For every legal theory out there, no matter how fringe, there are law professors who support it.

US Constitution doesn't allow for a Federal wealth tax. Only income and excise taxes can be set by Congress. This would require a Constitutional amendment.

Why is this even news? One should be free to fly a Pride flag, but one should be equally free not to fly one.

It is impossible to raise anyone from THIS kind of "poverty", because their standards would just go up. Today is "no more beans please", tomorrow it is "fresh avocados please" and in a week it would be "only wagyu steaks are healthy enough".

This is a classic term redefinition. A person who has food available - just not the food they'd like to eat - is not in poverty. This would be considered luxury living on most of the planet just 150 years ago, and is still considered luxury in some places in the world.

I know a person who claims he's broke and economy sucks because he cannot afford to buy a plane he wants.

Once you start choosing what you'd like to eat, wear and where you'd like to live, you're no longer talking about poverty.

"Making finances worse" is NOT struggling. Jeff Bezos losing 10B because Amazon stock dropped does not make Bezos struggling. Your case is absolutely 100% is unrealistic expectations.

Mass hysteria is a well-known phenomena and does not require any external campaign. Witch hunt, for example, or "white slavery" were not organized by any third party actors.

This. If the population believes that infectious diseases are caused by sins or "bad air" while continuing shitting into the river they drink from, the solution is not to agree with them. The solution is to stop them from either shitting into the river, or drinking from it.

The definition of poverty has raised pretty far. 200 years ago even today's homeless wouldn't be poor by those standards. "Starving" back then meant people actually died from hunger, not "I don't feel like eating beans the whole week".

Especially when "struggling" means "not being able to afford a house in San Francisco".

> Wealth inequity is very high. Tax rates on the wealthy are very very low.

So the struggle is not that you spend too much money, but that others spend too little money?

"these days"? It's always have been. Price is a conflict resolution between what a business wants to charge (going up to infinity) and what consumers want to pay (going down to zero). The prices are going up indicates by itself that consumers have more money to spend than before.

They are the same, left-wing radicals and right-wing radicals. Both are garbage.

Führerprinzip - Wikipedia

This is called Fuhrerprincip.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BC....

Nixon only had its fireplace though, and no truth social.

The claims are quite different actually:

1. The "sentiment" is not based on actual economy data, but rather on unrealistic expectations such as "our living standards should have visibly risen during the last 6 years".

2. The solution is not to change the economy, but adjust the expectations.

So don't you think people how have learned the lesson that "I'll fix the problem" without details means that nothing gonna be done?

Imagine having things explained to you by a goddamn Rand Paul.

It is not. Jeff Bezos' or Larry Ellison's income doesn't affect price of eggs at all.

And daycare isn't BASIC necessity either.

I'm sure there wasn't a single 30 second period in our country's history when some Americans weren't concerned about prices.

Also a member of Congress could have found better time to talk about who is "raping our daughters".

There is no affordability crisis. If you're working for minimum wage and cannot afford nice things, this isn't a crisis. This is how capitalist economy works, creating incentives to study, train and find a better job.

I absolutely would. If SSA tells me tomorrow "quit working and start receiving Social Security immediately", I'd send out my two week notice in the next five minutes.

People would do JOBS because they want extra things. This doesn't explain why anyone would do CRAPPY jobs, and especially why people would stay at them. How much meat packing would you be able to handle for an iPhone?

This doesn't matter. The point is, why anyone would do a crappy, unpleasant job if they don't really need money to survive? People aren't packing meat for fun.

This is very basic economy, at middle school level.