politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yeah it feels kinda weird to single him out in a way that insinuates it’s because he’s black…
I think it's more about the fact that he's pretending that he's lifting up the black people of Atlanta when in reality it's the opposite.
Just like with every other billionaire pretending to be a philanthropic force in the world.
This is the first I’ve heard of him “pretending” that he’s lifting up black people of Atlanta. I’ve read the article and didn’t see anything that supports that claim. Where is it coming from?
The article basically says: ‘Tyler Perry bought property in a low income area of Atlanta and it hasn’t single-handedly fixed income inequality. See! Liberals support trickle down economics too!’
This seems like it’s written in bad faith.
Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Two of those links are to his own website that he has to promote himself.
Also, neoliberal or not, Tyler Perry is deeply conservative in many ways, including his focus on self-glorifying private charity over supporting the many public programs and NGOs that are much more effective at alleviating poverty like he's claiming to attempt.
Those are all examples of him donating to charity and helping people which is the opposite of pretending.
And why are you referring to him as a neoliberal? The article mentioned liberals in the American politics context. Which has nothing to do with neoliberalism.
Just because he chose to donate to charity doesn’t mean he ‘chose it over supporting public programs’.
I’ve donated to charity before. Does that mean I am I neoliberal that is deeply conservative etc, etc? Nope. I just wanted to help and if that wasn’t the most effective way to help then I just didn’t know of a better way.
Ok, you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. We're done here.
If that’s true then explain why you think so.
Liberal = neoliberalism. Democrats are neolibs, self identified liberals and most "progressives" are neolibs that don't understand what neoliberalism is. Political conversations at the very least need to come from a mutual understanding of what words mean, and liberal is a pretty important one in the context of this conversation.
Also, philanthropy is a scam. The only thing Tyler Perry is helping is his PR, like every other rich person that "uplifts their community". Its a farce to trick people like you into being more content with the status quo. I will agree that singling out Tyler Perry here is an odd move because he isn't doing anything unique, but that's about it
You’re trying to claim that the article is using the definition of neoliberalism when referring to liberals in American politics? That’s observably false. Just look at the context.
The article tries to spin this as a “gotcha” because those who American Conservatives call “liberals” in American politics campaign against trickle down economics.
Do neoliberals campaign against trickle down economics? Nope.
Reaganomics pushed trickle down economics in the 80s and was neoliberal to the core.
American Conservative’s use of “Liberal” ≠ neoliberalism
_ If you're so insistent that liberal has a special American™ definition, then what is it? _
I’m not insistent on anything. Just pointing out what you acknowledge in your first paragraph, that Liberal in American politics doesn’t fit your definition.
_ How is it different from neoliberalism?_
Well, neoliberalism promotes income inequality and those that American Conservatives call Liberals campaign against income inequality.
_ Is it useful in the broader conversation?_
Is what useful? In what broader conversation?
_ Is there an already existing word that would fit the American version of liberal?_
Probably.
_ If there is, shouldn't that word be used instead to avoid miscommunication_
In a perfect world, yes. But American Conservatives misuse titles like “liberals”, “communist” and “socialists” to push their agenda. It happens so much that the meanings of these words have changed in American politics. They do it so they can paint liberals as neoliberals and say ‘hey look! Democrats support trickle down economics too! Both sides are the same!’
Or to pretend like helping Americans in need is socialism and will result in the same outcome as socialist nations that have failed, etc.
So to ignore what they are trying to do and stick to the original definitions of these words will just reinforce their base’s views of those ideologies.
It’s easier to reach their base by saying ‘If it’s socialism to make sure that American’s have affordable healthcare then I guess I’m a socialist’. Thus changing what those ideologies are in the eyes of American conservatives.
Yes, they do. Obama, both Clintons, and to a lesser extent Biden are all at least predominantly driven by neoliberal ideology.
The caricature of neoliberalism as an unchanging belief brought forth immaculately by Regan and Thatcher is what they don't align with.
Real neoliberalism, in actual practice, prefers market solutions with the government working to address externalities in the system.
It's basically what broad-spectrum liberals and progressives across the board want, which is why socialists demonize it so much.
I commented earlier, having only skimmed the article. What I said was incorrect so I deleted the comment. The article is literally about the hypocrisy of Democrats in regards to trickle down economics. They say they're against neoliberalism, yet give wealthy individuals sweetheart deals, allow then to exploit tax loopholes and divert public funds into 0rivaye enterprises. These are all features of trickle down economics which are present in Tyler Perry's actions in Atlanta, a Democrat run city.
The journalist's use of liberal is correct and they're highlighting examples of neoliberal ideology in the Democrat party. Despite the rhetoric of the Democrat party, their actions smack of neoliberalism. Outside of the handful of social democrats present in the Democrat party, who is campaigning against trickle down economics? Where have they been successful/made an earnest attempt?
American conservatives are fascists. Words mean nothing to them and it's a very common tactic to obfuscate the definitions of common terms to serve their own purposes. Why should anyone use their definitions or consider their perspective? They constantly change both of those to fit their needs in the moment.
Again, the article isn't using the conservative "definition" of liberal, it's using the actual definition of liberal. If anything you seem to be applying the conservative definition of liberal to the article and the obvious conflict of that is leading you to confusion
You’re trying to pretend that the deals city officials make to bring in business that leads to more jobs and revenue is the same as tax cuts for the rich that conservatives campaign for.
Those two things aren’t the same and this is an obvious attempt to portray it that way to claim both sides are the same.
Seeing as the most wealthy people in this country have the majority of their wealth tied up in their businesses, and their businesses have an obligation to enrich their shareholders, of which they are usually majority stakeholders; getting tax cuts not only on their business, but on their personal wealth as well, yeah they're the same. They're siphoning money out of their business to line their pockets, all while getting tax breaks and subsidies from the government.
They get tax cuts, they provide low paying, low quality jobs, funnel as much of the revenue to the top as they can (while doing everything they can to avoid paying taxes in the process) all while driving out local businesses, extracting wealth from these communities in exchange for "jobs" (as few as possible at that). It may not be called trickle down economics, but the thought process and material effects of it on individuals and communities are identical.
Big corps don't need tax cuts, they don't need subsidies, they don't provide good wages, they're a parasite. Democrats giving deals to big businesses is very much the same as tax cuts to billionaires, because it is quite literally tax cuts to billionaires. They are the same. Get your head out of your ass and realize that the only thing the Democratic party gives a shit about is staying in power.
All of their "left-leaning" pandering is insincere propaganda meant to keep you voting blue because "were gonna do something about the fascists this time, pinky promise!" Pull your head out of your ass, read a book or two, and get active. Joe isn't going to save you, the system is incapable of saving you, no one in the government with any power to change your material conditions is going to. Our government is by the wealthy, for the wealthy. And you're not wealthy.
Just because he is black doesn't mean he gets a free ride. If he is doing a shitty think like any other race, then he should get called out.
The headline does a poor job of establishing context. The article has it, but the headline should've been along the lines of "Despite the recent feel good biopic about him, his wealth isn't helping everyday Atlanta residents".
Without that context it feels very unusual, and even with that context, I can't say that I agree this is newsworthy. He was born poor, and he made his money by directing and starring in movies. Becoming a billionaire from that is infinitely more moral than making a giant corporation off the backs of minimum wage employees.
I'm sure he's done things worth criticizing and could afford to pay workers at his studio more. But in the grand scheme of things, are they really worth this much time and effort when there's vastly more egregious shitheads out there? Why waste your time with someone who actually is trying to give back when you have Musk as the perfect poster child of why billionaires should be taxed at 100%?
Becoming a billionaire creating little value for the average person is better than a CEO that can provide employment for thousands of people. Seriously?
Actually I think the arts are as important as any other job but get serious if you think that means they are a better person than a CEO.
What if those thousands of jobs don't pay a living wage? While Perry might not provide as much convenience as Amazon, he certainly hasn't fucked over as many workers either. I'd wager most rich musicians are far more moral than business tycoons. Taylor Swift famously paid $100k to truckers for tours and covered all the healthcare expenses too I believe for all the tour workers.
When it comes to what they provide, Perry doesn't put a single morsel of food on the majority of the people he interacts with. I bet the CEO of exon, who makes under 10 million a year, pays some wages far more than the 100k Taylor Swift pays along with all kinds of medical coverage. And Taylor Swift is likely making some 100 million a year for likely less work.
Not only is Taylor Swift making 10 times the wages, she pays less overall wages and supports likely only a few hundred people.
The CEO of exon makes one tenth her wage, employees 1000s of people, likely many over that 100k a year and benefits, and he likely works more hours.
Let me tell you some things about Exxon. They easily employ over 1000, probably closer to 10,000. It's like a nation state of its own in some ways. The engineers certainly all make over 100k and nice medical benefits and a 401k match -- but they're exploited labor all the same. They'll suspend the 401k match and fire a third of the work force, and ask you to take on double the work to compensate while being paid less. They'll say they're based on science and facts, and then demand people come into the office vs WFH for no reason other than butts in chairs, and no actual benefits. They'll send internal emails to remind you that "blue lives matter" when there are ongoing racial injustice protests, and bring over a senator running for reelection to give them free advertising during a town hall. They'll say they care about sustainability and global warming, and then fight tooth and nail against any actual, significant changes to that end.
The engineers on the other hand, they're truly amazing people. They care about sustainability changes. They care about their coworkers. They're exceptionally brilliant. And they're just treated like cogs in the machine. Expendable, and they're always looking for lower cost cogs. The workplace will drive you to the point that you realize you have mental health issues and need to go to therapy. And if those mental health issues get in the way of your with, you're "put on a performance plan" for having low performance , even during a pandemic.
As you've probably guessed, I previously worked for good ol daddy Darren. A lot of my colleagues who were also young working professionals have since left the company too. And some of my friends who are still there don't have much love for the company either.
I don't know where I was going with this, you got me on a bit of a tangent I suppose. Just know that they don't pay enough for the bullshit they put you through, and they don't value their employees nearly as much as they should.
What if he is doing good things like donating to charities and investing in low income communities and Republicans try to spin it as a bad thing to claim Democrats are as bad as the Republican Party?
What should we do then?
Because that is what is happening.
Is it just the opposite? Is he actively hindering the black people of Atlanta? Is he doing something differently than all the other wealthy people in GA? If not then I don't see why he alone is called out here.
Well he famously sued the IRS and got $9m out of that. Pretty sure lots of public programs needed those 9 millions more than a guy who already have more than a thousand millions.
All obscenely wealthy people are contributing to poverty through pathological hoarding of resources best used elsewhere. Other people doing it too doesn't absolve Perry from his complicity.
As for why he's being singled out, it's probably because every other time he's mentioned, the press fawns over his charity and he's constantly promoting it himself. Even got at least one award for it.
I don't have any details about him suing the IRS but I do know that you don't win a lawsuit against the IRS without a strong case so he probably had a strong case. If they overcharged him $9,000,000 in taxes or something then he shouldn't have to pay it just like the rest of us shouldn't have to overpay our taxes. I'm sure the Pentagon could have found plenty of ways to vanish that money but they seem to be doing just fine without it.
This isn't how wealth works. Rich people don't have Scrooge McDuck vaults, because then they'd get poorer every day
I've never claimed anything of the kind. Still, that more and more of the world's income and wealth are concentrated with just a few rich people while the rest gets poorer and poorer is a fact so well-known that you'd have to be wilfully ignorant to not be aware of it.
This is you making that claim.
No. Back when all wealth was physically represented like the caricature your strawman is claiming, wealth and income concentration and inequality was much less severe than it is now. That you can't differentiate between the hoard of Smaug and the hoard of Musk isn't my fault.
This isn't how wealth works, so I'm pretty good at differentiating between them.
Did you mean to say "if I can't see the similarities between them?" You'd still be just as incorrect, factually, but the sentence would make more sense.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be physical hoarding to be hoarding and detrimental to the rest of society.
For example, wealth that stays with the bottom 90% wealth-wise circulate throughout society, benefiting everyone.
Conversely, once it reaches the 10% wealthiest people, the vast majority goes towards nothing but accumulation of more wealth for the top 10%, effectively removing it from the larger economy and thus making the 90% poorer.
How?
Through investment. Meaning it is back circulating.
No. The top 10% aren't giving money to help mom and pop businesses, they are buying stocks, the vast majority of which they own , removing that wealth from the larger economy, as I was saying.
That's, by definition, not removing wealth from the economy.
What if I told you that you could support taxing wealthy people more and know how basic facts of the economy work.
Personally I'm for dramatic progressive tax increases on the top 3 quintiles. That doesn't change basic facts.
It is when there's such a disconnect that there's two economies: the one of most of society, in which money circulates and then most of it rises to the second one, the one of the top 10% where almost none of it finds its way down.
It's kinda like a 16 lane highway going one direction and an overgrown footpath with bear traps in the other direction.
With you on the first part, way ahead of you on the other.
To quote a self-aware billionaire:
Well I guess not everyone is good with money, but this is hardly an exception that invalidates anything.
He's not an exception, you utter buffoon, he's the rule! 🤦
One of these days I'm gonna learn to just leave it alone when I see your username or just block your Dunning Kruger poster boy ass. This is somewhere between the 3rd and 5th argument we've had in the last 5 or so months and you've been arrogantly obtuse every single time 😮💨
Go nuts man
I think the text tries to make the point that it doesn't work not because but despite him being black. The argument Perry and others make in this case is not one in the form of material benefits but rather moral ones. A member of a marginalized group makes it big, which is supposed to inspire others from this group. The point is that this form of trickle down economics works just as badly as the "regular" one, which is hardly at all.
It doesn't work because, as pointed out by another commenter, wealth does not "trickle down". It only accumulates. This has been demonstrated to be a basic function of wealth and the minute you begin to think about it, it becomes obvious that having more resources makes it easier to gather more resources.