If Trump doesn't win in 2020, the church leaders will be murdered.

[Persian Vol]

After working so hard to get to where I'm at I don't want the .gov taking more of my money to "help" people that won't work as hard as I did. My money is that you won't either within the next 10-15 years.

@SpaceCoastVol would you like to ask hog what he means by how hard he works?

 

[hog88]

@SpaceCoastVol would you like to ask hog what he means by how hard he works?

I said "did".

 

[05_never_again]

It is as if you are implying that we should have more faith in individual billionaires than a democratically elected government? Is this truly what you are implying? No one is stopping Jeff Bezos from donating money. I am sure you are aware that the billionaires/multi-millionaires and their influence on our politicians is precisely why our system is corrupt and useless. Your cynicism toward the government and their overall ineptitude is based off the same issues I am putting forth.

If you want to get money out of politics, you have to make it not worth somebody's while to lobby or donate (i.e., take power away from government). The reason why there is so much money in politics is that government has so much power to sell and so much money to give away. Donations and lobbying therefore have a tremendous ROI. Donations of tens of thousands of dollars can mean hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars coming your way. It needs to be made a much less attractive investment. The solution to too much money in politics is not to just take more rich people's money. The government has the power in this relationship - the bribe taker, not the bribe maker, has the power.

Also, why the preoccupation with income inequality? If the bottom rungs of society doubled or tripled their income, but it meant that the top 1% also doubled or tripled their income, would that be a bad thing because the "wealth gap" increased? People like Bernie, AOC, Pocahontas, et al really show their hand because their heated rhetoric is always about how rich rich people are, not how poor poor people are. What really chaps their @$$ is that the rich are that rich, not that the poor struggle to the extent they do. If I was poor, I wouldn't give a s**t about the gap between me and the richest people on Earth. Why should I care about that? I mean, I'd like to make more money and live a more comfortable life...that's it. Who cares what the richest guy makes?

I'd like to see poor people make more money. I don't really care what the top 1% makes. AOC said it is immoral to have a society that allows people to accumulate billions of dollars. Why, provided they made that money legally? Economics is not a zero sum game; that is the fatal flaw in most of leftist economic thinking. Does the fact that billionaires exist mean that I can't live comfortably, or become a millionaire myself?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No one is advocating taxing anyone into poverty? The idea is to explore ways in which we can mitigate income inequality. I am sure that you do not believe that a system in which 3 individuals contain more wealth than the poorest 160,000,000 people is healthy for the economy and the American people.



It is as if you are implying that we should have more faith in individual billionaires than a democratically elected government? Is this truly what you are implying? No one is stopping Jeff Bezos from donating money. I am sure you are aware that the billionaires/multi-millionaires and their influence on our politicians is precisely why our system is corrupt and useless. Your cynicism toward the government and their overall ineptitude is based off the same issues I am putting forth.



I feel like you are rambling here. I'm not sure what the purpose of this is other than the common pro capitalist "if you work hard you will do well" theme isn't that accurate in your eyes?



He also had his wealth before birth as well. If you truly think Bernie or Warren are secretly fighting for the interests of corporations, I truly do not know how to have an objective conversation with you.


I don't have enough time to reply to every post, but you asked for this one in particular.

wow. Income inequality. Again with that. Should your nurses, PAs and secretaries make as much as you when you start your practice?

Again, you are conflating the interests of billionaires and the influence of billionaires. I have zero faith in 'democratically elected' government because they have run up an insurmountable debt. YOU are going to have to pay for that, Doctor. You are right, no one is stopping Mr Bezos from donating. However the government is TAKING form him, so what is his incentive to give more? Why doesn't the .gov give 1 for 1 tax credits for monies donated to charities? You know the answer. because even the most mentally retarded liberal knows the government is pathetically inept at managing money.

I agreed with you that the influence of billionaires is wrong, and your contention that Pocahnotas and the old Socialist are fighting them is naive at best... dangerous at worst. They will kow tow to theose that line their pockets.

You still haven't defined 'hard work'.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

@SpaceCoastVol would you like to ask hog what he means by how hard he works?

No. That is for you to define. I don't care whether or not he took a $1 million trust fund and turned it into a $10 millioin dollar one by clipping coupons or if he built a business from scratch. YOUR contention is that the first guy worked less hard and is therefore less worthy to keep his money. And the pathetic thing is is that you can't justify it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don’t disagree that through age comes wisdom, but let’s try and avoid shutting down someone’s argument because of their age and not through reason.

I'm not shutting down your argument. I'm merely agreeing that youth and a lack of experience generally combine with the bravado of youth to be expressed as over-confident instruction.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

@Persian... should student loans be forgiven?

 

[05_never_again]

No. That is for you to define. I don't care whether or not he took a $1 million trust fund and turned it into a $10 millioin dollar one by clipping coupons or if he built a business from scratch. YOUR contention is that the first guy worked less hard and is therefore less worthy to keep his money. And the pathetic thing is is that you can't justify it.

That's another thing I can't stand about left economic thinking. They love to designate themselves as some kind of arbiter/judge that gets to determine whether or not someone "deserves" the amount of money you have. If you inherit a ton of money, for example, you don't "deserve" it, so that should be subject to essentially a confiscatory tax. If you earn passive income, you didn't "work for it," so that should be taxed at a higher rate.

Also lost on them is the irony that they believe the US Government was founded on racism, sexism, white privilege, genocide of Native Americans, etc., but the solution to all of this is to allow this same government to correct it. Many (not all) of them hate the government and probably actually hate the country itself, but this same government also has all the solutions. Remember Occupy Wall Street and how they were upset the banks got hundreds of billions? They were in NYC, in front of the banks, to protest. Why not protest in front of the entity that gave them all the money? If they didn't get that money, many of them would have gone bankrupt, to the glee of the Occupiers. I never once saw their anger directed at Congress or the Federal Reserve. I think that's because ultimately they aren't upset that the banks got money. They're upset the banks got money but they didn't.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Also lost on them is the irony that they believe the US Government was founded on racism, sexism, white privilege, genocide of Native Americans, etc., but the solution to all of this is to allow this same government to correct it.

I can't like this statement enough. It goes right to the heart of their hypocrisy.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I can't like this statement enough. It goes right to the heart of their hypocrisy.

That's just it. They don't want the same gov't to fix it. There is a cultural revolution to fundamentally change gov't. You haven't noticed the degradation of the constitution, the legislation from the bench, etc?

 

[LouderVol]

No one is advocating taxing anyone into poverty? The idea is to explore ways in which we can mitigate income inequality. I am sure that you do not believe that a system in which 3 individuals contain more wealth than the poorest 160,000,000 people is healthy for the economy and the American people.



It is as if you are implying that we should have more faith in individual billionaires than a democratically elected government? Is this truly what you are implying? No one is stopping Jeff Bezos from donating money. I am sure you are aware that the billionaires/multi-millionaires and their influence on our politicians is precisely why our system is corrupt and useless. Your cynicism toward the government and their overall ineptitude is based off the same issues I am putting forth.



I feel like you are rambling here. I'm not sure what the purpose of this is other than the common pro capitalist "if you work hard you will do well" theme isn't that accurate in your eyes?



He also had his wealth before birth as well. If you truly think Bernie or Warren are secretly fighting for the interests of corporations, I truly do not know how to have an objective conversation with you.


I don't have enough time to reply to every post, but you asked for this one in particular.

yes

I trust Bill Gates far more than I do 99% of people in DC/state government. Remove the ones obviously in bed with the government (Bezos, Kochs etc) and I would say I generally trust them more. they actually did something of worth, most politicians just make things worse for the people.

and your way to fix the level of influence is to tax away most of their wealth? May not be poverty but that sounds like straight highway robbery. Nothing the dems have proposed would do one thing to remove that power. in fact any socialist idea just puts more power and money into fewer hands. its a recipe for disaster. all you are doing is playing to what one side's rich backers want them to say. because they know it won't actually hurt the 1%ers. the 1% will stay the one percent, it will even get worse. all you are doing is making the mid 2-25% look a lot like the bottom 25.

Bernie:
Sen. Bernie Sanders - Campaign Finance Summary

I see a couple big names on that contribution list. may not be as big as some others but he isn't telling them no. Also willing to bet a few of your Billionaires made individual contributions to him.

 

[LouderVol]

Which is why it is unhealthy for people to believe in pure unregulated capitalism without socialistic aspects to counter.

capitalism doesnt control wealth at all. it allows it to freely move. any restriction on that movement (or requirement that it moves) is extremely un-capitalistic. anything government required is anti-capitalistic, its why you see huff on here daily freaking out about eco requirements, tariffs, etc. its also why you 8188 drop in once a blue moon to call everyone liberals.

look at regulations, the single biggest item holding back new small businesses, and protecting the mega corps. that's socialism at play. you cant just claim the parts of socialism you like while ignoring the bad.

 

[LouderVol]

I said "did".

truff

 

[Persian Vol]

wow. Income inequality. Again with that. Should your nurses, PAs and secretaries make as much as you when you start your practice?

No of course not. Do you truly think it is healthy for the economy and the American people that 3 individuals have more wealth than 160,000,000 people combined?

Again, you are conflating the interests of billionaires and the influence of billionaires. I have zero faith in 'democratically elected' government because they have run up an insurmountable debt. YOU are going to have to pay for that, Doctor. You are right, no one is stopping Mr Bezos from donating. However the government is TAKING form him, so what is his incentive to give more? Why doesn't the .gov give 1 for 1 tax credits for monies donated to charities? You know the answer. because even the most mentally retarded liberal knows the government is pathetically inept at managing money.

Oh this is just nonsense. The man in charge of a company who paid zero income tax and with a 165.6 billion dollar net worth isn't donating enough because the government is taking too much? This is your worst argument I have seen from you. You have more cynicism on a democratically elected government than an individuals greed, and I find that remarkable.

I agreed with you that the influence of billionaires is wrong, and your contention that Pocahnotas and the old Socialist are fighting them is naive at best... dangerous at worst. They will kow tow to theose that line their pockets.

This is more cynicism than reality.

You still haven't defined 'hard work'.

I did in a separate post.

 

[Persian Vol]

capitalism doesnt control wealth at all. it allows it to freely move. any restriction on that movement (or requirement that it moves) is extremely un-capitalistic. anything government required is anti-capitalistic, its why you see huff on here daily freaking out about eco requirements, tariffs, etc. its also why you 8188 drop in once a blue moon to call everyone liberals.

look at regulations, the single biggest item holding back new small businesses, and protecting the mega corps. that's socialism at play. you cant just claim the parts of socialism you like while ignoring the bad.

Which is why I am against protecting mega corps and ending the corruption in politics. I am not blindly defending all things socialist as many of you think I do. I am a capitalist at heart. But in this day and age, the only way I can foresee combating this issue is for the electorate to rise against corporate exploitation that has been plaguing this country for decades. And if it must be through a political revolution and government legislation so be it. Thankfully we live in a democracy that allows that to be even possible.

 

[Persian Vol]

No. That is for you to define. I don't care whether or not he took a $1 million trust fund and turned it into a $10 millioin dollar one by clipping coupons or if he built a business from scratch. YOUR contention is that the first guy worked less hard and is therefore less worthy to keep his money. And the pathetic thing is is that you can't justify it.

When did I say this? Who is the first guy?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No of course not. Do you truly think it is healthy for the economy and the American people that 3 individuals have more wealth than 160,000,000 people combined?

You keep harping on this point. How many would you consider 'healthy'?

Oh this is just nonsense. The man in charge of a company who paid zero income tax and with a 165.6 billion dollar net worth isn't donating enough to because the government is taking too much? This is your worst argument I have seen from you. You have more cynicism on a democratically elected government than an individuals greed, and I find that remarkable.

You are making a value judgement that you have no right to make. It is none of your business how much of one's wealth they give away. You call it greed which I find really interesting. I call it protection from a greedy, incompetent government. While we are at it, I could make the argument that any of a number of billioniaires shouldn't be paying any income taxes because they create taxpayers that far exceed their personal contribution to the DC swamp. Fred Smith, Gates, Bezos.... all have made taxpayers. By the thousands. Where would your precious government be without them? Not only would it not have those tens of thousands of taxpayers, it wouldn'd have the billionaires themselves to take from. And you call the billionaires greedy? It is laughabally pathetic


Do you remember when the oil companies were hauled in front of congress to explain their profits? If you do, you also remember that congress left those hearings with their collective tails wrapped in shame around their own Johnsons because it was made crystal clear that it is the government that is the greedy party in all of this. Someday you will realize this. I wish I could be there to see your enlightenment.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

When did I say this? Who is the first guy?

For the 2000th time. Define 'hard work'. It is the crux of your argument. (you siad you did in another post. I don't have that reference. Humor me)

The first guy was the one that clipped coupons. The second built a business. Define which worked harder. Define whish is worthy to keep his money.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Which is why I am against protecting mega corps and ending the corruption in politics. I am not blindly defending all things socialist as many of you think I do. I am a capitalist at heart. But in this day and age, the only way I can foresee combating this issue is for the electorate to rise against corporate exploitation that has been plaguing this country for decades. And if it must be through a political revolution and government legislation so be it. Thankfully we live in a democracy that allows that to be even possible.

The hell you are. You are a ****ing socialist.

 

[Purple Tiger]

LOL.. If you are not destitute, Medicaid will ensure that you are by seizing all your assets to pay for that 'free' medical service. Do you really know what Medicaid is, and can you seriously say with a straight face that you believe it is a good alternative to anything we currently have?

]You are easily baited. I never advocated for any health care system. Every Single payer plan I have seen would not be run like the VA but Medicaid. All I said.

 

[Purple Tiger]

Socialism existed long before capitalism. It was first a response to monarchies and oligarcharies in which wealth was actually controlled.

Wealth controls at either end of the spectrum dont work. Capitalism allowed actual movement between "classes" something neither monarcharies or socialism allows, and is a fairly recent development compared to the others. Largely accredited to the industrial revolution.

If you are at all for any type of wage control you are socialist. And it's not contradictory to believe that you would share your income that falls over that amount. All you are arguing for is the government sets that vs actual charity. Most people would rather determine their own level of charity vs the government telling them how much they can earn.

There was capitalism back in the Middle Ages and throughout the Renaissance. Socialism came about in the 1800s,

 

[Orangeslice13]

Unless you're rich, you don't have quality healthcare. Have you ever noticed why almost every president in the last 50 years has live well into their 90's?

Lol
I don’t think the people liking your post understood the point you’re making

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

]You are easily baited. I never advocated for any health care system. Every Single payer plan I have seen would not be run like the VA but Medicaid. All I said.

Oh, OK then. That is much better.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

There was capitalism back in the Middle Ages and throughout the Renaissance. Socialism came about in the 1800s,

We also had cholera and influenza pandemics as well. At least there are vaccines for those. Mental diseases are much harder to treat.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'd love to fast forward this conversation 15 years.

I thought the same thing.