←back to thread

593 points geox | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.795s | source
Show context
dgb23 ◴[] No.44454168[source]
There are so many red flags with this administration that I lost count. Policing speech, suppressing information, cutting research funding, cutting social programs, increasing spending and intensity for deportations, deporting people for political affiliation, an unnecessarily disruptive economic policy and many reports of general incompetence, lying and corruption.

It's all so bleak. Where is the payoff?

replies(6): >>44454185 #>>44454193 #>>44454376 #>>44455419 #>>44458260 #>>44459955 #
lotsofpulp ◴[] No.44454185[source]
The new tax bill, which benefits asset owners (wealthy), older people, and the beneficiaries of the wealthy.

When you have a population age histogram that is flattening and eventually an upside down triangle, you need some way of extracting labor from the young and giving it to the old (the chosen ones who can afford it) to maintain the socioeconomic hierarchy.

The young without inheritances won’t ever have it as good, so you’ll need to distract them and otherwise fool them into believing it is their duty to transfer their earned income via earned income taxes to the elderly.

replies(2): >>44454744 #>>44455026 #
Loughla ◴[] No.44455026[source]
I don't think it really has a whole lot to do with socioeconomic hierarchy; I think that's just a happy accident.

Old people vote. Old people vote in midterms and odd timed elections. Therefore, old people decide the candidates. Any politician would be smart to court them as a voting bloc.

As for the benefits for the wealthy; that's just the same old bullshit in a new protectionist wrapper. Get my friends and family as much benefit as I can while I have the ability sort of thing.

replies(3): >>44455066 #>>44455145 #>>44456479 #
1. Dumblydorr ◴[] No.44455066[source]
Nice theory, however you’re believing people vote for their best interests, and the above comment believes they’re deluded by misinformation.

I think both are occurring. Young white men went GOP, why is that? Anti vaxx leftists went with Kennedy, why is that? Why do anti-immigration and pro-economics claim the top two republican policy slots, when they’re firmly opposed in their effects on the economy? This is the contradictory trend of delusion and cult of personality.

If the BBB just passed is an indication, I think overall we are more on the deluded side, most of these deluded non-rich white folks are more anti-immigrant than pro-economics.

Of course I do not believe GOP economic policies are better than the alternative, I’m not the one who voted for that policy regime however!

replies(2): >>44456249 #>>44458489 #
2. pixelatedindex ◴[] No.44456249[source]
> Why do anti-immigration and pro-economics claim the top two republican policy slots

Pro-economics? This admin can’t tell supply from demand. Anti-immigration, definitely.

replies(1): >>44459776 #
3. ethbr1 ◴[] No.44458489[source]
>> Why

Because Biden was much better at doing than talking about what was done, and in an absence of words any words dominate.

The Democratic party needs to stop looking at election results as mistakes by underinformed voters, and start looking at them as feedback on engagement.

4. pstuart ◴[] No.44459776[source]
> Anti-immigration, definitely.

Hold on -- the regime recently welcomed refugees from Africa! If only we could understand why that group, versus the ones they're actively deporting. If only there was some pattern, a clue or hint as to what matters to them...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/12/trump-administratio...