It’s just very funny to have ‘Zohran Mamdani’ (who didn’t work a full time job for more than a decade into adulthood, whose mother is a Qatari-backed film director, whose father is a Columbia professor, and whose family owned both a Chelsea condo and a gated African luxury compound) lecture everyone on the global dispossessed.
If you believe a foreign government can sail a hospital ship to the edge of US territorial waters, deliver a hundred babies to foreign moms, then promptly sail back to a foreign port, and that every one of those babies is American for life, you don’t believe in nationhood at all.
We’re in a fight for the future of the United States, and if Mamdani and his fellow Democratic Socialists are successful—we will have allowed our country to be destroyed from the inside out. Their values are incompatible with everything that has made the United States the envy of the world.
This won’t just stop in NYC, and if we do nothing now, we’ll all wake up in 20 years to a country that looks like Europe, and at that point it will be too late.
Hi Ro, the real scandal is YOU, not the billionaires.
They create jobs, technology and pay taxes.
You take and take. Always asking for more money but have ZERO accountability. And you're selling one MORE magical tax that will suddenly solve all of our problems.
Scapegoat: builders (framed as billionaires)
Bailout: rampant government negligence and fraud
Over the last 25 years we have done the following;
2000: revenue $2T. Spend $1.8T. A $236B SURPLUS.
Today: revenue $5.2T. Spend $7T. A $1.8T DEFICIT.
Revenue up 2.6x. Spending up almost 4x. And the money you don't have, you print, so the inflation lands on everyone who isn't you.
So where does the money go???
Everything has gotten worse.
Healthcare: the most expensive it has ever been. Test scores: historic lows. Infrastructure is degrading and some of the worst in the world. Housing affordability is absolutely wrecked.
Debt in 2000: $5.7T. Today: $39T. We now burn over $1T a year just on the interest. More than the entire military.
Record revenue. Record debt. And a normal family is further from a home than their parents were, on a quarter of the budget.
So the simple question. After all of that, why should anyone hand you EVEN MORE to torch?
You want to gaslight us into thinking one more tax saves it. It does not. You do not fix this with a bigger check.
Show me zero based budgeting. Show me a single outcome worth $7T a year.
Where does $7T go, Ro. Riddle me that.
I have an idea for you. Get a bunch of Dem donors to buy or lease or take over a small hospital. Plenty are close to going out of business.
Have it charge ONLY MEDICARE RATES. For everything. Be completely transparent with every penny you spend so everyone can see what it truly costs to run a small hospital.
See if you can make it work. See what services you can offer. Do not ask for any government subsidies. It has to operate at least to break even.
There are some hospitals that already do this. It wouldn’t be unique. If it works out, you can buy another one. Then another one. Till you have a network.
I’ll help where I can. And for those asking the inevitable, I have tried. As I posted earlier, they all ghosted me after learning how transparent I wanted to be.
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon: Elon is our Einstein. It's rational he checks our government efficiency.
“You’ve got to look at Elon, at SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink – the guy is our Einstein. I'd like to be helpful to him and his companies as much as we can.
I think it is completely rational for someone to look at our government and say it's been ineffective. We deserve good government, and I don't think anyone thinks sending another trillion dollars to Washington, D.C., will lead to good government.
The government needs to be more accountable. It needs to be more efficient. It should be outcomes-based. I mean, I'd say [go] department by department.
I wish them the best. It's going to be complicated. The federal government's complicated. You read about all the people in it. And so, you know, if we could be helpful to them, I'd love to be helpful to them.”
Jamie Dimon on CNBC, January 22, 2025
Gilles, je vais démonter ta prémisse de départ, parce que tout le reste de ton argument s'effondre avec elle.
Tu pars du principe qu'il faut une « sensibilité de gauche » pour ne pas laisser créver les gens de faim. C'est l'inverse total de ce que dit l'histoire économique des 50 dernières années.
Les chiffres bruts.
1990 : 2,3 milliards de personnes en pauvreté extrême. 38% de l'humanité.
2025 : 831 millions. Environ 10%.
1,5 milliard d'êtres humains sortis de la misère absolue en 35 ans. La plus grande réduction de souffrance humaine de toute l'histoire de l'espèce.
Qui a fait ça ?
Pas l'aide internationale. Pas les ONG. Pas les programmes de redistribution. Pas la « sensibilité de gauche ».
Le marché. L'ouverture commerciale. La Chine de Deng en 1978 qui abandonne le maoisme. L'Inde en 1991 qui libéralise. Le Vietnam, l'Indonésie, le Bangladesh qui s'ouvrent au capitalisme.
Les seuls endroits où l'extrême pauvreté a EXPLOSÉ sur la même période ? Le Vénézuela socialiste : de 27% de pauvres en 2008 à plus de 80% en 2018, avec une inflation de 130 000% et un Vénézuélien moyen qui a perdu 11 kilos par dénutrition. La Corée du Nord. Cuba. Le Zimbabwe de Mugabe.
La gauche ne nourrit pas les pauvres. Elle les fabrique.
Le capitalisme produit tellement de richesse que même ses « perdants » américains vivent mieux que la classe moyenne soviétique. Un pauvre US a un frigo, une voiture, un téléphone, l'air conditionné, internet. Un pauvre cubain attend du riz.
Ton argument selon lequel « le social aux USA est un désastre » repète une légende française. La réalité : le PIB par habitant américain est de 80 000$. Français : 45 000$. Un Mississippien — l'État US le plus pauvre — a un revenu médian supérieur au Français moyen.
La vérité que la gauche française refuse de regarder : dans un système libéral, il y a plus de richesse créée, plus largement distribuée, et beaucoup moins de pauvres. Partout. Sans exception. Sur toutes les périodes mesurées.
ÊTRE de gauche en 2026 face à ces données, ce n'est pas avoir de la « sensibilité ». C'est ignorer 35 ans de preuves accablantes. C'est préférer la posture morale au résultat.
La compassion sans résultats, ça s'appelle de la vanité.