The guy worked for Black Rock who I’ve only heard of in “evil corporation” contexts. He made millions of dollars doing this work and then he gets back into politics and his one of his first priorities is lowering the taxes of corporations during a period where the government needs to be raising more funds and investing in its people! How is that not an obvious quid pro quo? Isn’t he not an obviously compromised actor who’s more ambitious than he is good willed?
Not even talking about conservatives as vehicles for societal decline, how is Merz not viewed by everyone as someone who has only his and his wealthy friends interests at heart by his past actions and history? Of course he’s not the change we need, he’s conservative - they, on average, cause pain to the working class. But even more so Merz is compromised, is he not? Just like the FDP after their last coalition stunt.
If someone, including a whole party, put party or power before the people of Germany (and I would argue the people of Europe and mankind as a whole) shouldn’t they be barred from ruling? They’re exactly the people you don’t want running.
The thing is, lowering taxes and being corrupt is the normal thing to do as a conservative. People should know this, yet they keep voting for these parties.
The most outrageous thing about this is that we still call those grifters “conservatives”. The adjective “conservative” comes from “to conserve”. Those so-called “conservatives”, though, do conserve nothing. In the contrary, they actually do destroy society and its infrastructure in order to increase their personal wealth and power.
I just want to change the lens those people view lowering company taxes with. Why lower company taxes? What’s the goal? I’d argue the common answer is to grow “the economy” which sounds like it means “make more jobs and pay people more.” But the question then becomes if the goal is to pay people more why are we taxing companies less? Why not tax people less? That’s a more direct line to “growing the economy” except instead of giving more money to companies which is a theoretical proxy for giving money to people, we just give people more money directly.
I wish well meaning conservatives would think about it like that. I don’t think Merz is a well meaning conservative, in fact I don’t know if most conservatives in power are well meaning. But that’s what I’d hope the working class conservatives, who are wittingly or unwittingly betraying their own self interests, would think. Why give money to companies in the hopes they give more money to the people. Why not give money to the people and let them spend it on companies.
The guy worked for Black Rock who I’ve only heard of in “evil corporation” contexts. He made millions of dollars doing this work and then he gets back into politics and his one of his first priorities is lowering the taxes of corporations during a period where the government needs to be raising more funds and investing in its people! How is that not an obvious quid pro quo? Isn’t he not an obviously compromised actor who’s more ambitious than he is good willed?
Not even talking about conservatives as vehicles for societal decline, how is Merz not viewed by everyone as someone who has only his and his wealthy friends interests at heart by his past actions and history? Of course he’s not the change we need, he’s conservative - they, on average, cause pain to the working class. But even more so Merz is compromised, is he not? Just like the FDP after their last coalition stunt.
If someone, including a whole party, put party or power before the people of Germany (and I would argue the people of Europe and mankind as a whole) shouldn’t they be barred from ruling? They’re exactly the people you don’t want running.
The thing is, lowering taxes and being corrupt is the normal thing to do as a conservative. People should know this, yet they keep voting for these parties.
The most outrageous thing about this is that we still call those grifters “conservatives”. The adjective “conservative” comes from “to conserve”. Those so-called “conservatives”, though, do conserve nothing. In the contrary, they actually do destroy society and its infrastructure in order to increase their personal wealth and power.
Exactly. If „conservatives“ were really conservative, fighting climate change would be their main topic.
I just want to change the lens those people view lowering company taxes with. Why lower company taxes? What’s the goal? I’d argue the common answer is to grow “the economy” which sounds like it means “make more jobs and pay people more.” But the question then becomes if the goal is to pay people more why are we taxing companies less? Why not tax people less? That’s a more direct line to “growing the economy” except instead of giving more money to companies which is a theoretical proxy for giving money to people, we just give people more money directly.
I wish well meaning conservatives would think about it like that. I don’t think Merz is a well meaning conservative, in fact I don’t know if most conservatives in power are well meaning. But that’s what I’d hope the working class conservatives, who are wittingly or unwittingly betraying their own self interests, would think. Why give money to companies in the hopes they give more money to the people. Why not give money to the people and let them spend it on companies.
Because our own consumers don’t matter. Germany is export champion. What matters is that other countries buy our stuff.
I think that is a stupid argument but I suspect it is how people like Merz think.
Reducing people to the status of mere consumers is a part of the problem, and this pervasive throughout society.