And if you go back just as little further in US history, many Americans working agricultural jobs made exactly zero dollars

8/2/2017 7:35:21 PM

Anyway.....arguing whether or not a "merit" based immigrating plan is good or bad (it's bad) is missing the broader point:

Xenophobia masquerading as reasonable policy put forth by a racist piece of shit is simply a means of transforming basic human rights into privileges to both international and domestic citizens. Brush up on your Hannah Arendt, bruhs

8/2/2017 7:46:38 PM

interesting Vice piece on immigrants and farming in Alabama from a few years ago:

https://youtu.be/F0ZzwGSF6Zg

8/2/2017 8:06:16 PM

Quote :

"Xenophobia masquerading as reasonable policy put forth by a racist piece of shit is simply a means of transforming basic human rights into privileges to both international and domestic citizens. Brush up on your Hannah Arendt, bruhs"

"immigration" in the US, as it pertains to the lower class, only exists to produce cheap, unregulated labor. i don't know or care what trump is proposing.

8/2/2017 8:35:16 PM

To be clear. I don't think this is "reasonable policy" in any capacity. And treating this proposal as some sort of protectionist policy to benefit the working class is a huge mistake.

There is a valid point about cheap labor saturating a working environment being detrimental to the labor market. But this is not about jobs. This is about criminalizing "non-whiteness," hence the emphasis on "English" as a precursor to entrance.


Couple this current proposal with the desire for police to "rough up" suspects, and the fascination with Latin gangs, and the total vision begins to crystallize:

This is about targeting Hispanic people. Point blank.



As for my Hannah Arendt reference:

Quote :

"For the nation-state cannot exist once its principle of equality before the law has broken down. … Laws that are not equal for all revert to rights and privileges, something contradictory to the very nature of nation-states. The clearer the proof of their inability to treat stateless people as legal persons and the greater the extension of arbitrary rule by police decree, the more difficult it is for states to resist the temptation to deprive all citizens of legal status and rule them with an omnipotent police... It is quite conceivable, and even within the realm of practical political possibilities, that one fine day a highly organised and mechanised humanity will conclude quite democratically?—?namely by majority decision?—?that for humanity as a whole it would be better to liquidate certain parts thereof.”"

Hannah Arendt, "Origins of Totalitarianism"


This language is dangerous. And when Trump (who is currently politically impotent) eventually cedes power, it will be these soul-less ghouls who are left in place, perfectly willing to follow their rhetoric with action. And that is terrifying.

We can have (and should have) the conversation about protecting the working class. But working class solidarity should must be global to resist exploitation.

8/2/2017 9:14:22 PM

You can have a proper Marxist position on immigration without resorting to protectionism ("workers of the WORLD, unite!").

This requires international solidarity among the working poor. The IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, or "wobblies" as they are called) was an international workers union, because they understood that the capitalist class that could evade national borders in order to evade labor rights if labor wasn't internationally organized (even the Soviet "hammer and sickle" symbolized the unity between the agricultural working poor and industrial workers and advocated for world revolution).

Any working solidarity solutions that revolve around protectionism will ultimately fail because capitalists will simply take their production to areas without organized labor and/or embrace automation. This applies to domestic immigration, as well. Arguing about who should have the privilege of being on the receiving end of exploitation misses the point. Compensation for agricultural workers should be fair and even, regardless of nation of birth

8/2/2017 10:06:57 PM

^I'm intrigued by this and will need to mull it over for a while.

8/3/2017 12:02:20 AM

RAISE act may be a bad idea but at least trump is trying to get it through congress vs what king obama did with dreamers

8/3/2017 7:11:02 AM

Someone remind me again what it says there on the Statue of Liberty? I could swear it's something like 'Come on in anyone of great value that can already speak the language...not your family though lol', right? Right?

8/3/2017 7:15:35 AM

^^ dreamers are named that because of legislation that was introduced multiple times

8/3/2017 7:28:32 AM

^ yes. Point is Obama didn't let the fact law didn't pass from stopping him from giving them quasi legal status

[Edited on August 3, 2017 at 9:47 AM. Reason : H]

8/3/2017 9:45:43 AM

Man, those WaPo published leaks of the transcripts from his early call are nuts. And coming directly from the WH (or someone who is no longer there). I actually think his engagement with foreign powers is dangerous but these type of leaks aren't in the name of transparency and we'd be outraged if Obama was having this happen to him.

He basically flat out admitted that he conned a huge swath of the electorate. And randomly said he won NH (he didn't).

8/3/2017 10:16:21 AM

^^Neither did Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton or W. Selective immigration enforcement, or *gasp* amnesty, has been a staple of many administrations. What's your point?

[Edited on August 3, 2017 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

8/3/2017 10:28:04 AM

Not to speak for him but he is incredibly consistent on perceived misuse of executive power regardless of party or ideology of the president.

8/3/2017 10:34:28 AM

Hahaha yes, perceived being the operative word there.

8/3/2017 10:39:29 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/03/fact-checking-the-trump-russia-investigation/?utm_term=.a543793067f2

8/3/2017 11:00:20 AM

Quote :

"Any working solidarity solutions that revolve around protectionism will ultimately fail because capitalists will simply take their production to areas without organized labor and/or embrace automation."

But automation is inevitable, and coming quickly, so wouldn't you say that any working class solutions that revolve around labor will ultimately fail regardless?

Protectionism isn't wrong, up to a certain point. I'm not at all against immigration, and I'm not for immigration being entirely merit-based, but we can't just accept anyone and everyone. Humanitarian immigration is a great thing to strive for, but currently, we can't even take care of the people who live here. "Before you can help others, you must help yourself."

Quote :

"Arguing about who should have the privilege of being on the receiving end of exploitation misses the point. Compensation for agricultural workers should be fair and even, regardless of nation of birth"

I totally agree, but I don't think this is mutually exclusive with anything I've said.

8/3/2017 11:11:05 AM

Quote :

"But automation is inevitable, and coming quickly, so wouldn't you say that any working class solutions that revolve around labor will ultimately fail regardless? "

Absolutely.

8/3/2017 11:20:16 AM

Even I think these latest leaks regarding the phone transcripts to the leaders of Mexico and Australia are ridiculous.

There's no telling what our previous presidents have said to other world leaders behind closed doors, and they didn't have a staff leaking things left and right.

8/3/2017 12:47:19 PM

Quote :

"But automation is inevitable, and coming quickly, so wouldn't you say that any working class solutions that revolve around labor will ultimately fail regardless? "

this is why we need to start figuring out universal basic income, it is something that is being debated among unions (i read sometime ago about the debate among leaders at the AFL-CIO for example) however you have to remember that unions aren't perfect and are't selfless so it is a contentious item. outside of labor unions, it is more widely supported as a working class solution.

8/3/2017 12:55:18 PM

Any industry that can be fully automated should be nationalized and the profits shared. I know that sounds crazy, but think about it. The entire argument for supply side economics and low taxation if the rich is that they "create jobs" and are therefore entitled to the profits. If, however, they are no longer "creating jobs" within their industry then I see no reason why they should be entitled to the profits.

I'm not entirely on board with Universal Basic Income. Not yet, anyway. Mark Zuckerberg will likely pivot into politics on this idea, fyi. But my primary concern is that a low UBI will eventually flatten if not tied to inflation (just like minimum wage) and could potentially be an excuse to allow the super rich to avoid taxation completely

8/3/2017 1:44:06 PM

Quote :

"Not yet, anyway. Mark Zuckerberg will likely pivot into politics on this idea, fyi. "

I'm not really adding anything substantive to the conversation but Elon Musk also is a big believer.

8/3/2017 1:48:15 PM

Quote :

"Any industry that can be fully automated should be nationalized and the profits shared. I know that sounds crazy, but think about it. The entire argument for supply side economics and low taxation if the rich is that they "create jobs" and are therefore entitled to the profits. If, however, they are no longer "creating jobs" within their industry then I see no reason why they should be entitled to the profits."

Idk if it should be that cut and dry. I think a 100% tax rate over a certain income, in combination with UBI, would accomplish the same end goal without stifling innovation.

Automation itself is good. How we handle it will determine whether the outcome is good or bad. Best case, it will allow us to focus on artistic, scientific, and interpersonal endeavors.

8/3/2017 2:07:23 PM

Quote :

"I think a 100% tax rate over a certain income"

Not sure if I'm oversimplifying but, let's say you have to expend X effort to get to 100 million dollars. If you put the 100% tax threshold at 80 million dollars, would the company/individual not be inclined to the dial back the effort to X minus Y just to the point that they no longer are taxed at 100%?

If so, would that not create shortages?

[Edited on August 3, 2017 at 3:00 PM. Reason : a]

8/3/2017 2:59:22 PM

I'm only talking about individual taxes. Business taxes/expenditures are a different story, and I don't know enough on that front.

FDR wanted income capped at $25k ($350k), and it's been proposed by modern politicians as well.

8/3/2017 3:30:44 PM

^^

If you’re making $80M/yr the driving force behind your motivation isn’t financial— it’s passion or glory.

The purpose of a very high marginal tax rate isn’t to squeeze money from corporations— tax receipts per capita aren’t higher under such a tax regime (historically at least— look it up).

The purpose is to encourage corporations to spend that money they would otherwise pay as a salary. If you’re a hedge fund and top leadership is already making $80M, where under current tax code they would just keep paying these assholes more money, under this hypothetical other tax code this company would be forced to pay their lower tier employees more or look for other ways to spend the money to keep it out of the governments grubby hands.

Back when Apple/Intel/Microsoft/HP/etc were first being formed, we had a 70% top marginal tax rate. It’s a myth this deters ambition, it just ensures wealth is being shared more fairly in a business.

8/3/2017 11:16:41 PM

^Gotcha. So if that's the case, why do they flock offshore to beat taxes?

If it comes down to we just have to have the government force it upon them, that makes sense to me but that to me still detracts from the drive/motivation argument in terms of why they put effort in.

8/3/2017 11:33:24 PM

Basic income isn't an ideal solution alone. Not without a good safety net already in place... For any idea, you should ask yourself "5 whys" to try and get to the root of the problem you hope to solve. Basic income only answers addresses the first why to the "People need jobs" problem.

8/3/2017 11:41:48 PM

^^ why wouldn’t they? If there’s a loophole it will be exploited. It’s hard to anticipate all loopholes, and might not be practical to close those loopholes. Some might argue that we should close all loopholes as we find them but I don’t know how practical this is always to do. I do think we should have a law against corporate inversions.


I don’t know how, but we need to make it part of our culture that every full time job should be paid a living wage, regardless of what that job is. It’s like how American police don’t really take bribes for most types of crimes, but this is rampant in other countries, and hard to stamp out once it becomes the norm (cops essentially become judge/jury in determining what kinds of crimes to let slide with a bribe).

8/4/2017 1:20:59 AM

I wish I knew more about this stuff. Maybe I'm too cynical. Warren Buffet, for instance, has made a couple of public statements indicating how he should be taxed as much as his secretary. With his money and the time he has, why hasn't he gone on an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign to try to make this happen?

Apple has over $250 million sitting in off shore accounts. One individual proposed returning it with the condition that a 100% tax exists on anything paid out as bonuses. Apple is against this plan.

Not saying you're wrong, I just don't see the behavior playing out to this. I'm fully on board with implementing some sort of solution that stops what is happening. But I honestly think it's greed, plain and simple.

8/4/2017 8:46:53 AM

Secret service got kicked out of Trump Tower NYC over rent issues? Government not paying up?

8/4/2017 8:49:29 AM

Maybe they tried to jack the rent the same way they did at that Mar A Lago eyesore.

8/4/2017 8:54:06 AM

It had already been reported before they left that they were being charged well over market value

8/4/2017 8:56:26 AM

Pretty strong economic numbers this morning, especially manufacturing. Though I haven't looked at the details.

Trump rightfully should take credit for it as other presidents before him have.

[Edited on August 4, 2017 at 9:11 AM. Reason : It's also the ONLY thing that can grow his base. He should focus solely on this via social media]

8/4/2017 9:06:01 AM

^I wanted to be like "no, because..." but then was like "Wait, he's right" on your second statement, haha.

8/4/2017 9:12:03 AM

Have to see how he implements it but Sessions seems to be going to a dark place with the media regarding leaks.

[Edited on August 4, 2017 at 11:17 AM. Reason : And before someone goes what about with I'm aware and condemned Obamas handling]

8/4/2017 11:12:16 AM

You know, as a compromise, I'd be generally okay with this if the government would stop classifying every fucking piece of data that flows through their system.

You take the call transcripts that were just leaked - there was absolutely nothing in there that had anything to do with national security and yet, they were classified. That shit was classified simply to protect Trump's political image.

[Edited on August 4, 2017 at 12:38 PM. Reason : A]

8/4/2017 12:36:56 PM

lol, trump thinks he's signed more bills than any president

8/5/2017 1:02:02 PM

This guy nails it

Quote :

"One thing I like about Trump, and that the capitalists hate about him, is the fact that Trump is often too dumb to lie. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he's honest. He lies all the time. Constantly. But on open secrets of how the wealthy capitalists rule, Trump lets the cat out of the bag. A few examples are in order. Of course the bourgeoisie hires cops to brutalize, murder, and oppress the multiracial working class, but you're not supposed to get the cheers of cops by asking cops to be more brutal. Of course the fossil fuel capitalists are in charge of U.S. foreign policy, but you don't put the head of Exxon Mobile in charge of the State Department to carry out regime change in Venezuela. Of course the fossil fuel capitalists have garnered bipartisan unity in doing nothing about global warming, but you don't advertise it by pulling out of the Paris Accord's facade that let them pretend they were doing something. Of course it has been a major drive of both ruling capitalist parties to gut secular public education and privatize it for capitalist profit, but you don't put a leading capitalist benefiting from these attacks on our children in charge of education. Off course the self-centered psychopathic scumbags of the wealthy capitalist class use their ill-gotten wealth and power to sexually abuse women, but you're not supposed to brag about it. The wealthy ruling capitalist class also hates Trump for the rare good things he does or says, like pulling out of the TPP and speaking of better relations with Russia, but their other fundamental problem with Trump is that he is often too dumb to lie. Everyone hates Trump, but the Democrats are too corrupted by their corporate donors to offer a meaningful alternative. In California, Democrats bought off by the insurance industry just killed a Medicare for all bill. Medicare for all is the only real solution to problems like 45,000 people dying per year in the United States due to a lack of medical care. Medicare for all is also the solution to the insanely high and rapidly rising prices charged for health insurance by the blood sucking insurance capitalists. The Democrats ran a corporate shill for president, more pro-war than Trump, opposed to a $15 an hour minimum wage and supporter of fracking. For vice president she chose an anti-union running mate supporting union busting so-called "right to work" laws. The Democrats couldn't win against the most hated candidate in U.S. history because they had absolutely nothing to offer except the fact that their candidate wasn't Trump. The Democrat's solution? Lie about it. Just blame Russia. Yet, even if the leaked emails were actually, as their unsubstantiated conspiracy theory claims, hacked by Russia, that wouldn't change the fact that the leaked emails exposed the truth about Clinton and the Democrats. The leaked emails, among other things, exposed Hillary Clinton telling Wall Street bankers not to worry about what she says on the campaign trail. Instead, she had two policies, the ones she tells the public, and the real policies she shares with them. No matter who leaked the emails, and there is both zero evidence it was Russia and strong evidence that it was a whistle blowing DNC insider, but no matter who leaked those emails, they deserve a big thank you for letting the cat out of the bag on who the Democratic Party really represents."

8/6/2017 10:53:49 PM

Good points undermined by trying to equivocate a Seth Rich type story with Russian influence.

[Edited on August 7, 2017 at 7:23 AM. Reason : Also more "Donald the Dove" bullshit]

8/7/2017 7:22:19 AM

After reading that quote, I feel like Earl things the world is run by a few wealthy Builderburgs. Or whatever their names are.

8/7/2017 9:31:05 AM

Quote :

"and there is both zero evidence it was Russia and strong evidence that it was a whistle blowing DNC insider"

Lol, I actually read that wrong. Thia is a legit full blown Seth Rich believer. Horseshoe theory!

8/7/2017 9:57:19 AM

^

8/7/2017 2:04:13 PM

^^ "Horseshoe" theory is weak because it assumes we are always in a stable political state, being equally pulled in two opposing political directions by two "equally" radical ideologies who hold equal political power.

In a stable political environment, that theory would look like this:

https://m.imgur.com/MBFql4P


However, in our current political environment, one side has more power, so it more properly looks like this:

https://m.imgur.com/YZoSUmE


By falsely equivocating one side with the other, it legitimizes one extreme while disempowering the other. It's the only way I can make sense of why someone would say "social democracy is just as bad as white nationalism!" Demanding single-payer and free college is not the fucking same as wanting to criminally target Muslims and Hispanics.




[Edited on August 7, 2017 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2017 2:16:53 PM

The Seth Rich thing did take an interesting turn a few days ago.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/seymour-hersh-owes-the-world-an-explanation-for-his-seth-rich-comments-f9b2756123d3

For anyone who isn't familiar with Hersh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

I'm sure it'll rile some people up, but I think it's as plausible as the Russia story. Too much noise surrounding both of them, though.

[Edited on August 7, 2017 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2017 2:45:24 PM

there are plenty of people who russia has not had an issue with killing, so i could believe that they killed seth rich, but i'm not going to believe it based on what we have seen from fox news and their investigator who basically reported what fox news told him to

8/7/2017 2:53:29 PM

I agree, but there's an audio recording of Hersh making the same claims that are in the legal filing.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/892510925244203008

Transcript: http://redpilledworld.blogspot.com/2017/08/seymour-hersh-audio-transcript.html

(don't have time to look for a better site, it just popped up on google)

[Edited on August 7, 2017 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2017 3:02:03 PM

Red Pilled World?

8/7/2017 3:03:45 PM

you can listen to the audio if you'd rather. i just googled for a transcript.

[Edited on August 7, 2017 at 3:05 PM. Reason : i promise i don't read that blog]

8/7/2017 3:04:12 PM

^^^ right, but while Hersh is a credible reporter that doesn't mean that it is 100% definitely fact

8/7/2017 3:14:51 PM