It won’t happen, but I would enjoy watching him spend his last couple of years of life walking the streets of New York all day, pushing a shopping cart and talking to pigeons as if they were Trump.
Cops don’t have to serve and protect or abide by the law. Power companies don’t have to supply power. People who sell you things can deny you access to them.
What a useless article. It doesn’t even account for inflation. Is it designed to make boomers feel good about having to be a wal-mart greeter to survive?
Perhaps they are “bored” in retirement because even after a lifetime of labor there isn’t enough money left to do anything but sit and watch tv?
I’ve lost count of how many boomers I’ve heard say “I don’t know what I would do with myself if I didn’t have to work”. Fuck that generation. They had a chance for everything and said “whatever!” And just did nothing instead.
They’re the same flavor fucked as us. I don’t hate them for not knowing what to do with themselves without working. I hate the meat grinder we’re in
First, their ‘i love work’ attitude is both taught from society (look at this article for example) and straight up cope. Not just that; their lives like our lives have been consumed by work and the business of living. I too have had precious little time and energy to spare on developing ourselves outside it.
In a country like US there should never be a shortage of jobs. And all jobs should pay a living. Also provide many opportunities to climb the ladder. There should not be a shortage on American Dream basically.
Literally heard a group of boomers talking over coffee the other day. One goes " weird we haven’t had snow, I guess it could be because of global warming" then another goes “yeah but not like we need to care!” Then they all had a big laugh about it…
You set up a company A. You also make a consultant company B. Company A hires very highly paid consultants from company B. Meanwhile you make paintings. You sell those paintings to company B at high prices with the money you got from company A. Now your debts are gone and company A is in debt. Fold company A and B. Add in some shell companies in the Bahamas if needed.
But, you need to have enough money to set up companies, have expensive accountants and lawyers, and to pay off some officials. You’ll have to be rich to become more rich basically.
You file business papers in Texas and open an account there.
You use that business to buy all your underwater assets and other liabilities, leaving you free and clear. Then you declare bankruptcy with your Texas company, wiping out the debts. It what you do when grandpappy and the old board sold asbestos to everyone and their kids and now that you’re in charge you just want that to go away so you can enjoy your trust fund without fear of any destitute widows or their children trying to take any of it.
In any normal state, this is treated as a sham transaction or a straw purchase and is void ab initio. In Texas though, as a handout to the mining, chemical, and business insurance industries, you can follow none of the corporate formalities needed anywhere else to preserve your corporate viel, and just declare that your company is now two, unrelated companies, sort of like that movie Twins where, even though they are genetically identical and born at the same time from the same parents, one of the newborn companies has all the good stuff and the other has all the crap, and you can pretend it was separated at birth, like it never even existed. And that’s how you do the Texas two step. Step three actually is profit.
Corporate taxes are a regressive tax on the poor. There’s no benefit to taxing a business instead of people directly, and serious harm caused.
Taxing Amazon doesn’t hurt Jeff Bezos. It just makes products more expensive for people that already struggle to afford them. It doesn’t even effect Amazon’s profit margin.
It’s the structure of taxing that is the problem. If we tax their holdings or assets, tax the fuck out of their stocks exchanges. Force business to do business and make hording too expensive. Companies with billions in cash sitting in offshore bank accounts is disgusting and should be abolished.
Companies with billions in cash sitting in offshore bank accounts is disgusting and should be abolished.
This is how businesses grow, though. Having cash on hand is extremely important, and the amount necessary scales with the size of the business. It’s effectively overhead.
All of these ideas make things more expensive for poor people for no reason.
I don’t think you understand how much money big corporations hoard. Investment isn’t what I am talking about. Pure cash holdings, it’s really not normally done like this.
I literally worked for a fortune 100 company. I know exactly how much, because they report on it internally, especially during big shit like COVID.
There’s nothing wrong with a company having money in the bank. That’s an extremely good thing, especially for financial and tech companies.
I don’t know why people hate companies making money at all. If individual people are making more money than is good for society, tax then. If Jeff Bezos owning Amazon pisses you off, carve you off a slice. No issue there.
Taxing companies makes the lives of poor people harder, so I’m against that.
The definition wasn’t redefined. You just always heard the rule of thumb and thought that was actually the definition. Like, let’s be honest here, have you ever even taken an economics class outside of HS? When you learned how it’s actually determined, instead of thinking “I’ve learned some nuance and I will incorporate this into my future conclusions” you rejected it and concocted some conspiracy to explain it.
But even in academic circles it is an arbitrary definition that is usually agreed upon by consensus. It’s holistic, not a firm science and it’s like that because economics is not actually about actual mathematics but is about humanity studies and trying to predict the emotional feelings of people with money to spend. There is statistical stuff you can use to help but a farmer in 1875 has done better on predicting markets than most modern degree holders.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s just that, as you note, a nuanced question without a simple answer. The “two quarters” thing is just something that we tend to see with every recession. But there are a lot of other things we tend to see too: unemployment rising, consumer spending retracting, income dropping, industrial output retracting… and we didn’t see any of the other factors that we’ve seen previously.
It would have been one of the weirdest “recessions” we’ve ever seen, that bucked numerous other recession indicators. . .all in favor of two quarters of negative GDP growth. How does that make any sense?
Expecting everything to be the same is silly. History rhymes, not repeats, so whatever this period could be called is hard to say. But consumer spending is down. Sorta. People are spending less now but the market now is back to “stable”. There is over employment from income not raising to match inflation so it’s like people got pay cuts. Industries are also rapidly declaring bankruptcy.
It’s weird now. Sorta like a Frankenstein recession one that is not and is still shambling but seems to be held together by stitches and random corpses thrown together.
This period will definitely be talked about in economics because it’s certainly something new that couldn’t have existed before without the very global economy. Maybe it will turn more traditional or go back to normal but it’s definitely not a full well and fine economy at the moment.
I absolutely agree that it’s weird and it’s not fine right now. All I responded to was the oft-repeated and false claim that they changed the definition of recession, and then attributed that to some conspiracy theory to silence them.
It will absolutely be talked about, but just as likely as how it was a huge win for the fed if the soft landing happens, and that appears more and more likely at this point.
I guess that is fair. I’m just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
So for them… They are in a recession. My point is that it’s a term that has no solid definition. It’s truly arbitrary to the person who is making the claim and on a global level it might not be happening but in smaller sectors it feels like hell.
But that person did say that they changed the definition when it really just doesn’t have one other than agreed idea of what it should look like. And based on what we all classically think of as a recession this ain’t it. And thinking it’s a conspiracy against us and not just wealth classes being completely unsynced is a bit silly, even if I want them to use their voice to complain.
I’m just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
This is the problem tho, it’s all anecdotal. Recessions aren’t individual things, because there are always going to be losers in any economy. Unemployment is at all time lows. Wage growth is beating inflation (and some of the biggest beneficiaries of this have been low wage workers). Inflation back down near desired levels. There’s tons of reason to be optimistic about the state of the economy. Don’t get me wrong, there is a long way to go to make up for what was lost over the pandemic and the subsequent inflationary period, but economic outlook looks good now.
The doom and gloom is being amplified by Republicans in an attempt to hurt Biden’s chances of re-election. I wish people wouldn’t repeat their lies and help Trump get elected at the same time.
My point is that it’s a term that has no solid definition.
The world is a complicated place. The fact that one can’t precisely define something and there is a grey zone doesn’t make any claim, even those that fall clearly outside of that grey zone, valid. “It’s complicated, so any opinion is valid” is just not something we should get behind, as it justifies all kind of nonsense, like climate-change denial.
I won’t vote for Trump, I just don’t like having to eat a shit pie and being told it’s french silk caramel, and if I say otherwise I’m Republican, Uneducated, or something else equally insulting.
Except noone of substance is telling you anything is french silk caramel. Your whole position is based on a incorrect premise that is the result of what appears to be a false dichotomy.
If you’re position is this detached from reality, it’s no surprise you’re being accused of being uneducated or something equally insulting.
I’m not saying “they changed the definition”. I’m saying “too many things about the way this term is gatekept from general use are flawed, and done for political gain sometimes, the average discussion of what is happening right now being one of them”. It depends on the context whether a more academic definition standard should be expected, and even then it’s not as straightforward as whoever is trying to shut down its use likes to pretend, and so perhaps a less-important hill to die on than whatever discussion is happening at that point in time."
I’m not saying “they changed the definition” so we’re the ones who get to redefine it however we wish
Funny that after making up an claim that people are serving you shit while claiming it’s a delicacy, you would turn around and claim you aren’t saying they changed the definition after almost explicitly doing so.
For all your whining about nuance, you sure love to take the most reductionist (straw-manned) interpretation of things and come out of the gate swinging with insults. Excuse me while I use this to justify dismissing your pedantry.
This is a whole lot of empty nothing. Most people when thoroughly beaten slink off. A select noble few admit they are wrong. Less intelligent avoid an actual debate by doing stupid shit. A good example is throwing out big-ish words they don’t understand.
Not if it keeps going like this. The rich will find out really quickly that they have nothing more than funny bits of colored paper and a gentleman’s agreement with a Bank’s internet server. Strong economies start from the bottom up and die from the bottom up. Catering to the top has always been a recipe for disaster.
It seems that it was more than just failure to pay:
The new charges against Hunter Biden include filing a false return and tax evasion felonies, as well as misdemeanor failure to file and failure to pay.
That said, the maximum sentence for tax evasion is five years, but I don’t know how multiple counts work in this situation.
Yeah, but like, they are charging him with the scheme of not failing to pay. OP pointed out others doing the same stuff.
If he did crimes, good that charges were filed. Seems a bit hypocritical but then what would really be really hypocritical is holding people to a different standard while saying everyone should have the same standard.
I’ve always had the feeling like this is something Netanyahu and his cabinet wanted. It seems to me that they thought in their screwed up minds it would benefit them somehow.
To read this article use archive.ph. I can’t post direct link as it’s against this instances rules.
It’s well established that Netanyahu undermines moderate Palestinian leadership through legitimizing radical Palestinian leadership, aka Hamas. Netanyahu engaging in diplomatic relations with Hamas in Gaza while ignoring good faith overtures from the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is par for the course. As long as he can keep Hamas in power, he thinks he can more effectively justify Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people
It’s all the same thing to Netanyahu, just further justification for violence. Netanyahu very blatantly does not actually care about Israeli lives, only how events impact his ability to retain power
You’re a bully. You want to kill some kid but you can’t just outright kill him. So you’ve been bullying this kid for years building up his frustrations and you know he’s gonna break soon. He finally snaps and tries to fight back. You use this opportunity to kill him and then publicly declare self defense.
Seems pretty cut and dry for a piece of shit bully.
As it’s not released, it’s probably illegal (contractually) to drive it on a public road. This is likely more akin to seeing tech writers with unreleased hardware.
You have upset then even more. Wait. Listen! You hear the “reeeeeee” in the distance? They are coming for me next. To tell me how they are autistic, have ADD, and think communism is a great idea, cause you know, gulags are super cozy.
They don’t. Congress with the President could but won’t.
I’ve no illusions friend. Neither the Republicans nor the Neoliberals aka 90+ percent of Office holding Democrats have the slightest interest in helping anyone, only taking bribes and reinforcing their party’s power.
This nation is over. Reaganomics saw to that and Citizens United dashed the last of the faintest of rational hopes for self-repair. This is just leftover momentum. This labor camp we call the US will eventually collapse under the weight of its own corruption, but until then, we suffer generationally with zero recourse.
No one with any power, no one from the right families is coming to help their capital livestock. This exploitation machine is exactly what they wanted and spent decades lining pockets to achieve.
No one with any power, no one from the right families is coming to help their capital livestock.
That’s an interesting sentence right there. What does that even mean, the “right” families? Are you seriously expecting the people who created the problem to now help solve it?
This exploitation machine is exactly what they wanted and spent decades lining pockets to achieve.
No, of course you aren’t. But by God, let’s also not ask for help from the “wrong” families…
I meant internally right. Goes to the right country clubs. Is on the right museum boards. Is in the little owner’s club that starts with having a 9 figure net worth at absolute minimum.
That’s what I meant by “right” it was a mocking term for the self-protecting, self-elevating wealth class made up of a few thousand of the right families that lord over all of us and believe they are where ultimate authority belongs, and have used their great wealth to secure generationally. This is their system, by their design, and they will continue to use their vast power to defend it.
I’ve belabored the point that they won’t, have no reason to, literally created such conditions to begin with, and actively defend against any change to it.
I do, but if I said it outright I would just be accused of a lack of empathy and intelligence, plus a whole lot of other things far worse than that, so I won’t.
So if you didn’t get my broad hint, I’m not going to be upset, and if you do, like I said, perhaps take my advice to stew and simmer over it before posting a response in affect.
I’ve already been banned from an entire server simply because my username apparently contains a secret message of bigotry and hatred, so I hope you’ll excuse if I’m gonna try to keep it civil and friendly and try not to rustle too many jimmies during my time here.
His alt is @PepeLivesMatter and it are his homophobic and transphobic posts that got him banned on Lemmy World, not the username. He might be banned on another instance too though.
Yes, both parties are cancelling school lunches for impoverished children, reverting environmental regulations, overturning Roe v Wade, forcing women to become baby incubators, cutting social safety nets. Yes, they are both the same…
The Neoliberals that coopted the former Republican opposition party helped Reagan and Clinton destroy the social safetynet. Neoliberal Clinton championed destroying the social safetynet, partnering with Nute Gingrich to do it, around the same time neoliberal biden championed draconian sentencing reform to feed for profit prisons.
Modern Democrats are better than Republicans, but if you want to look for politicians that don’t work against you? Look to the non-neoliberal Democrats that the Neoliberals revile more than their supposed opposition party. There’s about a dozen of them between both Chambers. Most democrats are nice on social issues, but defend this rigged market capitalist hellscape lockstep with republicans.
Clinton at the time was the furthest left that the US as a whole would elect. The third way stuck because it actually worked.
I’m not going to make a snarky comment about how others should’ve put in more work, because I honestly don’t think it would’ve mattered (and it’d be rude). Leftism just wasn’t going to win by any viable margin. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone – when the electorate won’t go further, you have to meet them where they are. I’d love it if Sanders would’ve been elected in the 90s instead of Clinton, but that just wasn’t possible.
The fact remains there has been no attempt on the nation’s part in living memory to actually run the nation by left wing policies. It hasn’t been attempted and yet it is treated in the zeitgeist as if it was repeatedly and was an utter failure. I Consider FDR to be the last remotely progressive President we have attempted.
So when people reduce acknowledging both of our major parties to be varying degrees of economically right wing, center-right(D) to fascist® these days as ‘both parties are the same’ it reeks of bad faith. We can acknowledge both of our parties work against their people economically while not being absolutely interchangeable. It’s just an intential tactic to muddy the waters because some prefer to play team sports, which is exactly the distraction it’s meant and pushed to be.
And you’re right, our people currently have the government they deserve, because they won’t entertain one that works for them and protects them from the capitalist’s whims, that would be evil buzzwords they never bothered to understand or something.
I think there’s still important differences economically even when considering them both to be center right. There’s a strong push for higher taxes on the wealthy and a higher minimum wage among Democrats – the only reason we didn’t see a minimum wage increase is because 1 Democrat opposed it vs the 49 other senators. And while our system still needs work, it doesn’t mean there haven’t been significant changes.
There’s a brilliant provision in the Inflation Reduction Act for instance that ends the corporate tax loophole for the largest corporations. A company above a certain size that makes very high revenue (>1 bil iirc) is required to pay at least 20% in taxes. They can’t loophole their way to $0. The big corporations are going to have to pay actual taxes now.
I’m not going to pretend that Democrats are perfect, but I do think there’s a messaging problem and a tendency to let good works speak for themselves – which doesn’t work. If you remember the rail worker strike that Congress and Biden stopped, that actually wasn’t the end of it. Union leaders have said that the administration continued to work behind the scenes with the unions to pressure the rail companies, and because of that, they’ve gotten the sick days they were demanding.
I would need to do a lot of research to say more about if leftism ever had a serious shake in the US or not, I’ll admit. My assumption is that it was rejected, given the progressivism of the New Deal era didn’t persist. But I do need to do more reading.
I hear you, and mostly agree with some of what you say. Though I take issue with the right families, those being the ones benefitting from the power. What I will point out is the gilded age, and how bad it was back then. Many of the same issues we have today, corruption, bribery, the net worth of the robber barons adjusted for inflation was probably about double the net worth of our current crop of scumbag billionaire villains.
I don’t subscribe to the hopelessness, and I do believe we can end this second gilded age. I just don’t see the ability to do that with either political party’s leadership. We have to reject them both equally while recognizing exactly the issues you’re pointing out with regards to the power structure and inequality. That is essentially what happened when we ended the first gilded age.
IMO it’s better to phrase it as, “The economic system has already collapsed for the majority of Americans, and it’s getting worse. What will happen next?” Because it’s not like people will magically disappear overnight, it’s not like life is terrible for everyone all the time, and some things have improved over the last few decades.
Some people want to say “If we don’t do X, the world will end.” or “We didn’t do X, and it all went to hell, and we’re permanently doomed.” Most of the time, though, end-of-the-world stances are oversimplifications.
The weird thing about this to me is how someone who has watched all this crime stuff, which generally (at least the English ones I’ve seen) portrays the police as being competent and successful at catching criminals, doesn’t come up with a far more detailed plan to not get caught.
The interesting thing is she could genuinely have done a murder to see what it’s like, just as she wanted, and probably never gotten caught. If you murder someone with no motive, no connection to you, chosen at random, in a place not close to your home or place of work or any other frequently visited locations…the police have little to go on. As a fan of these shows, she would surely be aware of this. But instead she chose to do things that would basically guarantee she’s caught if the police are even minimally competent.
Everyone here is getting tunnel vision. Person obsessed with true crime podcasts kills someone makes for a good headline but it’s not the reality. It should really say mentally ill person who happens to listen to podcasts kills someone.
From the sound of things, she wouldn’t have gotten caught if she hadn’t tried to dispose of the body. If she had just left after murdering the woman, it would have been much harder to solve the case.
if the shows are any indication, the hair strand won't be tested, and innocent person will be charged, and in 20 years, they'll figure it out after the innocent person basically became their own lawyer and found out about the hair, then managed to get the hair tested on their final appeal.
DNA testing is only useful if someone is already in the system, so long as the killer isn’t in the system then they need a sample from the killer somehow to compare the DNA. This is why if you’re interviewed formally by police at the station they offer you something to drink, so they can get fingerprints from the glass/cup and DNA from your saliva on the rim.
The app she used to find the victim likely had enough of a digital trail to link back to her, so body disposal or no, she would likely have been investigated and caught sooner or later.
The article also says that she was caught on CCTV leaving and entering the house multiple times. Even if she left the body there, eliminating the need for her to make multiple “drop off” runs, she’d still be the last person seen entering the house and subsequent DNA evidence would be enough to convict.
The taxi driver reporting her to police just expedited how quickly she was caught. The crime would have likely been discovered as soon as the teacher failed to report in to work or to her next appointment. But if she hadn’t been reported so quickly, it would have given her more time to disappear.
Ironically while Putin fails in his assault on Ukraine, much of this has been seeded in social media as part of Russia’s geopolitical strategy to sow discord in the west and increase support for fascist regimes. Bad at military conflict, good at fucking with western people through social media
Don’t bother. This is a typical claim of people who think blacks are prone to crime which is a racist notion that comes from a century of racially slanted crime stats.
For more info read: “The Condemnation of Blackness” by Khalil Gibran Muhammad
A majority of Democratic voters (57%) were ages 50 and older in the 2022 midterms, compared with 51% of Joe Biden’s voters in 2020 and 53% of voters who supported a Democratic House candidate in 2018. Just 14% of Democratic voters were under the age of 30 in 2022 — similar to the 15% of Democratic voters who were in this age group in 2018, but less than their share of Democratic voters in 2020 (17%).
Seven-in-ten Republican voters were 50 and older in the most recent election, compared with 62% of Republican voters in 2020 and 68% in 2018.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.