Yes. That's panic.

So assessing someone's ability to govern is "panic".

How about the voters?

Is any negative assessment of the candidate "panic"?

it is when youre wrong

Voters vote on who they like, not if they can govern.

whats the matter californian, scared of a little wealth tax?

Given that California's top tax rate is 13.3% to New York City's 14.8%, I'm not sure whos supposed to be scared.

You're thinking of income tax. Wealth tax is a tax on, well, wealth, rather than just on what you earn. I don't think any US jurisdiction currently has a wealth tax.

Property taxes - which exist in all 50 states — are a wealth tax.

Actually I think Zohrans policy is the same as the one enacted in Massachussetss in 2022, the 'millionaires tax'. Its provided 2 billion to the state and theres still more millionaires in the state than there was when it was implemented. I hope we do this in NYC!

I see you are bias-free.

The flies didn't JUST start moving north this year.

Which makes cutting funding for the program that much stupider, no?

Considering the widths of Panama and Mexico, holding them south of Panama had to be much cheaper.

Maybe dramatically increasing the supply of something lowers its price.

Lots of contrarians or simply wealthy people think increasing supply of housing does not cause this.

So you just type in the speed you want and hit enter?

Administration of means testing is often more expensive than doing away with the means testing.

How about UBI coupled with repealing the minimum wage?

That’s my soapbox — I think that’s the only feasible hope for the future, taking into account increased efficiency, fewer jobs, and higher corporate profits. UBI funded by higher corporate taxes.

I just don’t see any realistic way to make it actually happen.

The ultra wealthy are betting on us lying down and dying in droves while they build techno fascist city states with AI enhanced anti-dissent technology ensuring organised protests are impossible....Its already happening online. Hundreds of thousands of bots appear across platforms sowing doubt about everything until nobody believes anything or anyone strongly enough to get out on the streets and face the army of ai drones.

> Administration of means testing is often more expensive than doing away with the means testing. How about UBI coupled with repealing the minimum wage?

Er... why wouldn't UBI be more expensive?

I'm not even arguing against UBI here, I'm just trying to make sense of your claim, which seems quite dubious.

I would rather we have a system that is too generous and gets taken advantage of than one that is too parsimonious where people die for want of food and shelter that we could provide for them.

We exist in a world where people can be unable to work or even advocate for themselves through no fault of their own. As we raise the bar for how people have to prove that they "need" help, there will be people who die because they don't have the capacity to prove that. In theory we have social workers (as a societal role) but in reality they're underfunded/don't have capacity for the same reasons.

This feels like the same moral argument behind the presumption of innocence in the American legal system: far better to let criminals walk free than to falsely imprison an innocent person. Why do we not apply the same logic to welfare?

I mean, I know why: we're worried the system would get taken advantage of and not serve the people it's "meant" to help.... but then, who does it help? How much effort is it worth making people spend to prove they need help when that effort comes with a blood cost?

I agree with GP that welfare systems make for better societies--see also, public healthcare. I have several friends who are alive because of welfare systems. I grew up with people whose family squandered the welfare they got, but I don't view that as sufficient reason to withhold welfare from anyone else; I just accept that's the cost of a system that helps people.

Yep. Better to catch $1m in fraud by spending $20m than to spend $10m helping people with a possibility of $2m in fraud.

It makes no economic sense. It’s not more humane/helpful. But it’s what we ‘choose’ over and over.

I'd also rather people get "free" benefits and perhaps spend some of their time doing something creative or otherwise useful to society but which doesn't pay than force everyone to take a job no matter how useless or even destructive it is.

> a lot of the fear that ordinarily motivates the rest of us

No, that seems like mostly you. Most people are not motivated by fear.

> Citation needed for the right to other people's money.

It's called taxation, it's codified in law. Like... literally. I don't think you could find a better citation for "rights" than that. Jesus Christ.

> Any system that asks nothing of people is a bad system.

Ok bro, while you're out there building morally pure systems the rest of us will do research and learn what actually works in the real world.

Citation needed that your neoliberal views are anything other than bad faith voodoo economics. We have decades' worth of proof that it's toxic for society, both politically and economically. Your whole talking point is an excuse for the ultra rich to get even richer through mass exploitation, which ironically is the embodiment of entitlement that you're so opposed to.

I'd like to know what human rights these organizations have contempt for.

The Republican party seems to have a particular fondness for deporting innocent people to El Salvador without justification.

You can look up the reason in the ICE database but it only supports clients using SQL Workbench…so…

There is no human right that allows you to live in any country you want without its consent.

That's a different claim than the parent made. CECOT, specifically, is absolutely a place where human rights are not observed.

Well first of all that's that not what ending birthright citizenship would mean. Secondly if birthright citizenship were a human right then most countries would be in violation of human rights.

It’s a violation of your civil rights as it’s a core part of the U.S. Constitution, something Americans love to try to beat other countries over the head with.

If you guys don’t care about your Constitution, then I wish you all the best of luck.

This may shock you, but I believe that most are.

If you remove the rule of law, then you let tyrants reign. Best of luck with the complete breakdown of your separation of powers - it’s why you have your freedoms.

You’ll care when you need the government to heed a court decision taken against them and they completely ignore it. At that point though, it’s too late.

Incidentally, many of those who were deported did have the consent of the courts to remain.

Or maybe just take ownership of Bitcoin nobody can access, potentially much more profitable.

Just don't sell it all at once.