She did appear on FOX News. I assume you’re referring to Rogan. Not sure that truly counts as a right wing media source. But most people are getting their news via internet/social media. You can’t just get a message across through a tweet or a Facebook post or a TikTok video, etc. that’s specifically designed to spread right wing disinformation to people who seek to consume right wing disinformation.
It's an income tax. It taxes income. If you look at taxes as the government "taking," then you will never understand tax policy, which values economic neutrality as a fundamental goal. A tax policy that hands out favors for small subsections of the economy for essentially no reason (as if people who don't get overtime don't work hard!) is terrible, distortive, and not sustainable because everyone is going to want that same benefit. Which is why Trump ended up with "repeal the whole income tax code and fund the government with tariffs."
I think it was a mutual convenient excuse. Rogan didn't really want her on either. He could easily have moved his podcast location for her schedule. By then the election was already baked anyway.
Most of that people consuming nothing but right wing media aren’t listening to Rogan though. I’m not talking about his audience.
What was that sit down interview with Brett Bair? MAGAs get their news from Fox, Xhitter, and Facebook.
Going on Joe Rogan's show wouldn't have made an ounce of difference. It's idiotic to think it would have. His show is followed by testosterone-filled manosphere incels. How would her going on his show have persuaded those types of voters to vote for her?
I think you responded before I edited my post to add that I don’t think those are the folks being fed right wing disinformation about the economy.
I generally agree with respect to the timing, but the lack of urgency to get on those types of shows, earlier in the cycle, was laid bare as a terrible, terrible strategy. Hindsight, and all.
Rogan’s podcast isn’t just followed by testosterone filled manosphere incels. It’s like the most popular podcast on the planet.
In the post I was quoting, you said, "Could have made the difference." That's what I was responding to.
Says he's closer to communism than to liberal Democrats. Laments that young people can't own houses. Shrug.
Perhaps, but none of what you mentioned is my point, which is that FDR was a master of slogans and simplifying issues so that everyone could understand them. I'm well aware that he was operating in a time in which blacks, women, Asian-Americans, and others had few rights, but that doesn't relate to his communication style.
And honestly, they should be. I would be terrified right now if I were transgender. It seems obvious that attacking transgenders is going to be a priority for the new administration, and even more at the state level, and it will likely be much worse than it has been in even the last few years. Republicans may grudgingly accept gays and lesbians (although they'll go after them if they see an opening), but I think they're determined to remove transgenders from public life and try to use government to ultimately ensure that no one can get the surgery needed to change genders. For example, we're likely going to see laws passed that will forbid public schools from calling students by anything other than their birth name, even if their parents give their consent.
You are going to require W2s to report overtime and regular time separately, adding another bookkeeping expense. Employees will still need to pay state tax, unless the states match the policy. The federal income tax is fairly low (12%, less huge standard deduction) until you get to about $45k, which is less than most hourly workers make. You are making overtime wages more desirable than straight time (they already get paid 1.5x for overtime, and 2x for double overtime), potentially reducing the total number of jobs available and incentivizing parents to spend less time with their family members and more time at work.
