Wouldn't be enough based on Politifact. That article got $72 bil from the 70% over 10 mil. The Times gives a different number for a more inclusive pool than AOC's random brainfart. The top 1% is for making $400k+.
I'd like an administration that cuts spending rather than bail out, cut taxes, or spend more by creating more programs because both sides essentially address economic bankruptcy by postponing it. How much longer does that last?
No offense, but the American system is so filled with waste and there are so many easy ways to get rid of the waste, but vested interests are fighting to keep things the way they are.
Why does the US military get a blank check? The US spends more than the next 8 countries combined, why is that amount of money needed? Do you think there is no waste in the military?
Why do other western countries (like Canada and Western Europe) spend less of their GDP on health care then the US does?
Why does the US have the biggest prison population in the world? How much do you think it costs to maintain that prison population?
The problem is a lot of these systems (the military, the health care system, and the prison system) are corporate welfare schemes, they are designed to be wasteful so that private industries can profit off this waste.
So not only do you have to raise taxes on the rich, but you have cut off their corporate welfare as well, then you get the resources you need for other things.
You're missing the point on this. Look at the polls, Americans don't want universal single-payer. They say they're for coverage for all, but when the polls get specific into "so you're for doing away with the private industry and taking everyone public", it's a majority 'no' by quite a bit.
Also, places like Canada and Australia you can still buy private insurance if you want it. Not sure on the UK. That's different to what she & Harris have been talking about, doing away with the private system entirely. That's gonna lead to quality drops no matter which way you slice it.
And yet, these countries spend less GDP on their health care systems then the US does? Why is it?
Of course it doesn't necessarily come from an antisemitic place. Nobody's a mind-reader, we don't know what's going through her head.
Point is, the words play into antisemitic tropes. If you're going to run with these "trigger-word!", "dog-whistle!" parameters in other situations, this identity politics stuff you apply it evenly, even toward those you agree with. Jews "bribing" people and swaying governments/media/whatever else through financial means is a "trigger-word", a "dog-whistle", always has been, and most of society gets this. It's antisemitic language.
Intentions aren't even the thing here. She might hate Jews, she might not. Doesn't matter, she used language that's been implemented since the dawn of ****ing time to paint a tribe of people a certain negative way. She knows this, she's smart enough to not be ignorant of the connotations. She's done it before, she's going to do it again. It's a problem. She shouldn't be forced to resign over it, but a little genuine contrition and a commital to not doing it in future is warranted. Won't happen, because why would it? She can keep doing it and still survive, 'cause "Palestinians are the underdogs and therefore the Israelis are the ****ing Galactic Empire or whatever, anything goes".
Sounds like you are just being politically correct, saying you cannot criticize the US-Israel relationship without being accused of being anti-semantic. Stop trying to take away my freedom of speech!
Turn about works both ways. Conservatives talk about snowflakes, getting triggered, political correctness, but they will use these things as soon as they see an advantage to it. They will freak out over a football player kneeling and all their ''free speech fundamentalism'' goes out the window. They have no problem using ''political correctness'' to say any criticism of the US-Israel is anti-semantic, political correctness is only bad when they say its bad and its good when they say its good.
Your side drowns in hypocrisy and I do not think that is an accident, I think it serves a cynical political purpose.
