Republican response for 2024 - A new political party

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,191
113
Maine
Leftists are the champions of forcibly taking wealth, and turning it into free shit for others. The conservative end of the spectrum champions lower taxes and definitely reforming welfare programs in a way that less people would be on the take from gov't. What side do YOU think underachievers would naturally wanna vote for? I mean this isn't a blanket statement there are plenty of worthless POS republicans (start w/ Ben Sasse), but you hardcore leftists know EXACTLY why you vote how you vote. Free shit, income redistribution. Its ALWAYS about the money.

“You hardcore Leftists” - lol.

I could very easily argue that the Right advocates for forcibly taking wealth from the poor to distribute to the wealthy.

The reality is that the plutocrat class has both parties wrapped around their finger while using identity politics to keep the populace divided. Mitch McConnell was the brains behind Citizens United, which fundamentally changed campaign finance for the worse. It has distorted the “free market” in orders of magnitude that have made the term “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest” more true today than ever.

I just wish everyone could look past this two party bullshit and come to terms with the fact that most of us agree and advocate for tax reform to close all of the loopholes, campaign finance reform, an end to endless wars, and so forth.

But, instead, we get a return to McCarthyism and finger wagging. People need to stop cheering so hard for political parties that don’t give a rip about them. Both parties are running the same racket for the same people. Until there is meaningful campaign finance reform, nothing of real, lasting substance will change.
 

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,522
38,102
113
“You hardcore Leftists” - lol.

I could very easily argue that the Right advocates for forcibly taking wealth from the poor to distribute to the wealthy.

The reality is that the plutocrat class has both parties wrapped around their finger while using identity politics to keep the populace divided. Mitch McConnell was the brains behind Citizens United, which fundamentally changed campaign finance for the worse. It has distorted the “free market” in orders of magnitude that have made the term “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest” more true today than ever.

I just wish everyone could look past this two party bullshit and come to terms with the fact that most of us agree and advocate for tax reform to close all of the loopholes, campaign finance reform, an end to endless wars, and so forth.

But, instead, we get a return to McCarthyism and finger wagging. People need to stop cheering so hard for political parties that don’t give a rip about them. Both parties are running the same racket for the same people. Until there is meaningful campaign finance reform, nothing of real, lasting substance will change.
Quoting it again because the whole post just oozes awesomeness
 

Hyattea

Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2012
7,876
6,733
113
Lincoln
WB operates within the laws, and then actively points out that he should not be legally allowed to do what he does.

Every year he releases a comparison of his effective tax rate compared to his employees. Showing how corrupt the system is.

He may be no saint, but he thinks he has an unfair advantage over people with less than him. And he is not wrong.
Lol. Funny. When Trump operates within the laws , he was attacked by you and others.

lol effective tax rate yet bribes his buddies like Hillary and Biden to shut down the pipeline.
 

Hyattea

Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2012
7,876
6,733
113
Lincoln
“You hardcore Leftists” - lol.

I could very easily argue that the Right advocates for forcibly taking wealth from the poor to distribute to the wealthy.

The reality is that the plutocrat class has both parties wrapped around their finger while using identity politics to keep the populace divided. Mitch McConnell was the brains behind Citizens United, which fundamentally changed campaign finance for the worse. It has distorted the “free market” in orders of magnitude that have made the term “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest” more true today than ever.

I just wish everyone could look past this two party bullshit and come to terms with the fact that most of us agree and advocate for tax reform to close all of the loopholes, campaign finance reform, an end to endless wars, and so forth.

But, instead, we get a return to McCarthyism and finger wagging. People need to stop cheering so hard for political parties that don’t give a rip about them. Both parties are running the same racket for the same people. Until there is meaningful campaign finance reform, nothing of real, lasting substance will change.
Yeah sure, keep you the false dream.

demkcrats are the party if the wealthy and theft.
 

philosophusker

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 16, 2004
14,877
17,990
113
Jonesboro, Arkansas (York, NE originally)
“You hardcore Leftists” - lol.

I could very easily argue that the Right advocates for forcibly taking wealth from the poor to distribute to the wealthy.

The reality is that the plutocrat class has both parties wrapped around their finger while using identity politics to keep the populace divided. Mitch McConnell was the brains behind Citizens United, which fundamentally changed campaign finance for the worse. It has distorted the “free market” in orders of magnitude that have made the term “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest” more true today than ever.

I just wish everyone could look past this two party bullshit and come to terms with the fact that most of us agree and advocate for tax reform to close all of the loopholes, campaign finance reform, an end to endless wars, and so forth.

But, instead, we get a return to McCarthyism and finger wagging. People need to stop cheering so hard for political parties that don’t give a rip about them. Both parties are running the same racket for the same people. Until there is meaningful campaign finance reform, nothing of real, lasting substance will change.
I often point out on here that the top 50 wealthiest people have the same wealth as the bottom 165,000,000. The reason I bring it up is if the bottom 165,000,000 decide to vote together, they could pretty much do whatever they want. We could become a socialist country in no time. (That is not what I want to happen, but just pointing out it could if the 165,000,000 decide to vote together and "redistribute" the wealth.)

People say I am a socialist for pointing that out. I don't have a problem with capitalism, but I don't think it is good for the country to have the wealthiest folks have so much power over the vast majority, just because they have the money.

As long as we have Democratic elections, the power can be taken back by the divided populace as you said. Hopefully if they do they "redistribute" the wealth in a sensible way and keep Capitalism in tact.
 
Last edited:

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
You don’t have to patronize me with any of this a small business owner who has worked for plenty of large corporations. We operate a factory and a Certifoed B Corp brand. Our executive to lowest paid FTE employee is 3.5/1.

The fact remains that income inequality is at its highest levels since just before the ‘29 crash. Period. Full stop. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the rest. We have privatized profits and socialized losses while the extreme rich continue to shelter monies that should be taxed. We have pharmaceutical companies that use publicly-funded research as their foundation for patents and then charge out the nose for drugs. We have industries that lobby to maintain a status quo that works against the public good.

Just like the idea that government beyond a certain size is no longer efficient or good for the public, so it is true with corporations.
Why does income inequity rising matter if everyone is richer. You're seriously going to tell me that a "poor" person in the USA would trade their position now for someone at the same place in society 30-70 years ago, just because things were statistically more equal? A person of modest income in 2021 is way better off than one of modest income in 1950, 1970, 1990, when you consider all things, including safety nets and advanced technology. There are things in poor people's houses now that would only be in really rich people's houses in the 1960s.

If I make $500,000 a year and you make $50,000 a year, then I find a way to make $1,000,000 a year which raises your pay to $80,000 a year, are you saying that it's unfair that my increase is a higher percentage than yours? I'm the one who made your increase possible. You are only the beneficiary.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
Lol you’re getting technical about the definition of corporation in a thread you started about creating a party to appease the American’s wanting “Socialism”.
Why is that funny? I think you're running out of replies.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,191
113
Maine
I often point out on here that the top 50 wealthiest people have the same wealth as the bottom 165,000,000. The reason I bring it up is if the bottom 165,000,000 decide to vote together, they could pretty much do whatever they want. We could become a socialist country in no time. (That is not what I want to happen, but just pointing out it could if the 165,000,000 decide to vote together and "redistribute" the wealth.)

People say I am a socialist for pointing that out. I don't have a problem with capitalism, but I don't think it is good for the country to have the wealthiest folks have so much power over the vast majority, just because they have the money.

As long as we have Democratic elections, the power can be taken back by the divided populace as you said. Hopefully if they do they "redistribute" the wealth in a sensible way and keep Capitalism in tact.

Exactly. And the whole point is that people say “capitalism” as if it is a static, defined point on a spectrum, rather than an entire range of the political-economic spectrum itself. Same with socialism. There is a balancing point that has to be met in order for things not to get out of whack either way. Finding that balancing point is all I am interested in. Parties, etc don’t interest me. Policies do. And right now, this ain’t it. The market is being completely distorted by the same people who espouse the wonders of the “free market”. This is the whole ruse at the moment.

It’s great that a lot of people know names like Hayek, Sowell, Friedman, etc. But a lot of people don’t understand that those are just separate names from the exact same school of economics. More people need to read Karl Polanyi’s ‘The Great Transformation’. More people need to read Marx’s critiques of capitalism without fear of being turned into a communist. For all of his ill-advised ideas of how to “fix” society, his critiques and observations on the inherent contradictions of market fundamentalism were nonetheless poignant and astute. But in this day and age, you can’t say that because nuance is of course the enemy of the Great Narrative.

It is possible to disagree both with market fundamentalism/shareholder primacy and also disagree with full blown Communism. This country and its economy have performed best when the balance that is necessary is met. Even Hayek endorsed a strong social safety net. Hayek! The guy who inspired Friedman! Until we are capable of a discourse absent of labels though, we’re doomed to current destiny. “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets”. So here we are with all-time historic wealth, but most importantly for the long term, income inequality. So clearly the system is broken. Or... not... depends whether you’re talking to the .1%er or the rest of us.

The other thing I can’t understand is how Congress and the West Wing have historically low approval ratings for years now, yet every election cycle the teams sports garbage springs to life and each team’s party is the answer to all of our issues. Nope. We are. At the local level. In our own communities. We don’t read enough. We don’t communicate enough. We have the politics and society that we deserve right now. And it’s all because we give the power away by not being involved as a populace - with each other and with our communities. Hopefully that’s changing.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,191
113
Maine
Why does income inequity rising matter if everyone is richer. You're seriously going to tell me that a "poor" person in the USA would trade their position now for someone at the same place in society 30-70 years ago, just because things were statistically more equal? A person of modest income in 2021 is way better off than one of modest income in 1950, 1970, 1990, when you consider all things, including safety nets and advanced technology. There are things in poor people's houses now that would only be in really rich people's houses in the 1960s.

If I make $500,000 a year and you make $50,000 a year, then I find a way to make $1,000,000 a year which raises your pay to $80,000 a year, are you saying that it's unfair that my increase is a higher percentage than yours? I'm the one who made your increase possible. You are only the beneficiary.

Because the scenario you’re describing is the outlier, not the rule. Income inequality is at its highest since the ‘20s and is cited as a key factor in the crash. It’s unstable. More importantly, the inequality is increasing not due to natural market factors. The playing field isn’t level, no matter what we say.
 

ScarletNCream

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2007
13,474
24,177
113
Why is that funny? I think you're running out of replies.

Because you flip around the term socialism even though we’re not even in the stratosphere of its technical definition. Then the technical definition of corporation is pretty irrelevant in the context of the discussion and you flip it out like a “gotcha moment”. Laughable
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,522
38,102
113
No, the problem is that there's not enough of us.
There's 205 million Christians in the US..

$100/month/person would give you $246B per year, more than enough to meet the needs of those people who desperately need help.

The problem isn't a shortage of Christians, it's a shortcoming of Christians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tb233

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Lol. Funny. When Trump operates within the laws , he was attacked by you and others.

lol effective tax rate yet bribes his buddies like Hillary and Biden to shut down the pipeline.
Trump has never operated within the laws. Read his books. He tells you as much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
There's 205 million Christians in the US..

$100/month/person would give you $246B per year, more than enough to meet the needs of those people who desperately need help.

The problem isn't a shortage of Christians, it's a shortcoming of Christians.
So you think that Christians should give $100 per month for every man, woman, and child who is a Christian, and if they don't, then they come up short.

Do you think that every Christian is employed, not a child, not elderly, etc? When you get to the people who have any money who are Christians, 60 million people and $100/month would be 72 billion. We print that much in a month now.

Should every family of 4 who are Christian give $4,800 per year for the "desperately poor"?

To you, are the only "good" people in the world liberal douches who take people's money and give it to other people for their votes?

Good Lord, we have government program after government program for poor people. We have private charities on top of that, many of them Christian. People can work in this country to earn money too.

"Helping the poor" for you guys is just a cynical catch phrase to shame people who are successful and to get votes. You guys don't give a rats ass about the poor past what they can do for you.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
Because you flip around the term socialism even though we’re not even in the stratosphere of its technical definition. Then the technical definition of corporation is pretty irrelevant in the context of the discussion and you flip it out like a “gotcha moment”. Laughable
You literally make no sense. Just Bla Bla Bla.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
Because the scenario you’re describing is the outlier, not the rule. Income inequality is at its highest since the ‘20s and is cited as a key factor in the crash. It’s unstable. More importantly, the inequality is increasing not due to natural market factors. The playing field isn’t level, no matter what we say.
But poor people were worse off than now at the times when there was more "equity". A poor family in the 70s, 40s, 20s, was way worse off than a poor family now. Read Freakonomics.
 

Hyattea

Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2012
7,876
6,733
113
Lincoln
So you think that Christians should give $100 per month for every man, woman, and child who is a Christian, and if they don't, then they come up short.

Do you think that every Christian is employed, not a child, not elderly, etc? When you get to the people who have any money who are Christians, 60 million people and $100/month would be 72 billion. We print that much in a month now.

Should every family of 4 who are Christian give $4,800 per year for the "desperately poor"?

To you, are the only "good" people in the world liberal douches who take people's money and give it to other people for their votes?

Good Lord, we have government program after government program for poor people. We have private charities on top of that, many of them Christian. People can work in this country to earn money too.

"Helping the poor" for you guys is just a cynical catch phrase to shame people who are successful and to get votes. You guys don't give a rats ass about the poor past what they can do for you.
Yeah. No on should be expected to give, it defeats the point of kindness.
 

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,522
38,102
113
Do you think that every Christian is employed, not a child, not elderly, etc?
No, I'm talking about averages
Should every family of 4 who are Christian give $4,800 per year for the "desperately poor"?
That's between them and God, but the Bible is very clear in it's teaching about money and it's to be given joyfully and abundantly.
To you, are the only "good" people in the world liberal douches who take people's money and give it to other people for their votes?
No, that's dumb
Good Lord, we have government program after government program for poor people. We have private charities on top of that, many of them Christian. People can work in this country to earn money too.
True, True, and true.
"Helping the poor" for you guys is just a cynical catch phrase to shame people who are successful and to get votes.
Not for me it's not.

You guys don't give a rats ass about the poor past what they can do for you.
Sorry?

I don't get how my saying that if we all really had Christ's heart there wouldn't be a need for government assistance is equivalent to what the poor can do for me?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,191
113
Maine
No, I'm talking about averages

That's between them and God, but the Bible is very clear in it's teaching about money and it's to be given joyfully and abundantly.
No, that's dumb
True, True, and true.

Not for me it's not.

Sorry?

I don't get how my saying that if we all really had Christ's heart there wouldn't be a need for government assistance is equivalent to what the poor can do for me?

Guy is the king of hyperpartisanship. Epitomizes it. All absolutes. The only issue with anything you’ve said is it’s nuanced and challenges current norms, which is problematic for OP.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,191
113
Maine
But poor people were worse off than now at the times when there was more "equity". A poor family in the 70s, 40s, 20s, was way worse off than a poor family now. Read Freakonomics.

It’s classic that ‘Freakonomics’ is the book you’re recommending too. It’s literally written by other guys from the Chicago School. I’ll let you find the irony in that related to this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: philosophusker

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
No, if they truly followed Christ the number would be much higher than that because they would give with a joyful heart
What if they don't have any money to give and keep their family afloat? Are they bad people because they take a vacation, maybe go out to eat once in a while, or pay for their kids to play little league and not devote that money to the poor, essentially making them "the poor"?

This is a bullshit discussion because you're talking in generalities and putting some made up number on it to make a straw-man argument against Christians. Christian people are in general very generous with their money and time, more so than secular people and WAY more than political people.

The Levites were the tribe that started the tradition of 10% tithing which lives on today in most churches. This amount was set aside for the priests and running of what we would call the government for the tribe. This was basically it, 10%.

What we have now though is a government that takes 15.3% of what people earn (FICA and employer contribution), then it takes Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, Property Tax, Local Income tax in some places. When it's all said and done, the government (Federal, State, and Local) takes around 25% of what even the lowest wage earner makes (up to 65% for higher earners). Many people actually give 10% extra to their church, although most don't because honestly it's a different world than when the Levites paid for everything with 10%.

The point is that now, most charity is forced by the government. The government takes so much of what we produce, and gives it out in THEIR name, that there isn't much left for people to give. Despite this, Christian people give around $125 billion in tithes and offerings every year and about $50 billion of that goes to charities. That doesn't include all of the charities that they give to that are not part of the church (we support the center for family resources here in Atlanta, for example). It also doesn't include the money that these people give at the point of a gun to politicians who then take the money and give it to who they want to buy votes and make it like "they" are being charitable.

So, bring on the Levites and the 10%. It's way better than the 35% we pay now. Or maybe just accept the fact that most people who are Christian and conservative are OK with paying for the society and just want people like you to pipe down with the "not paying enough" rhetoric.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
No, I'm talking about averages

That's between them and God, but the Bible is very clear in it's teaching about money and it's to be given joyfully and abundantly.
No, that's dumb
True, True, and true.

Not for me it's not.

Sorry?

I don't get how my saying that if we all really had Christ's heart there wouldn't be a need for government assistance is equivalent to what the poor can do for me?
I think the problem that you have is that you look at it backwards. You think that we have government intervention because we as people lack the willingness to take care of our fellow man.

The reality now is that we have government intervention that essentially prevents people from helping their fellow man, and in the process, we create a class of people who are not grateful for a hand up, but people who think that they're entitled to what other people earn. We also rob people of the joy of being able to help someone else, because it's forced and non-specific.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
It’s classic that ‘Freakonomics’ is the book you’re recommending too. It’s literally written by other guys from the Chicago School. I’ll let you find the irony in that related to this thread.
Who cares where the people who wrote it are from? One of the main premises in the 2 books were that now, by any objective economic measure, people in the USA of all classes, on average, are better off now than at any time and in any place in human history.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,191
113
Maine
Who cares where the people who wrote it are from? One of the main premises in the 2 books were that now, by any objective economic measure, people in the USA of all classes, on average, are better off now than at any time and in any place in human history.

I understand completely what their position is. That school of political thinkers and writers, however (hence the calling out of all being from the Chicago School) are famous for omitting social and environmental externalities in their assessments. I didn’t really expect you to pick up on any of that though. There are other schools of political-economic thought. And don’t worry, reading them won’t turn you into a commie. Promise. All I’m interested in is moving this country closer to the ideals it so famously espouses. Campaign finance reform is where my list starts so that the voice of the people is represented faithfully again. I bet you don’t even disagree with that. Imagine that? We likely agree on a lot more than we don’t. Strange what happens when you remove labels.
 

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,522
38,102
113
I think the problem that you have is that you look at it backwards. You think that we have government intervention because we as people lack the willingness to take care of our fellow man.

The reality now is that we have government intervention that essentially prevents people from helping their fellow man, and in the process, we create a class of people who are not grateful for a hand up, but people who think that they're entitled to what other people earn. We also rob people of the joy of being able to help someone else, because it's forced and non-specific.
That's an interesting perspective. I don't know if I agree with it but I can at least understand it.

But we are the richest nation not in the world but in the history of the world.

And again, you keep getting caught up on a poor family paying, whatever.

I'm saying if we truly had the heart of Jesus (should be our goal), the way we have would remove the need for government assistance.

You counter with, so it's not ok if someone takes a vacation? Kind of a weird counter
 
  • Like
Reactions: tb233

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
That's an interesting perspective. I don't know if I agree with it but I can at least understand it.

But we are the richest nation not in the world but in the history of the world.

And again, you keep getting caught up on a poor family paying, whatever.

I'm saying if we truly had the heart of Jesus (should be our goal), the way we have would remove the need for government assistance.

You counter with, so it's not ok if someone takes a vacation? Kind of a weird counter
Just keep in mind that there already is a LOT of government assistance now (both for poor people and for not poor people) that is not needed, other than the need for politicians to buy votes and influence policy with individual's money.

I guess my overall issue is this.

Situation A - A single mom with little education, where the father of her children either died or abandoned them. She has a hard time working because basically her child care costs as much as she can make.

Situation B - A kid gets out of high school and decides not to work, but rather surf, and because he makes that decision, he has no income and qualifies for all kinds of aid that can support his lifestyle, one of only caring about himself the way he is now.

Situation C - A person works, but because he chose to do a lot of drugs and alcohol, loses his job. The effect of his folly is felt by his entire family.

Situation D - A married couple has 2 kids and they both have jobs. One or both of them lose their jobs through no fault of their own, and are in a temporary bad situation.

There are a lot of other situations, but the point is that all of these situations are different and they all merit a different response if the goal is to try to prevent the predicament from occurring over and over again. Unfortunately, the system is set up to benefit these people basically equally as total victims, despite the fact that even in these 4 cases, there is wild variability in the level of responsibility that these people have for their predicament.

No one ever addresses this. Rather the narrative is this general "we need to take more money from the achievers" and give more of it to this noble monolith we call "the poor". The narrative also pushes something more sinister, the notion that people are poor "because" other people are not, when in reality, there rarely is a correlation between the two. This is because poor people in rich countries tend to be richer than poor people in poor countries.

I think we need to help all of the people in the situations above, but how we help them differs by the situation. You shouldn't do the "get off your ass, stop taking drugs, get a job" thing with Situations A and D. But you should for the others.

The point is not the perpetual support of a "poor" class, but rather a hand up to people as they (probably most of them) pass through their poor phase on their way to self reliance.
 

EriktheRed

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2001
8,180
6,961
113
Just keep in mind that there already is a LOT of government assistance now (both for poor people and for not poor people) that is not needed, other than the need for politicians to buy votes and influence policy with individual's money.

I guess my overall issue is this.

Situation A - A single mom with little education, where the father of her children either died or abandoned them. She has a hard time working because basically her child care costs as much as she can make.

Situation B - A kid gets out of high school and decides not to work, but rather surf, and because he makes that decision, he has no income and qualifies for all kinds of aid that can support his lifestyle, one of only caring about himself the way he is now.

Situation C - A person works, but because he chose to do a lot of drugs and alcohol, loses his job. The effect of his folly is felt by his entire family.

Situation D - A married couple has 2 kids and they both have jobs. One or both of them lose their jobs through no fault of their own, and are in a temporary bad situation.

There are a lot of other situations, but the point is that all of these situations are different and they all merit a different response if the goal is to try to prevent the predicament from occurring over and over again. Unfortunately, the system is set up to benefit these people basically equally as total victims, despite the fact that even in these 4 cases, there is wild variability in the level of responsibility that these people have for their predicament.

No one ever addresses this. Rather the narrative is this general "we need to take more money from the achievers" and give more of it to this noble monolith we call "the poor". The narrative also pushes something more sinister, the notion that people are poor "because" other people are not, when in reality, there rarely is a correlation between the two. This is because poor people in rich countries tend to be richer than poor people in poor countries.

I think we need to help all of the people in the situations above, but how we help them differs by the situation. You shouldn't do the "get off your ass, stop taking drugs, get a job" thing with Situations A and D. But you should for the others.

The point is not the perpetual support of a "poor" class, but rather a hand up to people as they (probably most of them) pass through their poor phase on their way to self reliance.

I see a lot of idiots who are Communists or Socialists that post things like the rich people are stealing MY tax money. Rich people are the ones ACTUALLY paying the taxes and many people who are Socialists get tax withholdings, but they are actually PAID to be a tax payer. The rich person might have had a situation where they LESSENED their effective tax rate, but they are not taking people's money. The only way that could in any way make sense is if they are talking about a deal to get like an Amazon move into a specific area and breaks for a company, but a corporate taxing is not individual taxes.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,191
113
Maine
I see a lot of idiots who are Communists or Socialists that post things like the rich people are stealing MY tax money. Rich people are the ones ACTUALLY paying the taxes and many people who are Socialists get tax withholdings, but they are actually PAID to be a tax payer. The rich person might have had a situation where they LESSENED their effective tax rate, but they are not taking people's money. The only way that could in any way make sense is if they are talking about a deal to get like an Amazon move into a specific area and breaks for a company, but a corporate taxing is not individual taxes.

A lot of people have to make up for the shortfall that is created by the super rich lowering their tax bases via offshore tax havens, loopholes written in at the behest of lobbyists specifically for these purposes, or through things like carried interest.

The first item on all of our agendas should be campaign finance reform, swiftly followed by a tax code overhaul that eliminates all of the myriad loopholes, subsidies, etc that create a need to even talk about raising taxes. Until that happens, where does the tax base come from when wealth & income inequality continues to be a runaway train in the wrong direction? When the class that is hoarding the wealth is also lowering their taxes on that wealth, where does the money come from to fund anything?

We're all falling for exactly what the plutocrat class wants us to - arguing over symptoms rather than root causes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sklarbodds