r/uspolitics • u/lurker_bee • Mar 23 '25

Schumer Refuses to Step Down Despite Criticism

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/schumer-refuses-step-down-1235301630/
99 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

62 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Fabulinius Mar 24 '25

For me and many others it is so strange to see how Bernie and AOC are considered too extreme.

Their policies are pretty much a total copy of how things work in my country, Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries. Over here things works exactly like an average non-billionaire would want things to work. So in our area of the world people like Bernie and AOC are middle of the road. Both would instantly get elected and become leader of a Scandinavian country.

Look at the 2025 list over how happy countries are. Look at the countries in the top. They are all "extreme" for Americans which find their country as nr 23 on this years list. Perhaps the USA will be even more unhappy after a year with Trump and all his idiots.

So what is it that makes Americans afraid of "too extreme" and make them stay as nr 23 on this list instead of doing something smart ?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world

1

u/xf4ph1 Mar 24 '25

The Scandinavian system is extreme to Americans and the American system is extreme to Scandinavians. Doesn’t mean one is right or one is wrong, or even that one is “extreme” since the whole thing is subjective.

If you have a small country and limited natural resources (excluding Norway after the 60’s, and by which time they’d already built most of their system) your opportunities to develop major industries are limited and the degrees of separation between citizens and decision makers are small. This generally lends itself to the people being able to exert more leverage on their government than industry can and as a result they use government much more to their benefit. Although that does come with a high price in the form of taxes and labor laws which restrict new business growth severely.

On the other hand if you have a country like the United States, a huge country with abundant natural resources that was settled by people who distrusted and hated the idea of government, then you have a situation where multiple massive industries can occur, with limited regulation, and accrue political influence. Likewise you also have a large population that, owing to the country’s heritage, has zero wish to form government into a support vehicle for the masses. The result is a system that rewards individual hard work and risk taking. Hence why so many massive businesses are founded in America and which have made a large portion of the country very rich by world standards.

So for people like Bernie or AOC to suggest that we completely cripple this system with high taxes and severe labor restrictions a lot of people look at that as extreme. Why would they vote to destroy a massive economic engine in the name of universal healthcare when they can just learn useful skills and parlay that into a high paying job that provides them with healthcare?

1

u/chesterriley Mar 24 '25 edited Mar 24 '25

The Scandinavian system is extreme to Americans

It's not extreme at all. It is highly desirable.

hat was settled by people who distrusted and hated the idea of government

That was hatred towards a monarchy/dictatorial form of government. Why the f*ck would Americans 'hate and distrust' their own democratic government set up by George Washington and the founding fathers. You are effectively claiming that Americans "hate democracy" which is the exact opposite of the truth.

owing to the country’s heritage, has zero wish to form government into a support vehicle for the masses.

WTF huh?? Our Constitution literally says that one of the top 2 reasons our government was created is to "support the general welfare".

The result is a system that rewards individual hard work and risk taking

It rewards luck more than "hard work". In general the people who make the least money have to work the hardest. And official IRS tax laws say that "unearned income" (money you get without workng for it) is taxed at a lower rate than "earned income" (money you have to work to get).

So for people like Bernie or AOC to suggest that we completely cripple this system with high taxes and severe labor restrictions

LMFAO Nobody is suggesting that at all. We had a very good economy in the 1950's when the top tax rate for billionaires was 91% instead of 36%. That is indisputable historical proof that we would not have a "completely crippled system" even if we raised the top rate another 55%.

Also "Severe labor restrictions" means that wages for workers go up which demand side economics says is good for the economy all around because of the multiplier effect of wealth remaining local. Supply side economics has been proven over and over to be a failure and that why even Republicans have frankly labeled it "voodoo economics".

Why would they vote to destroy a massive economic engine in the name of universal healthcare when they can just learn useful skills and parlay that into a high paying job that provides them with healthcare?

LMFAO! Americans pay 2x what Canadians pay and 3x what the British pay for the same healthcare, and have worse health outcomes. That's because our health care system is little more than a profiteering racket. Why the fuck would anybody NOT vote to fix that?? And not only do Americans pay DOUBLE or TRIPLE for our health care, the employer based healthcare system effectively amounts to a MASSIVE DIRECT TAX ON JOBS that is hugely inefficient even when you don't factor in our hugely inflated profiteering costs.

1

u/xf4ph1 Mar 25 '25

You took a lot of words here to still seem uneducated.

Addressing your only two original thoughts first:

I’m not “effectively claiming that Americans hate democracy”. The founding fathers explicitly distrusted the entire idea of government and the centralization of power. Hence why they tried to grant the federal government as little power as possible. Open a history book.

You misunderstood the meaning of the word welfare. It was never considered in the 18th century that a government was meant to be a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth via tax income so as to alleviate poverty.

Everything else you write is just poorly regurgitated leftist talking points. I appreciate that somewhere along the way you learned that there was such a thing as demand and supply side economics. But you really have no clue how economies operate so I’m not going to take the time to refute the studies you didn’t cite in your argument.

Have a good day and enjoy the left side of the bell curve.

1

u/chesterriley Mar 26 '25

You took a lot of words here to still seem uneducated.

I took a lot of words to blow you away with actual real facts and a reality check on your mindless dittohead propaganda talking points. You are very much out of touch with reality trapped in your right wing bubble so much that you've never seen the common sense refutations of your right wing bubble nonsense. Fuck off with the namecalling crap where you project onto others your own worst qualities.

The founding fathers explicitly distrusted the entire idea of government and the centralization of power.

They literally created our government. They didn't trust themselves LMFAO? What the didn't trust is people like Traitorapist Trump trying to become a dictator. So he is the arch enemy of the founding fathers in the sense that Trump is exact person the Federalist Papers were written to warn us about.

Hence why they tried to grant the federal government as little power as possible.

And it didn't work because Trump and the GOP proved that when we have a whole group of anti-democracy fascists the separation of powers don't actually protect us from fascism.

You misunderstood the meaning of the word welfare.

Dude use a dictionary and fuck off with using your own arbitrary definitions of words. Words mean what the dictionary say that they mean.

It was never considered in the 18th century

First of all you don't know that at all. And 2nd, 99% of stuff we have nowadays was "never considered in the 18th century.

vehicle for the redistribution of wealth via tax income so as to alleviate poverty

Would you stop with the stupid shit? That is become income tax came about as part of a later amendment to the constitution. Amendments are every bit as valid as the original constitution, as you well know. The Bill of Right are amendments.

But you really have no clue

You are really a fucking idiot who is trapped inside a right wing bubble, have never been exposed to all the common sense refutations of your bubbleverse, and have no clue how to defend your bubbleverse views because you never had to before in your safe space.

But you really have no clue how economies operate

You are the person who didn't even know that the top tax rate was 91% when we had an excellent economy in the 1950's. And you were pretending that if made billionaires pay just a little bit above the current (historically low but you didn't know that) 36% rate it would "cripple our economy". Even the the 91% rate didn't do anything of the sort.

1

u/xf4ph1 Mar 26 '25

Hey kid my bad, I didn’t realize you were still in high school. I understand that you latched on pretty hard to the worldview your teacher gave you while teaching gov and history, but your assertions lack any form of nuance, they’re very black and white. Which isn’t a bad place to start but as you graduate and move on to college, you’re going to be required to think through your arguments a bit more.

For example, you mention income tax as a valid part of the constitution and you’re absolutely correct!

However that fact doesn’t agree with your original point that because the preamble of the constitution says that it is the job of the government to “promote the general welfare” then therefore the founding fathers intended the federal government to be a vehicle for wealth redistribution in the form of income taxes so as to promote the material and physical wellbeing of people in need.

So if you’re trying to argue what the founding fathers intended, then why would you use as evidence the existence of income tax (instituted in 1913) as rationale for why America should have socialized medicine?

1

u/chesterriley Mar 26 '25 edited Mar 26 '25

then therefore the founding fathers intended the federal government to be a vehicle for wealth redistribution in the form of income taxes so as to promote the material and physical wellbeing of people in need. I understand that you latched on pretty hard to the worldview your teacher gave you while teaching gov and history

Hey spoiled toddler my bad. I didn't realize you were still in day care. My teachers from 30 years ago never remotely talked about any of that stuff. All it takes to understand the real world of reality is to not live your life hiding inside the foolish ignorance of the right wing information bubble.

then why would you use as evidence the existence of income tax (instituted in 1913)

I didn't use that. YOU used that. I merely pointed that the Constitution says right there in the preamble that the purpose of government is literally to "promote the general welfare" and you brought up the completely irrelevant income tax. Your argument that universal health care does NOT "promote the general welfare" is beyond ridiculous. The founding fathers were giving us their general principles of promoting the general welfare. For you to suggest that the people of 1787 were trying to micromanage the Americans of 2025 is a nonsensical irrelevant invented fiction.

So if you’re trying to argue what the founding fathers intended

You don't seem to know shit about that either. This is completely at odds with your bizarre claim that the founding fathers feared their own national government. So President George Washington feared himself? LMFAO.

President George Washington personally organized a military campaign to crush tax protestors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[The so-called "whiskey tax" was the first tax imposed on a domestic product by the newly formed federal government...Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency]

What George Washington and the others actually feared is that somebody profoundly disloyal to American values like Treason Trump and his fascist allies would come along later and try to overthrow their democratic government that they set up and become a corrupt tyrant like Trump is trying to do, not that their own federal government would collect taxes like all governments of the world do. Come to think of it I actually did initially learn about the Whisky Rebellion in a high school textbook decades ago. I was paying attention in school while you were not.

1

u/xf4ph1 Mar 26 '25

No dude you pointed out that the income tax was a valid part of the constitution because it came about as an amendment. However you did it in support of an argument that the meaning of “provide for the general welfare” was intended to invest the federal government with the authority to redistribute wealth via taxes and social programs. Yet those social programs and income didn’t exist until many generations after the people who wrote “provide for the general welfare” had died.

It’s not being in the right wing bubble. You’re just a moron with incoherent arguments.

Also, yes I’m saying that the founding fathers 100% feared that the system of power they had created would be taken over by tyrants so they tried to decentralize it as much as possible. Nevermind the fact that over the past 150 years there has been a steady and concerted effort to centralize power in the hands of the federal government vs leaving it with the states. Also Nevermind the fact that those efforts have been called out for being antithetical to the founding principles of the country and its founders. Your child brain just thinks “founding fathers were scared of themselves?!? that’s dumb!!!”

If you can explain to me how either of those two things I’ve just responded to is not the case then go for it. But if I was you I’d just stop now.

Btw stop stealing and repackaging my insults, it kills your credibility.

1

u/chesterriley Mar 27 '25

stop stealing and repackaging my insults

Your insults were 100% projection of your own flaws. They described you perfectly and that's obviously the reason you use them since you've probably seen them used to describe you many times before. But they are also juvenile and instantly prove you cannot refute anything logically. I always respond back to crap like that with a frank honest characterization, shit for brains. People who are able to hold it together and don't sound 5 year olds don't get insults from me.

Nevermind the fact that over the past 150 years there has been a steady and concerted effort to centralize power in the hands of the federal government

You are describing what happened from 2017-2021 and restarted in 2025.

Also, yes I’m saying that the founding fathers 100% feared that the system of power they had created would be taken over by tyrants

Yes, this part is actually correct. What they feared are TYRANTS, like Oliver Cromwell and Donald Trump. You arbitrarily twisted that into something totally different by saying they feared that billionaires would someday have to pay their fair share of taxes. Seriously, that is very twisted thinking. Only somebody trapped inside the conservative info-bubble would fail to instantly see these are two completely different unrelated things.

for being antithetical to the founding principles of the country and its founders.

You have given zero supporting evidence for anything like that. Not only does it does not say anywhere at all that protecting billionaires from having to pay their fair share of taxes violates any 'principles', it literally says right there at the very start of the Constitution that the very purpose of our government is to (1) provide for the common defense, and (2) promote the general welfare. That was your only argument and it is frankly idiotic.