Let Them Eat Cake - or - Trump goes full-on Bernie over Corona Virus

So if you return tax payments back to payers, is that redistribution?

 

Just stating the facts. You make the assumptions that I am a socialist, when I am far from it. You make the assumptions that I didn't plan and have a personal safety net, when I do.

Bail out? Is returning tax dollars back the payers a "Bail Out"?

Who said I did? Dude, your ASSumptions are really starting to make you look like one.

All I said was "wealthy people have bills too" and you go off on this tirade that I am a socialist that wants your money. Good lord. From one conservative to another, ****ing turn off Fox.

I am? Where? Show me where I said that.

 

Well, you can't cut the taxes of those who don't pay taxes. Even John Kennedy said that the way to stimulate an economy is to cut taxes. The United States pays too much taxes across the breadth of those who pay taxes - because both sides of the aisle keep spending too much. Those who pay no taxes were not held hostage; how could they be? They pay no taxes.

It was a very entertaining Jon Stewart video, though. Jon did a great job of highlighting all the reasons why I am against paying people not to work. Stewart's views, though, do nothing to prove your point the right wants the poor to make less.

Conservatives want the poor to make more. We want to break the chains Johnson intentionally put on the poor and, especially, on black Americans. We want to continue the road to prosperity that black Americans were on before Johnson. We want to make sure the poor have great educational opportunities so they can prepare for better jobs. We want to make sure that the economy is strong and that there's opportunity for the poor to use their own freedom to lift themselves up from poverty. The left, following Johnson's explicit goals, want only to keep the poor and minorities dependent on government - and, in particular, the Democrats.

As for taxes, the clips were absolutely right that EVERYONE should pay some taxes. If taxes are based on income then the poor will pay less but no one should be exempt and, most certainly, no one should get more in tax credits than they actually had otherwise paid so that they get money from the treasury more than what they put in - a net negative tax amount.

So, no, the right isn't looking for the poor to have less; the right is looking for the poor to experience the self-worth, the gratification, and the joy, of taking responsibility for yourself, making your own way in life, being free from the bonds of government dependency, and making yourself as successful as you want to be.

 

Yes, bailout. It's not returning taxes paid. It's going into debt; creating debt that our children, grandchildren, or beyond will one day have to pay. I don't know how one gets into the 2% bracket and not understand the basic principles of debt and repayment. Inheritance, would be my guess.

You're right. I said those making over 100K don't need a handout. You defended it by saying they have debts and bills, too. Explain to me how that is not supporting the handouts to those making over $100K?

Deny it all you want. You're a socialist - a Bernie-style socialist. You may have made money from capitalism but you still support socialism, just like Bernie with his three houses, book sales, etc., where it's OK for him to make money but the rest of us need socialism. Perhaps you are Bernie...

 

It's not returning tax payments to payers. They're giving to people today, including to those making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, money not that was paid by the recipient but, instead, money that future generations of people actually producing income will have to repay.

The bill passed today is redistributing in just about the worst, most unethical, way we can: they're stealing from our children and grandchildren for the benefit of those who lived irresponsibly today. You might as well reach under the pillow of your children or grandchildren and steal their tooth-fairy money. It's that loathsome and more.

 

Wow. And I'm done. You can take you assumptions and snide remarks and waste them on somebody else.

I dont have the time nor the desire to entertain your douchbaggery.

You're a real hard ass hiding behind that computer screen.

 

but you can cap the tax cuts to the first 250k earned for all Americans
then give a bigger tax cut on that 250k

but republicans fought tooth and nail to get bigger tax cuts for the mega rich

 

agree, they should have capped it at 250k, the right has been balking that 250k is not rich, but now they say 99k is rich

 

republicans know we will have to embrace socialism in the future, no way around it, they just joining in late to the game

foreign outsourcing, foreign imports, automation and AI, all mean no jobs for most Americans in the future

repubicans spending like drunken sailors and giving mega tax cuts to the rich until we go BK and start over

 

Did you lose your home when Obama was president?

 

your confused, that was Bush, remember, the people did not get a stimulus until Obama took office, Bush only bailed out the banks

 

What stimulus did Obama direct at the people? He helped to get their homes back ? Or helped with losses created by criminals in finance, those who needed their money for retirement in late 08 or 09? But had lost much of it with the crash? Like my brother? Who needed his money from wall street !

Since I never invested in the casino called wall street but only in undeveloped land that I unloaded during the housing bubble that was developed as subdivisions here in a superior county school district, I rescued him and only because I dont gamble on wall street .Nor at any other casino. But if not for that land bought long ago when it was dirt cheap he would have been in bad shape. But I digress.

How did Obama stimulate my brother and millions like him? I am curious .

 

No as it was paid off long ago. But my brother would have lost his if not for me . Lots of people here lost homes though. What shocked me was this one subdivision that was huge but only partially finished and around 2/3rds still being constructed. Construction stopped and with a year these homes were torn down to be later constructed again! Instead of completing the construction! Damnest thing I ever watched!

 

how quickly they forget


https://www.thebalance.com/what-was-obama-s-stimulus-package-3305625

"Congress approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in February 2009"

Bush took care of the banks.....

 

Tearing down the houses was a decision obviously made by the banks which owned the uncompleted homes. I'm assuming the property was purchased by a new developer who decided to reconstruct new homes.

As for the corrupt bankers failing to be prosecuted by the Obama administration, It's fairly obvious that there wasn't enough proof to get a conviction; to charge them with a crime and have it go through the court system only to lose, would just be a waste of taxpayer dollars. So I think that saying Obama refused to prosecute them is unfair unless you have proof that he actually directed the DOJ not to take any action.

 

you are right, married people making over 99k can get stimulus, as it doubles for married couples - that only applies to single people or couples that are not married

shows the importance of allowing same gender couples the right to marry, as marriage can carry weight in cases like this

 

Bush removed the regulations, without regulations or laws to address this, hard to address

the greedy rich will do bad things if no regulations or if it's legal

without regulations or laws, some will even defend their bad acts

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html

"From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards."

 

that is where the tax cuts for the mega corps mostly went

 

It shows the importance of government not being in the marriage business. And the importance of government not taking money from one set of taxpayers and giving it others who didn't earn it. Government will never, ever, be able to do it fairly or correctly - mostly because it can't be done fairly but they'll screw it up even more than how it started.

 

yeah, that only became a thing because inter-racial and intra-gender couples were allowed to do it too

I disagree, marriage has to be legal or some people would refuse to recongnise them

insurance being a good example, unless you're advocating for a public option

 

The video is not at all surprising for a Democrat - as in the speaker, not necessarily you - though not necessarily excepting you.

The guy is making a speech to promote universal basic income (UBI) as a way of life after automation has eliminated 50+ per cent of current jobs. But, in typical elitist fashion, he suggests an incentivized UBI system where, in his own example, a troubled kid is encouraged to graduate high school instead of dropping out because a high-school graduate gets a higher UBI than a dropout - because, I guess, it a high-school graduate is better equipped to sit around the house and do nothing than is a high-school dropout.

It also assumes that a key measure of worth is education. Since education is given to many, the right to attend many universities is an automatic inheritance for the children of wealthy alumni, the elite stay elite and the working class stay the working class. And what about very successful people who didn't graduate high school? Or, what about very successful people who didn't graduate college? Bill Gates, for instance?

In the end, you're right about Republicans but you ignore the same from Democrats - and completely disregard the views of conservatives. Given enough conservatives, and those who will lose their jobs will have opportunities to prepare themselves for even better jobs.

 

Why does marriage have to be legal? Who has to recognize them, and for what? The only people that have to recognize a marriage is the married couple, themselves. It's no one else's business.

Companies can choose to provide insurance benefits to domestic partners and did before homosexual marriage was permitted. Or companies could not provide the benefit and deal with the loss of a bunch of great employees and suffer in the marketplace.

I never heard of anyone saying the government should be out of the marriage business over mixed-race marriages - and I was raised in a mixed-race home from the age of 7. But I'll grant that the idea did come from the government expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. The fear is, at least for me, not so much the homosexual marriage as much as it is that the government is also being pressured to give equivalence to bigamy and to NAMBLA. Next will be marriage to animals. In other words, if the government is running it, the courts must guarantee equal access and rights to marriage for all with no moral or other limitations.

 

he is not promoting it, he is saying that is the future, and he is right

it won't be a choice, AI will replace the workers

either that or we go back to the dark ages and start over.... time will tell

 

many reasons, unless other laws define family right, property rights, ect....