Populism, like nationalism, is neither inherently right nor left. Those are decided by economic policy and actual government structure. Controlled economies, massive totalitarian central government socialist policies like wealth redistribution (theft) - that's leftist.
There's a huge number of questions before an accurate answer can be given, and you horribly skewed the question, but the answer is generally "yes".
But some of the most basic questions:
You phrase it as $10, but we're realistically talking $3500 per year, because feeding the guy for just one day is useless. Are we also giving him housing? Medical care? Clothing? Where do we stop? Long's UBI plan, if it were inflation-adjusted, would mean giving him $46000 per year annually.
What makes the poor man "deserving", and what makes the billionaire's money undeserved? Or rather, who decides what "deserving" and "undeserving" is? Because if you gave most left politicians in the Western world control over it "deserved" would mean not-white-male and undeserving would mean white-male. But on a more practical level, what restrictions are there on what the poor man can spend money on before he is no longer deserving? And what is he allowed to do with his time before he no longer counts as deserving? Similarly, does the fact that Musk and Ellison made their money through providing useful goods and services make them more or less deserving of keeping it than someone like Buffet who made it playing the stock market or Zuckerberg, Paige and Brin who made it through selling ads?
You do know the money you think is there isn't, right, and you have no sense of economics or scale? Go ahead, liquidate all of the assets of the 10 richest people in the US, and redistribute it evenly to everyone in the country. Do you know how much money everyone gets? Assuming that:
a) you actually recover all the money (which you won't because most of it is tied up in investments which will crater in value once you start "redistributing" it) and
b) the government doesn't take their usual cut of the money (and they almost certainly will want their share, either when selling/seizing the assets or from the money going to the people - likely both) and
c) the online figures for the US population are accurate, then
everyone in the country gets a 1-time check for..... $4,423.51. Now, sure, I wouldn't say no to a 4k check, and it would probably (briefly) help a lot of people. But that is basically the average rent payment for one month in NYC. Congratulations on your massive accomplishment! You just cratered the entire US economy and reduced the retirement accounts of every single working person in the US to basically toilet paper to pay a couple months rent! And most of the people you gave the checks to (many of whom likely spent most of it on a shopping spree - look at what people did with their Covid stimulus money) are probably clamoring for you to give them another check now. So you need to liquidate more people, and more people, and more people, etc. Which leads to:
Given that virtually every single tax that has ever been proposed throughout the entirety of human history has been scaled "down" to take money from more and more people over time, the most relevant question is actually
How much are you personally willing to pay to someone you never met but who the government claims is more deserving of your money than you are? And at what point do you consider it theft? And who are you to tell other people when they should consider it theft?
There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).
And the state taking the power to unilaterally sieze property from private citizens. Destroying property rights and making all men slaves. All government policy is backed by force - armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.
People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives. If you want to help people, foster a strong community. Trying to use government to force everyone ELSE to give money not only fails due to corruption, it actively destroys real charity - because why would private citizens spend what they have left on charity when the government is already taking from them for it?
I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich, and the same goblins that constantly cry that the rich aren't paying their fair share are the ones who made that possible. Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.
He was kind of a southern big-man too. This is the traditional form of government in the South. It's basically Africa. And it was even when whites were in charge.
Why are you pretending like FDR wasn't a communist himself? If it were between an anti interventionist commie vs a interventionist commie who would you chose?
If Huey long wasn't assassinated he would be elected and his economic policies would be relatively the same as FDR's whilst the main difference between him and FDR is that he was against America being involved in ww2. So what does it tell you about the motivation of the assassin? it means he wanted America to be involved in ww2.
Dude, Long was decomposing in the ground for two and a half YEARS before the Anschluss even happened. Hitler had only been chancellor for about 18 months when this assassination happened.
In 1935, most politicians in the world were ok with if not outright friendly to Hitler. Heck, in 1937, FDR's administration was formally apologizing to Germany after the mayor of NYC called Hitler a brown-shirted fanatic.
Plus, Long wasn't even in the Senate for 3 years before he got shot. It was another 4 years from his assassination to the invasion of Poland.
Was Long on the more isolationist side in 1935 when he got shot? Looks like it. Would he have stayed an isolationist over the next four years (or, 6 years if we go out to 1941 when FDR entered the war)? Who knows.
What you are saying is that a politician was murdered by someone to prevent him from maybe unseating a popular, sitting president in his own party to increase the chances of the US getting involved in a war which was still four years from even starting. You do know that, right? Loosen the tinfoil hat a bit.
If Huey long wasn't assassinated he would be elected and his economic policies would be relatively the same as FDR's whilst the main difference between him and FDR is that he was against America being involved in ww2. So what does it tell you about the motivation of the assassin? it means he wanted America to be involved in ww2.
Why are you pretending like FDR wasn't a communist himself?
Because he wasn't, and he was a rich aristocrat?
If Huey long wasn't assassinated he would be elected
You are sure?
So what does it tell you about the motivation of the assassin? it means he wanted America to be involved in ww2.
Apparently, he could foretell the future, because in 1935 there was absolutely no indication that there would be a WW2. This was before the French did absolutely nothing in response to the Germans taking the Rhineland in 1936.
If FDR wasn't a communist then neither was Huey Long. The point is that they both had very leftist economic policies and there's a reason why the lefties love FDR
Yeah. I hadn't heard of this before, but on reading about Long
And that "share our wealth" program (as if the name isn't bad enough) included gems such as maximum income caps, free education, UBI, and more.
Dude sounds like a raging commie, even if he was an anti-interventionist.
(Edit - Plus, there's a big difference between an anti-interventionist in 1935 and in 1939/1940)
It's populism.
Populism, like nationalism, is neither inherently right nor left. Those are decided by economic policy and actual government structure. Controlled economies, massive totalitarian central government socialist policies like wealth redistribution (theft) - that's leftist.
Is taking $10 from the undeserved wealth of a scurrilous multi-billionaire so that a deserving poor man doesn't starve 'theft'?
I'd like to see how you define "undeserved"/"deserving" there.
There's a huge number of questions before an accurate answer can be given, and you horribly skewed the question, but the answer is generally "yes".
But some of the most basic questions:
You phrase it as $10, but we're realistically talking $3500 per year, because feeding the guy for just one day is useless. Are we also giving him housing? Medical care? Clothing? Where do we stop? Long's UBI plan, if it were inflation-adjusted, would mean giving him $46000 per year annually.
What makes the poor man "deserving", and what makes the billionaire's money undeserved? Or rather, who decides what "deserving" and "undeserving" is? Because if you gave most left politicians in the Western world control over it "deserved" would mean not-white-male and undeserving would mean white-male. But on a more practical level, what restrictions are there on what the poor man can spend money on before he is no longer deserving? And what is he allowed to do with his time before he no longer counts as deserving? Similarly, does the fact that Musk and Ellison made their money through providing useful goods and services make them more or less deserving of keeping it than someone like Buffet who made it playing the stock market or Zuckerberg, Paige and Brin who made it through selling ads?
You do know the money you think is there isn't, right, and you have no sense of economics or scale? Go ahead, liquidate all of the assets of the 10 richest people in the US, and redistribute it evenly to everyone in the country. Do you know how much money everyone gets? Assuming that:
a) you actually recover all the money (which you won't because most of it is tied up in investments which will crater in value once you start "redistributing" it) and
b) the government doesn't take their usual cut of the money (and they almost certainly will want their share, either when selling/seizing the assets or from the money going to the people - likely both) and
c) the online figures for the US population are accurate, then
everyone in the country gets a 1-time check for..... $4,423.51. Now, sure, I wouldn't say no to a 4k check, and it would probably (briefly) help a lot of people. But that is basically the average rent payment for one month in NYC. Congratulations on your massive accomplishment! You just cratered the entire US economy and reduced the retirement accounts of every single working person in the US to basically toilet paper to pay a couple months rent! And most of the people you gave the checks to (many of whom likely spent most of it on a shopping spree - look at what people did with their Covid stimulus money) are probably clamoring for you to give them another check now. So you need to liquidate more people, and more people, and more people, etc. Which leads to:
How much are you personally willing to pay to someone you never met but who the government claims is more deserving of your money than you are? And at what point do you consider it theft? And who are you to tell other people when they should consider it theft?
There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).
And the state taking the power to unilaterally sieze property from private citizens. Destroying property rights and making all men slaves. All government policy is backed by force - armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.
People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives. If you want to help people, foster a strong community. Trying to use government to force everyone ELSE to give money not only fails due to corruption, it actively destroys real charity - because why would private citizens spend what they have left on charity when the government is already taking from them for it?
I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich, and the same goblins that constantly cry that the rich aren't paying their fair share are the ones who made that possible. Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.
He was kind of a southern big-man too. This is the traditional form of government in the South. It's basically Africa. And it was even when whites were in charge.
He'd have absolutely been a communist had he been around a few years later.
Sure makes you wonder why the shortbus brigade defends him, since they're on the right. Supposedly.
Really activates the almonds.
Why are you pretending like FDR wasn't a communist himself? If it were between an anti interventionist commie vs a interventionist commie who would you chose?
If Huey long wasn't assassinated he would be elected and his economic policies would be relatively the same as FDR's whilst the main difference between him and FDR is that he was against America being involved in ww2. So what does it tell you about the motivation of the assassin? it means he wanted America to be involved in ww2.
Dude, Long was decomposing in the ground for two and a half YEARS before the Anschluss even happened. Hitler had only been chancellor for about 18 months when this assassination happened.
In 1935, most politicians in the world were ok with if not outright friendly to Hitler. Heck, in 1937, FDR's administration was formally apologizing to Germany after the mayor of NYC called Hitler a brown-shirted fanatic.
Plus, Long wasn't even in the Senate for 3 years before he got shot. It was another 4 years from his assassination to the invasion of Poland.
Was Long on the more isolationist side in 1935 when he got shot? Looks like it. Would he have stayed an isolationist over the next four years (or, 6 years if we go out to 1941 when FDR entered the war)? Who knows.
What you are saying is that a politician was murdered by someone to prevent him from maybe unseating a popular, sitting president in his own party to increase the chances of the US getting involved in a war which was still four years from even starting. You do know that, right? Loosen the tinfoil hat a bit.
No, you don't understand. It's DA JOOS
They're behind everything. Even moving ops stair muffin. And rotting the food in their fridge. And them stubbing their toes in the morning.
Neither, because all communists are worthless, and the only good thing they've ever done is kill other communists.
Living under a Khrushchev was far more pleasant than living under Stalin.
Because he wasn't, and he was a rich aristocrat?
You are sure?
Apparently, he could foretell the future, because in 1935 there was absolutely no indication that there would be a WW2. This was before the French did absolutely nothing in response to the Germans taking the Rhineland in 1936.
just like there's no indication that there's going to be war with Iran despite the hostily between America/israel and Iran for ages?
If FDR wasn't a communist then neither was Huey Long. The point is that they both had very leftist economic policies and there's a reason why the lefties love FDR
Nearly every communist leader is the pampered child of rich assholes.