this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
280 points (78.1% liked)

Political Memes

5252 readers
1820 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 71 points 8 months ago (3 children)

So let's do nothing at all.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 11 points 8 months ago

How dare you! They made a meme.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 59 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, that sucks. I'd rather start somewhere than just throw my hands up and go "well, it's fucked, may as well not try."

[–] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My thought is, sure we can tax the rich and make them less rich. But I find it hard to believe that the government is going to magically allocate those resources in a way that actually benefits Joe Schmoe. On top of that, even if you totally liquidated every billionaire, you'd get less than $2k for every person in America. Make it $4k if you only distribute it to the bottom half. Sure, it would be nice and I think billionaires are a scourge, but I don't think it's going to fix the problems people think it will.

Seems to me that the people going on and on about eating the rich would get a lot more done if they focused on achievable policy goals that directly affect their community. I would bet money 95% of the clowns that keep going on about this stuff don't even know who their city councilman is and have never been to a town hall meeting.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But if you inverse those thoughts or even pull back a bit, it's the same defeatist perspective. "Sure we can allocate taxes better but I find it hard to believe we'll ever be able to tax the rich." These aren't unrealistic changes or even far fetched, it just comes down to informing people and making the change. Most average people don't know what the Military Industrial Complex is or how it works and by telling them and illustrating how bad it is, politicians who'd like to remain politicians might listen to their constituents a little bit more than their wallet. Not entirely but enough.

Eating the rich is just a vivid expression to get the point across. A motto of sorts that just gets the idea across that the ultra wealthy need to be reconstituted into society at large. Be it through harmless proposals of policy and ranging to, well, the French Revolution. You don't need to know who your city councilman is nor your town hall to agree with something and make a change. I personally don't have time to attend a town hall with the oldest people in my county who are more interested complaining about a bakery not being in the right zoning area than change their mind about local taxes.

Change is slow and it starts with education. Being pissy or condescending also isn't a very good way to convince people you're right. If anything, they'll put extra effort into being wrong to spite you.

[–] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago

My main thing is that I'm tired of hearing people whining about it all the time, yet they do nothing themselves and don't even provide any actionable policy proposals. A comprehensive solution will have to involve both some mechanism to reduce the outsized influence that specific individuals and organizations can project onto society, including but not limited to corps and rich people, AND policies targeted to actually directly improving social welfare like healthcare, housing policy reform, overhauling disability, SNAP, and similar benefits, etc.

A lot of this needs to happen at the local level, especially housing reform, and even if you can't attend your local town hall, you can email your councilman. That's the person who controls whether or not that affordable apartment complex or homeless shelter goes up, and things like that will make a much bigger positive impact on your community than any amount of rich people eating. For the sweeping reforms, proving that things like this work at the local and state level is the first step to bringing them to the national level. The ACA for example was directly copied from the system Massachusetts had come up with.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago (3 children)

This meme has been brought to you by an anonymous Asian country's disinformation campaign.

Please give up.

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

You have been banned from hexhear for unrelated reasons

[–] giantfloppycock@lemm.ee 21 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is why we tax and eat them.

[–] JustinAngel@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago

Now this is a policy I can get behind.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

All military spending comprises ~10-15% of the budget, just a FYI.

The military budget isn’t stopping anything. In 2022, $4.1 Trillion was spent on mandatory programs (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, income security).

Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone were just shy of $3 Trillion.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's still a rediculously large military budget and it's incredible how much we spend on our social programs only for them to still suck ass

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Fixing our social programs would go so far to make things better without even changing anything else at all.

The amount of money spent isn’t the issue, it’s how inefficiently it’s spent.

[–] JustinAngel@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago

Agreed!

I think that was part of my thinking with my hot take.

I'm all for the rich paying their fair share, but maximizing what we already have is important too.

[–] JustinAngel@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Admittedly, I thought these percentages were different.

Not above admitting when I'm wrong.

https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/budget-explainer-national-defense

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

No worries.

A part of that is that there’s the entire budget of all federal outlays and then “the budget” which is what the President requests and Congress authorizes.

That is solely the discretionary spending. It’s unfortunate that it’s the only thing that actually gets talked about in the media.

Related, but interest on the debt is set to pass military spending like next year even.

[–] Lemmyvisitor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

if the military industrial complex gets rich then they are also taxed

[–] JustinAngel@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago

And so the hawkish death cycle continues!

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Yeah but it ends up in our hands for a few minutes and that's the point

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Fact: despite popular perception and rhetoric, the government does not actually need to issue taxes pay for things. Taxing the rich does not actually act as a source of revenue; it disincentivizes greater Extremes of price gouging and wage suppression as well as reducing the wealth disparity between the the poor and wealthy.

Your objection is nonsensical, misleading, and damaging to the cause. Good job. 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏

[–] JustinAngel@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago

Thanks for sharing a perspective that I hadnt considered. I certainly agree that corporate greed is detrimental and plays a key role in governmental corruption.

[–] EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not true and even if true I'm ok with it, I love lockmart, nuke the Kremlin.

[–] FIST_FILLET@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

as opposed to the rich people doing military donations on their own? the spotify ceo invested in fucking AI military killing machines man grow up. you have no control over rich people and they have demonstrated that there is no reason to trust them. the government sucks too, but at least you get to cast a vote on how much it sucks. stop bootlicking

[–] JustinAngel@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

I'm all for taxing the rich, but I'm even more for rooting out the corruption that enables the rich to become the monsters they are. This isn't bootlicking, its holding the opinion that the priorities are out of order.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

[–] Justas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

Even stuff like welfare and social benefits help the rich more than the poor. Walmart can have billions of profits while their people make so little they have to apply for aid. If aid wasn't there, they would have to pay proper wages and their profits would be smaller.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Taxing the rich means their money will go straight to government. Just have corporations pay workers more, so it goes straight to the people. Taking the rich is a stupid fucking movement, people should be emphasizing paying the workers more