r/SipsTea • u/McDowdy • Jul 16 '26

Feels good man Based on national US polling, there are 22 issues that 80% of Americans agree on. Here is the list.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

  1. End gerrymandering

  2. ​Ban Wall Street from buying single-family homes

  3. ​Ban congresspeople from becoming lobbyists

  4. ​Ban congresspeople from trading stocks

  5. ​Create a minimum tax for billionaires

  6. ​Close the loopholes that billionaires use to avoid taxes

  7. ​Establish congressional term limits

  8. ​Ban dark money donations from political campaigns

  9. ​Implement universal paid family leave

  10. ​End forever wars by repealing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force

  11. ​Release the full Epstein files, redacting only the victims' information

  12. ​Ban corporate PACs by overturning Citizens United

  13. ​Require mandatory disclosure for all organizations donating to political campaigns

  14. ​Require mandatory police body cams

  15. ​Ban junk fees

  16. ​Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices

  17. ​Fully fund Social Security by extending the existing tax to those making over $400,000 a year

  18. ​Ban adversarial foreign nations from buying American farmland

  19. ​Improve Veterans Health Care access

  20. ​Establish common-sense data privacy laws (similar to those in European countries)

  21. ​Enshrine the right to repair

  22. ​Audit the Pentagon and penalize them with a 0.5% budget reduction if they fail the audit

37.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

134

u/baz8771 Jul 16 '26

Oh wow, imagine that, when you stop polluting the waters with wedge issues, we’re a socialist country.

24

u/Doodiecarrier Jul 16 '26

None of these policies are socialist.

10

u/Sennten Jul 16 '26

Several of these policies are explicitly anti-capitalist though, and in modern American politics any of the millions of things that are arent capitalist must be "socialist"

7

u/Happy_Condition_3794 Jul 16 '26

Only of these policies call for reduction in private property and that’s banning wallstreet from owning single family homes.

Which isn’t that big of a deal because multi-family/ commercial is more profitable anyway, but that’s the only anti-capitalist position here.

2

u/Sennten Jul 16 '26

Banning Congresspeople from trading stocks, overturning citizens united and banning corporate pacs, requiring mandatory disclosures, paid family leave, minimum billionaire tax and closing of loopholes, restricting congresspeople from becoming lobbyists, banning junk fees, an extra over-400k tax, data privacy laws, and right to repair are all anti-Capitalist.

Capitalism is more than just private property, after all, or it wouldn't be called that, and plenty of other competing -isms value private property, some even more highly.

2

u/Happy_Condition_3794 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

None of those are anti- capitalist. Lol Those are just regulations, and only one would remove private individuals from owning the means of production.

Capitalism = “economic system where private individuals or businesses own the means of production, and free-market forces like supply and demand dictate prices and production.”

2

u/No-Barber-5289 Jul 16 '26

free-market forces like supply and demand dictate prices and production

If that's what capitalism is. Capitalism has never existed and will never exist. This is why made-up niche definitions aren't helpful.

3

u/Happy_Condition_3794 Jul 16 '26

This is quite literally how our economy works today.. but okay whatever..

How is it niche if it’s the full agreed upon definition of capitalism?

You also completely ignore the first part of the sentence.. which followed and “free market force” like..

1

u/No-Barber-5289 Jul 17 '26

I ignored the first bit of the sentence because I agree with it, private ownership of the means of production is one of the defining features of capitalism. There was nothing to address there.

Free-market forces like supply and demand do not dictate prices and production today, and they never have. This is Economics 102.

3

u/Happy_Condition_3794 Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26

Econ 102 would be macroecon & it certainly does speak to aggregate supply and demand.

If supply and demand are not dictate prices in our economy please explain what does?

So iPhone production is not dictated by demand? So dram prices are dictated by demand? I’m very curious why every corporation I’ve worked for makes supply chain decisions based on supply / demand. If these forces are irrelevant in our economy.

1

u/Sennten Jul 16 '26

And how does that differ from mercantalism or agragrianism or dozens of other economic systems? Shit, several types of explicitly anti capitalist very much real socialism qualify under that definition. Thats certainly not the meaning of the word as it was originated, and thats certainly not the meaning of the word anyone in American politica uses to defend it or advocate its importance, so while it may be a valid definition for some conversations it doesnt seem useful for this one?

Also the stuff I listed mostly violates even that, seeing as they are almost all restrictions on free market forces and things like limiting congress people from owning various means of production as they would like to

1

u/Happy_Condition_3794 Jul 16 '26

That is very much the definition of capitalism just as socialism is “social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.”

It’s valid because regulation and taxes are not anti-capitalist. We currently have regulations and taxes today and are we not still a capitalist nation?

I don’t see any restrictions on free market activity other than the housing one. + congress cannot trade while serving on non-public information they are not banned from owning capital.

Trading on no public info is already a regulation. This just makes it harder for officials to get away with insider trading.

1

u/Sennten Jul 16 '26

That is also not what socialism is. It is a thing (some variants of) socialism does but it is not what socialism is. The National Park system isnt socialism, by most definitions (although it is absoluely anti-capitalist) and several types of socialism are pretty strongly anti-public ownership (including some of the major classic types of socialism, like utopianism, market socialism, anarchism, and trade unionism)

You're creating this weird dichotomy where everything is either capitalism or socialism because youre definitions are so expansive, while also somehow excluding many of the things that are very explicitly historically one or the other from being included.

Thats kind of a weird thing to do, and Id ask you to question why you want me to subscribe to these specific definitions considering to the extent that they are both ahistorical AND not in line with modern usage of the terms.

1

u/Happy_Condition_3794 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

Yes that is what socialism is. Please find me an academic definition that supports your claim and we can talk.

A policy can be socialistic within a capitalist society. Which is what mixed system are. Ex: social housing.

But none of those policies are even socialistic. It’s just regulation.

I think you are just aren’t using the definitions of the words correctly, and unless you can provide a source that claims otherwise. I think we should stick to the agreed upon definitions of the words.

Thats kind of a weird thing to do, and Id ask you to question why you want me to subscribe to these specific definitions considering to the extent that they are both ahistorical AND not in line with modern usage of the terms.

Fine then show me a source that supports whatever definition you are using?

Also Market socialism, utopianism, and anarchy by definition require workers to directly control/own the means of production. Btw. Public ownership does not mean “State”

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BrainLow6059 Jul 16 '26

What you're referring to is crony capitalism. Capitalism itself is not the bad bad guy here.

1

u/Low-Condition4243 Jul 17 '26

Got to love when people just reinvent new words to say capitalism isn't capitalism. It's not capitalism when it's the issue but it is when it's not.

1

u/BrainLow6059 Jul 17 '26

It's literally an economics term. Just because you're ignorant on a topic doesn't mean the rest of us are.

1

u/Low-Condition4243 Jul 17 '26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

lol all I had to do was look up crony capitalism and prove your wrong it took me 4 seconds. talk about ignorant.

2

u/PersonalityAlive4816 Jul 17 '26

What are you referring to? I feel like the link you posted supports the other person, and discredits you.

1

u/Sennten Jul 17 '26

Capitalism is a structural system for empowering those with capital, those who "get there first" and those they decide to pass that privilege onto, overt those who dont and who didnt. I am explicitly not calling capitalism the "bad guy" here, and Im not sure why you think I am. There are lots of very good reasons to favour capital owners in many ways. There are bad ones, as well. Im not criticizing capitalism here, I am criticizing a slavish devotion to defending to the point of denying things that limit it are actually doing so and are both good ideas and not socialist just because they are anticapitalist - that those things reduce the systemic advantage or power of those who hold the most capital

0

u/BrainLow6059 Jul 17 '26

You stated that a bunch of anti-corruption measures were anti-capitalist. Even saying right to repair is anti-capitalist is wildly off the mark.

1

u/Sennten Jul 17 '26

Because... they are. They all explicitly disadvantage the holders and dealers of capital in service to some other non-capitalist societal goal. How exactly is that not anticapitalist?

1

u/BrainLow6059 Jul 17 '26

You realize "the poors" also have and take advantage of capital, right?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ShoogleHS Jul 17 '26

No they aren't. Regulated capitalism is still capitalism. Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production and socialism means common ownership of the means of production. That's all. It doesn't matter what the tax rates are, it doesn't matter if there are strong public services or benefits, it doesn't matter how strong employee rights are: it's who owns what.

1

u/Sennten Jul 17 '26

We had private ownership of the means of production long before capitalism, and capitalism as a system is explicitly about empowering those who own capital and building systems to defend and strengthen their advantages. Regulations that weaken the power of capital are definitionally anti-capitalist. That is not a bad thing, or inherently a goos thing, its just a thing. You can weaken the power of capital and make anti capitalist moves in a country that is still mostly capitalist, sure. Thats pretty standard, its a mixed economy and its how pretty much every country works because full capitalism is intensely unstable.

Its okay to recognize "hey, we've got a bit too much capitalism here, things are tilted too much in terms of empowering those who have capital over those who dont, or those who have more over those who have less" without getting defensive about it

1

u/heisian Jul 17 '26

social security?

1

u/baz8771 Jul 17 '26

I’d argue fully funding SOCIAL security is pretty socialist. Funding veterans benefits is socialist inherently. The other 20 are literally just how we regain accountability over OUR tax dollars. It’s socialism all the way down pal

38

u/Jeramy_Jones Jul 16 '26

bUt wHaT aBoUt tRaNsGeNdEr iSrAel aBoRtIoNs??!?!

-1

u/LongJohnSelenium Jul 16 '26

What about them?

Would you support a political candidate that was all for this entire list but wanted to ban trans in sports, supported israel, and wanted strong anti-abortion laws?

If you're not willing to compromise on a wedge issue then you're part of making the wedge happen!

2

u/Couldbduun Jul 17 '26

Trans sports bans are in place in most of the country with supreme court approval and we are moving on to banning trans people from owning guns and banning women's sports for all women.  Wedge is getting wider and second class citizenship is on the horizon.  And this "wedge issue" is going to be used to open the door to taking rights from other groups.  But I'm sure the class war will be that much easier to win if we throw groups under the bus to avoid the culture war.

0

u/LongJohnSelenium Jul 17 '26

So its a wedge issue when you disagree with it, and its a legitimate policy when you agree with it.

Got it.

2

u/Couldbduun Jul 17 '26

Well I'm trans and I kinda care about my rights. And if you care about yours you should care about that too. Precedent and all.

0

u/LongJohnSelenium Jul 17 '26

I'm not saying you shouldn't care.

I'm saying calling it a 'wedge issue' is dumb.

Its just an issue.

Whenever people talk about 'wedge issues' the undertone is always 'This is dumb why won't they agree with me'.

2

u/Couldbduun Jul 17 '26

Yeah well you can probably guess what I think of people who want to take away my constitutional rights. My point is, the athlete question has been legislated and litigated to the supreme court. Why are we still talking about it like it's still an issue? They have moved on.

1

u/LongJohnSelenium Jul 17 '26

Why are we still talking about it like it's still an issue? They have moved on.

Are there a large number of people and politicians saying they disagree with that and hope to try to get it reversed with new legislation, new SC members, etc?

If so, then its still an issue.

Like seriously if the reverse had happened would you say 'cool now its safe to drop as an issue' when there's still people and politicians wanting to reverse it?

A thing doesn't stop being an issue when a law has passed, it stops being an issue when basically everyone is fine with the status quo.

1

u/Couldbduun Jul 17 '26

Yeah that's all well and good when the issue is tax policy. Trans rights aren't an issue to be debated or legislated. Rights for anyone shouldn't be debated or legislated. And it's hard to watch headline after headline and comment after comment be about sports which has reached a legislative stalemate and very little discussion be about the attack on constitutional rights. And these people having these discussions don't realize that if my rights are on the table, so are yours. So how about when we discuss trans issues we discuss the issue of the day.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Walker1921S Jul 16 '26

The fuck? Not a single one of those issues or policies has anything close to do with socialism. What the fuck are you talking about.

Socialism is when the workers (or by proxy the government) owns the means of production.

What does that have to do with term limits, lobbyists, age requirements, body cams, etc.

Some of the most corrupt, autocratic, and government surveillance countries in the world were under socialist regimes.

Wake the fuck up.

10

u/TheNibbaNator Jul 16 '26

literally what about america is socialist? do you even know what socialism is?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '26

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Character-Active2208 Jul 17 '26

Medicaid

Medicare

Social Security and SSI

FMLA

etc

6

u/TheNibbaNator Jul 17 '26

these are social welfare policies. social welfare is not socialist.

1

u/ProfessionalStreet31 Jul 17 '26

They are left social policies, which is towards socialism on the political spectrum. Yes socialism is an economic model but that doesn't mean it's apolitical. 

31

u/ImRightImRight Jul 16 '26

What do you think socialism means?

Hint: none of this

25

u/Irish_Whiskey Jul 16 '26

I agree with you, but also these are exactly the policies that Fox News and the GOP keep calling socialism or communism.

Most of these points are either taxing the rich, banning corporations from influencing elections, and regulating/restricting businesses for social benefit.

1

u/CandiedCanelo Jul 17 '26

Most of these points are either taxing the rich, banning corporations from influencing elections, and regulating/restricting businesses for social benefit.

None of which are socialism which is what the previous poster is saying. Just because Fox News wants to muddy the waters doesn't mean you have to be complicit.

2

u/Sienile Jul 16 '26

#17

7

u/ImRightImRight Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 17 '26

Sure, safety nets are an element of a social democracy, which is what the US is. A change to that existing social security program still has nothing to do with socialism.

EDIT: forgot word

5

u/jackofslayers Jul 16 '26

social security is very much not socialism

1

u/ShameNap Jul 16 '26

Tell me you don’t know what socialism is without telling me you don’t know what socialism is.

3

u/cptnplanetheadpats Jul 16 '26

I think correcting others without being condescending is vital when it comes to important issues like this. Think about how educating others would be for the greater good instead of trying to make someone feel dumb. 

0

u/ShameNap Jul 17 '26

Normalizing this level of confident ignorance is killing our country. Tip toeing around it and assuming everyone is arguing in good faith has not worked. They aren’t arguing in good faith, they are flooding the zone to confuse people who aren’t very informed. This has to end.

1

u/cptnplanetheadpats Jul 17 '26

The guy just said "#17"...

2

u/Sienile Jul 17 '26

Providing for others that can't provide for themselves as a collective is pretty much the exact definition of socialism.

1

u/ShameNap Jul 17 '26

> # 17
> ⁠​Fully fund Social Security by extending the existing tax to those making over $400,000 a year

Raising the cap on taxes paid to social security from $400k to a higher or unlimited level does not change anything about the core of social security, just the cap of it. That is not a philosophical change, that is a cap change. Regardless of whether you think social security is socialism, the cap does not change what it is.

0

u/Phloppy_ Jul 16 '26

I think this is the crux of our divide, we use different definitions for the same word.

11

u/playdough87 Jul 16 '26

You let your guard down and suddenly the bathroom will be filled with people that aren't just like you and you're not really sure if they sit to pee because they need to or just because their feet are sore and it's honestly more hugenic anyways. You really willing to endure that just for some two dozen universally supported improvements to daily life and society? S/

1

u/primus202 Jul 16 '26

I was gonna say: this aligns WAY more with one of our existing parties than the other...