This could be us standing in solidarity with French workers (It's not. It's Amazon workers fighting for a union.) STEPHANIE KEITH / GETTY



Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses. American capitalism is the best capitalism.


@1, I actually agree. That kind of moral hazard will screw us all over.


"raise the age of retirement by two years."

France already has achieved The Stranger's utopia of taxing the rich (and everyone else - there tax system is remarkably flat, as our most European nations). So what other option is there as you have fewer and fewer workers to deduct pension payments from to send to former workers?


"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."
--economist John Maynard Keynes

some say it's all about
the Cruelty but for
Some that's just
a little Bonus.


"someone shot a driver in the face, and the driver crashed on I-5 in SeaTac"

The new watch-phrase for changing lanes, "Honey, cover me. I'm changing lanes."


@4: Replace "Capitalism" with "Marxism" or "Socialism" in that sentence and it is exactly the same because the human factor or human condition is the same.


The day after the Reaper gets taken down, Poland announced it is giving Ukraine fighter jets. This summer is going to be murder.

Not that today isn't...


We should take a lesson from the French, strike and go on the streets in the millions in a general strike for peace and against the neoliberal policies that provide for socialism for the wealthy and capitalism and austerity for everyone else.

The people should demand that the government deal with our country's major domestic problems such as poverty, unaffordable housing, unaffordable higher education and decaying infrastructure.

Instead of spending a trillion dollars on the military, tens of billions of this should be directed to solving our internal domestic problems. Hooray to the French for demanding that their government not take away one of their important social benefits.

Maplp; Connecticut



vive la France!


one more:
What a joy to see the French people fight back.

And they get real pensions and healthcare.

In America, our conservatives unspoken message is
‘retire rich on your own volition or please die
before you become a burden on ‘the system’.

Here in the land of the free for unfettered capitalism and the rich to buy our government, our so-called conservatives annually openly debate gutting our meager Social Security program while raising the retirement age to …essentially death.

I’m in the professional class and have a slightly better situation, but my elderly parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends who work/worked hard-labor, blue collar, often inconsistent jobs feel threatened every election cycle with our GOP annually gunning to detonate what little hope of a meager retirement they might eke out.

And let’s not forget how one catastrophic illness could wipe out decades of savings given our predatory heath insurance system… meant to ration care for huge profit.

-- Nicholas Paris; L A, Midwest and Northeast.


"And let’s not forget how one catastrophic illness could wipe out decades of savings given our predatory heath insurance system… meant to ration care for huge profit."

oh but WE cannot 'afford'
M4A -- it's Too "expensive."

or We're just
Too stupid.


vive la France!

a bas Macron!


Macron raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. Quelle horreur.


@11, longue vie Macron!

Since France already taxes the rich (and everyone else - effective tax rates are pretty flat across all income groups), how do you pay benefits, with inadequate contributions to meet obligations?


"someone shot a driver in the face"

Shorter Hannah: "face off on I-5"


«France fucks workers»
The wealthy are living longer than ever, so you public servants must suck it up and serve your superiors longer than ever. Just business, nothing personal.


Simply put the French Welfare State is beginning to fall apart. As Thatcher rightly observed:

   "'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'

The French pension system is creaking, hemorrhaging money and is now running and projected to continue to run a deficit. One wonders about equity of enslaving future generations to an obligation to pay for other people's benefits.

France can't tax their way out of this problem..... the effective taxation levels are already at 43% of GDP. You want to see something far worse than a strike, raise taxes and see what happens next!

The French can strike, pout, poo in the streets and fart in the general direction of the French President, but at the end of the day, you can't make bricks without straw. Benefits must be cut or reduced.. The current administration has chosen the more deceptive path of raising the retirement age... you don't have to "quantify or raise taxes".... it avoids the central truth... the system is sliding towards insolvency.

Sooner as opposed to later, The US will have to take a similar prudent course of action.


How the fuck is retiring at 64 "anti-worker"? And, as others have noted, do you have a better proposal to pay the taxes to support those retirees for the rest of the 25-30 year life expectancies? I enjoy a good truckload-of-dead-fish-dumped-in-the-intersection street protest as much as the next guy, but the French are acting like petulant children if they are complaining about this.


@4 That's not a quote attributable to Keynes... It more likely attributed to Adam Smith referring to the invisible hand. His observation is that each person focused on their own interest will invisibly guide the economy to the most efficient and effective levels... which benefits all.

Its as true now as it was then.

The fact you don't understand is unfortunate....but you are not alone. Seattle is full of folks who subscribe to your daily diatribe of socialist nonsense and this city has paid the price for its lack of vision.-- highest inflation in the nation, growing homelessness - ranked 3rd in the nation despite the size of the city, unaffordable housing, crime off the charts, a wasteland we used to call downtown.... all courtesy of the socialist and far left agenda.

And while you may despise capitalist, tell us, tell us all, where and how are jobs created ... besides government jobs... Oh, that would be by all those capitalist you despise. Who risk capital, their fortunes and future to take a chance to do better.

Rather than spouting rhetoric, trying just once to read something, anything related to economics before opining.

btw... still waiting for you to point out the socialist country you would point to as a shining example of your vision of the world.


Agree that Muedede's piece on the SVB bailout is required reading - if you dumb hepsters can read.


@5, more like, "Darling, lay down some suppressing fire. I'm changing lanes."


THREE peeps
in the USofA
Own MORE Wealth
than ONE HALF the Citizenry

No there's
can - or should! - be done.

support the Billionaires!
and maybe Someday
they'll even Support
your ass. til then!


Hannah......your buddy Charlie has no idea how banks work. If Charlie thinks the State would run a bank better he is dumber than we all thought. You really want the same people that gave you the DMV holding your money?

From what I have read and understand......depositors will get their money and the rich investors will lose their ass and the rich incompetents that ran the bank will be out of a job and may be sued.

@16 and @17.....Bingo.


@21 once again wealth does not equal income. Wealth is an intangible thing as evidenced by the fact that Bezos, Zuck, Musk et all have lost billions in the last few months and no one is any better for it. If you despise their wealth you should advocate for changes that will make what they have less valuable so capitol will seek other investments thereby making them less wealthy. There is no avenue where you can confiscate that wealth via taxes as a means of redistribution.


The super-rich waterfront owners had their tax bill reduced for a project that will benefit only them, cruise passengers and other tourists. That means the City, Parks and the waterfront boosters will put the burden on Seattle taxpayers for an "amenity" that most of us will never use and one that will be under water in 15 years.



@ 21 Again your point is ... well pointless. Who cares.

Maybe you haven't heard of the federal estate tax....if its any consolation, it exempts the first $25 million for a married billionaire and after that its a flat 40% tax levied on the fair market value of the estate. Little wonder why so many, many billionaires and multi-millionaires wills designate their vast fortunes go to charities.

In short, when Bill Gates, one of the billionaire you despise drops off the twig, the first 40% of Bill Gate's 102 billion goes directly to the US Treasury.... a tax of about $40 billion. Is that a fair share? Are the wealthy paying taxes? You bet your ass they are?

Now we have that sorted and settled... where is that shining example of the socialist state you wanted to point out to me. I've got the world atlas sitting on my desk.


@26 They can't/won't name their ideal socialist state because, as we all know, it doesn't exist except in fantasyland.

The Seattle socialists don't really want a world that's equitable or equal or any of the other buzzwords they'll toss around. Like all humans, they want a system that benefits them and those they deem acceptable. We are all essentially fine with oppression and inequality so long as those that are oppressed are the people we deem acceptable to oppress.

One man's revolutionary is another man's traitor. Which label you use is based who you like and who you hate; who you want to see win and who you want to see lose. And make no mistake, the far left wants winners and losers as much as the far right. The similarities between the two extremes is much greater than either will ever admit.


The employment and retirement picture in France, for better and for worse, is entirely different than it is here – or so it may seem. France doesn’t have the anti-age discrimination laws that we do (ahem) for one thing, and a person who loses their job or cannot do what they did anymore in late middle-age is over-the-hill when looking for a new position. Many employers make no bones about it . You’ll still see posted positions with the word “young” in its candidate description. And it is highly, highly rare for someone in their late 40s or 50s to even consider a new line of work. Comparatively few, I’m guessing, would accept the idea of a 49-year-old waiter, which is a respectable career in France, changing career paths and going to medical school. He should instead be planning for retirement.

Here in the States we all know that age discrimination never happens, right? You didn’t get the job because your age. You weren’t hired because it’s “not a good fit,” or “you’re too experienced for such an entry-level position,” or “we can’t meet your salary demands,” and then they do for someone half your age (but you’ll never know that). So, prove it. The only way of winning an age discrimination case is if you are told that you are too old for the job or if a job has a documented preferred age range. Now, we know that no employer is that stupid.

Sixty-four over sixty-two is a big deal. The French know very well that if they get perceived as too old, they’ll get replaced. Those two years give them more of a safety buffer. Macron, who I’m so very hot for, thought this change was only incremental, but it wasn’t. Not to the French. I have every confidence in one thing: the French. They’ll be taking it to the streets – young and old, rich and poor, conservative or liberal. And they will shut that shit down, too. Probably not a great idea to go visiting in the next few weeks.

Emmanuel, dear boy…I know you love your country as much as anything, but you can’t take away something that people have depended on for years. Call me.

I'm hoping most of us here in SoCal will continue to be wise with water - our most essential natural resource - at least until the Colorado recovers. That bitch be dry!


16 Thatcher was plutocrat Ayn-Rander who sucked Reagan's trickle-down cock. That is obviously where your stupidity begins, too.

Stand Down Margaret ring any bells? She was a shill.


@29 -- she was a
SHERO to the Reich

yeah Wealth ain't Income
but they had to Acquire it
somehow and when They
Aquire it* it gives to Them
nearly UNLIMITED access
to "our" Government

they OWN the Media
THEIR Messages are
the one that get
HEARD & their
their Greed is
In- Fucking

look Around you.
85 fucking MILLION
un- and under-Insured
just for Starters it goes on

the Corporate Skim
is fucking DEVASTING
the USA. it's so Nice to
witness your Complicity.

Pooty must be

*a good place to collect
say that Reminds me let’s get some Fucking
Tran$action Fee$ on Wall $t. $peculator$
Bitches're doing some $ERIOU$
fucking $kating.

insteadda fucking BAILOUTS
how 'bout some Infrastructure
& some gottdamm Daycare? is That
too much to Ask? asked Oliver who was
told to go back to Begging or whateverthefuck.

thnx for
Reminding me!

say Hi to Pooty
for Me! I'll try
to stay Away
from any



@24 blame the city. They are the ones who botched the appraisal that they used to make their predictions.

There is a reason so many of us complain that the city is run by incompetent ideologues.

I think the special tax district for the waterfront rebuild project was a good idea. It’s really too bad that incompetence on the part of the council and then mayor botched the numbers.


"the Corporate Skim
is fucking DEVASTING
the USA." --@some-
where, Above

GOD not
ALL* of it! Amirite?

*what's a Measely
when you boil it down, really


@25: We all grow wear over libs trying to "own the conservatives" by demanding a consistent definition of woke, as it has always been a malleable term denoting an "attitude" that folks found obnoxious. As I recall, the term was used in its earlier days by both libs and conservatives, but has been used more recently by conservatives against libs.

Woke means to me the dismantling of traditional norms, conventional wisdom, and traditions of the society as a whole to accommodate the dispositions and politics of particular groups and minority populations.


Does Kristofarian come with an "off switch" or is there a "sub title" option.

His writing is incomprehensible as it is illogical.... and has he pointed out which country, past or present he means as that shining example of socialism? Just saying.


@33: that's not what it means, that's what you want it to mean. 1st result: "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)."

it's a clever trick cons are playing these last few years, subverting meaning and literally legislating against awareness. society has had lots of traditions that deserved to be dismantled, but maybe you think every tradition that deserved dismantling has been successfully dismantled.


their Propagandists're
well-schooled by the likes
of Goebbels\Ailes Roopert Mudroach
and his Lying Liars over to the FOX not to
Mention rusch the Oxymoron limp?bah! "Medal
of Patriotism" or whatever the Fuck from the trumpfster

they 'make' their Billions
& are then Free as Fuck to
unleash their Dystopic World
on the Rest of OUR asses. Why

the fuck do We
ALLOW this?

THEY tell US
WE have NO
the Fuck do we
Believe these Bullies?


Yeah, jeez, even Ron Defuckingsantis acknowledged "woke" to mean nothing more than, and I quote, "the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."

The continued use of what's now undeniably a pejorative term by raindrop and others is sad and stupid. Just use libtarded, as it's got the exact same connotation.


@35: "important societal facts and issues"

Yes, but not everyone can agree on what those are, much less their importance or remedies. That's why we have democratic processes to sort these things out rather than demands for conformity or demands for change.


@37 - Not Ron, his attorney (big difference!):

Asked what “woke” means more generally, [Desantis’ General Counsel Ryan] Newman said “it would be the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”



I'd think having it come on the record from his lawyer should imbue it with even more legitimacy & credibility than if it had came from some bloviating imbecile who eats pudding with his fingers during meetings.


@26 40% estate taxes, except of course for all of the stuff that a careful estate tax attorney can do. Trust funds, real estate held in corporate entities instead of by people, etc. etc.

A lawyer once told me that estate taxes are largely paid by people who didn't do all that stuff to dodge the taxman.


Most Americans know what woke actually means, which is being aware of the institutional mechanisms of white supremacy that permeate this nation. It's no mistake that the far right and white people whose cognitive dissonance manifests in guilt have reappropriated the term to make themselves the victims of their own history that "woke" aka (black/minority and lbgt people) insist on not being, for lack of a better term, whitewashed. Sort of like your January 6th rewriting of history by Tucker Carlson in a nutshell, but for US history in general.

Woke is just the far right's new catchall term for PC, or being called out on their bullshit. You can call segregation and white supremacy traditional norms, conventional wisdom, and "traditions of society as a whole" (an incredible ethnocentric statement coming from a white person), but that doesn't make someone woke when they can point out the disproportionate effects of those norms, wisdom, and traditions on minorities, particular in law enforcement and the justice system.


@27: “The similarities between the two extremes is much greater than either will ever admit.”

And one of those similarities is the ludicrous ease with which they repeatedly get taken by even the most obvious of charlatans. Local righties giving money to Tim Eyeman, and giving their votes to Trump — even though neither guy ever actually accomplished anything worthy of either money or votes. Local lefties can, once again, give money and support to a scam from soon-to-be-ex-CM Sawant. She’s even making it completely obvious, peddling rent control as part of her swindle, even though rent control is one of the many, many promises on which she’s not delivering RIGHT NOW. (But just give her more, and somehow, she’ll do it this time! Just like Eyeman!)

Never has that most descriptive of phrases, “Seattle’s very own Trump of the left,” seemed so very appropriate. You take ‘em, girl!



Help! The only socialist on the Seattle City Council couldn't deliver on promises that she would never be able to keep without more people like her actually voting on policies instead of posturing. Also, I have stood against her every step of the way and because of her lack of progress on doing anything but making symbolic gestures, she has destroyed Seattle single-handedly because the police no longer enforce crime in Seattle. All because one woke socialist killed my city. Waaaaaah


@45: As you seem to need the question spoon-fed to you, here it goes: if she can’t deliver even a draft of her precious rent control legislation in the YEARS she has now spent as chair of the appropriate committee, how on earth will she deliver actual rent control elsewhere?

And thanks for validating my point. You sound like some frustrated local right-winger, grumbling how those evil libs keep on defeating his precious Timmeh.


"if she can’t deliver even a draft of her precious rent control legislation in the YEARS she has now spent as chair of the appropriate committee, how on earth will she de..."


(my favorite part is the giant diagonal watermarking across all 33 pages that reads "DRAFT")


@47: Thank you; I stand corrected. CM Sawant has indeed delivered a draft of rent control legislation. We can simply delete “even a draft of” from my question @46. (The non-answers will, presumably, all remain identical.)


If I hear one more person drag that dumbass margaret thatcher quote out again I swear to god. Hope she's having a blast down there in hell


@47 it may have been drafted but it was never delivered. You’ll notice there is no ordinance number attached and it was never submitted to the council for consideration so it could be assigned to her committee to study. This might as well have been her PhD thesis, it’s just as worthless.


Good grief, Charlie Brown, Nature's pissed! Historic record snowfall, runoff, atmospheric flooding, all the major freeways, the San Gabriels, and LAX are a total mess. Despite all this maybe there is some optimism for Californians dealing with the severity of recent inclement weather patterns. At least the reservoirs finally have some water, any remaining drought restrictions shouldn't be so bad this summer, and the hills will be green again with poppies. Climate change is real. Hopefully we don't have another terrible wildfire season here in the PNW.

Road rage and drive by shootings. And people wonder why my beloved VW and I avoid I-5.

Hannah, you forgot to list the main reason for the sharp increase in maternal mortality rates in the U.S.: The draconian RepubliKKKan neofascist overturning of Roe!


she and ayn rynd're
down there torturing
Puppies drowning kittens
and Still Workin' for the Man.

it's a


I'm just amused how Sawant is simultaneously an ineffective posturing menace to this city and yet she has also accomplished nothing more than symbolic gestures, if that. How can someone who has accomplished so little be so responsible for crime being enforced in this city? I didn't realize Sawant and her socialist ilk were so successful at telling all the special interests and billionaires who live and invest here how to spend their money.


“Spring hits like a party drug.” Ooh soooo edgy.


fuck 'em.

if they don't
Like the Lingo
they can Fuck right Off

Learn whilst ya Earn, baby.



I'd have not even bothered searching for & posting the link (I was far from sure it even existed, TBH) if you hadn't taken such an obnoxiously condescending and self-assured tone in your comment. We all post inaccurate shit on occasion and it's fine, just don't be a jerk in so doing. There are a couple people here who post in bad faith for whom you can justify using some derisive rhetoric, though Garb certainly isn't among them, and we should all strive to avoid doing so in general when possible.


@18 Manolitos Job creation isn't all it's cracked up to be. There is certainly value in planning and coordination, but society is supported because people farm lands and build buildings. Not because Bezos decided that he wanted a personal trip to space. Humanity doesn't need a small number of people dictating how our economy shall be organized in order to figure out how to not starve. Job creation only seems important because the politics of our time demands it be important.

@34 Manolitos There's this magical new technology called eyeballs that lets you look at which user posted a thing and skip past it if you don't want to read what they say. There's also a magical new technology called a brain that lets you be mean to people without adding anything useful to the conversation.

@40 mike blob It's interesting to compare what people say to the public vs the legal system, but I'm not sure that we should consider one to be "more legitimate" than the other. When dealing with the public, people are likely to use hyperbolic language that sounds good, and they're more likely to get swept up into the moment - either saying things they privately believe but weren't supposed to say out loud or saying things that follow the energy of the room if they don't believe them. On the other hand, when dealing with the legal system people are more likely to stick to statements that are provably true, or have no truth value. However, the legal system is also explicit and clear about what consequences follow from what words, and so people will choose their statements based on the response that the legal system will give them, rather than because they earnestly believe them.

@51 District13refugee If it's not going to pass it's not going to pass. I'd rather have a representative who makes it clear that this is an important priority for her district and demonstrates what we could do (through the draft) than someone who just shuts about about important issues because they're not popular (city-wide).

@54 Garb Garblar LOL


@49: No, don't hang your hat on it being a draft. Draft documents are a ubiquitous part of the legistlative process.

Sawant met the deliverable. Bless her heart.


@36 kristofarian: EXCELLENT questions, kris! I share your frustrations and global concerns.


@45, @47, @48, @54: As no one has engaged my comparison of Sawant to Trump and Timmeh, we can take it as demonstrated she’s another pseudo-populist demagogue grifter, just a left-wing version of them. Promising rent control at some higher level as an activist, when she has delivered absolutely nothing on her promises for that very issue as an elected official in a small, liberal city, just makes this point all the more obvious.

@45, @54: She has occasionally been effective in getting legislation passed through the Council; it just so happens her legislation itself was ineffective (or worse). Her “Amazon Tax” passed unanimously, and her “Save the Showbox” measure passed without a dissenting vote, 8-0. The first was rejected by Seattle’s voters in a massive signature-gathering campaign, and the latter was immediately rejected by the courts as the illegal spot rezone that it was. (Abusing the historical designation of the Pike Place Market, crown jewel of both Seattle’s downtown and waterfront, was just icing on that particular cake.) So, it’s possible to be both effective on the Council, and worse than ineffective for the city.


@58 Aside from government jobs, (which are funded by taxes) the only other other jobs come from the private sector... so actually all the jobs come from capitalism at the end of the day... if you follow.

Further, many might disagree with your statement:

"Job creation only seems important because the politics of our time demands it be important."

Some might opine it has little to do with "the politics of our time", but rather they need work to eat, live, have housing, retire, pay taxes and raise a family.

Just a question... are you so indolently wealthy that you can afford to muse so absurdly?

With respect to you pitiful comments on @34. Look up the word "rejoinder" or "satire" ,,,, it characterizes comments with respect to Krazyfarians lamentable and incoherent comments. Most of us got it, but you apparently you missed the subtly required to comprehend the comment.-- could be reading comprehension issues.... Popular in school were you? (FYI--That last comment was an example of a rejoinder and satire)


@47, @48, @57: Look, I’m always willing to admit I’m wrong, and to thank the person who so informs me. I didn’t want to appear otherwise, or get pedantic over semantics, so I graciously let you have your little dig. But now you’ve taken three victory laps for one little detail, including a condescending lecture, I’ll explain to you at length what you got wrong.

Legislation is a group activity. While an undergraduate’s term paper may be in “draft” from the time he pounds 2,500 words into his computer, a legislator hasn’t done anything until her proposed legislation has been submitted to the appropriate committee for consideration. Until that happens, the legislation hasn’t actually been drafted, in the legislative sense of that word — the context in which I used that word. As noted @51, the document you found was never submitted for that consideration, and so it’s more than fair to say the intended legislation was never drafted.

Even if you still want to dispute that point, what is not in dispute remains: CM Sawant has promised action on rent control at the local level for years. She has delivered nothing, she still is delivering nothing, and yet she’s now out promising to deliver rent control on some larger level. Why should anyone take her seriously? What makes her different from other political hucksters, such as Trump and Timmeh? Nothing. That’s my original point, and whether my presentation was hyperbolic or strictly factual, my point remains valid.


@63. You could say she is committed to her principles and is holding out for the policy to gain enough traction and publicity to be voted for by less say, radical members of the City Council because their constituents want them to vote for it and/or elect more people with Sawant's mindset in the future, since apparently there were enough folks in District 3 to elect her that sympathized with her mindset. Just because one person who represents an outlier district of mentalities that makes Seattle the awesome and free city that it is (despite constant right wing projection that anything "w0ke" is a purity test of ingroup oppression) can't get the rest of the surroundings to follow suit, doesn't mean that their failure to advance their policies is because they stop believing in their efficacy.


@64: “You could say she is committed to her principles and is holding out for the policy to gain enough traction and publicity to be voted for by less say, radical members of the City Council because their constituents want them to vote for it and/or elect more people with Sawant's mindset in the future,”

You could say that, yes. She was elected ten years ago, and, by the only date on that rumpled “draft,” seems to have utterly abandoned her local rent-control effort about five years ago. How much longer will her total lack of action take to produce effective action?

“…since apparently there were enough folks in District 3 to elect her that sympathized with her mindset.”

Just barely, as it turned out. And as she hadn’t actually done anything on rent control for years, the link between her bare retention and this cause seems pretty weak.

“…can't get the rest of the surroundings to follow suit,”

That’s actually the point. She had one of the most “awesome and free” cities to work with, she had ten years, and (until she antagonized them with her repeated malfeasances) support from within a very liberal district. Her result? Total failure. Why should we believe she’ll do any better without those advantages?

Actually advancing legislation, whether locally or on a larger level, requires achieving consensus, making deals, building coalitions. CM Sawant has demonstrated absolutely no ability to do any of that, even at the local level, even in an “awesome and free” city, even amongst a few like-minded legislators. Why should we believe she’d ever demonstrate that ability in a much larger setting?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment
Sign In

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.