even subsistence wages, it is a failed economy.

[Codeine]

6. Or, at the very least, an economy on a timer.

Globalization has allowed capital to tap an immense pool of low-cost labor, but it has also exposed that pool to the world of consumerism, and they’re going to start demanding the fruits of their labor, and probably sooner rather than later.

It is fundamentally unjust when the person who creates wealth is denied that wealth, while someone else - who has not performed the labor necessary to create the wealth in question - receives that wealth merely on the basis of being able to leverage pre-existing wealth. It is wrong on a personal level, it is wrong on a societal level, and it is wrong on a national level.

[Humanist_Activist]

7. Not to mention dirt cheap energy, which allowed mass production for decades on end.

Far too many people credit capitalism for the industrial revolution, when the argument should be reversed.

[OneBro]

13. Thank you for putting it nicely.

I was going to say how Capitalist nations are not unlike gorilla pimps and their developing nations are much like victims of sex trafficking who are often blamed for their own plight as though they freely gave their local resources and human capital to the pimps in exchange for religion and disease.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a capitalist and I believe in capitalism, but ANY form of government is subject to abuse if we "commoners" do not put meaningful checks on those in power. A nation can prosper under a fair and benevolent king just as one can thrive under true socialism, but once you bring in the human element, they are ALL subject to greed and abuse.

It is no coincidence that America fails to teach history as thoroughly as it should be taught, i.e. with all the good and all the bad, with few heroes and few demons, just the facts. The end result is that there is yet another generation of racists who believe they are truly made in the image of an intelligent, benevolent, god while the rest of us - the children of Ham - are simply burdens they must suffer, having contributed nothing to society.

The reality is that those who speak with forked tongues will continue to thrive so long as we fail to hold them accountable for their lies, past and present. In America, a person can graduate high school believing the fairy tale of George Washington and the cherry tree, yet know NOTHING about our government's role in placing despots and dictators in throughout Africa, South America and Asia, i.e. geographies of color (yes, I think I just coined that). Centuries later, having repeatedly raped these nations bodies and souls, the west praises itself even in the age of Trump, as the epitome of morality and all things honorable, something people and nations of color too could have . . . if they'd just get off their asses and try harder damn them.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. Its not just history either, think of what you are talking about as the macro-scale of what...

happened in communities of color in the United States and other Western nations for centuries. In the US in particular, we had slavery, then once liberated, the slaves were left to fend for themselves , with no consideration for the fact that they had no generational wealth at all, unlike even poor as dirt immigrants that came here through Ellis Island. Then they were purposefully excluded from the larger society and forbidden from taking advantage of any programs designed to alleviate wealth inequality, from the homestead act all the way up to the GI bill.

Even today, the banking crisis wiped out half the accumulate wealth that people of color have accumulated so far in this country. Fucking half their money just robbed from them, all because our capitalistic system allows such corruption to occur. And there are no remedies in sight.

[OneBro]

23. Be it slavery or America's violently crooked, unjust legal system . . .

. . . I think it would be much easier for people to "get over it" America's history of racism and hate if America wasn't keeping the same weighty boots on the necks of poor people and people of color.

Though Democrats haVE suffered some growing pains, I am truly hopeful and inspired by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, as well as Pelosi's imperfect leadership. They give me hope even in the current era of Trump, and I find that I stress less on those days when I remember to take a deep breath and remember that they are in the fight on behalf of the people.

[betsuni]

30. Japan doesn't rely on a vast underclass of poor laborers to sustain their economy.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. Really, so their economy doesn't participate in world trade? Nt

[betsuni]

34. What?

[Humanist_Activist]

58. What you are saying is that Japan doesn't consume products produced elsewhere in the world...

that are made through the exploitation of the working class of other countries.

[SaintLouisBlues]

38. Here's an example: Reuters: Subaru Success Fueled By Marginalized Foreign Workers

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/07/reuters-subaru-success-fueled-by-marginalized-foreign-workers/


Reuters Investigates has a scathing report on foreign workers in Japan at some of Subaru’s most important suppliers. According to the news agency, due to the combination of a booming “Abenomics”, Japan’s 2010 asylum seeker program, and manufacturers looking for cheap sources of expendable labor, foreigners are taken advantage of and treated as second- and third-class workers. Another program meant to help Chinese citizens learn manufacturing skills in Japan is also implicated in helping Subaru take advantage of marginalized immigrant workers.

Subaru isn’t the only automotive manufacturer named as the same suppliers also feed parts to Honda and Toyota.


The long, detailed report states there are nearly 18,000 foreign residents in Ota, Subaru’s manufacturing home base in Japan, “making it a rare example of multiculturalism in a country stubbornly resistant to immigration” at three times the national average by percentage of population.

However, that immigration isn’t officially of the economic variety as is typically seen between industrialized nations, but of asylum seekers looking for a better life and finding their way into Japan through labor brokers and as indebted trainees. The situation has also been an example of institutionalized racism within Japan.

[rurallib]

9. I think of this as slow motion terrorism

If the poor and middle class in this country united and flexed their political muscle problems could be solved.
But over the centuries the rich of the time have come up with so many ways to control the poor from simple physical power to these days of setting one against another through narratives and fear.

So Trump and the corporate elite are placed in power and kept there by the very people they are screwing over.

When will they ever learn? (from blowing in the wind)

[robbob]

40. When will they ever learn?

That’s Pete Seeger, where have all the flowers gone. 😁

[FiveGoodMen]

41. THEY will never learn

When will WE learn to stop them by any and all means available?

[radius777]

59. That sounds like the threat of violent revolution,

far from this "democratic" socialism I've been hearing about.

FiveGoodMen
41. THEY will never learn
When will WE learn to stop them by any and all means available?

[rurallib]

43. right you are - boy did I ever blow that one

[robbob]

44. I'm old...

🤪

[zentrum]

10. We don't have a capitalist country

...for real. Though it serves the powers to call it one and tout it as one.

As I've been posting a lot this week---we have a form of economic fascism, in which corporations (primarily oil-pharmacy-weapons-tech) have merged with the government. Corporate money controls our Congress, buys Supreme court seats, profits from our prisons, sickness, education and financial institutions. And they hope to control our post office, our infrastructure, ports, etc.

Monopolistic Capitalism is what Mussolini was hoping for in Italy---the merging of all capital and government.

In real Capitalism you see small local entrepreneurs, each on a different corner, competing with each other to make the better mousetrap. That model is long gone, destroyed by the lifting of more and more regulations.

We have Monopolistic Capitalism which is another name for economic fascism.

[trev]

21. Yes.

You're absolutely right. Our current criminal system is swiftly evolving into a fascistic society, just as Plato predicted 2500 years ago.

The anti-trust movement of the last true conservative, Teddy Roosevelt, and the democratic policies of his cousin Franklin, made this country what it is today. The Reagan Revolution began the dismantling of that legacy. Now the people lie in the clutches of the uber-rich, with what looks like little hope of ever being extricated from.

I don't know what the answer is. We can win elections, but the Republicans will just steal them away from us.

[2naSalit]

11. K&R X !000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[Blue_true]

15. You should be able to contact the IRS about a payment plan for your taxes.

I had to do that after my first business failed. I owed taxes and my income could not cover them. I called the IRS, they looked up my records and then worked out a payment schedule that didn't put me into a bind. Since you will likely have to change your withholding this year (if you have not done that) take that into account when setting up how much you can afford to pay on the IRS agreement. They don't like many people doing it and won't like you doing it year after year, but the option for them is to take you to court eventually, which presents problems for everyone. I was able to pay my back taxes and by working on the side for one of my brothers, accumulate enough money to start another business.

[TexasBushwhacker]

28. You can even apply and get approved for a payment plan online now

[riverine]

16. A socialist country would assign you a job (or a bread ration if you were more unfortunate).

If you are gifted you could not rise in status. The socialist state owns you and your output or property.

Your creativity is squashed in a socialist country since only the state matters. If you build a better mousetrap the state owns it - not you.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Fascinating, like I haven't hear that line of bull before...

can you like at least try to break new ground? Or is it just going to be all the old, tired, cold war arguments against centrally planned command economies that we are going to get?

Question, do you even know what Socialism actually is, on its most basic level, or did you just absorb your knowledge from 1950s and 60s American propoganda?

[riverine]

18. you request "Motherfuckers, show me a success Capitalistic one."

I can show you USA, Canada, Australia, all of Western Europe, Japan, Hong Kong and dozens of others.

Show me a successful Socialist country please?

The Soviet Union imploded, China has moved into market capitalism and gotten rich, the landscape is riddled with failed socialist states like Cuba and Venezuela.

Capitalism creates wealth.

Democracies distribute wealth.

The Nordic Model does both well.

The Nordic model refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionised while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism.[1][2][3] The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.[4][5]

Wikipedia

You too can learn.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. Again with the repeats, and how many impoverished people have to suffer for those economies to be...

"successes"?

You know, what, I'll call capitalism a success when everyone, and I do mean everyone, can enjoy a similar lifestyle as a typical Swede.

[riverine]

22. So the typical Swede - with their Free Market Capitalist economy is what we need to

aspire to?

Thank you for admitting such.

I like to win but more than that I like to educate.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. A typical Swede owes much of their current lifestyle due to the exploitation...

of the labor of much of the third world. That was my point. That's the failure of capitalism, its reliance on a large underclass of cheap labor.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. Do yourself a favor:

Put the shovel down.

[riverine]

35. Ha! Humanist_Activist was forced to admit that the Nordic model of capitalism is superior to

all other economic systems. We can learn from Sweden/Denmark, et al.

That is a clear win for the good guys.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. So you think you were the victor in that particular exchange?

Fascinating.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. Never said that, insaid their high standard of living comes at the expense of the working class....

Elsewhere.

[pnwmom]

47. Socialism has even less success in having produced countries with lifestyles like a typical Swede.nt

[Humanist_Activist]

56. Why? And which types of socialism?

If I were to give a rough outline of the way the economic system should work, it wouldn't look too different from today's market economy with a few differences, companies like Apple, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Costco, etc. would be run, owned and operated by their employees, through a co-op system that they set up as practical to serve their needs and the needs of the co-op as a whole. Obviously, in such a system, trading stocks on a stock market isn't really in the cards, all co-ops would be wholly owned by their workers.

[Lurker Deluxe]

60. How does this work

How would Apple, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Costso even exist?

Why just those companies? Is there some dollar amount that they have to be profitable before this happens?

Amazon lost tons of money before they became what they are now, how does one reconcile that with having to share the wealth and having a group of people run it? If that was the case it might still be just a bookstore, and could very well be out of business.

Who would start a company and take that kind of risk knowing if they become to profitable they would get "socialized"?

Explain how someone would start a business.

[Humanist_Activist]

61. Those companies were just examples of large companies...

Look up what co-ops are and for example, Market Socialism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

Here's a college professor's lecture that roughly about the subject.

[Lurker Deluxe]

65. so, explain to me how someone would start a business

I know what you are suggesting.

How would it work, give me an example.

Me and two friends want to start a business building machine parts.

One has the manufacturing experience, one has the connections to be able to get market share, the other is an accountant. We each have $100K we can invest and we pool our resources and buy the needed tooling, rent a building, begin to bid work. We lose another $250K over the next two years before we begin to turn a profit and need to hire help. We have to cut the new help in on the profit? Why would we do that? How would we expect to get our equity, both money and effort back out of the business?

Explain how a small business would even start. I am not going to listen to someone who has never actually done anything, except work in the college system, tell me how it should work. You tell me.

[Humanist_Activist]

66. Here...

https://fitsmallbusiness.com/what-is-a-cooperative-co-op/

[Lurker Deluxe]

70. lol

That is the biggest load of crap.

Explain it, from an actual example.

In that example if the three people I mentioned earlier started a business and had one customer, that one customer being only one buying the product, would have equal control over the "co-op" as the actual initial people doing the work and get a share of the profit. Why would that customer, having equal say in ongoing operations, want to expand to include another customer and lose percentage control over the direction of the company.

Why would anyone ever do this? Explain the incentive? Give me an example of this ever happening outside of government.

One example.

,

[Humanist_Activist]

71. Here you go...

https://institute.coop/examples-worker-cooperatives

[Lurker Deluxe]

81. heh

Some powerhouses there.

Why do co-ops "employ" people? Why are those employees not share holders? "co-op employs over 2000 health care workers" Sounds more like an employment agency ...

Why are there "employs 27 workers including 18 who have fully invested voting rights"

A couple, literally two, were formed as co-ops the rest are all conversions.

I will give you props, I asked for examples ... you gave them to me.

With the horrible job experiences you have had how many of these places have you inquired with for employment. Most list employment options.

Looks like there could be a "buy in'.

Most, well all over 30 employees, have a "board of directors" which "listens to members to make decisions". The largest one Weaver Street Markets lost money last year so they "will not be issuing patronage dividend", but you can buy a share for $75, which would allow you to vote in the upcoming board of directors elections.

I like how they divvy up their "patronage dividends" though:

WSM distributes apercentage of profits based on how much a consumer owner spends in a year - cash back on purchases
WSM distributes a percentage of profits based on how many hours a worker owner works in a year - simple bonus structure, work more make more.

Almost all of these are co-op in the sense they use other business and share "the profit" of the co-op with those business and a very small percent with the "owners". Pay scale is still structured on what you do at the business, and is not equal ... very little difference from a normal company of that size.

Well done, why not just form one of these yourself and get away from that awful capitalistic employment you have been suffering, you sure seem to know exactly how to do it ... what do you have to lose?

Anyways, off to watch the Rockets/Warriors at the local watering hole. Good luck with your ongoing quest to convert people to your thought process ... tough road.

[pnwmom]

68. You can't give a single example of an actual country. Maybe it's because it doesn't account

for protecting the needs of an individual.

When everything is run according to the needs that a majority of people in a "unit" think are necessary, how are the needs of minorities protected? For example, I need gluten-free food. Even a trace of wheat can cause bleeding. Thanks to free market capitalists, I can purchase gluten-free food. Someone, somewhere decided there was a market for it.

[EX500rider]

50. He is correct, people were treated like serfs in socialists countries.

The USSR owned the means of production and therefore had a socialist economy and the peoples motto was "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work" and they made the worst consumer products and the people all lived very poor lives with no hope for advancement.

[Humanist_Activist]

55. You do realize that's not the only model that exists or can exist, right?

Is anyone here advocating for the industrial, centrally planned economy that the USSR had? I certainly am not, so I'm not sure what is the point of your argument. I want economic democracy, where I'm paid for the actual value of my work, that I have a voice in my workplace, etc.

[EX500rider]

62. And which economic model is that?

Because "socialism" is the govt owning the means of production. I don't think their is a "economic democracy" as a economic model. If you mean a "Co-Op" there is nothing stopping you from starting one....it's just not a very efficient model, thus hard to stay in business.

[Humanist_Activist]

64. That's not the only type of socialism that exists, you really have a lot to learn...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

[EX500rider]

75. And yet no country is using those theories...

....usually a good reason for that. If it works someone would.

[Humanist_Activist]

77. Not necessarily, in its more extreme form, the state is dissolved, a lot of people like being on...

on top, even if its just a little hill they are on top of.

A lot of the structures of hierarchy would be necessarily be abolished, and for quite a few powerful people and countries, that can represent a threat, even when they aren't necessarily the ones in control. This has been demonstrated, time and again, in the various ways in which the US and its allies, interfered with non-aligned countries that attempted any type of reforms in this direction under the auspices of being "Anti-Communist".

[EX500rider]

84. Places where the "state has dissolved" turn out to be not so pleasant.

Somalia, Syria, Yemen, parts of Afghanistan, etc...

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

53. you are thinking of communism

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Shit, I didn't even get into the illegal shit, like some of the practices at Wal-Mart I observed...

Let's see, locking up fire doors with chains, that was normal, as was locking employees in non-24 hour stores on overnights. Stealing overtime, as in actually cutting hours AFTER you worked them, that got them sued and as part of the class action, I got 250 dollars! Yeah, that made up for the thousands they stole from me.

Or how about the shenanigans at CFM(Literally, Convenient Food Mart, now defunct) I worked at, over 60% of employees were managers, but we were hourly and had no power to hire or fire, and in most locations, it was one person per shift. Oh, and it was mandatory 10 hour shift, you figure out your own breaks if you were lucky, and it was 5 days a week, 50 hour weeks, that was fun.

Or how about working at Wackenhut, a security company that became rather infamous in how it ran its private prisons, I didn't work in one of those, thankfully. Worked my way up to Lieutenant, as if that actually meant something, I was shift supervisor, and management were the laziest assholes you ever met. I literally worked 32 hours straight over a weekend because they couldn't pick up the God damned phone and relieve me, as they were supposed to do according to corporate policy, and what did I do when I filed a complaint, they fucked with my hours then laid me off.

[jcmaine72]

25. Powerful post. You've really underscored what's wrong with our system and the mentality

behind it. The extreme avarice, callous insensitivity to human suffering, and exploitation that are the cornerstones of capitalism are nothing but pure evil. What boggles my mind are the people who claim to support social justice who also defend capitalism. There can be no social justice without first achieving economic justice, and economic justice simply isn't possible in the greed-fueled pus pocket of capitalism.

People's attitudes towards Socialism in America, even among many so-called "progressives", proves that a little brainwashing apparently goes a long way. Many people are still programmed to associate that word with the USSR and its brutal military dictatorship. Many are still programmed to see it as their patriotic duty to uphold a system, as you have brilliantly illustrated in your posts, that wouldn't piss on them or their families if they were on fire if the price for doing so was to cost someone somewhere a modicum of profit. "Murica! Murica! Profit! Profit! Capitalism! Capitalism!" and fuck everything and everyone else. That's what people in our country have been programmed to embrace as "good" and "wholesome". We must be insane.

[still_one]

26. Bullshit. Elements of both capitalism and socialism are necesarry, it isn't either or. As for

those who are upset because they see they are paying more taxes, that is on the republicans.

The ones who will feel the impact the worst are those that itemized deductions, live in states that have high property tax and SIT, and find CAPS on those deductions, which not only makes it unfeasible for them to itemize deductions under the new tax law, but the elimination of the personal exemption also adds insult to injury.

It will also negatively impact those that may not have realized that their withholding amount was decreased from their paychecks giving the illusion of an immediate "tax benefit", a dumb-assed move from the Trump administration, and have left a lot of people with a large tax bill. The elimination of the personal exemption, which affects those who itemize and those who do not itemize, not only decreases any benefit from the suppossed tax break, but also makes that withholding amount even more critical to avoid underpayment of taxes.

The greatest benefits go to corporations, and based on Reagan's trickle down economics which has been demonstrated time and again to be a complete failure. The resulting deficit, already a problem, is made so much worse with this tax bill, that will create battles in protecting programs that many people depend on.

Unfortunately, there were those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, and contributed to not only putting Trump in the WH, but giving republicans control of the Senate.

In those critical swing states the Democratic nominee lost by less than 1%. In everyone of the critical swing states, Jill Stein received 1% of the vote, thank to folks like Cornel West and Susan Sarandon. It didn't take much for that to happen either.

To make matters worse, every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any measure.

2000 should have been a lesson learned, but it wasn't, and we are paying the consequences of that foolishness, that elections have consequences. Hopefully, those that were duped into believing the garbage that there was no difference between republicans and Democrats have learned a valuable lesson.

[pnwmom]

48. Good post. Thanks!

[murielm99]

49. +1,0000000

Thanks for posting.

[Adrahil]

63. +1. NT

[Panich52]

27. Capitalism is fine, as long as it's held in check

Age of the robber barons was briefly interrupted by Great Depression, but greed of those who managed to hold on to their wealth and avaristic basis of capitalism has led us to deja vu age. Oligarchy is inevitable when capitalism isn't balanced with a bit of more altruistic socialism where sharing the wealth, ensuring those who keep the money flowing up are, at the very least, able to feel appreciated and not have to worry about what happens to them and their families should they no longer be able to work or need to retire.

Repubs and corporatists have worked to shred social safety nets put in place in 30s instead of improving them. The War on Poverty has become War on the Poor. Unions had much to do with building America's great middle class, but instead of accepting the logic that corporations need customers who can afford their products, capitalistic greed sees them as impediments to the unnecessary amassing of wealth for those at the top. They see fair wages and safe working environments unions try to ensure as dreaded socialism, ignoring that democracy requires capitalism be kept in check.

Paying back to ensure the system that enabled the wealthy to gain their financial security is all modern socialism is. Sharing the wealth, a bit of altruism, keeps the system working instead of the feudalism that inevitably leads to rebellion that occurs when capitalism runs free and unrestrained. If the altruism needs to be a bit forced upon those who can afford to share their wealth, so be it. Our claim of democracy as a superior system of government requires a little socialism.

[at140]

80. Only check needed on Capitalism is....

to discourage in every way possible corporations merging together and becoming too large.
Large corporations become too powerful and control the politicians & law makers.

And that stifles competition and formation of small businesses.
Competition is the key to success of capitalism.

[pansypoo53219]

29. less unions, they can screw the workers. ooh, reaganism was such a DEAL i tells yah.

brainwashed since 1980.

[Joe941]

32. Socialism is the answer my friend.

[Starry Messenger]

36. Sorry about the anxiety ((hugs))

[HughBeaumont]

37. Let's not even get into it's ageism or how it treats the long-term unemployed.

Or how it's job application/resume screening process contributes to long-term unemployment by cancelling out tons of talented candidates because "they're simply not perfect enough".

[ProgressiveKnight]

45. To Serve The Corporate Collective IS TRUE FREEDOM

The motto of the Corporate Collectivists as they attack INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM is this:

"i want you and You and YOU to all COMPETE for smaller, less secure and fewer PAYCHECKS! While I sit back and enjoy the DIVIDEND CHECK from your pain! Isn't COMPETITION wonderful when it doesn't involve me but you? This is called "CAPITALIST INNOVATION".

So let's ship our jobs overseas and even high tech jobs too. Those that remain bring in Temp High Tech companies like "TaTa" with lower wage H1-b workers to undercut the high tech jobs that remain. THEN we can PREACH THE JOY OF HIGH TECH EDUCATION to the Blue Collar class. Yes, CAPITALIST INNOVATION at work.

FDR quoted an old English judge who said "a necessitous person is not a free person!

Corporations will NOT be satisfied until we are all reduced to being necessitous persons! Then they will whine about about "INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM" if SOCIETY imposes rules and regulations to this free for rich game. But when the GAME OF COMPETITION involves CEO's they insure that the GAME RULES have GOLDEN PARACHUTES for them while they campaign against a SOCIAL SAFETY NET for the SILENT MAJORITY.

Isn't time that this GAME had RULES set by SOCIETY on the basis of "One Person One VOTE" instead of "ONE DOLLAR - ONE VOTE". Now that is DEMOCRATIC INNOVATION!

[MineralMan]

46. It sound like you had a long string of crappy jobs for crappy employers.

I'd be pissed off, too, if I were you.

[rwsanders]

51. All of our problems are really one problem. The world has a billionaire problem.

[Humanist_Activist]

57. While I agree that wealth inequities are a huge problem, they are a symptom of how....

capitalism operates, literally allowing people to amass insane amounts of capital in the form of wealth without actually producing much themselves.

[pnwmom]

69. Capitalism doesn't have to operate that way. The Nordic countries practice regulated capitalism

which is a better alternative than your fantasy-socialism.

[Humanist_Activist]

72. Can they operate that way without exploiting millions of people in the 3rd world for cheap labor? nt

[pnwmom]

73. Yes, thanks to the advent of robotics. But you still haven't given a single example

of an actual country that has successfully demonstrated your fantasy-socialism.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. because there is none yet, and actually, that brings up another point, if automation displaces...

millions, potentially billions of workers, what are they to do in a capitalistic system?

[pnwmom]

76. They would be fine in a system with regulated capitalism, like in the Nordic countries. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

78. Why do you say that? What's your evidence for this assertion? n/t

[pnwmom]

79. Because their capitalistic system can already adjust to changes in the work force,

through its regulations and redistributive taxes.

As opposed to your one-world fantasy-socialism.

[Humanist_Activist]

85. But it adjusts by finding another population or resource to exploit, but what happens when that...

Doesn't happen anymore? What happens when overall economic growth ends?

[pnwmom]

86. How would your one-world fantasy socialism work? We saw how the largest socialistic

country in the world worked, China, and few people in the US want to emulate that.

Free countries with various resources can trade with each other without exploiting each other.

[Humanist_Activist]

87. Given the history of capitalism, that has yet to be demonstrated. N/T