Republicans pretend that no one knows they are lying...

[kentuck]

The King Charles speech before the Congress exposed them for what they truly are - lying hypocrites.

When the King spoke of the need to defend Ukraine, they stood in unanimous applause. And you thought they were on the side of the Russians

And when the King spoke of the Magna Carta and it's call for checks and balances and to hold kings and executives accountable, they stood and applauded as if they had not thrown the checks and balances into the crapper? What is their position?

And when he spoke of the many years of NATO and our alliances, Republicans cheered as if they have not echoed the sentiments of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in their desire to destroy NATO. What are people supposed to believe?

Do the Republicans know what side they are on? Are they that confused?

Or are they simply two-faced hypocrites?

[odins folly]

1. Ima gonna go with

The two-faced one, Alex. For $500?

[Ray Bruns]

6. And the answer is "The people in congress are spineless weasels who would sell out their own mothers"

[Johonny]

2. Their voters are rock stupid

They perform to an audience of morons.

Their voters are so truly scary, they fear them more than anything.

[state of stupid]

10. I have said quite a few times they are not afraid of Trump; they are afraid of his base.

[ananda]

14. A confederacy of dunces.

Boy, that was Swift, huh?

[La Coliniere]

3. Two-faced hypocrites.

[Moostache]

4. They don't care because they live in consequence free times...

The electorate has been gerrymandered out of relevance in many districts and locales.

The legislative branch and judicial branches of our three co-equal branch system have ceded all power and relevance as well to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the increasingly evil unitary executive branch.

The ability to actually amend the Constitution is a pipe dream in this current amalgam of a broken system, but it COULD be fixed:

Step 1 - implement an immediate estate tax of 75% above $100M in TOTAL asset estate value. If you're kids can't figure out how to survive on $100M of regular taxed assets, then you needed to teach them better when you lived.

Step 2 - re-implement taxation of stock options and deferred compensation packages as ordinary income instead of capital gains and losses (unless the proceeds are distributed to the business, employees and shareholders in equal amounts to executive pay). This disparity in how taxes are collected and on what they are due is a major reason behind the rise of inequality in our world, not the only one to be sure, but a major contributor. ALL people should feel that their taxes are building a nation that is worth defending and not a slave state designed to pass on power and wealth through hereditary means alone.

Step 3 - lift limits on Social Security taxes to include ALL income streams without cap. Eliminate once and for all the idea that this nation somehow can't afford to have its elders cared for with a minimum level of respect and dignity instead of fear and privation.

Step 4 - return the top marginal tax bracket to 90% of every dollar in assets held over $100M annually and it shall remain there until the national debt is retired. No further tax increases shall be allowed without increases starting at the top marginal rate and proceeding below that level. We MUST tax wealth and stop taxing labor at the current disparate levels. The pyramid is inverted incorrectly and must be corrected. Don't tell me it can't be done - the fucking Hyde amendment banning use of federal funds for abortion shows exactly just how far we CAN GO...so make it fucking happen for all, not just for a select group of religious zealots and freaks.

Step 5 - Immediately convert all US Citizens over the age of 60 to full Medicare coverage and all dependent children (up to age 25). Medi-gap primary care should be made available to citizens aged 26-59 as a government-administered non-profit single-payer entity to administer insurance for this group, who will be paying into the system, but will NOT be denied care from it. Healthcare in a 'great nation' is a non-negotiable RIGHT, not a privilege of wealth accumulation. What we have now is an inherent evil and national embarrassment to boot.

Step 6 - Establish education for all citizens from age 3 to the completion of either a high school diploma, trade school certification or Bachelor's degree in a state run university. Any society that does not care for the betterment of its youth and most vulnerable (in favor only of its most successful wealth hoarders) is not worthy of defense in the first place. Why should a citizen care about protecting the property claims and 'rights' of the wealthy when there is no avenue of improvement available for the lower 90%? Why should anyone fight or die for such a backward system? Being American must mean something more than a tri-colored emblem or flag iconography.

Step 7 - Complete reform of the Supreme Court (either through Court rebalancing or outright dismissal of the sitting court and renaming a new bench en toto) and force votes in Congress on EVERYTHING again, no more pouting and taking the ball and going home to avoid difficult votes (for EITHER party)... Add into this a provision for mandatory retirement from ALL government service to begin at age 75. We do not have octogenarian generals for good reason, we should not have octogenarian presidents either... or Representatives or Senators or Justices.

Step 8 - Repair the amendment process for the Constitution or else burn it all down and start over because that which cannot be changed peacefully WILL be changed violently eventually and if anyone thinks that is a world worth living in and for, then all hope is truly lost...

[erronis]

7. I don't understand how you can reasonably implement a wealth tax.

First, wealth is extremely hard to measure. It can be in rare old books/art, jewelry that doesn't see the light of day, overseas, etc.

Secondly, "implement an immediate estate tax of 75% above $100M in TOTAL asset estate value".
So, every year at tax time, 75% of the wealth of an individual will be removed until the total assets decline below $100M? Would only take a few years to whittle those poor billionaires down to mere millionaires.

[Moostache]

8. I am putting out a concept, not a law...

At one point many people reach the conclusion that the accumulation of wealth in an unchecked manor is a pathway to hereditary governance and monarchial or fascist tendencies.

So, there I reply "Yes".

Accumulation of wealth above a threshold - whether it is $100M, $500M, $1B or anything in between - is a fundamental problem in representative governance when it fails to address the distinction between money, wealth, power and speech. We cannot have an equitable society with inequitable representation and laws. Living under the rule of law is being emptied of meaning by the uber-wealthy and their bought and paid for representatives. This is fundamentally at the center of the well-known graph that displays worker productivity and compensation from the 1950s to the present - with a sharp break right around the introduction of Reaganomics in 1980.

HOW this disparity is addressed is less important than THAT it is acknowledged and addressed.

Another problem - and why I mention assets and not income - is the tax-dodge that allows capital gains (and losses) to be used to shelter purchasing power and influence and the paying of taxation at reduced rates for the affluent and increased percentages of the poorer citizenry.

There must be a taxation system that acknowledges the use of assets to obtain spendable wealth as the source of taxation rates and not the labor or hourly rate of acquisition of capital for use. When Musk and Bezos and company can take loans against their assets and pay reduced taxation rates relative to the rates of a line worker, teacher, cop or other lower income persons, THAT is a problem that can be fixed. There was a time when I believe that was why we had representatives in the first place - to discuss, debate and determine new ways to solve old problems. For the last 45 years, we have had one party with one idea - TAX CUTS AND DEREGULATION and they have held sway over fiscal policy long enough to make this falsehood into an accepted economic principle.

Its a lie and the sooner we collectively wake up to that and act on it, the more likely we can survive without a revolution, bloodshed and violence unlike anything since 1861-1865.

[erronis]

9. I think I follow, and I appreciate your viewpoints.

We do need a rethinking of how to make sure that the population can live/survive and flourish in this capitalistic society. My guess is that capitalism needs to be replaced with another means of fairly distributing rewards for efforts.

[Moostache]

11. I agree at a fundamental level - we need change.

I don't know that I am ready to break 100% with capitalism - unregulated, crony capitalism of 2026? Yes... that needs to go... but regulated and fair capitalism more akin to 1950's Eisenhower capitalism? I believe that REGULATED capitalism is still a viable system - but we have come so far off of that model that its depressing.

[Volaris]

5. Id like to add an addendum to step 1:

If you earn less than 150k per year, it's considered WAGES, and is therefore exempt from federal taxation, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU GOT IT. Great day at the tables? Good for you KEEP IT.
Pretty good at running drugs across the border? Again, good for you...you're going to jail for the crime, but the 100k you made is yours.
Etc.
Anything ABOVE that 150k is automatically considered INCOME, and your tax rate STARTS at 10% and moves on a progressive curve that goes all the way up to god...no more brackets.
If you WORK for a living, your fifth-grader should be able to file your taxes with the IRS.

[Moostache]

12. I really like this concept - thank you!

I agree that differentiating income and wages as a bright line to get into progressive taxation is a potentially great starting point. We cannot survive a system that penalizes and denigrates work while praising and deifying wealth.

[Squaredeal]

13. I find it irritating, yet typical, whenever a reporter asks them a "difficult" question...

as they lie and respond that they haven’t seen or read that yet to comment, when it’s already public knowledge, as if they’re so busy to know, while their assistants keep them politically updated.

[Volaris]

15. Those questions are only, and always, difficult if youre being a political hack.

Congressman TrumpToady, is the sky blue?
Well, you see, the sky is different colors depending blah blah blahblah.

Congressman NotTrumpToady, is the sky blue?
Of course it fucking is, I know because I can look out the window same as you.

Don't lie to yourself, dems do it too when it suits us lol

But yes, your point is valid. The argument that they don't know what he bleated out an hour ago is nonsense, when part of their loyalty oath is to check his feed every half hour.