Satire is indistinguishable from stupidity
Satire is indistinguishable from stupidity
Satire is indistinguishable from stupidity
Wow, he wants to provide people dignity and a high quality of life. How terrifying.
Taxed and have it spent on genocide abroad.
Taxed and spent on you.
It's your choice.
This so-called "fear mongering" isn't directed to the broad US population, it is targeting the preexisting bias of lowest common denominator target audience of the right.
All of them are fucking awesome! Sign me up!
Ah, yes, famously communists love to... open grocery stores?
They actually do. They will all have the same stuff and it will have a low price.
That is basically step two after forming a council.
I don’t care what you call it, I want that. Call it doodoo pickle butting, if it offers that, sign me up for everyone else too.
Call it butt sex and then we can also claim this was the gay agenda we kept hearing about.
Thats the thing, im past the stupid naming and everything. I just want policies that help people and not billionaires. Call it marxism, stalinism, whatever the fuck you want.
+1 for nitter screenshots.
I don’t like contributing to Twitter in any way, but Nitter + screenshot undermines it enough to warm my heart. And informs others they can do the same!
protip: xcancel is also a good nitter instance you can use!
Conservatives posting his Ws all the time. They're his best advertisers.
I find it fascinating how nowadays, basic human decency is called "woke" and "communism".
It’s the primary symptom of being infected with the broke mind virus, which effectively all republicans suffer.
There's plenty of studies showing that conservatism, sadism, and psychopathy correlate.
Should bring actual communism back toexplain the difference.
I think this is why we'll never have a UBI/leisure society/Star Trek style utopia. We are miserable biological apes and revel in other's misery.
Fuck that; this aggressively horrible crab bucketing is cultivated. Pretending decades of capitalist propaganda every god damn second of your waking life while you live in a fantasy wirld based on nonsense abstractions is 'just a staye of nature' is insane.
We [...] revel in other’s misery.
Well, i don't.
You forgot "woke communism"
You are a special kind of stupid (and brainwashed) if you think any of those things listed are bad
And also completely unrelated to Communism.
cool marxism sounds awesome where's my hammer and sickle
see, shit like this is what ended up cementing my opinion as a commie. thats literally fucking awesome.
and its for once, actual communism being described by the chuds.
No, communism is moneyless. No minimum wage in communism
you are correct. i was thinking of socialism.
i used the word interchangeably. in my defense i slipped, i try not to.
Welfare is not equal to handing over the means of production to the working class. So what mamdani is doing is not socialist.
You're right, is Social Democracy. But that's where we are, politically these days. The largest socialist organization in then U.S. (the DSA) is ostensibly not socialist in policy. Anything slightly left of RAGING corporate handouts and bombing brown people is COMMUNISM now.
hold on i thought communism is when government does stuff and the more stuff it does the more communism it is.
on the other hand these are reforms that marxists and communists should definitely support even if this is just basic social democracy.
Y'know what always annoys me about this type of statement (aside from it being socialism and not communism lol) is the amount of tax it takes isn't even that much in the grand scheme of things, PLUS it generally pays for itself in not having to imprison people or treat emergency room visits, etc.
People just have a very hard time grasping governmental budgets, though. The cost of paying for 200k housing sounds like a lot but man is it not compared to some of the other shit we waste money on.
PLUS it generally pays for itself
That's just how taxes work when done right: you take some money from everyone to make everything better so that it's cheaper for most people to be alive.
SNAP, for example, benefits the economy to the tune of at least $7 for every dollar invested. That's the kind of return on investment that makes greedy fucks like Pitbull cream their pants.
Yeah, but then they can't line their pockets with tax money if it actually benefits people.
Up until the communism part I thought they were endorsing him.
I mean, maybe they are a communist, and like the ideas and are endorsing him!
dont you mean marxist part.
That still sounds extraordinarily capitalist to me. By calling it Communism, they're diluting the massive policy failure of actual Marxism, which is more akin to "let's all take up arms and pillage every home, rich or poor".
This is more like "let's all kill the dragon who ate our children and stole our gold".
“let’s all take up arms and pillage every home, rich or poor”
then you really need to look into what marxism actually is instead of believing stupidity online.
What's next? "Free" school, "free" parks, "free" police, "free" firefighters, "free" military, "free" health inspections? Pay up, freeloader!
Woah woah woah stop there Lenin
If Communism is when wages go up and cost of living goes down, what is Capitalism?
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief. “Bad news, detective. We got a situation.” “What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?” “Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.” The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?” “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.” “Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.” He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.” “Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.” I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside. “Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t. “Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up. “Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?” It didn’t seem like they did. “Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.” Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing. I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it. “Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled. Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him. “Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen. I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!” He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose. “All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.” “Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy. “Because I was afraid.” “Afraid?” “Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.” I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head. “Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.” He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.
“I’m a central banker.” I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner.
My favorite part lol
Some classic pasta right there.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr
cost of living goes up quality of living goes up (for some) and the poor get poorer
Existence, privatized.
I don't agree with freezing rent.
The entire concept of rent needs to die in a goddamn fire. Legislation needs to kill the entire idea, not further legitimize it.
We need massive, punitive increases in residential property taxes, with commensurate owner-occupant exemptions: You will not see a tax increase on the property you live in, but any investment property you own is going to see you saddled with a huge tax bill. This might come as a shock, but Corporate landlords don't occupy their properties. They are not able to claim the owner occupant credit.
But, if you own a second property and lease it to me, we can convert our arrangement from a rental to a "land contract". I, the occupant, become the legal owner. I continue to make payments. You don't get to increase those payments over time; they are fixed for the duration of the agreement. If I leave in the first three years, you retain 100% equity in the property. If I stay beyond three years, our agreement converts to a mortgage, and I start gaining equity.
Basically, the only properties that will still be able to be feasibly rented are the remaining units in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, where the landlord lives in one of the units.
Renting is an option and convenience for a lot of people, that's why it exists. Some people don't want to be tied to a mortgage and might have reasons they only need a place for 6 or 12 months - temporary employment, contracting, studying or whatever.
Anyway renting can work as a model. Germany has a very large proportion of property which is rented. But they have strong tenant protections and place limits on rent hikes, evictions and so on.
I don't think an outright freeze is a good idea but rent controls and tenant laws would help. As would making casual letting (airbnb etc) a bullshit onerous proposition so that more housing stock is sold or converts into long term rent which lessens rent pressure.
Then cut out the moocher landlord and make every building a co-op. You're accountable to your fucking neighbors.
Yeah, I prefer to rent because buying here is only reasonable (because of taxes, notary costs, etc) if you will live in that place for more than about 8 years. I usually move before that.
Renting is an option and convenience for a lot of people, that's why it exists
Those people are called "landlords".
Some people don't want to be tied to a mortgage and might have reasons they only need a place for 6 or 12 months - temporary employment, contracting, studying or whatever.
I think I failed to convey the fact that land contracts provide that exact function. The occupant can unilaterally cancel the contract in the first three years, walking away free and clear. Just like ending a rental agreement. I'm not interfering with short-term housing or tying people to homes they don't want. I'm protecting short term tenants from exploitation, even if they decide to make their temporary plans into a permanent home.
Anyway renting can work as a model. Germany
I don't know about Germany, but corporate entities are rapidly buying up residential properties in the US. Many are using the same third-party algorithm to establish their rent prices. No amount of government regulation of their business model can effectively suppress the effects of such widespread collusion. They are actively working around rent controls and other tenancy protections.
The solution is to make traditional renting unfeasible for the landlord. Replace it with a system where investors are effectively forced to convey ownership interest if they want to profit from providing housing.
"Renting" will not be feasible for corporate investors once we establish an owner-occupancy exemption to residential property taxes. When we establish that exemption, we are free to peg the property tax rate to the owner-occupancy rate. Any year the rate is below 80%, the effective property tax rate for investors increases by 20%. It doesn't start dropping again until the owner occupancy rate exceeds 90%. Corporate landlords will be forced to sell outright, or get their tenants under a land contract instead of a rental agreement. Vacant properties will incur the full wrath of the tax man.
There will always be a market for relatively short term living spaces; a gap currently filled by rentals.
Any person who is not living in a place temporarily, eg, for school or a temporary job posting or something, should have the ability to buy a home at an affordable price, without fail.
The housing market is saturated with house flippers and people with more money than sense looking to become a landlord so they can have an "income property".
IMO, all rentals should be either run, controlled, or at least strictly overseen by a specific branch of government dedicated to the task. Anyone who wants to become a renter has to get their rental property approved for renting, and approvals only happen if more rentals are strictly required.
Land contracts fulfill the role of short term housing (6-36 months) at least as well as renting, with additional benefits if short term extends to long term. In the short term, there is no significant difference in the two, with the exception of the Owner-Occupant Tax Exemption I have been proposing. That exemption ensures that land contracts will be cheaper, yet more lucrative than renting.
Rent is inherently exploitative. No amount of government oversight can overcome the intrinsic problems with renting. The entire concept needs to be actively suppressed. Government oversight can't fix the inherently exploitive problems with rent. That's just trying to polish a turd.
What we need is an economic climate that favors owner occupancy and strongly discourages commercial use of residential property. With that environment, landlords will be fighting tooth and nail to convert their tenants into buyers.
I agree but that's not going to happen overnight and there needs to be a lot of work done beforehand. People need help now.
God forbid someone tries to increase the quality of life for people
'"Free" stuff is actually paid by our taxes, checkmate liberal!'
'...uh, yeah?'
It's funny that they never complain about the "free" roads or the "free" police.
I feel like this doesn't get called out more often as the straw man that it is. Right-wingers just love mocking the left for supposedly wanting "free" stuff.
How the fuck is a higher minimum wage anything but our current system?
I’m not convinced it’s not satire
$20 is socialism and $30 is communism. I'm sure Karl Marx said something like that.
Why oh why do we peg it to a number rather than to a metric, even if it were Big Macs ffs??????!
They need to base politicians salaries off minimum wage. If they only earned a salary based off 4-5x the minimum wage, that shit would never be lagging as bad as it is now
this only works if they stop them from being able to hold investments in companies, and markets, they pass laws for, as well as getting rid of political donations. If we don't do that their salary going down would only negatively affect the small number of congress members that want actual change to things.
Why 4x minimum wage? How could they represent the poorest people in a country if they make quadruple the money?
\
If they cant live with minimum wage, its their problem to solve
For some reason the quotes around the word free make it seem not satirical to me.
It's not the already obscenely rich accumulating more wealth to the detriment of everyone else, which is the inevitable consequence of the current system of laissez faire capitalism.
I propose a new rule: if you're American and wealthy, you don't get to talk about communism. At all.
I might make an exception for wealthy Americans with an education in politics or economics, or both.
I am a wealthy American (well, top 3%) and I'm a democratic socialist. I have no education in either. I'd be the first to increase taxes in my bracket to support Mamdani's ideas. I think you'd be surprised how many of us there are.
Also I hate it when people say "Democrats NEVER vote to increase their taxes, how do they plan to pay?!?". Yes, I do. I don't think money grows on trees.
But I also support your idea. Most people in my wealth bracket probably disagree with me. I'll lower my voice if those I think I'm trying to represent speak for themselves.
Another person around your bracket with degrees in philosophy and theology who somehow got sucked into a career in big biz. I'm happy to pay more taxes. And talk about socialism. I completely agree with you.
And where I live in the EU I'm already paying 49% of my income in taxes + 21% VAT on most goods. I'd still pay more if we needed it (even though, like most countries, what we really we need better taxes on the truly wealthy and corporations). Yeah I'm better off than most, but our Gini coefficient means most (although not everyone of course) does ok.
We have nice roads/public transit, good schools, great healthcare. The taxes I and people like me pay are why everyone can have nice things. If people didn't have nice things I'd be stand right beside them with the pitchforks and torches. I don't say that lightly; some of the protests I've attended in favor of taking in more asylum seekers have gotten nasty.
And he doesn't even have the conviction to make the communism fully automated, nor luxury, nor gay. What a disgrace!
/s
I thought it was gay space communism, not gay automated communism? HAS MAMDANI LIED TO US ALL?!
this but unironically
remember when pitbull was successful and talented?
neither do i
I mean, he IS objectively wildly successful and talented at accruing capital in spite of his music being lowest common denominator excrement..
No that's usually because he's like involved with shit people somehow
Why you gotta bring him into this lol, that's not even him in the screenshot and by all accounts Pitbull isn't that bad a human being. His biggest crimes being sexist lyrics followed by being born to Cuban immigrants (meaning he too hates "communism" but probably in name only)
Why state owned grocery stores?
There are "food deserts", or large areas where it isn't profitable to open a grocery store, so no one does. The people that live there have no healthy food options. The state owned stores would operate in those unserved areas where no business currently wants to operate.
Most importantly, it's not ALL grocery stores like the fear mongers like to pretend. It would be something like 4 stores in the entire city.
Yeah, that's a good case for this.
No necessity should be for-profit (exclusively).
If it is required (by nature, civilization, or by law) it is literally extortion to make a profit on it.
While I don't disagree with this sentiment, it can be taken too far:
So within the necessities to stay alive and aligned with the means and needs of the society I can agree. Where this all falls apart is that inevitably some tribunal will decide this and inevitably someone will take control of said tribunal to funnel the best food/health care/education/jobs to their cronies, as anyone who lives in a former Soviet state like myself can attest to.
Price gouging has been a major problem at Canadian grocers since COVID. Basically prices went up with supply chain issues / inflation but have not been adjusted for improvements in inflation since then.
These are for profit entities. They would steal a quarter from the poor and hungry if they could.
That's the fundamental flaw to capitalism - not that it concentrates wealth and power (because that is perhaps human nature) but that it celebrates it.
It conditions us to think that concentrating wealth is not only morally right but something we should all aspire to. That competing is morally superior to sharing.
Ultimately, if capitalists accrue so much wealth and power that they can buy out the interests that would seek to regulate them through democratic will, we then relinquish our democracy for feudalism.
I think that price gouging is mainly a result of allowing too much consolidation via buyouts and mergers, and not actively enough perusing antitrust and anti price fixing enforcement.
I suppose if it's allowed to get too bad, the government could try to compete in the market, but governments are almost never the most efficient way to do things and can rarely effectively compete on efficiency against a functioning open market. In my eyes, regulation of the open market via labor law, protecting unions, trust busting and anti collusion enforcement is a far better way for government to solve this problem.
Unfortunately a government that's not functioning well enough to do this kind of oversight will almost certainly fail at trying to compete against in the open market as a grocery store too. At which point you are just running subsidized food banks, which is also fine by me but I don't think subsidizing all food for everyone will work in most government budgets.
provide more affordable groceries. depending on where they would be, they'd either provide food for food deserts, or create competition for other grocery stores, which should lead to cheaper food overall.
This would be a pretty solid idea for Australia, since we basically just have a local supermarket duopoly, then some foreign or small supermarkets, so it would be a breath of fresh air to have a lack of price gouging, although sadly I doubt it'd be as successful as AusPost, but we'll see.
To lower prices presumably.
Your headline is a restatement of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
That sounds awesome, thanks Pitbull!
But what does Ja think?
dale
Freezing rent will directly lead to less housing. But then they're building more housing units, which will hmm. Well, it won't directly harm me, so I welcome this experiment. Perhaps it will work this time, somehow.
Free public transit and childcare are pretty much win-win propositions, although both will possibly incur some bureacratic problems. Such as setting wages etc. which the free market won't be able to help with anymore when they're fully paid-by-taxes public services. Then it just becomes a question of how well those problems are addressed.
There's a lot of good ideas in there, but rent freezes aren't one of them. Limiting what you can charge for a service just means less people will want to provide that service.
good, less landlords. Not only would freezing rent show us which people suck, but it will force the people who suck to sell their extra properties, since if they won't use them then the property is just losing them money.
Yes landlords will just take their houses overseas.
Even if you just talk about building new homes, freezing rent just caps the profits that can be pulled out of a project. If it's profitable right now, why shouldn't it be with same income tomorrow?
Yes landlords will just take their houses overseas.
You think landlords are going to move overseas so they can landlord somewhere else?
Honestly, if there actually are people like that, then good riddance. They sound like slum lords. Parasites.
Because costs only go up, that's why. It may not be profitable tomorrow at all.
And what, leave the apartments empty? Have them earn zero money, rather than some money?
it will actually make them charge more, or find ways of making you stay temporary. they said rent freeze is coming, they can demand payment upfront
The checkmark is an idiot self-identification tool.