Wouldn't it be simpler to implement a 'spend-forward scheme' rather than returning? For example, spend that money on research grants and health care. It is returning the money to the people. A man can dream, no?
This is a way of spending taxes on the public, the kind Denmark does. It isn't "no private property; everything belongs to the govt".
Also, if we are redistributing taxes to fund endless wars and subsidizing almond/avocado farmers, and propping up public money to ensure banks don't collapse, we are already in socialist territory. Have always been. But God forbid we spend the money on healthcare ... that's "taking us back to Mao".
As someone said, "Machines were supposed to rid us of tedious work. Instead they write poetry and create art, and we fill captchas to prove to them that we are human"
I prefer a quote from Dune - "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
Yeah, something like "I want AI to do my laundry and clean my house so I have more time to write and create art. Instead the AI writes and generates art so I have more time to clean my house and do laundry."
All the people who huffed about Kamala and Trump being sides of the same coin have brought us to this stage. You think Kamala's admin would be anywhere as venal, corrupt, blatantly unlawful as this?
Yes, and absolutely, yes.
I am old enough to realize that these are the sides of the same coin. They have different but overlapping sets of masters, but the end result is always the same. I don't see the point of losing time at the polls. Marx was right.
With you on the other things (we wouldn't be in this position if the Biden admin had had any interest in enforcing laws), but, other than his purely symbolic nomination, what role did Merrick Garland have in the Obama administration that Obama could "let him get away with" anything?
reply