16 Feb 2020, 12:00 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,435
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Feb 2020, 1:09 am
16 Feb 2020, 9:33 am
Biscuitman
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers
16 Feb 2020, 10:55 am
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,869
Location: Long Island, New York
16 Feb 2020, 11:57 am
Biscuitman
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers
16 Feb 2020, 12:33 pm
16 Feb 2020, 12:48 pm
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,869
Location: Long Island, New York
16 Feb 2020, 1:14 pm
16 Feb 2020, 1:22 pm
16 Feb 2020, 1:26 pm
16 Feb 2020, 1:29 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,435
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Feb 2020, 8:47 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,435
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Feb 2020, 8:49 pm
Roboto wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Roboto wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Yes, rich people and business does have an obligation morally to fund the public. It's called taxation, which is a burden for the common good that we have collectively chosen, either by direct vote or through our representatives. And yes, even poor people do pay taxes - - sales taxes. It's just a matter considering who can afford how much they are taxed, based on what is comfortable for some, and what is financially devastating for others.
Mostly, poor people are poor, because of their attitude and behavior.
For example, credit card debt.
So, this "MORAL OBLIGATION" means some people are required to forever fund the bad attitude and bad behaviors of others??
I would never have an opinion on why some poor people are poor. I'm comfortable with my position that I earned it therefore I earn the right to decide what to do with it. I don't need to apply judgement on poor people in order to feel that way. That the public has decided that my family owes them 50% of what we earn and that isn't enough for them makes me cringe.
You seem to be thinking of taxation as a means of punishing those of means, or that there's something capricious about targeting the rich. No, what I'm talking about is financing the public good, which includes the wealthy. The rich should be taxed more than the middle class or the poor only because they can pay that amount comfortably, whereas the rest of us wouldn't be able to.
What Roboto is talking about are those like him who are already taxed uncomfortably being taxed even more. Can you put yourself in his shoes and see it from his perspective, rather than just deflecting with a "the right always..." spiel?
Then the American right should stop defending the super rich who don't pay taxes. They are not going to feel any discomfort for forking up tax payments. That's the way Roboto will not feel encumbered by taxation.
It's not the super rich that are the core problem. It's the politicians that you elected that create tax loopholes for their friends who donated to their campaigns. If you vote R or D, YOU are the problem.
I've actually addressed that in my latest post, prior to this one.
16 Feb 2020, 9:23 pm
Roboto wrote:
The problem IS the right and the left. Just about every voter who stands on the right or left are voting for the lesser of two evils and are both causing this mess.
yes, it's genuinely boggling how the US is able to get away with calling itself democratic when it has two right-wing parties that differ very little.
i want more VIABLE parties and less money in politics.
choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil
no wonder so many people are apathetic and don't vote at all.
16 Feb 2020, 9:53 pm
17 Feb 2020, 4:09 am
Kiprobalhato wrote:
Roboto wrote:
The problem IS the right and the left. Just about every voter who stands on the right or left are voting for the lesser of two evils and are both causing this mess.
yes, it's genuinely boggling how the US is able to get away with calling itself democratic when it has two right-wing parties that differ very little.
i want more VIABLE parties and less money in politics.
choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil
no wonder so many people are apathetic and don't vote at all.If you want more viable parties then the most important thing is to change the electoral system. FPTP makes it difficult for third parties and no American party seems to be willing to do the work required to be viable anyway. You also probably need to abolish the presidency.
Campaign finance reform seems like a very good idea, but it won’t change anything in itself.
There is huge difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Bipartisanship and overlap are at historic lows. The left wing of the Republican Party and the right wing of the Democratic Party have been hollowed out. You’re left with a broad-tent Democratic Party that spans from Joe Manchin to John Delaney to Rashida Tlaib, and only one prominent Democrat (Manchin) who wouldn’t be wildly out of place in the Republican Party. On the Republican side there are three members of Congress who would fit with Manchin: Collins, Murkowski, and Romney. The rest of the party is a coalition between religious conservatives, “libertarian” populists, and various shades of nationalists including the President’s deeply objectionable form of nationalism.
Tl;dr for that last paragraph:
Trump: I will take away your rights, slash government services, and undermine the rule of law and checks and balances on the president.
Biden: I will expand your rights, increase government services, and support the rule of law and checks to presidential power.
AOC: I cannot tell the difference between these two things.
