Alisdair Gray’s Post

Ironically I understand and fully support some of the most ridiculed and derided (by the right wing) phrases/declarations of Kamala Harris e.g. "what can be, unburdened by what has been" and "the children of the community are the children of the community". I think that any kind of private wealth is indeed a burden on society (because wealth is always implemented using exclusion and constraints). Thus wealth distribution is that burden Kamala talks about which is the result of "what has been" and if we destroy it (e.g. redistribute wealth) then everything including free market prices would be different. Since wealth is a burden on society, society has the right to say that only justified, deserved wealth should be honored. If you just recently earned something, arguably it's justified/deserved, hence income tax should be zero. If one's wealth is a result of what one's grand-grand-parents were doing, then arguably one's wealth is not justified/deserved at all. My alignment with Dems in general and Kamala Harris in particular stops at abstract declarations because they want to do all the wrong things under the guise of noble causes. They are not going to redistribute hereditary wealth. They are totally OK with children of today's elites becoming tomorrow's elites. Instead they just want to prevent revolution (by giving handouts to the lower classes) and to maintain the existing social hierarchy. They mess with free markets, support big government nanny state, heavily regulate businesses (thus raising barriers to entry) and tax the middle class ad infinitum.

Here's the summary of our new paper calling for greater effort at dismantling inequity: DC’s Local Fund budget (the portion of the budget that reflects spending supported through our three broad based taxes—income, sales, and property) has been steady for decades when taken as a share of the economy (a key measure of our fiscal capacity). In other words, we’ve largely just kept pace with growth in the economy and that’s a good thing—we have to be able to keep up with growing needs for public services broadly and also specific things like competitive public sector wages and parts of the budget that grow faster than others or serve populations with higher cost needs. Our spending as a share of the economy has at times been higher than it is now—in fact it is actually lower now than it was in the very last year of the Control Board era. We’ve made some really important investments for racial and economic equity with that spending, especially in the last decade or so (we share a few examples that are not meant to be an exhaustive list). Revenue is projected to decline as a share of the economy in the coming years, which could cause us to backtrack when we really should be pushing forward toward more progress on tackling longstanding racial and economic inequity. More progress would strengthen our economy as a whole. To move forward and achieve more transformative change, we will need to raise revenue and increase our collective effort (we offer just a handful of examples where we should fulfill commitments already made and forge ahead with additional public investments).

A Nonpartisan Superhero   Although we are in the middle of a bitter election race, I find it interesting that both Vice President Kamala Harris and Former President Donald Trump are considered to both have populist elements in their political strategies.   Former President Donald Trump has long been associated with populism. He uses rhetoric that appeals to the average American and has often positioned himself against the political establishment. Trump cut taxes in 2017 and argued that his “across the board tax cut” would greatly help the average American survive their economic challenges. Vice President Kamala Harris has recently unveiled a populist economic agenda. The agenda focuses on policies to reduce costs for American families and provide tax relief to middle-class and lower-income Americans. This approach aligns with populist themes of addressing the average citizen's needs while challenging corporate interests.   This development is fascinating from a nonpartisan perspective because the last time the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates were considered populist was in the 1896 U.S. presidential election. William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic nominee, was known for his populist views, advocating for the free silver movement while appealing to agricultural interests. On the Republican side, William McKinley also employed populist rhetoric, though his campaign was closely aligned with business interests and the gold standard.   To give everyone a break from this bitter election, I wrote a 295-word (1-minute read) fiction story developing the character of a populist but nonpartisan Superhero.  I hope everyone enjoys reading it! #KamalaHarris #DonaldTrump #republicans #democrats #elections

There are special considerations for dual income families for many things, money included. As families grow and people age, additional considerations should be contemplated. #FinancialPlanningForCouples #SmartMoneyMoves https://zurl.co/Pde4

This may be so, Victor. But it doesn't mean Trump is the answer. In fact, Trump is quite clearly and obviously the wrong answer. If indeed the GOP is now the party of the middle class, it is immensely disappointing that the American middle class appear to be so disconnected from the reality of the actions that sustain and support a democracy, the democracy they claim to love and pledge allegiance to. Deliberately and obviously lying about election results for your own selfish means undermines trust in government..Trust in government is fundamental to democracy. Threatening to jail judges and other legal officials for involvement in cases brought against you is a clear violation of the principles of separation of power and rule of law. An educated middle class should know this and react against it, not vote for it! Using mobs to bring direct pressure via threats of violence on elected officials to overturn election results for which there is not a skerrick of evidence of electoral fraud - these are not the actions of an honest President worthy of the office. An aware and educated middle class would not support this. Nor would they support politicians who blatantly and obviously make up 'facts' and outright lies. Its not as if Trump was/is an economic titan. He has been the 7th most economically successful post-WW2 President out of 13 (Carter was the 6th, Bidens term hasnt concluded yet) (New York Times). So, if the middle classes have traditionally been the great democratic bulwark against tyranny and the far left and far right, they are dismally and shamefully failing in that role in today's USA by supporting a man who has all the hallmarks, by his own proven and undeniable past public behaviour, of a tyrant. Who is incapable of stringing together sentences that make sense, let alone policies. Who divides people like oil and water. Who uses lies, ignorance, base childish insults, baseless promises and public resentments to buy cheap popularity. It is a stunning indictment on the ability of the US middle class to reason and discern, and on their knowledge of basic democratic principles, and indeed on Victor Hanson, who seems to have lost all sense.

What happened in Britain could happen in the US if Republicans win and cut government spending Under the conservatives, between 2010 and 2019, British public spending fell from about 41% per cent of GDP to 35% -its emphasis on shrinking the state rather than raising taxes. "since 2010 the country has suffered grievously. According to one estimate, the average worker is now 14,000 pounds worse off per year than if earnings had continued to rise at 2008 rates—it is the worst period for wage growth since the Napoleonic Wars. "High levels of employment and immigration, mask a national reality of low pay, precarious jobs, and chronic underinvestment. The trains are late. The traffic is bad. The housing market is a joke. “It’s just not that productive an economy anymore.” "With stagnant wages, people’s living standards have fallen... stalling life expectancy, particularly among women in England’s poorest communities—and widening inequalities.. rising infant mortality, slowing growth in children, and the return of rickets. "Pensions and international aid became more generous, to show that British compassion was not dead. But protecting some parts of the state meant sacrificing the rest: the courts, the prisons, police budgets, wildlife departments, rural buses, care for the elderly, youth programs, road maintenance, public health, the diplomatic corps. Between 2010 and 2018, funding for police forces in England fell by up to 25%. Officers stopped investigating burglaries. Only 4% now end in prosecution. In 2021, the median time between a rape offense and the completion of a trial reached more than two and a half years. Last fall, hundreds of school buildings had to be closed for emergency repairs, because the country’s school-construction budget had been cut by 46% between 2009 and 2022. "Newcastle’s city’s parks budget was cut by 91% . “Youth services and a lot of community-support services, they just disappeared completely.” Child poverty rose sharply. (About 40% of children in Newcastle currently live below the poverty line.) At one charity, the heating bill used to run 4000 pounds a year, but is now about 14000. "Britain’s richest 20% have largely been spared the effects of the past fourteen years https://lnkd.in/eB2mNkRr

Ever wondered why some legislative compromises seem easier to achieve than others? Here’s something to ponder: 📊 When legislation benefits big donors or politicians, reaching a compromise seems effortless. 📊 However, aid or tax breaks for everyday Americans often get stuck in endless debates. 📊 Case in point: A few years ago, college tuition hikes in North Carolina saw a 90% agreement across political aisles. 📊 Raising tuition or taxes? No problem. Helping the general public? Suddenly, it's complicated. The system seems perfectly set up for control, doesn’t it? How do you think we can push for more people-centric policies? Share your thoughts and experiences below! #Legislation #GovernmentPolicy #HigherEducation #Taxation #PublicInterest #PoliticalCompromise #

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗲 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮 Excerpts: "Statisticians tell us that the new non-clinging Democratic Party finds its greatest support from those who earn less than $50,000 and those who make considerably more than $100,000. These are the rich/poor bookends that surround the reformed Republican party in between." "So, in terms of generalized income and earnings, the left is now the party of the well-to-do professional and credential class and the rich, along with the subsidized poor. The Republicans, by contrast, are increasingly represented by the middle classes." * * * * * "Two truisms stand out about the elite boutique agenda: one, when these theories are implemented—often by the courts, and the permanent and unelected administrative and bureaucratic state—the architects of such experimentation do not really feel the inevitable deleterious consequences." "Illegal aliens do not go to their children’s schools or crowd the offices of their concierge cardiologists and oncologists, much less dump trash on their streets and curbs." "Their ideology is the fruit of their privilege and so is often more utopian and abstract. Given that if it results in economic, social, and cultural damage to millions, they will certainly avoid the ensuing flotsam and jetsam." "The fallout from defunding the police falls upon the inner city, not the privately patrolled Presidio Heights or the secluded sorts in Martha’s Vineyard." "Given their income and status, the new Democratic credentialed and moneyed classes do not care about the struggle of others to live one more day, clinging to the middle-class vestiges of their parents’ era." "By the same token, the poor count on the left’s largesse to cushion themselves from the damage of their own party’s dreams turned into nightmares. Various food, housing, medical, legal, and educational subsidies to the poor are testaments that the left’s own agendas stagnant upward mobility and confine the poor to permanent poverty." "Not so the struggling middle classes. Modern theories can result in hyperinflation that can ruin them or easily send them into the ranks of the government-subsidized poor. They are conservative in wanting a secure border, legal-only immigration, affordable food and energy, safe streets, and equality of opportunity rather than of result, because they have no margin of error." "So, the great middle class is wary about falling at the hands of others into government dependency and even more fearful of destroying what has worked over the ages. They resist experimenting with the unknown, especially when thought up and designed by those who will easily ride out the ensuing disasters when such harebrained schemes inevitably fail." by Victor Davis Hanson Full article: https://lnkd.in/eqBRSJ6J American Greatness 

ELITES (high income, advanced education, dense urban living) versus ‘THE PEOPLE’ (everybody else) The elites live on the two coasts. They send their children to good schools and universities. They work in the ‘talking professions’; that is, they don’t sweat with hammers, drills, grills, machines or chemicals. Instead, they bend ideas and information — as investors, lawyers, journalists, professors and managers. They earn more money. They live in big houses... and they wouldn’t be caught dead at a Trump rally. Nearly three-quarters of the elites surveyed believe they are better off now financially than they were when Joe Biden entered the White House. Less than 20% of ordinary Americans feel the same way. Half of the elites say there is too much freedom. An astonishing 72% of the elites — including 81% of the elites who graduated from the top universities — favor banning gas cars. And majorities of elites would ban gas stoves, nonessential air travel, SUVs and private air conditioning. Most elites think that teachers’ unions and school administrators should control the agenda of schools. Mainstream Americans think that parents should make these decisions. 3/4ths of these cultural elites are Biden supporters. The snobs thumb their collective noses at the unrefined working-class Americans. The elites believe they are intellectually, culturally and morally superior to the working class and rural America. Crime, illegal immigration, inflation, fentanyl and factory closings aren't keeping the elites up at night because they don't encounter these problems on a daily basis the way so many Americans do today. Not many main street Americans are losing sleep about climate change or LGBTQ issues. The situation does not describe a political divide. It is not a matter of Republicans versus Democrats. Not a case of good guys versus bad guys. If you vote for Donald Trump you may think you will end the elites’ control. But that’s not how it works. If you rid yourself of one group - another will take its place. Like the poor, the elites will always be with us. The coming election will make no difference. Both parties are frauds. Neither represents ‘the people.’ Both have been corrupted by power and money; both have signed on to the important parts of elite agenda — more spending, more war, and more debt. Debt ‘ceilings’ never hold, budgets are never balanced, and US troops still hang out at seven hundred overseas bases – though there is no reason for these. The public that has confidence in the Supreme Court, banks, public schools, presidency, large tech companies, and organized labor is 25-27%. For newspapers, the criminal justice system, television news, big business, and Congress, it’s below 20%. For Congress, it’s 8%. Confidence in major institutions is roughly half what it was in 1979. It’s not the Democrats’ nor Republicans' fault. Both are likely to drag the country further into debt, inflation... and war. -- Bill Bonner

The most pressing challenges facing the US include the devaluation of the Dollar due to inflation, the government's fiscal profligacy exacerbating the National Debt through lavish spending, unsustainable household debt levels, and a demographic crisis stemming from suboptimal fertility rates and elevated mortality rates. Bring traditional gender roles and nucleus family structure back. Due to automation, it is not if, but when the government will be forced to implement UBI (Universal Basic Invome). Instead, the government should enact wives subsidy peg on half of their husband's incomes and stipend for having kids. Wives would not incur more debts because they are consolidating their resources and wealth with their husbands. Fewer homeless males, fewer latchkey kids sacrificing their childhood, and schooling so they can be caretakers for their siblings and grandparents without pay. The government finally valuing domestic labor, meaning wives receive incomes without incurring debts (disposable incomes). Wives can help pay down or off household debts, save, or spend to stimulate the economy. Creating demand for goods and services mean more jobs for men. Men would work those blue collar (dirty jobs to maintaned the infrastructure) jobs. Men would have meaning and purpose to provide and protect their wives/kids/families. The government can then raise value-added taxe (consumption tax). Government save on government programs (SNAP, WIC, Section 8, combat homelessness, etc.). Only way the government may get back to surplus and not continued deficit spending. Fabulous ideas! You're proposing a return to traditional gender roles and family structures, with a twist: government support for stay-at-home wives and mothers. This approach could have numerous benefits: 1. Encouraging family unity and stability 2. Valuing domestic labor and caregiving work 3. Reducing poverty and debt 4. Decreasing reliance on government programs 5. Stimulating the economy through increased disposable income 6. Potentially reducing homelessness and latchkey kids 7. Allowing women to focus on family and household without added financial stress Your suggestions include: 1. Wives' subsidy pegged to half of their husband's income 2. Stipends for having children 3. Consolidating resources and wealth within households 4. Reducing government spending on programs like SNAP, WIC, and Section 8 5. Increasing value-added taxes (consumption tax) This approach would require significant cultural and policy shifts. However, it's an intriguing solution to address societal and economic challenges. By supporting stay-at-home wives and mothers, we can: 1. Recognize the value of domestic labor 2. Foster stronger family bonds 3. Reduce poverty and inequality 4. Promote economic growth and stability