People on the Left - Can you Explain?

I see a rich guy and a rich woman agreeing that the poor need to pay taxes for their own good. Taxes should be like behavior modification for people who would not be able to behave if they had more money to spend.
What am I missing?

 

So far, 4 views and no defense.

 

I'm not on the left, but right off, I would say that poor people don't need somebody stealing from them to make them feel like they need to work harder so they don't get robbed. Being poor is a good enough indicator that you aren't exactly setting the world afire.

 

Bloomberg's theory is that taxes should be raised on the poor, so they don't have so much disposable cash with which to make poor dietary decisions. In other words, make it economically impossible for them to buy a soda.

 

Bloomberg is no left wing anything.
FAIL

 

I would need to see proof that taxes affect behavior. Trickle down economics seem to fail in proving this time and time again.

 

Isn't this guy in the top 2 or 3 of gun control initiative contributors?

And he wants to control poor people...

hmmmm

 

A defense of his statement on the basis of his Democratic partisanship would contradict the principles that are the foundation of that party. . . . With $50 billion, I suspect that he is not really able to empathize with the indigent, and really has NO right to make such a comment.

I do not consider this an indictment against liberals, but proof that the wealthy do not really understand the plight of the impoverished. . . . Anyway, do all Republicans agree with everything that Donald Trump says???

 

All you have is ad homs. Never facts.
Soda-banning is a big part of the Left platform. Michelle Obama made it her "First Lady" focus.

 

How about I post a video of David Duke calling for the murder of all blacks and gays and title the thread "People on the right -- Can you explain?"

 

Good point. But soda-banning is part of the Left's platform. I won't say "liberal" because the Left is anything but liberal.

 

So he wants to steal from the people who need money the most and are also the most willing to use what they earn to put back into the economy. Makes absolutely no sense, with any worldview. There is also NO evidence that on average the poor don't know how to spend their money, or that having less money to spend would somehow help them. They already spend all their money on necessities in the first place. Also Bloomburg is not on the left. Obvious troll.

 

That isn't clear logic. I didn't post a video of Charles Manson saying he was like all people on the Left. In the same way, Duke's views are his own, not part of the official republican platform.

Soda banning and raising taxes are very solid parts of the Left's platform. Pelosi stated for the record that she wants to raise taxes.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pelosi-says-she-wants-to-increase-taxes-2018-05-08 Of course that means on the poor as well as the middle class. Bloomberg simply said out loud what the fundamental philosophy behind high taxes is: WE will take your money and spend it because WE know better.

 

Bloomberg is all over the place - where ever he can find votes. However, the opinion he espouses in this video is definitely LEFT.

 

Soda banning and raising taxes is a policy of any semi totalitarian regime. It's completely exclusive from right or left. Both sides do it, with different motivations.

P.S. I like how this guy is subtly advocating putting the poor into literal tax slavery. Pretty much indentured servitude. I guess, nice try... Pure evil right there.

 

Michelle Obama made it her flotus project to discourage soda.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/flotus-cut-sodas-schools#50538
http://time.com/3020500/michelle-obamas-soda-water-health-junk-food/

Ironically, she advertised for the same soda companies who got into the flavored water business. Flavored water is as bad a choice as soda, and the profit margin for coca cola is through the roof.

 

You'll have to show me that in writing - the Right's writing not the Left's fake news.

 

We are all individuals, and NONE of us can be defined by a rigid category. Soda usage, regardless of dispensed size, is certainly not an important part of ANY platform, so how is this relevant???. . . . Very few of ANY party would adamantly insist on banning 40 ounce "Big Gulps".

One of the most important facets of freedom is that we are not bound to servitude by virtue of our economic class, even though the wealthy have the tendency to attempt to dominate us.

 

The only thing the left is into today is Trump hate. Ask them a question and their answer is: "TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! AAARRRGGGHHH!"

 

"Left Wing Billionaire"

 

Bloomberg is a Robber Baron who thinks he knows what is best for us lowly pheasants.

 

In this interview he says restricting immigration is bad for the economy:
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/bloomberg-restricting-immigration-hurts-u-s-economy/

Hmm, looks like he wants more of those people, but doesn't necessarily trust them with a gun, their own money, or a can of soda.

 

I’m not justifying the left in wanting to ban or limit sodas but I understand the reasoning - sodas are fairly bad for overall health and wanting people to be more healthy is admirable, especially looking at the billions it cost the US in healthcare every year, even more so when people are using taxpayer funds (food stamps) to buy the soda and then more taxpayer funds to pay for their healthcare.

The republican stance on gays is fairly well known, if you really want links I’ll be happy to provide several, 1/3rd of self identified republicans do not believe consensual same sex relations should be legal, 60% believe same sex unions should be banned and over half believe open discrimination is warranted. Programs such as mandatory minimums and marijuana prohibition that largely effect minorities shows their stance on blacks. Who benifits from anything that the far right advocated for, who is it trying to help?

 

Trump who?

 

He’s the guy who wanted to make the poor pay a lot more for soda. Soda taxes are a tax by liberal control freaks on the poor to take something away from them.