US Political News and Trump’s China visit

FuturePAF said:
On balance I don’t think the US is xenophobic. It’s a very welcoming place and I think we pride ourselves on it. It’s the MAGA faction of the republican that is xenophobic. The US not being as much of a welfare state lets the issue be debated on economics, if we don’t allow xenophobia come into it.
Click to expand...
As I said, the immigration issue is an issue that both sides used to bash the other with. I personally have no issue with immigration, and I am a right-leaning centrist

In most cases, whether we are in the US or Australia, the "issue" is simply how the administration frames it and fanning people to vote for them. I discussed with someone on another forum about how immigrants are causing the housing crisis in Australia. The talk is about immigrants expanding, and the housing market cannot catch up. The problem, as I explained to the other guy, is that our government is the reason why there is not enough housing to accommodate the population expansion. Australia, being the world's number 2 spacious country in the world (Only beaten by Mongolia), has more than enough space to make a few new towns and build infrastructure. Yet with all these lands, we don't even have government housing, the government is more than willing to give you $700 a month in social benefits on top of the 1400 they give you to rent a place than to build some new house and put you there, and if everyone is given money, then money is not the issue, we need new home, not money. As for why they are doing this, well, you can probably guess.

This is the same system the government uses; it didn't matter if we are talking about the economy or immigration, this is how the government is framing the issue to pull vote, I mean, was immigration really the reason why people are living in the street in LA or New York? Well, we don't have a lot of resources in the US., We don't have universal income, universal health care, or low-income housing has nothing to do with spending resources on immigration; it has to do with paying 12% Federal Tax and 9-11% state tax in the US, vs I am paying 43% tax in Australia. America wasn't a welfare state, which means social issues are going to be a problem, and that is not going to change if you kick out all immigrants, legal or otherwise, out, because those programs don't come from nowhere; you need to fund them. What immigration issue has instead become a "us vs them" issue. It is simply because they are easy to frame as the enemy. And we can just blame it on them and magically all the issues will go away.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Comes out to $80/week for food. Many working people are on SNAP because employers refuse to pay a living wage to begin with.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
1761966188542.jpeg
The bottom 40% of incomes have remained almost flat for over 50 years as the cost of living has increased dramatically.

Anyone who thinks this will not eventually lead to a revolution is deluding himself.
 
Current distribution

    • Top 1%: Own roughly 40% of all wealth.
    • Top 10%: Hold about 69% of total household wealth.
    • Bottom 50%: Hold approximately 2.5% of total household wealth.
    • Bottom 90%: Hold less than one-quarter of all wealth.

    In 1900, the richest 10% of the U.S. population likely controlled approximately 90% of the nation's wealth, indicating extremely high income and wealth inequality. This was a period of significant economic stratification, with a large portion of the population living in poverty, while a small number of wealthy individuals amassed enormous fortunes.
    • A long-term trend: The high inequality in 1900 was part of a longer historical period of great disparity in the U.S. before the "Great Levelling" of the mid-20th century.
 
The Great Leveler (Walter Scheidel)
  • Focus: A book by historian Walter Scheidel that argues for a historical thesis that only mass violence (such as war and pandemics) has effectively reduced inequality throughout history.
  • Key takeaway: Unlike the mid-20th century "leveling," Scheidel's work suggests that the most significant reductions in inequality have come from large-scale disruptions that cause widespread death and suffering, which tends to affect the wealthy disproportionately.
  • Relevance: This book offers a broader, more pessimistic view on the long-term prospects for reducing inequality.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 18 (members: 0, guests: 18)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top