“Eat the Rich” memes spread, but is it a political movement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 348
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
That's probably right. And that's what it did.

www.whitehouse.gov

FACT SHEET: Two Years after the CHIPS and Science Act, Biden-Harris Administration Celebrates Historic Achievements in Bringing Semiconductor Supply Chains Home, Creating Jobs, Supporting Innovation, and Protecting National Security | The White House

Companies have announced $395+ billion in investments in semiconductors and electronics and the creation of over 115,000 jobs since President Biden and
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov

"CHIPS-funded projects are creating more than 115,000 construction and manufacturing jobs with over $250 million of CHIPS funding earmarked for local community workforce development, the use of which will be guided by local stakeholder input, including from academic institutions, training providers, and labor unions, and federal partners, including the Departments of Labor and Education. These projects will also pay construction workers prevailing wages, which ensures they earn family-sustaining wages and benefits, and include some of the largest Project Labor Agreements in history, establishing that the future of this industry in America will be built by union workers."

So why did Bernie join with the right wingers to oppose it?
Click to expand...
Quoting from a White House fact sheet on it won’t get you very far. We’re three years out from the legislation now and we can see that these rules that were “proposed” for companies getting money from CHIPS haven’t been fully followed.

prospect.org

How Much Will the CHIPS Act Help the Workers Who Make Them?

The Commerce Department’s standards don’t require companies receiving billions in public funds to allow their workers to unionize.
prospect.org prospect.org

Bernie’s opposition to the bill (though I suspect he would’ve voted for it if it was in failure of not passing) was rooted in the fact that it was a giveaway to private companies at a time when many Americans were hurting post-COVID.

For the same amount of money, we could’ve done a lot more on that end. People see their child tax credit expiring while Intel gets billions of their tax payer dollars. Stuff like is is the very kind of stuff Trump was able to exploit in 2024.

Sanders specifically wanted a return on investment guaranteed to Americans since we are using American tax dollars. The money given via CHIPS shouldn’t go to further enriching CEOs and other executives, it should 100% go to investing in America and Americans.

That’s why Bernie voted against it. But you can easily Google this and see that.
 
finesse said:
Or even longer. This is where I first heard it.

The phrase “Eat the Rich” is often attributed to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a political philosopher and leader of the French Revolution. The original quote is, “When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich”.
Click to expand...
Let them eat cake.
 
lawtig02 said:
My concern is not that the left wing populists will take over the government. It's that they'll ruin the Democratic Party's remaining ability to be a stabilizing force in an extremely unstable political environment. We're already down to one functional party. If we lose that one, there's literally nothing to maintain the systems on which the nation -- and the world for that matter -- rely.
Click to expand...
This is basically my concern as well. The Democratic Party needs to be a viable alternative to MAGA. Specifically, it needs to be a mature, thoughtful, problem-solving option rather than a different flavor of government by temper tantrum.
 
Paine said:
Quoting from a White House fact sheet on it won’t get you very far. We’re three years out from the legislation now and we can see that these rules that were “proposed” for companies getting money from CHIPS haven’t been fully followed.

prospect.org

How Much Will the CHIPS Act Help the Workers Who Make Them?

The Commerce Department’s standards don’t require companies receiving billions in public funds to allow their workers to unionize.
prospect.org prospect.org

Bernie’s opposition to the bill (though I suspect he would’ve voted for it if it was in failure of not passing) was rooted in the fact that it was a giveaway to private companies at a time when many Americans were hurting post-COVID.

For the same amount of money, we could’ve done a lot more on that end. People see their child tax credit expiring while Intel gets billions of their tax payer dollars. Stuff like is is the very kind of stuff Trump was able to exploit in 2024.

Sanders specifically wanted a return on investment guaranteed to Americans since we are using American tax dollars. The money given via CHIPS shouldn’t go to further enriching CEOs and other executives, it should 100% go to investing in America and Americans.

That’s why Bernie voted against it. But you can easily Google this and see that.
Click to expand...
Wait, you think Trump got traction because child tax credits expired while Intel got incentives to bring chip manufacturing back to the US? I'm sorry, but I suspect your view of what drove the Trump vote is far more connected to your personal annoyances with the Democratic Party than it is to reality.
 
lawtig02 said:
Wait, you think Trump got traction because child tax credits expired while Intel got incentives to bring chip manufacturing back to the US? I'm sorry, but I suspect your view of what drove the Trump vote is far more connected to your personal annoyances with the Democratic Party than it is to reality.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think that specifically. That’s why I said “stuff like.” Painfully obvious that you’re a lawyer, but that kind of pedantry isn’t really appealing to anyone but lawyers.

It’s the idea of: the government is giving out hand outs to everyone but average Americans.
 
Paine said:
No, I don’t think that specifically. That’s why I said “stuff like.” Painfully obvious that you’re a lawyer, but that kind of pedantry isn’t really appealing to anyone but lawyers.

It’s the idea of: the government is giving out hand outs to everyone but average Americans.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why people think it's lawyerly "pedantry" to call out things they say that don't hold up to scrutiny, but you and callatoroy have both done that recently. Maybe that's telling? Sorry for the equivalation, super.
 
lawtig02 said:
I'm not sure why people think it's lawyerly "pedantry" to call out things they say that don't hold up to scrutiny, but you and callatoroy have both done that recently. Maybe that's telling? Sorry for the equivalation, super.
Click to expand...
It’s lawyerly pedantry to make people out to be saying things that they took explicit effort to not say in their post, especially when you don’t address any of the other parts of the post.

But sure, I’m just like callatoroy because I don’t agree with you.
 
Paine said:
The money given via CHIPS shouldn’t go to further enriching CEOs and other executives, it should 100% go to investing in America and Americans.
Click to expand...
seems like a bad idea to give labor policy to the commerce department. who thought that would end well? i know the commerce department was the administrator of the funds, but it has very little enforcement power. and it has no leverage. its not as if there are a million semiconductor companies just trying to get a foot in the door. if existing companies dont want unions, then theres very little the commerce department can do about that.

this sort of "side promotion" of unions rarely goes well. concessions to unions is a significant reason why its hard for the public sector to build things, and why also housing construction can be dicey. the key to running industry is flexibility and thats true even for unions. when union-related requirements get buried deep in zoning regs or chips act regs, they become super-hard to change and flexibility is gone. over time the entire sector becomes sclerotic.

the supreme court is a big part of the problem here, and that cant be ignored. it is reality though. shoving labor provisions into unrelated policies just doesnt work well at all.
 
Paine said:
It’s lawyerly pedantry to make people out to be saying things that they took explicit effort to not say in their post, especially when you don’t address any of the other parts of the post.

But sure, I’m just like callatoroy because I don’t agree with you.
Click to expand...
i hate being accused of saying things i took care not to, so i'm with you. not sure its lawyerly. lawyers are, in theory, supposed to do the opposite of that. not sure its pedantry either. it is fucking annoying. i didnt read the posts in question and they have slipped a few pages back so i have no opinion on the underlying merits but your frustration probably should occasion a change in tactic by your interlocutor, since you are a good faith poster.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
This might be the first time I’ve seen you admit the US is a racist country. Welcome to Woke Town. Enjoy your stay.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was racist. I don't think it is racist within the context that I think most on the left do. I said race was a variable in the differences between our country and others.
 
superrific said:
seems like a bad idea to give labor policy to the commerce department. who thought that would end well? i know the commerce department was the administrator of the funds, but it has very little enforcement power. and it has no leverage. its not as if there are a million semiconductor companies just trying to get a foot in the door. if existing companies dont want unions, then theres very little the commerce department can do about that.

this sort of "side promotion" of unions rarely goes well. concessions to unions is a significant reason why its hard for the public sector to build things, and why also housing construction can be dicey. the key to running industry is flexibility and thats true even for unions. when union-related requirements get buried deep in zoning regs or chips act regs, they become super-hard to change and flexibility is gone. over time the entire sector becomes sclerotic.

the supreme court is a big part of the problem here, and that cant be ignored. it is reality though. shoving labor provisions into unrelated policies just doesnt work well at all.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree overall. People often fail to understand that Bernie strategically votes for or against certain things as part of his core brand proposition. Can’t say he isn’t consistent in that.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
This is basically my concern as well. The Democratic Party needs to be a viable alternative to MAGA. Specifically, it needs to be a mature, thoughtful, problem-solving option rather than a different flavor of government by temper tantrum.
Click to expand...
Then it needs to quit focusing on culture wars and dei and get in the game because right now the American people only see one viable party and it isn't the left. I question if you can leave that behind. You guys just don't seem to get it. Voters are tired of they / them and just want to deal with everyday issues that affect their spending power and providing for their family. Woke is out. I think that makes the left mad though and the mindset is we won't let it be out.
 
lawtig02 said:
My concern is not that the left wing populists will take over the government. It's that they'll ruin the Democratic Party's remaining ability to be a stabilizing force in an extremely unstable political environment. We're already down to one functional party. If we lose that one, there's literally nothing to maintain the systems on which the nation -- and the world for that matter -- rely.
Click to expand...
What is left wing populism?
 
ChileG said:
So, the bailout to the farmers made necessary due to his tariffs aren’t something that you would characterize as socialism? Why not?

Also, I would think a person so concerned with socialism would vote for the candidate whose economic policies would result in less government spending than more.
Click to expand...
Farmers have been getting bailed out for decades. That's hardly new or limited to one party. I did vote for the candidate whose economic policies will result in less g'ment spending. DOGE for the win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top