Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

CURRENT EVENTS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 37K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
“…A group of about 400 EPA employees have signed a public letter sent Monday to Zeldin claiming the Trump administration is ignoring science to the benefit of corporate polluters. Zeldin is “fundamentally changing the mission of the EPA when he focuses on industry needs above human health and the environment,” said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental-protection specialist at the EPA who signed the letter. She said she was put on administrative leave in February.

An EPA spokeswoman said the agency was “bound by laws established by Congress—not what some would like the law to say.”

Under Zeldin’s leadership, scientists at the agency’s Office of Research and Development have seen their funds, staffing and contracts slashed, according to people familiar with the matter. The EPA earlier this year submitted a plan to the Office of Management and Budget to eliminate the research and development office and fire at least half of its staff, according to a document reviewed by Democratic staff for the House Science Committee and seen by the The Wall Street Journal….”
Click to expand...
Money above all for these idiots.

Who cares if 80% of the population dies and the remaining have to live underground.
 
wmheel1287 said:
On a spiritual level, I agree that there shouldn't be billionaires. In my perspnal opinion, anyone with that kind of wealth should be furiously donating as their full time preoccupation. It's obscene to have that kind of money and not want to help as many people as possible.

I also dont think my personal beliefs should be codified into law.
Click to expand...
I hear you, and I think a lot of people do feel that way on a moral or spiritual level. But the reason Mamdani’s framing hits harder isn’t because it’s moral, it’s because it’s political.

The issue isn’t that billionaires don’t donate enough. It’s that a democratic society shouldn’t be dependent on whether they choose to be generous or not. That kind of wealth is power: unaccountable, unelected, and often used to block the very changes that would make life better for the rest of us.

Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan; these guys were the “new money” of their day. They got rich by crushing workers, busting unions, monopolizing entire sectors, and using private militias to break strikes. The term “robber baron” didn’t come from nowhere. They weren’t seen as noble, they were feared and hated by the public for good reason.

And while people often point to them as examples of billionaire altruism, it’s worth remembering: they gave only after violently crushing labor, extracting wealth through monopolies, and only when public backlash forced their hand. Their philanthropy was PR, not virtue.

A system that allows a handful of people to hoard more money than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes, while millions struggle to pay rent or get healthcare, is a broken system. The point isn’t to make billionaires feel guilty. It’s to rewrite the rules so that kind of hoarding isn’t possible in the first place.That’s not codifying a personal belief. That’s building a fairer society.

Even the “good” billionaire has power no one voted for, wealth no one person could earn, and control over resources that should belong to the public. That’s not a feel-good story, it’s the problem.
 
Last edited:
Paine said:
I hear you, and I think a lot of people do feel that way on a moral or spiritual level. But the reason Mamdani’s framing hits harder isn’t because it’s moral, it’s because it’s political.

The issue isn’t that billionaires don’t donate enough. It’s that a democratic society shouldn’t be dependent on whether they choose to be generous or not. That kind of wealth is power: unaccountable, unelected, and often used to block the very changes that would make life better for the rest of us.

Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan; these guys were the “new money” of their day. They got rich by crushing workers, busting unions, monopolizing entire sectors, and using private militias to break strikes. The term “robber baron” didn’t come from nowhere. They weren’t seen as noble, they were feared and hated by the public for good reason.

And while people often point to them as examples of billionaire altruism, it’s worth remembering: they gave only after violently crushing labor, extracting wealth through monopolies, and only when public backlash forced their hand. Their philanthropy was PR, not virtue.

A system that allows a handful of people to hoard more money than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes, while millions struggle to pay rent or get healthcare, is a broken system. The point isn’t to make billionaires feel guilty. It’s to rewrite the rules so that kind of hoarding isn’t possible in the first place.That’s not codifying a personal belief. That’s building a fairer society.

Even the “good” billionaire has power no one voted for, wealth no one person could earn, and control over resources that should belong to the public. That’s not a feel-good story, it’s the problem.
Click to expand...
I consider myself a history geek and yet found myself learning a ton from this post. Thanks a ton, man! This was a great read.
 
Paine said:
The point isn’t to make billionaires feel guilty. It’s to rewrite the rules so that kind of hoarding isn’t possible in the first place.That’s not codifying a personal belief. That’s building a fairer society.
Click to expand...
The idea that building a fairer society is more important than having a system that allows for billionaires is a personal belief. Implementing the means to achieve the former at the expense of the latter is absolutely codifying a personal belief. And I'm not saying that's not my belief as well or that it's not a "good" belief to have or that you could provide "good reasons" why such a belief is worthy and justified, but don't delude yourself that the notion that the world you envision would the best world (or at least better than the current one, or even just simply a good one) is not a personal belief or that people whose personal beliefs are at odds with yours might not also have good grounds and good reasons for feeling like their personal beliefs of how the world should be are just as valid and "right" as yours. Finally, their personal beliefs might not be at odds with yours on many points, regardless of the size of their bank accounts...
 
Regarding billionaires, Pavel D the founder of Telegram is worth 14 or 17 billion, recently said he'd divy up his wealth across his 6 kids (with three women he's been in relationships with) AND his 100 donor-conceived children!

Reddit was doing the math and each kid, even those he'd never met, would get $150,943,396.

And to further express just how frickin much money we're talking about here, if each of his 106 offspring all had 106 kids of their own, then theoretically his grandkids could all inherit $1,423,994!
 
finesse said:
He still got it wrong. Run toward someone slower than you.

Alligators in Florida can reach speeds up to 35 mph in short bursts on land.
Click to expand...
1. Alligators generally aren't interested in humans.
2. This place is nothing like Alcatraz. You can just walk on a road to Miami or Tampa. Odds are pretty good that someone would pick you up if you made it to the main highway. Alligator Alcatraz makes it sound like it is surrounded by a moat or something.
 
CFordUNC said:
I consider myself a history geek and yet found myself learning a ton from this post. Thanks a ton, man! This was a great read.
Click to expand...
Appreciate that, truly. And I think that’s the key difference: history doesn’t just give us facts, it gives us perspective. The more I study it, the harder it is to accept that wealth at that scale could ever be “earned” in a democratic society. That’s why Mamdani’s stance isn’t simply moral outrage, it’s structural clarity.
 
hedge said:
The idea that building a fairer society is more important than having a system that allows for billionaires is a personal belief. Implementing the means to achieve the former at the expense of the latter is absolutely codifying a personal belief. And I'm not saying that's not my belief as well or that it's not a "good" belief to have or that you could provide "good reasons" why such a belief is worthy and justified, but don't delude yourself that the notion that the world you envision would the best world (or at least better than the current one, or even just simply a good one) is not a personal belief or that people whose personal beliefs are at odds with yours might not also have good grounds and good reasons for feeling like their personal beliefs of how the world should be are just as valid and "right" as yours. Finally, their personal beliefs might not be at odds with yours on many points, regardless of the size of their bank accounts...
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying, but I think there’s a category error here. Saying billionaires shouldn’t exist isn’t a personal belief in the way someone prefers chocolate over vanilla. It’s a political judgment grounded in how power, wealth, and democracy function in the real world.

Again: this isn’t about moral vibes, it’s about structure. We either have a system where a handful of people can accumulate enough wealth to bend policy, markets, and even elections to their will, or we have a functioning democracy. We can’t have both.

All laws codify values. The current system codifies the belief that wealth accumulation, even at obscene levels, is more important than universal housing, healthcare, or a livable planet. So yes, I believe in codifying something different. A system that treats democracy and dignity as non-negotiable.

Disagreement is fine. That’s just politics. But let’s not pretend all visions are equally valid just because they’re sincerely held. Some beliefs uphold oligarchy. Others fight for democracy. The moment we pretend all visions are equally valid because they’re “personal,” we drain politics of its content and protect the status quo by default.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top