Tucker Carlson seems to support raising the capital gains tax
rate.

The tax rate for earned and unearned income was equal in the
years 1987-1988 from the result of bi-partisan legislation. For
two whole years capital gains were taxed at the same rate as
wages and salaries, unlike previous years.

Bi-partisanship, again, was responsible for again subsidizing
unearned income by placing higher tax rates on wages and
salaries, and that situation continues to the present to the
overall satisfaction of the media (Jews).

So this was or is either a bi-partisan good or a bi-partisan
evil, take your pick.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/10/21001843/tucker-carlson-paul-singer-fox-news-hedge-funds-populism

"I love how the same people who defended the bailout of Wall
Street, when it suits them, turn to, "Well, you can¥t interrupt
the flow of free markets." Really? You¥re for government
bailouts. Tell me how that¥s the free market."

"I would say that 99 percent of all the debates that we¥re having
about race and gender and sexuality are actually a cover for
economic tension. What¥s really happening is that young people
are mad about declining economic opportunity. And our elites,
mostly on the left I must say, don¥t wanna have that conversation
at all. They don¥t. And so instead they¥re like, "No, no, what
you¥re really mad about is race or sexuality or - or whatever."
And then it¥s just very, very dishonest and very divisive."

"Donald Trump promised during the campaign to get rid of the
carried-interest loophole in the tax code, which allows private
equity moguls, some of the richest people in America today, [to
pay] taxes at the rate that we pay on capital. In other words,
you take their income as capital gains and pay half the tax rate
that the rest of us pay.

That¥s a scam. There¥s no way to defend that. It¥s immoral, and
Trump promised to get rid of it. Well, why hasn¥t he? Well, he
hasn¥t because Republicans aren¥t eager to do it. [But Senate
Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer is one of the main reasons that
the carried-interest loophole in the tax code still persists, and
for decades he¥s protected it."

"I think that the libertarian nonprofit sector in Washington -
and please include this, because it¥s important - libertarianism
exists in the nonprofit sector. Irony of ironies. In other words,
the very people who lecture you about the glories of the free
market, are never subjected to its requirements because they live
off charity.

There are no libertarians outside of think tanks. But they¥re
influential."

"The first thing to do is to stop pretending that simply because
something is legal means it¥s virtuous."

"What¥s so funny is the same people who are always lecturing us
about how government solutions are the wrong solutions are now
telling us we¥re not allowed to complain, or shut up"

"Let¥s bring the tax code into alignment with reality. Let¥s just
make a really clear statement about our values and tax labor at
the same rate we tax capital. Currently, we tax it at twice the
rate as capital."

"So let¥s fix it. It¥s not hard. We¥ll just bring [it] into
alignment. All income, whether it¥s income from investments,
whether it¥s income from a private equity deal, or whether it¥s
income from a salary, we¥re taxing it all at the same rate. Why
don¥t you tell me why that¥s a bad idea?"

In article <0001HW.2A0EEF66005E48B030B54738F@news.giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>"I would say that 99 percent of all the debates that we're having
>about race and gender and sexuality are actually a cover for
>economic tension. What's really happening is that young people
>are mad about declining economic opportunity. And our elites,
>mostly on the left I must say, don't wanna have that conversation
>at all. They don't. And so instead they're like, "No, no, what
>you're really mad about is race or sexuality or - or whatever."
>And then it's just very, very dishonest and very divisive."

I do apologize for following up to these very OT comments, but I
guess I have to remark on this bizarre slant -- one that seems to
be so characteristic of remarks from this & similar sources.

Some of it is true, so that's the start of something.... And then
it's put in this weird way. I mean, look, leftism -- as historically
referring to Marxism -- is *defined by* its orientation on economic
factors (i.e. "materialism"). Moreover, what national candidate
talked MOST about economic problems facing youth? Bernie Sanders.

So there would appear to be room for work on these issues, but not
when presented like this. (And not here!)

Todd M. McComb schrieb am Samstag, 13. Mai 2023 um 00:22:24 UTC+2:
> I mean, look, leftism -- as historically
> referring to Marxism -- is *defined by* its orientation on economic
> factors (i.e. "materialism"). Moreover, what national candidate
> talked MOST about economic problems facing youth? Bernie Sanders.
>

I have not read much of the OP, but Todd... you see... Bernie Sanders is not a marxist, he is a vulgar socialist. And he is also antisemitic - yes, he is an antisemitic Jew; pluted could've been happy to vote for him.

James Kirchik for Tabletmag (I hope I didn't violate any laws by copying so much):

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/jewish-democrats-bernie-sanders

"Bernie didn’t just oppose America’s Cold War excesses. He was often on the other side. America’s actions in Vietnam, he told a classroom of impressionable youngsters in 1972, were “almost as bad as what Hitler did.” In 1980, when Americans were tying yellow ribbons to express solidarity with our diplomats held hostage in Iran, Sanders aligned himself with the Socialist Workers Party, hosting an event at which its presidential candidate condemned “anti-Iranian hysteria around the U.S. hostages.”

As mayor of Burlington, Sanders earned the sobriquet “Foreign Minister” for the series of Potemkin village tours he took of America’s socialist adversaries abroad. When a constituent wrote a letter complaining about his words of praise for the Nicaraguan Sandinista regime, which had incarcerated thousands of political prisoners and forcibly relocated native tribes, Sanders responded, “The temporary suspension of certain civil liberties is considerably more complex than your letter indicates.” Sanders is like the guy we all knew in college with the Che Guevara T-shirt. Except, at 78, he’s still that guy.

When Alexander Solzhenitsyn moved to Vermont, Sanders never once met with the man whose personal testimony of the gulag won him the Nobel Prize for literature. But he did make time to travel halfway across the world to yuk it up with Solzhenitsyn’s jailers in the Soviet Union. After venturing to Cuba, a one-party state that interned homosexuals in concentration camps, Sanders returned awestruck. “I did not see a hungry child,” he gushed. “I did not see any homeless people. Cuba today not only has free health care but very high-quality health care.” (Indeed, Cuban health care is so “high-quality” that a cancer-stricken Fidel Castro summoned a Spanish doctor to treat him.)

While ritual self-flagellation is always demanded of Joe Biden for his single vote authorizing the Iraq War, Sanders’ opponents are oddly reluctant to ask him about his decadeslong record of propagandizing on behalf of leftist tyrants and mass murderers. Nor can these political commitments be waived off as mere youthful indiscretions. Sanders instinctually sides with any foreign head of state or revolutionary leader deemed “progressive,” no matter how autocratic or ruthless.

Some recent examples illuminate the continuing strength of Sanders’ reflexive support for dictators who abuse their people while fashioning themselves advocates for “the people.” Sanders refuses to call Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro a dictator, and is the only candidate to defend the Bolivian autocrat Evo Morales, who tried to steal an election, as the victim of a “coup.” Just this week, Sanders reiterated his admiration for Castro’s literacy programs, which could have a significant impact in Florida voting should Democrats put him at the top of the ticket. In that same town hall, he also expressed his sense of wonder at the Chinese Communist Party’s anti-poverty efforts in a way that rivals the useful idiocy of George Bernard Shaw.

Sanders seems to think that adding the adjective “democratic” to his political self-identification of “socialist” negates his sordid history of support for tyrants."

I want to take this opportunity to tell you Todd... that people like you and Sanders give Marx a bad name.