Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.
  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    8·
    2 months ago

    Lol. Put entertainment people in charge of the economy again. Has the public even seen how they cook the books in that industry?

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        32·
        2 months ago

        As long as he said sorry to God before he died and meant it, in Christianity, he’s in heaven.

        Same goes for Hitler, if he meant it.

        If you have a problem with that, no matter how perfect a person you might be, you’ll be in hell instead because, ultimately, it doesn’t matter how bad of a person you are or what sins you’ve committed.

        Only one thing matters.

        If heaven exists, it’ll be full of people like Reagan. You’ll be spending eternity with right wing Christian Conservatives and much, much worse.

        Meanwhile hell will have all the drinkers, the stoners, the ravers, revelers and rascals; it’ll have all the gay people, the hippies and every alternative culture you can think of. Hell will have all the promiscuous people, the people who just love sex and the professionals too. We’ll have all the people who know how to make drugs, the fun ones, and we’ll have none of those judgmental life-haters around, either as they’ll all be in heaven.

        Were gonna have a wicked time. Reagan won’t be welcome, no matter who’s arsehole he’s got his tongue up.

        Sorry, I just ran with it. Its not really at you.

        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 months ago

          Total absolution isn’t actually a thing in most forms of Christianity except via baptism.

          And baptism can’t be done twice. It’s a one time thing, after that you’re expected to actually live as if you believe. Charity and not sinning and shit.

          Basically you have to try to live like Fred Rogers.

          Jesus was very clear about that in the one time he talked about eternal punishment.

          It was the part welcoming immigrants, feeding the poor, and visiting the prisoners.

          Also the part about not being a hypocrite praying loudly in the street, but being devote and praying in the quiet of your home.

          But that’s regular Jesus. Not Supply Side Jesus.

          Supply Side Jesus can be bribed, so list your local church in your will for instant absolution.

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
            3·
            2 months ago

            You’ll have to let me know what part of the bible says that because its not in any parts that I read.

            While baptism itself is in the bible, baptism absolving sin is something made up centuries later, so that churches could have some of that old school shaman ritual stuff they didnt have any of.

            More so, the only opposing view to the one above would be the Catholic one and their interpretation is problematic at best.

            People really need to check the fine-print on that particular covenant.

            • chaogomu@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 months ago

              The passage is in Mathew 25. Often called the Sheep and the Goats.

              And yeah, it’s all made up with bits and pieces added later by different people, but that passage in Mathew 25 is pretty clear that you have to feed the poor, welcome the immigrant, (or the stranger as found in some translations), visit the prisoner, clothe those who need it, etc.

              And the punishment for not doing these things is everlasting punishment in the fires of hell.

              Fun fact, there’s a Cake song about this passage. Sort of.

              • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                1·
                2 months ago

                1 John 1:9 ,

                “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

                Therefore, they will be righteous and included with the sheep and never asked goat (people on the right hand side) questions.

                Like I said, its all about the fine print. Righteousness isn’t the ticket.

                • chaogomu@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  2 months ago

                  Ah yes, but confession has to be sincere.

                  But Supply Side Jesus thinks that money equals sincerity. And that Mathew guy sounds woke.

                  Fun fact, to my understanding, Mathew 25 is the only place in the Bible that talks about eternal punishment.

                  There might also be something in Revelations, but that’s all revenge fantasy about Nero.

  • unphazed@lemmy.world
    2·
    2 months ago

    I am Jacks complete and utter disbelief. I lead him to depression, and he dies of malnutrition and liver failure.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    81·
    2 months ago

    How about we try some trickle up economics for a while? That’s where you give money to people who actually need it, and let businesses compete for them as customers, and the revenue will trickle up to successful companies.

    Might as well, right?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      6·
      2 months ago

      The biggest criticism is hilarious. They say poor people don’t use the money responsibly. It just passes right through their hands. They neglect to mention that’s because they’re buying needed goods and services and that money trickles up far more reliably than money trickles down.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        8·
        2 months ago

        It just passes right through their hands

        Plus a general illiteracy for economics where that should be the goal because the economy grows with money spent, not money saved

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          4·
          2 months ago

          My personal theory is they’re also trying to normalize the money not moving into the economy.

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 months ago

      It’s almost like you can have a monetary system and trade without all the crony klepto bullshit of the current system.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    22·
    2 months ago

    Every couple years, another study that shows the same thing. The rich got richer and the middle class and poor lost.

      • forensic_potato@lemmy.world
        3·
        2 months ago

        The middle class also doesn’t exist and makes as much sense as trickle-down economics does. It’s either working class or rich.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          11·
          2 months ago

          The middle class definitely exists. They still share class solidarity with the poor.

          Middle class means you can lose your job, stay unemployed for a year or 2, and keep your home, keep the kids fed. You’re closer to the poor obviously, but you have some peace of mind. You’ve probably got some investments to provide a little bit of extra income to help you through the difficult days.

          Basically, I’d categorize rich vs middle class vs working class as “could never become homeless”, “unlikely to need to worry about becoming homeless unless something major happens” and “could easily become homeless if unemployed for a while”.

          Of course, if anyone’s wealth is actually trickling down, it’s the middle class, not the rich. Because the middle class actually spends some portion of their money instead of hoarding it.

          • forensic_potato@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 months ago

            No, it really doesn’t exist. It’s an idea created by the rich to make some among the working class believe that they are different from the other working class people. But they are not. If you need to work to survive, you are working class.

            And please, don’t insult your intelligence or mine talking about trickle-down economy. That’s also not a real thing

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              11·
              2 months ago

              Middle class means being able to work your way up to not having to rely on work or pension to live.

              If you’re working class, you don’t even have that option. You work until you’re so old you have to retire, no long sabbaticals in between or anything. You won’t go traveling the world to do soul searching. Your kids are either taking student loans or GI bills or just not going to college.

              Middle class isn’t a 100k income in much of modern America though. Depending on location I’d say it’s more like 200k to 600k per household at minimum to be middle class. So yes, the middle class has shrunk considerably.

              • forensic_potato@lemmy.world
                1·
                2 months ago

                That’s not what the middle class is. I’m not about to repeat myself. And the more you write on it, the more it’s clear that you don’t understand what you are talking about and never read anything on the matter but instead you’re just writing about your personal opinions on the matter. Please stop spewing the insane propaganda of “the harder you work, the richer you’ll be” and stop wasting my time

                • boonhet@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  When did I ever say it’s about hard work? You’re either born into the middle class, or you have to get lucky af. 80 hour weeks at a shit job will kill your health, not raise your socioeconomic status.

                  I never said it’s something everyone can attain (I WISH it still was), but it does exist. For now. It’s shrinking hard and becoming a thing of the past though. And unfortunately mostly middle class people are dropping down to working class, rather than going up the ladder.

                  Personally I aim to retire around the age of 50, or do entrepreneurship for fun after that point. Definitely don’t want to work for someone else. If I attain that and my net worth keeps rising despite me not having a job - would you still consider me working class? I know I wouldn’t consider myself to be upper class even then.

                  There’s no one singular definition of middle class anyway.