Showing posts with label aoc. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

29: AOC

Winning an election because of inflation and then pushing one of the most inflationary economic agendas of all time turned out not to work. pic.twitter.com/xKbL40bohg
— Spencer Hakimian (@SpencerHakimian) July 29, 2025

Doctors Without Borders USA’s CEO On Leadership And Smooth Transitions https://t.co/tApkT6QJ2i https://t.co/tApkT6QJ2i
— Forbes (@Forbes) July 29, 2025

Officer Didarul Islam was one of four people killed last night. Our Parkchester community is mourning his passing and will remember his courage in the line of duty.

My thoughts are with his wife, children, and our entire Bangladeshi American community. https://t.co/lIUmenzNGA
— Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@RepAOC) July 29, 2025

Here are the five best demographic subgroups for each candidate among likely voters in the five-way race.

Cuomo remains relatively strong among older & non-college Black & Latino voters, but loses a lot of traditional Democratic support to the Democratic nominee (Mamdani). pic.twitter.com/w5XKhOiQyG
— Adam Carlson (@admcrlsn) July 29, 2025

The Protocol of Greatness (novel)
A Reorganized UN: Built From Ground Up
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
World War III Is Unnecessary
Grounded Greatness: The Case For Smart Surface Transit In Future Cities
The Garden Of Last Debates (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
A 2T Cut
Are We Frozen in Time?: Tech Progress, Social Stagnation
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

"Mamdani leads among Jewish voters"

Read that sentence. Read it again. Read it one more time.

And then ask yourself about the horrifically bad media coverage you've been getting on this guy and on this race from the legacy media in recent weeks. https://t.co/SyJd2TiF6V https://t.co/0Bbwpeg8Pq
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) July 29, 2025

In the past 24 hours, Russia has:

• Bombed several medical centers
• Bombed a maternity ward
• Bombed a prison
• Bombed a grocery store
• Bombed 73 Ukrainian cities, towns, and villages
• Killed over two dozen people, including prisoners and pregnant women https://t.co/tr0aYkEfg5
— Kareem Rifai 🌐 (@KareemRifai) July 29, 2025

🚨 🚨 A new NYC mayor general election poll from @ZenithPolls (me) & Public Progress (@amitsinghbagga) — the most comprehensive poll of the race — finds Mamdani with a commanding 28-point lead in a five-way race, and getting >50% head-to-head vs Cuomo

Let’s dive in, shall we? 🧵 pic.twitter.com/LamweieQ9I
— Adam Carlson (@admcrlsn) July 29, 2025

Allen Dulles – The Gentleman Spy Who Protected the Shadow Economy

Allen Dulles was not just the longest-serving director of the CIA; he was the architect of a permanent, unaccountable system where covert operations, financial secrecy, and corporate power fused into a single… pic.twitter.com/KqsIbU81y7
— Niels Groeneveld (@nigroeneveld) July 29, 2025

Don’t ignore these signs from God. https://t.co/cYlpRHvf4F
— C. S. Lewis (@CSLewisDaily) July 29, 2025

“What I can’t understand is how a mother of eight is trying to block food to starving children in Gaza.”

What correspondent Inigo Gilmore documented in this zeteo documentary a year ago remains true today as Israel continues to block aid into Gaza while its population starves. pic.twitter.com/hrmFn13KJg
— Zeteo (@zeteo_news) July 29, 2025

We still do :). Both of these beautiful NYC stations were built in the last 10 years. https://t.co/qf6BHLlbyk pic.twitter.com/aVBPd448qL
— Colin (@Colin_d_m) July 29, 2025

William Donovan – The OSS Founder Who Wrote the Playbook for Covert Power

William “Wild Bill” Donovan was more than the charismatic founder of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the CIA. He was the man who formalized the marriage between U.S. intelligence,… pic.twitter.com/tCOZtO1qpN
— Niels Groeneveld (@nigroeneveld) July 29, 2025

Every minute spent on work is a minute not spent with my child. So it better be spent well and on the right thing or it’s just not worth it.
— Alex Lieberman (@businessbarista) July 29, 2025

Monday, July 21, 2025

Taxing the Rich Isn’t Marxism: A Lesson from Cold War America

In today’s political discourse, it has become alarmingly easy to throw around ideological labels like “socialist,” “Marxist,” or even “communist.” Suggest that billionaires should pay a slightly higher tax rate, and suddenly you’re accused of wanting to install a gulag in your neighborhood. The rhetorical inflation is exhausting — and deeply misleading.

Let’s take a moment to unpack the absurdity of it all.

AOC, Mamdani, and the New Progressive Push

Leaders like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani represent a rising generation of American progressives who advocate for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy to fund essential public services like universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and a Green New Deal. Their proposals are bold — they aim to restructure an economy that, by many measures, is increasingly tilted in favor of the ultra-rich.

Their critics respond with a knee-jerk reaction: “That’s socialism!” or worse, “That’s Marxism!”

But let’s be honest — a proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate from, say, 37% to 70% isn’t exactly storming the Winter Palace.

The Historical Irony: Cold War Capitalism Had Higher Taxes

Here’s the kicker. At the height of the Cold War, during the 1950s and 1960s, the top marginal income tax rate in the United States routinely hovered between 91% and 94%. These were Republican and Democratic administrations alike — Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson — not exactly Maoists.

Was America communist then?

Did anyone accuse Eisenhower of being a Marxist for presiding over a tax system in which the wealthiest Americans paid nearly all their income above a certain level back to the state?

No. That America was proudly capitalist — industrial, suburban, car-driving, Cold War-fighting capitalist. The difference was: it believed in collective prosperity and understood that high top-end taxes were essential to funding infrastructure, education, defense, and upward mobility.

Why Today’s “Socialist” Proposals Are Actually Moderate

When AOC or Mamdani talk about a 60–70% top marginal tax rate, they're not calling for the nationalization of industry, abolition of private property, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. They are making an empirical case: that the United States can’t sustain itself when wealth is hoarded by a tiny elite while schools crumble, hospitals close, and millions remain uninsured.

Let’s remember, the top marginal rate doesn’t mean every dollar is taxed at that rate. It only applies to income above a very high threshold. That’s how marginal taxation works — and it’s how it worked during the most prosperous decades of American history.

In fact, Nobel laureates like Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, and even mainstream economists like Thomas Piketty, have shown that high marginal tax rates are not only historically normal — they are necessary to maintain democratic capitalism.

If Cold War America Could Do It, Why Can’t We?

If the United States could sustain 90% tax rates while simultaneously building highways, going to the moon, and defeating the Soviet Union, why do we now flinch at 70%?

The answer is psychological and political, not economic.

Today’s super-rich have enormous power — not just in wealth, but in shaping the narrative. They fund think tanks, media outlets, and politicians who equate any redistribution with tyranny. That’s not a coincidence; it’s a strategy. Because the minute people understand how fair taxation worked in the past, they start to demand it again.

The False Binary: Capitalism vs. Communism

Labeling every redistributive policy “socialist” ignores the vast middle ground that has always existed between unregulated capitalism and full communism. In fact, regulated capitalism with strong public services and high taxes on the wealthy is the system that built the American middle class and kept extreme ideologies at bay during the 20th century.

It’s not socialism. It’s sanity.

Conclusion: Raise the Debate, Not Just the Rate

We don’t need a new ideology — we need a return to historical memory.

A 70% top marginal tax rate is not a radical fantasy. It is a moderate proposal grounded in American precedent, aimed at correcting runaway inequality that threatens the very foundation of democracy.

So the next time someone cries “Marxism!” when you mention taxing the rich, just remind them: America already did it — and won the Cold War doing so.

#TaxJustice #AOC #ColdWarHistory #EconomicFairness #RedistributionNotRevolution

अमीरों पर टैक्स लगाना मार्क्सवाद नहीं है: शीत युद्धकालीन अमेरिका से एक सबक

आज की अमेरिकी राजनीति में, "समाजवाद," "मार्क्सवाद," और "कम्युनिज़्म" जैसे शब्द कुछ ज़्यादा ही आसानी से इस्तेमाल किए जाते हैं। अगर आप कहें कि अमीरों पर टैक्स 2% बढ़ा देना चाहिए, तो तुरंत आप पर यह आरोप लग सकता है कि आप मार्क्सवादी हैं।

लेकिन अगर ज़ो़हरान ममदानी और एओसी (अलेक्ज़ेंड्रिया ओकासियो-कोर्तेज़) जैसे नेता अपने एजेंडे को गंभीरता से लागू करना चाहते हैं, तो शायद उन्हें 70% तक की शीर्ष आयकर दर लागू करनी पड़ेगी। और यह न तो मार्क्सवादी होगा, न कम्युनिस्ट, न ही समाजवादी।

क्यों?

क्योंकि अमेरिका ने खुद शीत युद्ध के चरम पर, जब उसका सीधा टकराव एक वास्तविक कम्युनिस्ट देश (सोवियत संघ) से था, 90% तक की शीर्ष कर दरें लागू की थीं। अगर उस समय का अमेरिका कम्युनिस्ट था, तो क्या शीत युद्ध दो कम्युनिस्ट देशों के बीच की लड़ाई थी?

नए प्रगतिशील नेता: ममदानी और एओसी

एओसी और ज़ो़हरान ममदानी जैसे नेता आज के प्रगतिशील आंदोलन का चेहरा हैं। ये नेता अमीरों पर अधिक कर लगाकर सभी के लिए स्वास्थ्य सेवा, मुफ़्त उच्च शिक्षा, और ग्रीन न्यू डील जैसी योजनाओं के लिए धन जुटाना चाहते हैं। ये प्रस्ताव साहसिक हैं, लेकिन ज़रूरी भी — क्योंकि अमेरिका की अर्थव्यवस्था दिनोंदिन कुछ गिने-चुने लोगों के लिए ही काम कर रही है।

लेकिन इन विचारों पर प्रतिक्रियाएं अक्सर घबराई हुई और अतिशयोक्तिपूर्ण होती हैं: “ये तो समाजवाद है!” या “ये तो मार्क्सवाद है!”

लेकिन अगर आप सिर्फ 70% की उच्च आयकर दर की बात कर रहे हैं, तो यह किसी क्रांति का बिगुल नहीं है।

शीत युद्ध के दौरान टैक्स दरें आज से ज़्यादा थीं

1950 और 1960 के दशक में, अमेरिका में उच्चतम आय पर टैक्स दर 91% से 94% के बीच थी। यह उस समय था जब अमेरिका दुनिया का सबसे अमीर और शक्तिशाली देश था। यह केवल डेमोक्रेट ही नहीं, रिपब्लिकन राष्ट्रपति आइज़नहावर के दौर में भी लागू था।

क्या उस समय किसी ने आइज़नहावर को कम्युनिस्ट कहा?

बिल्कुल नहीं।

उस समय का अमेरिका पूरी तरह से पूंजीवादी था — कार संस्कृति वाला, चंद्रमा पर जाने वाला, सोवियत संघ को टक्कर देने वाला पूंजीवाद। लेकिन उस समय यह समझ थी कि उच्च कर दरों से सामूहिक समृद्धि को बढ़ावा मिलता है, और यह टैक्स स्कूलों, अस्पतालों, सड़कों और रक्षा के लिए ज़रूरी होते हैं।

आज के प्रगतिशील प्रस्ताव वाकई में कितने 'चरमपंथी' हैं?

जब एओसी या ममदानी जैसे नेता 60% या 70% की कर दर की बात करते हैं, तो वे न तो निजी संपत्ति को खत्म करना चाहते हैं, न ही उद्योगों का राष्ट्रीयकरण। वे सिर्फ यह कह रहे हैं कि यदि अमेरिका को टिकाऊ और न्यायसंगत बनाना है, तो धन का पुनर्वितरण ज़रूरी है।

और यह भी समझना ज़रूरी है कि शीर्ष कर दरें केवल बहुत अधिक आय वाले हिस्से पर लागू होती हैं, न कि पूरे वेतन पर। यही “मार्जिनल टैक्स रेट” की व्यवस्था होती है — और यही व्यवस्था अमेरिका के सबसे समृद्ध काल में भी लागू थी।

अगर तब हो सकता था, तो अब क्यों नहीं?

अगर अमेरिका 90% टैक्स दरों के साथ इंटरस्टेट हाईवे बना सकता है, चंद्रमा पर पहुंच सकता है, और शीत युद्ध जीत सकता है, तो आज 70% टैक्स दर पर इतना शोर क्यों?

इसका जवाब आर्थिक नहीं, बल्कि राजनीतिक और मनोवैज्ञानिक है।

आज के अरबपति केवल धन के मामले में ही नहीं, बल्कि विचारधारा के निर्माण में भी ताक़तवर हैं। वे थिंक टैंक, मीडिया, और नेताओं को फंड करते हैं जो हर पुनर्वितरण नीति को तानाशाही करार देते हैं। यह संयोग नहीं, रणनीति है। ताकि आम नागरिक कभी यह न पूछे: "हमारे दादाजी के समय ऐसा टैक्स क्यों था, और अब क्यों नहीं?"

पूंजीवाद बनाम कम्युनिज़्म का झूठा द्वंद्व

हर पुनर्वितरण नीति को “समाजवादी” कह देना, उस विचारधारात्मक स्पेक्ट्रम को मिटा देता है जो वास्तविकता में मौजूद है। दरअसल, संतुलित पूंजीवाद, जिसमें अमीरों पर ऊंचे टैक्स, और जनता के लिए मजबूत सेवाएं शामिल हों — यही अमेरिका की असली ताकत रही है।

यह समाजवाद नहीं है।

यह व्यवहारिकता और समझदारी है।

निष्कर्ष: केवल दर नहीं, बहस भी बढ़ाएं

हमें किसी नई विचारधारा की ज़रूरत नहीं है। हमें केवल यह याद रखने की ज़रूरत है कि इतिहास में क्या काम कर चुका है।

70% की शीर्ष कर दर कोई क्रांतिकारी कल्पना नहीं है। यह एक ऐतिहासिक रूप से स्थापित और व्यावहारिक नीति है, जो उस असमानता को दूर करने का प्रयास करती है जो आज अमेरिका की लोकतांत्रिक नींव को ही हिला रही है।

तो अगली बार जब कोई कहे, "ये मार्क्सवाद है," तो उन्हें बस इतना याद दिलाइए:

अमेरिका पहले भी ऐसा कर चुका है — और उसने उसी समय सोवियत संघ को हराया था।

#कर_न्याय #प्रगतिशील_नीतियाँ #आर्थिक_संतुलन #ColdWarTaxRates #RedistributionNotRevolution

Saturday, July 12, 2025

FDR To Reagan To AOC: The Half Century Pendulum Swings

📉 From Reaganomics to Mamdani Politics: Is the Pendulum About to Swing Back?

For nearly a century, American politics has swung like a pendulum between two competing visions of capitalism: one expansive, inclusive, and redistributive, and the other lean, deregulated, and market-driven. The FDR era (1930–1980) was defined by the New Deal, Social Security, union strength, and public investment. The Reagan era (1980–2030, for simple math) heralded tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and a steady erosion of the public sector.

But nothing lasts forever. The tides of economic ideology may now be shifting again.

🔁 Why the Reagan Era May Be Ending

The Reagan consensus—low taxes, small government, deregulated markets—has ruled for over four decades. It shaped Democrats and Republicans alike. Even Clinton and Obama operated largely within its framework, focusing on technocratic reforms rather than redistributive transformations.

Yet cracks have appeared:

Soaring inequality has become impossible to ignore. In 1960, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was about 20:1. Today, it’s over 300:1.
Essential services are failing. Millions are uninsured, student debt has ballooned, and housing is unaffordable in most major cities.
Climate change and pandemics have exposed the fragility of privatized and underfunded systems.

Americans—especially younger generations—are rethinking the trade-offs they were told were necessary. A top tax rate of 90% during the FDR era didn’t destroy capitalism. In fact, it underwrote massive public investments in highways, housing, and higher education. So why not a top rate of 70% now, if it can finance high-quality healthcare, universal education, a Green New Deal, and an end to homelessness?

💡 Big Government Isn’t the Problem. Bad Arithmetic Is.

Critics of progressive programs often fear-monger about “socialism.” But if we define socialism as state ownership of all production, that’s not what any mainstream progressive is proposing.

The real question is fiscal math. Can ambitious programs be fully paid for?

The answer lies in:

Reinstating progressive taxation, especially on billionaires who currently pay lower effective tax rates than their secretaries.
Closing corporate loopholes and taxing multinational profits fairly.
Ending wasteful subsidies to oil companies and other polluters.
Reprioritizing military spending, which often exceeds the next 10 nations combined.

If the numbers add up—and they must—progressives can win the argument on both morality and arithmetic.

💥 Tariffs: The Regressive Tax No One Asked For

Donald Trump’s economic nationalism includes massive tariffs. But tariffs are simply taxes on consumers, particularly lower- and middle-income households. They make goods more expensive, worsen inflation, and empty store shelves.

The result? An angry electorate.

Historically, the party in power loses midterms. Add tariff-fueled inflation to the mix, and Republicans could face massive backlash in 2026—giving Democrats two years to present a sane, progressive, and fiscally responsible alternative.

🌊 The Mamdani Moment: NYC as Harbinger of 2028?

What just happened in New York City is more than a local political shakeup—it may be a signal flare for the nation. The NYC mayor is often seen as the second most visible political office in America. A decisive shift toward progressive leadership in America’s largest city suggests public appetite for a new approach.

The rise of figures like Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shows what post-Reagan politics might look like: unapologetically ambitious, socially democratic, and laser-focused on policy with a calculator in hand.

🧮 Progressivism With a Calculator

There’s growing room in the national conversation for leaders who can dream big and balance budgets. Proposals like Medicare for All or tuition-free college are no longer fringe. The key to their political viability is demonstrating exactly how they’ll be paid for.

Voters are increasingly savvy. They don’t mind “big government” if it works—and if it’s not wasteful. What they do mind are broken promises, vague numbers, and deficits with no plan.

📚 Want to Explore the Next Era of American Politics?

Two thought-provoking books shed more light on this coming transformation:

🔥 AOC 2028: The Future of American Progressivism
A bold political manifesto imagining what it would look like if the next era of American leadership was shaped by AOC-style vision, courage, and policy detail.
💥 Trump’s Default: The Mist of Empire
A gripping political novel about what happens when the empire collapses under its contradictions—tariffs, debt cliffs, and all. A fictional warning, or tomorrow’s headlines?

Bottom Line:
The Reagan era was real. It shaped our world. But it may be over soon. If the pendulum is swinging back, the next generation of leaders must learn from both FDR and Reagan: be bold, be clear, and make the math work.

📉 रीगन से ममदानी तक: क्या अमेरिका में राजनीतिक बदलाव की घड़ी आ गई है?

पिछले एक शताब्दी में अमेरिकी राजनीति दो विपरीत आर्थिक विचारधाराओं के बीच झूलती रही है—एक जो समावेशी, पुनर्वितरण पर केंद्रित और सार्वजनिक निवेश वाली है, और दूसरी जो निजीकरण, कर कटौती और मुक्त बाजार आधारित है।
FDR युग (1930–1980) में न्यू डील, सोशल सिक्योरिटी, मज़बूत यूनियनों और सार्वजनिक बुनियादी ढांचे का विस्तार हुआ।
रीगन युग (1980–2030) में टैक्स कटौती, निजीकरण और "सरकार समस्या है" जैसी सोच का बोलबाला रहा।

लेकिन हर युग की एक सीमा होती है। अब लगता है कि लहरें पलट रही हैं।

🔁 क्यों रीगन युग का अंत करीब है

रीगन के विचारों—कम टैक्स, कम सरकारी हस्तक्षेप, और निजी क्षेत्र की प्रधानता—ने चार दशकों तक अमेरिका की नीति को दिशा दी। डेमोक्रेट्स और रिपब्लिकन, दोनों इस ढांचे में काम करते रहे। क्लिंटन और ओबामा भी मूल रूप से इसी रास्ते पर चले।

लेकिन अब परिस्थितियाँ बदल रही हैं:

विषमता चरम पर पहुंच गई है। 1960 में CEO और एक आम वर्कर की सैलरी में 20:1 का अनुपात था। आज यह 300:1 से अधिक है।
स्वास्थ्य, शिक्षा और आवास जैसी बुनियादी सेवाएं चरमरा रही हैं।
जलवायु संकट और महामारी ने कमज़ोर निजी व्यवस्था को उजागर कर दिया है।

अमेरिकियों—खासकर युवाओं—ने अब इस व्यवस्था पर सवाल उठाने शुरू कर दिए हैं। FDR के समय में टॉप टैक्स रेट 90% था, फिर भी अमेरिका न तो समाजवादी बना और न ही लोकतंत्र टूटा। तो फिर आज अगर टॉप टैक्स रेट 70% हो जाए, और उससे स्वास्थ्य, शिक्षा, सार्वजनिक परिवहन, और आवास जैसे ज़रूरी कार्यक्रम चल सकें—तो इसमें हर्ज क्या है?

💡 समस्या "बड़ी सरकार" नहीं, गणित है

जब प्रगतिशील योजनाओं की बात होती है, तो आलोचक जल्दी ही “समाजवाद” का डर दिखाने लगते हैं। लेकिन अगर समाजवाद का मतलब यह हो कि सरकार हर चीज़ की मालिक हो, तो वैसा कोई मांग भी नहीं कर रहा।

मुद्दा है: बजट कैसे संतुलित होगा?

इसका समाधान है:

प्रगतिशील टैक्स प्रणाली की वापसी, खासकर अरबपतियों पर जिनकी प्रभावी टैक्स दर आम कर्मचारियों से कम है।
कॉरपोरेट टैक्स में छूट बंद करना और बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनियों को ईमानदारी से टैक्स देना।
तेल कंपनियों को मिलने वाली सब्सिडी बंद करना।
सैन्य बजट की समीक्षा, जो आज दुनिया के 10 देशों के कुल बजट से भी अधिक है।

अगर गणित फिट बैठता है—तो नैतिकता और व्यवहारिकता दोनों स्तरों पर प्रगतिशील विचार सफल हो सकते हैं।

💥 टैरिफ: गरीबों पर कर

डोनाल्ड ट्रंप का आर्थिक राष्ट्रवाद भारी टैरिफों पर आधारित है। लेकिन हकीकत यह है कि टैरिफ एक छुपा हुआ कर है जो उपभोक्ताओं को देना पड़ता है—खासकर गरीब और मध्यम वर्ग को।

इससे:

रोज़मर्रा की चीज़ें महंगी हो जाती हैं
मुद्रास्फीति बढ़ती है
दुकानों में सामान कम हो जाता है

और नतीजा? नाराज़ मतदाता।

इतिहास बताता है कि सत्ताधारी पार्टी को मिडटर्म चुनावों में नुकसान होता है। अगर ट्रंप की नीतियाँ मुद्रास्फीति बढ़ाती हैं, तो 2026 में रिपब्लिकन पार्टी को भारी नुकसान हो सकता है—और डेमोक्रेट्स को 2028 के लिए एक मौका मिल सकता है।

🌊 न्यूयॉर्क से राष्ट्रव्यापी ममदानी पल

न्यूयॉर्क सिटी की राजनीति केवल स्थानीय मामला नहीं है—यह अक्सर राष्ट्रीय रुझानों का संकेत होती है। NYC का मेयर अमेरिका का दूसरा सबसे चर्चित राजनीतिक पद होता है।

ममदानी जैसे नेताओं का उभार और AOC की लोकप्रियता यह दर्शाते हैं कि रीगन युग के बाद का युग कैसा हो सकता है—बोल्ड, स्पष्ट, और "कैलकुलेटर के साथ वामपंथ"।

🧮 प्रगतिशीलता = गणना + दृष्टि

आज के मतदाता जागरूक हैं। वे बड़ी योजनाओं से नहीं डरते—अगर वो काम करें और पैसे की बर्बादी न हो।

प्रोग्रेसिव एजेंडा सफल तभी हो सकता है जब:

प्रस्ताव स्पष्ट हों
फंडिंग का स्रोत निश्चित हो
बजट संतुलित हो

"मुफ्त" के नारे से ज़्यादा ज़रूरी है वित्तीय पारदर्शिता।

📚 आगे पढ़ना चाहें? ये दो किताबें ज़रूर देखें:

🔥 AOC 2028: The Future of American Progressivism
कल्पना कीजिए कि अगर AOC जैसी नेतृत्व क्षमता और नीतियाँ अमेरिकी राजनीति की धारा बन जाएं तो कैसा होगा? यह किताब उसी संभावना की झलक देती है।
💥 Trump’s Default: The Mist of Empire
एक राजनीतिक उपन्यास जो बताता है कि अगर अमेरिका अपनी ही नीतियों के बोझ तले दब जाए तो क्या होगा। यह एक कल्पना है—लेकिन शायद आने वाली हकीकत भी।

निष्कर्ष:
रीगन युग ने अमेरिका को गहराई से प्रभावित किया है। लेकिन अब वक़्त बदल रहा है। अगर लहरें पलट रही हैं, तो आने वाले नेताओं को FDR और रीगन दोनों से सीखना होगा—साहस दिखाओ, स्पष्ट रहो, और गणना सटीक हो।

View on Threads

FDR To Reagan To AOC: The Half Century Pendulum Swings @aoc @rbreich @IlhanMN @zohrankmamdani https://t.co/FWI0dske5D @BernieSanders @ewarren @RashidaTlaib @JamaalBowmanNY @mm1124 @MiraPagliNair @_waleedshahid @saikatc
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 12, 2025

FDR To Reagan To AOC: The Half Century Pendulum Swings https://t.co/FWI0dske5D
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 12, 2025

Ignored by #Rajasthan government, villagers of #Dholpur’s hamlets risk lives just to cross a river; children makeshift rafts daily as no bridge connects

More details 🔗https://t.co/WyG5FZpiBu pic.twitter.com/zzUQlrGpar
— The Times Of India (@timesofindia) July 12, 2025

AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism https://t.co/OFT21hoLmW @JonathanWNV @ruirochaliberal @liewbob
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 21, 2025

Friday, July 04, 2025

4: AOC

AOC 2028 pic.twitter.com/8GZlBbnhoy
— Susan Park🤬 (@Susan16Park) June 26, 2025

View on Threads

Grounded Greatness: The Case For Smart Surface Transit In Future Cities
The Garden Of Last Debates (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
A 2T Cut
Are We Frozen in Time?: Tech Progress, Social Stagnation
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

Trump Plans to Start Notifying Countries of US Tariffs Up to 70% Trump said that countries would “start to pay on Aug. 1. The money will start going to come into the United States on August 1.” Tariffs are typically paid by the importer, or an intermediary acting on the importer’s behalf. But often it’s profit margins or the end consumer that ultimately absorb much of the cost........... Bloomberg Economics estimates that if all reciprocal tariffs are raised to their threatened level on July 9, average duties on all US imports could climb to around 20% from close to 3% before Trump’s inauguration in January. That would add to growth and inflation risks for the US economy. ........... Indonesia is confident it is close to securing a “bold” trade deal with the US that will span critical minerals, energy, defense cooperation and market access ahead of the looming tariff deadline, according to the nation’s chief negotiator on Friday. ......... Many major trading partners, however, such as Japan, South Korea and the European Union, are still working to finalize their accords. .......... The US president has expressed optimism about reaching an agreement with India but has spoken harshly about the prospects of an accord with Japan, casting Tokyo as a difficult negotiating partner. He intensified his criticism this week, saying that Japan should be forced to “pay 30%, 35% or whatever the number is that we determine.”

Tuesday, July 01, 2025

Makeup In U.S. Politics—Tracing From Nixon’s TV Debacle To Trump’s Signature Orange Visage

Obama and Bush Unite in Rare Move Against Trump Former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush have joined forces to shoot down President Trump’s “colossal mistake” to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development. ....... The Trump administration cut around 90 percent of USAID’s foreign aid contracts during Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) rampage back in February. Musk oversaw the depletion of the workforce from 10,000 to less than 300. ....... The agency will be absorbed by the state department, where it will be replaced by a new organization called America First........ Singer and activist Bono got in on the act, too. He recited a poem, specially written for the occasion, telling the crowd: “They called you crooks/When you were the best of us.” ........ a study published in The Lancet medical journal claims that USAID cuts could lead to 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030. ....... The study surmised that the agency had already prevented the deaths of more than 91 million people, many of them children.

Makeup In U.S. Politics—Tracing From Nixon’s TV Debacle To Trump’s Signature Orange Visage

🎙️ The Power of the Camera: Nixon vs. Kennedy, 1960

On September 26, 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon faced Senator John F. Kennedy in the first-ever televised presidential debate. Under bright studio lights, Nixon, freshly out of the hospital, refused makeup. The result? Pallid skin, visible sweat, and a gray suit that nearly blended into the backdrop, making him look unwell and unrelatable (doctorzebra.com, en.wikipedia.org).

Contrast that with JFK: well-composed, tanned, confident—and camera-ready. Nixon’s own mother called after the debate, worried he was ill (en.wikipedia.org).

Kennedy won the visual battle—at least among TV viewers—a critical strike in one of the closest elections in modern history (Kennedy edged Nixon by just 0.17% in the popular vote) (en.wikipedia.org). After this, the lesson was clear: in televised politics, looking the part matters—often more than what’s being said.

💄 Trump’s Signature “Orange” Look

Fast forward to the 21st century: Donald Trump’s distinctive orange‑tan has become emblematic of his public image. Observers and makeup artists speculate that he applies heavy tanning products and foundation to project energy, strength, and a healthy appearance across countless televised events and intense lighting (kansasreflector.com).

🤔 Why the heavy makeup? With over a decade in the public eye—including reality TV and political campaigns—Trump likely relies on makeup to maintain a consistent look under varied lighting, conceal signs of aging, and portray vitality (kansasreflector.com).
🧴 What does he use? According to stylists, it’s a mix of spray tan, thick foundation, and possibly on-camera makeup. Articles even reference CHI Helmet Head spray and Just For Men dye to maintain coverage and the iconic hue (thetimes.co.uk).
📸 How much? Massive—Trump’s look suggests a heavy, full-coverage routine designed to withstand studio lights, cameras, and intense scrutiny . Reddit makeup artists note it's unusually overdone and poorly matched to his natural skin tone .
🔁 Has it always been like this? The “orange” aesthetic became widely noticed during his reality show years (early 2000s), then became entrenched through the 2010s during his presidential runs (kansasreflector.com). So yes—it’s been consistent for well over a decade.

🧠 Lessons from Nixon to Trump

Appearance influences perception
Nixon’s lack of makeup cost him votes; Trump’s make-up artistry is meant to avoid that pitfall—even if it sometimes backfires visually.
Televised presence is as strategic as speech
Nixon’s makeup refusal proved disastrous under new media norms. Trump embraced—and amplified—his image, shaping a visual brand as much as a political one (time.com, civicsforlife.org).
Makeup in politics is metaphoric
Beyond aesthetics, it reflects a candidate’s understanding of stagecraft—Trump with “MAGA glam,” Nixon with his aversion. Both used image choices to send messages, whether intentionally or not.

💬 Final Takeaway

Makeup in politics isn’t superficial—it’s strategic. Nixon’s televised stumble taught campaigns that neglecting image could cost votes. Trump’s bombastic, orange tone doubles as skin-care and show-business branding, signaling youthfulness, stamina, and theatricality—at times overtly so.

Whether you think it’s vanity—or political weaponry—one thing is clear: makeup matters. And in the age of 24/7 media, the face you present often speaks louder than your words.

Curious about other political appearances or how current candidates use image strategies? Leave a comment.

1/
📺💄 From Nixon to Trump: The Power of Makeup in Politics
Let’s talk about how makeup—yes, makeup—has shaped U.S. presidential history, from Richard Nixon’s sweaty disaster to Donald Trump’s iconic orange hue. 🧵#PoliticalHistory #Trump #Nixon #MediaMatters
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 1, 2025

Wednesday, June 25, 2025

Mamdani's Prose

AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism
Mamdani’s Platform

Mamdani’s Victory: A Historic Moment, Not a Socialist Revolution

When Zohran Mamdani won his election, I’ll admit—I hadn’t taken a deep look at his platform. But now that I have, one thing stands out: it’s not the radical socialist program some corners might have painted it to be. Sure, there are several government programs on the agenda—but since when did that become the sole criteria for labeling someone a socialist?

Programs like free city buses aren’t controversial to me. In fact, I’ve been advocating for them for years. They encourage public transit use, reduce traffic congestion, are better for the environment, and save people money. Seeing this idea on Mamdani’s platform was a pleasant surprise—and a clear signal that he's thinking practically, not ideologically.

Let’s be clear: having government programs is not socialism. Neither is wanting a more equitable city. The debates over tax rates or the size of government are legitimate, ongoing conversations in any functioning democracy. But what matters most is whether the numbers add up, and whether the programs are designed with long-term impact in mind.

And then there’s his age. In a political landscape dominated by older generations, electing someone in his early 30s to a position of this scale is a breath of fresh air. It signals a shift—a generational one—and it’s exciting to see what that brings. Youth doesn’t mean inexperience; it can also mean energy, vision, and a closer connection to the issues of the present, not just the past.

Mamdani isn’t calling for the nationalization of companies. He’s not attacking entrepreneurship. If anything, a safer, more stable, and more affordable New York is good for business. Many of his proposals are grounded in making the city more livable for everyone, and that includes the small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs who make NYC hum with economic energy.

This is a historic election. Let’s not lose sight of that. The role he now occupies is arguably the second most powerful directly elected office in the United States. And because this is New York City—the so-called capital of the world—this local election carries global resonance. It’s being watched in cities from Mumbai to Madrid, from Nairobi to São Paulo.

What happens next is the real question. As the saying goes, you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. The hard work begins now, and the challenge will be translating the ideals into implementable policy without losing public trust—or momentum.

And of course, in the background looms another tantalizing question: Will Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run for Senate? Or won’t she? That could be the next tectonic shift in New York politics.

For now, Mamdani’s win marks a new chapter—not an end, not a revolution, but a fresh start. Let’s see what prose he writes.

1/
When Zohran Mamdani won his election, I hadn’t really looked at his platform. Now that I have, here’s what I see: not a socialist revolution, but a serious, progressive policy agenda with some surprisingly practical ideas. @ZohranKMamdani @AOC
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 25, 2025

Here’s a breakdown of Mamdani’s major proposals and how they could be funded within NYC’s existing $112 billion budget:

🚍 1. Fare‑free city buses

Proposed cost: $650 million/year (en.wikipedia.org)
NYC FY 2025 budget: $112.4 billion total (fpwa.org)
Fare-free buses would represent 0.6% of the annual budget—significant, yes, but within ability to fund.

🧾 2. $65 million for trans health care

His platform earmarks $57 million for gender-affirming clinics + $8 million for telehealth (en.wikipedia.org, them.us)
That’s a small 0.06% of the total budget—relatively modest and feasible.

🏠 3. Rent freeze + affordable housing

Cost is unspecified, but NYC already spent heavily in FY 2025 on housing, libraries, and social services (as.com, comptroller.nyc.gov)
The City Council restored $114 million+ for housing and related programs (politico.com)
So adding targeted rent measures could be absorbed through similar reallocations.

💲 4. $30/hour minimum wage by 2030

Not an immediate line-item but a progressive salary structure. Long-term, this adds substantially to payroll—especially public workers.
NYC already spends $23.5 billion on education and employs 250,000 people (en.wikipedia.org).
Gradual phase-in over years allows budgeting and revenue adjustment.

💸 5. Funding via tax increases

Proposes:
1. 2% surtax on millionaires, raising $20 billion
2. Raise corporate tax rate from 7.25% to 11.5% (en.wikipedia.org)
NYC currently collects about $27 billion in taxes annually (en.wikipedia.org)
A $20 billion uptick would nearly double city-collected revenue—a major but not implausible shift if implemented fully and phased in over time.

✔️ 6. Existing fiscal safeguards

NYC maintains balanced budgets by law
Strong reserves and AA credit rating support fiscal flexibility (barrons.com)
FY 2025 features $2–3 billion in built-in savings (PEGs), with extra state/federal reimbursements, e.g., asylum seeker funds (comptroller.nyc.gov)

🧮 Quick summary table

Proposal	Approx. Cost	% of FY 2025 Budget
Fare-free buses	$650 million/year	0.6%
Trans health funding	$65 million/year	0.06%
Housing/rent measures	TBD (similar to $100–200 M)	~0.1–0.2%
Minimum wage raise (phased)	Progressive impact	Budgeted over years
Total estimated annual cost	$800–1,000 M+	~0.7–0.9% annually

These additions are less than 1% of the FY 2025 budget—and crucially, Mamdani plans to fund them via major revenue increases from high earners and corporations.

✅ So—do the numbers work?

Yes—on paper. The incremental costs are modest within the overall $112 billion budget. Funding depends on enacting large surtaxes and corporate tax hikes—ambitious but achievable with state approval and over a phased timeline.

Importantly, NYC already has $2–3 billion in savings built in, healthy reserves, and a balanced-budget requirement—giving space to make these moves without immediate disruption (osc.ny.gov, fr.wikipedia.org, barrons.com).

🧭 Bottom line

Mamdani’s agenda is fiscally plausible if key revenue measures are implemented. The added program costs are small relative to NYC’s total spending, and the city operates with strong fiscal checks and reserves. The real test won’t be math on paper—it’ll be political will, state-level approvals, and gradual implementation.

What do you think of this?
A Radical Blueprint to Transform New York City into the World’s Greatest Metropolis https://t.co/IzOJs3h2R5
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 27, 2025

Please endorse this book: AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism https://t.co/OFT21hoLmW
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 27, 2025

The Corporate Democrat’s Biggest Nightmare He’s on the way to becoming mayor of New York City ........ Leave it to the Democratic Party to snatch existential crisis from the jaws of electoral victory. ....... It’s one thing for Trump to call Mamdani “a 100% Communist Lunatic.” That’s to be expected from the vulgarian-in-chief. It’s another for Matt Bennett, co-founder of the centrist Democratic group Third Way, to warn that Mamdani’s “affiliation with the (Democratic Socialists of America) is very dangerous.” ......... Dangerous for whom? Bernie Sanders nearly won the Democratic primary for the 2016 presidential election after announcing he was a democratic socialist — and probably would have won had the Democratic National Committee not torpedoed him. ............ Lawrence Summers, treasury secretary under former Democratic President Barack Obama, says the New York City results make him “profoundly alarmed about the future of the (Democratic Party) and the country.” ........ Well, I’m profoundly alarmed, too — by just this kind of vacuous statement. If polls are to be believed, the current Democratic Party doesn’t have much of a future. Mamdani and other young politicians with the charisma to connect with the people and a willingness to take on corporate America and Wall Street may be the only way forward for the Democrats. ........... Nor has the mainstream media greeted Mamdani’s upset victory with much enthusiasm. The Associated Press writes that “the party’s more pragmatic wing cast the outcome as a serious setback in their quest to broaden Democrats’ appeal.” .........

Pragmatic wing?

....... If it were pragmatic — in the sense of wanting to win elections and fire up the base — Democrats would not have lost the House, Senate, and presidency in 2024. .......... the Post criticizes Mamdani’s proposals for a 2 percent annual wealth tax on the richest 1 percent of New Yorkers and for increasing the state’s corporate tax rate from 7.25 percent to 11.5 percent: “Mamdani’s tax plans would spur a corporate exodus and drive more rich people out of town, undermining the tax base and making existing services harder to maintain.” ......... The reality is that if you invest in your people — in their skills, education, affordable child care, affordable elder care, and the infrastructure needed to link them together — they’ll be more productive, and their higher productivity will attract corporations (and the wealthy). A major way to afford all these things is to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy. ........ Mamdani is the corporate Democrat’s biggest nightmare — a young, charismatic politician winning over Democratic voters with an optimistic message centering on the cost of living. Putting together a multiethnic and multiracial coalition backed by a sprawling grassroots campaign that brings out enormous numbers of volunteers. Aiming to fund what average people need by taxing corporations and the rich. ............ Instead of wringing their hands over him, Democrats should follow his lead......... The largest force in American politics today is antiestablishment fury at a system rigged by big corporations and the wealthy to make them even richer and more powerful............ Trump is killing the economy, fueling inflation with his tariffs, reducing the U.S. government to rubble, and destroying our relationships with our allies. He’s readying another giant tax cut for the wealthy and big corporations — this one to be financed by cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, and other things average people need, along with trillions more in national debt. .......... If Democrats had had the guts years ago to condemn big money in politics, fight corporate welfare, and unrig a market that’s been rigged in favor of big corporations and the rich, Trump’s absurd bogeymen (the deep state, immigrants, socialists, trans people, diversity-equity-inclusion) wouldn’t have stood a chance. ........... most Americans don’t want a Trump Republican budget that slashes Medicaid, food stamps, and child nutrition in order to make way for a giant tax cut mostly for the wealthy. ......... Most don’t want tariffs that drive up the prices they pay for food, gas, housing, and clothing. Most understand that tariffs are taxes paid by American consumers. Most don’t want a government of, by, and for billionaires. Most believe in democracy and the rule of law and don’t want Trump trampling on the Constitution, acts of Congress, and federal court orders. ......... The nation is in clear and present danger. Democrats must stand up for American ideals at a time when the Trump regime is riding roughshod over them.

Pages

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

29: AOC

Monday, July 21, 2025

Taxing the Rich Isn’t Marxism: A Lesson from Cold War America

Taxing the Rich Isn’t Marxism: A Lesson from Cold War America

AOC, Mamdani, and the New Progressive Push

The Historical Irony: Cold War Capitalism Had Higher Taxes

Why Today’s “Socialist” Proposals Are Actually Moderate

If Cold War America Could Do It, Why Can’t We?

The False Binary: Capitalism vs. Communism

Conclusion: Raise the Debate, Not Just the Rate

अमीरों पर टैक्स लगाना मार्क्सवाद नहीं है: शीत युद्धकालीन अमेरिका से एक सबक

नए प्रगतिशील नेता: ममदानी और एओसी

शीत युद्ध के दौरान टैक्स दरें आज से ज़्यादा थीं

आज के प्रगतिशील प्रस्ताव वाकई में कितने 'चरमपंथी' हैं?

अगर तब हो सकता था, तो अब क्यों नहीं?

पूंजीवाद बनाम कम्युनिज़्म का झूठा द्वंद्व

निष्कर्ष: केवल दर नहीं, बहस भी बढ़ाएं

Saturday, July 12, 2025

FDR To Reagan To AOC: The Half Century Pendulum Swings

🔁 Why the Reagan Era May Be Ending

💡 Big Government Isn’t the Problem. Bad Arithmetic Is.

💥 Tariffs: The Regressive Tax No One Asked For

🌊 The Mamdani Moment: NYC as Harbinger of 2028?

🧮 Progressivism With a Calculator

📚 Want to Explore the Next Era of American Politics?

🔁 क्यों रीगन युग का अंत करीब है

💡 समस्या "बड़ी सरकार" नहीं, गणित है

💥 टैरिफ: गरीबों पर कर

🌊 न्यूयॉर्क से राष्ट्रव्यापी ममदानी पल

🧮 प्रगतिशीलता = गणना + दृष्टि

📚 आगे पढ़ना चाहें? ये दो किताबें ज़रूर देखें:

Friday, July 04, 2025

4: AOC

Tuesday, July 01, 2025

Makeup In U.S. Politics—Tracing From Nixon’s TV Debacle To Trump’s Signature Orange Visage

🎙️ The Power of the Camera: Nixon vs. Kennedy, 1960

💄 Trump’s Signature “Orange” Look

🧠 Lessons from Nixon to Trump

💬 Final Takeaway

Wednesday, June 25, 2025

Mamdani's Prose

🚍 1. Fare‑free city buses

🧾 2. $65 million for trans health care

🏠 3. Rent freeze + affordable housing

💲 4. $30/hour minimum wage by 2030

💸 5. Funding via tax increases

✔️ 6. Existing fiscal safeguards

🧮 Quick summary table

✅ So—do the numbers work?

🧭 Bottom line

Pragmatic wing?

🧾 2. $65 million for trans health care