The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Wow. Just Wow.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/to.../29/id/869261/



So this yutz wants a nuclear war to get a "course correction" after Trump's presidency.

Oh, well, no shortage of idiots in the world.

What I want to know is how long before the liberal elites and their allies in the media excoriate this guy, make him persona non grata, not fit to be associated with, as they would have done with anyone on the right who made a similar suggestion to get a "course correction" after 8 years of the prior sorry excuse for a president.

Why should they?
For over a year I have told you the left will cease to course correct, to fold when the right embraces such stuff, and now they are growing (badly, and ill advised as it may be) the same spine the right has.
FOX is all about "where is decency"
Where was Decency in the Birther movement?
Where was Decency "on both sides in Charlottesville?
Where is Decency when 5% of your crime comes from immigrants (legal or otherwise), and 95% is internal?
You are no longer Decent people, and you identify with the non decent.
You can massage "personal opinion" all you want, but it is quite clear you want a right leaning trump informed SCOTUS, a branch of government that should remain entirely non-partisan.
Roe Vs Wade should not be a partisan hack job, it should be a view of the legal ramifications of the decision. The ACA should -ALSO- fall under this if it needs to go to the SCOTUS, though I doubt getting healthcare is that much of a legal argument, unless you believe it does not fall under the umbrella of life, liberty and freedom.
What world do you want to build?
At the moment, it's pretty hateful, pretty bitter, and mostly stupid.

[Gatefan1976]

I think Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, said it best so I'll quote him.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Companies receive that same protection and benefits from the state, and thus they ought to be taxed accordingly. Any return of that taxation is a gift of the state. Smith recognized that taxes are a prerogative of the state, and as long as they are properly administered and levied the wealth the state extracts through taxes are its property.

Tax credits is not the same thing as lowering taxes. Lowering taxes means reducing the maximum tax rate. Tax credit means a return of tax income. The credit is the government giving it's money that it collected back to the entity that gave it.

Capitalism is not anti-taxation. If anything it plays a central role in capitalism becuase the state is the mechanism that allows companies and private ventures to operate with security and it regulates laws defining and protecting private property.

Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, private labor, open and free markets, and self regulation via the invisible hand. It does allow for state intervention. For example, Walmart can't just hire a small army to occupy Target's property and dispose of their competition because the state would intervene. But for that to hold true, Target owes the state as much as Walmart.

Don't bother, he is an ignorant troll.

[SoulReaver]

What are you babbling about? Taxes are levied upon workers and corporations.

I'll requote for your convenience:

why should this only apply to the elites? GOP says taxes are a burden to big corporates but a duty for the average joe?

trumpets certainly took King Don's crumbs temporary tax cuts as a gift

so, did you consider King Don's crumbs a "gift"? were you grateful to him?

[SoulReaver]

Wow. Just Wow.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/to.../29/id/869261/

So this yutz wants a nuclear war to get a "course correction" after Trump's presidency.

in a way he's wrong, "during" would be better since there may be no after (King Don won't step down he'll either rig the elections or declare martial law if he loses)

What I want to know is how long before the liberal elites and

what liberal elites? King Don himself confirmed that long known truth that only the neocons were too dumb to understand - who are the real elites:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=troG0UnJJok
(and those imbeciles are cheering they got memory of a gold fish they've already forgotten what King Don campaigned on lol)

[Annoyed]

so, did you consider King Don's crumbs a "gift"? were you grateful to him?

Well, since the tax bill will decrease my tax bite, I suppose I ought to be.

[Annoyed]

I think Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, said it best so I'll quote him.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Companies receive that same protection and benefits from the state, and thus they ought to be taxed accordingly. Any return of that taxation is a gift of the state. Smith recognized that taxes are a prerogative of the state, and as long as they are properly administered and levied the wealth the state extracts through taxes are its property.

Tax credits is not the same thing as lowering taxes. Lowering taxes means reducing the maximum tax rate. Tax credit means a return of tax income. The credit is the government giving it's money that it collected back to the entity that gave it.

Capitalism is not anti-taxation. If anything it plays a central role in capitalism becuase the state is the mechanism that allows companies and private ventures to operate with security and it regulates laws defining and protecting private property.

Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, private labor, open and free markets, and self regulation via the invisible hand. It does allow for state intervention. For example, Walmart can't just hire a small army to occupy Target's property and dispose of their competition because the state would intervene. But for that to hold true, Target owes the state as much as Walmart.

I'm not opposed to taxation, I know full well it is necessary. The govt. has to get money to pay police, schools, courts, the military, infrastructure and so on.
I just think it is important to keep the distinction that all wealth is created by private enterprise/individuals, and belongs to them. The view that a tax break/credit or whatever is "welfare", somehow the state is giving something to the private entity. Using language with describes it that way will eventually erode that concept in the minds of people.

[aretood2]

I'm not opposed to taxation, I know full well it is necessary. The govt. has to get money to pay police, schools, courts, the military, infrastructure and so on.
I just think it is important to keep the distinction that all wealth is created by private enterprise/individuals, and belongs to them. The view that a tax break/credit or whatever is "welfare", somehow the state is giving something to the private entity. Using language with describes it that way will eventually erode that concept in the minds of people.

Are there any examples of that though?

Taxation does not wither away nor threaten private property. If anything, private property begets taxation. Without it, taxes become moot. We tax property, income, sales, gifts, inheritance, and even for being alive (head tax). Grant it, taxation has become excessive, but that furthers my point. Excessive taxation has not eroded private ownership. I don't see that threat at all. How would it manifest itself?

"Welfare" is a buzz word, so let's not use it. It is a government subsidy. By returning a portion of taxes to select corporations, the government is forgoing taxes owed to it by said companies. That is a net gain for the companies and a net loss for the government. It is no different, from the point of view of the state's coffers (and the taxes taken from my paychecks), than giving them a check.

[Annoyed]

Are there any examples of that though?

Taxation does not wither away nor threaten private property. If anything, private property begets taxation. Without it, taxes become moot. We tax property, income, sales, gifts, inheritance, and even for being alive (head tax). Grant it, taxation has become excessive, but that furthers my point. Excessive taxation has not eroded private ownership. I don't see that threat at all. How would it manifest itself?

"Welfare" is a buzz word, so let's not use it. It is a government subsidy. By returning a portion of taxes to select corporations, the government is forgoing taxes owed to it by said companies. That is a net gain for the companies and a net loss for the government. It is no different, from the point of view of the state's coffers (and the taxes taken from my paychecks), than giving them a check.

Absolutely.

Long ago, well before you were even a gleam in your father's eye, the very idea of the police setting up random roadblocks to check for compliance with V&T laws was unthinkable. And then the anti-dwi crusade brought in the idea if checkpoints looking for drunk drivers. Nowadays, they set check points up for seat belt use, registration/state inspections and a host of other things.

Get the idea in the front door in the first place, and it's very easy to open the door wider.

That's why it is important that the mindset that tax breaks are giveaways to the recipient never takes hold in our society. Not taking as much of what was originally the private entity's property is not giving anything to him. That distinction cannot be lost.

[aretood2]

Absolutely.

Long ago, well before you were even a gleam in your father's eye, the very idea of the police setting up random roadblocks to check for compliance with V&T laws was unthinkable. And then the anti-dwi crusade brought in the idea if checkpoints looking for drunk drivers. Nowadays, they set check points up for seat belt use, registration/state inspections and a host of other things.

Get the idea in the front door in the first place, and it's very easy to open the door wider.

That's why it is important that the mindset that tax breaks are giveaways to the recipient never takes hold in our society. Not taking as much of what was originally the private entity's property is not giving anything to him. That distinction cannot be lost.

That has nothing to do with taxes and capitalism and subsidies. It doesn't work as a good proof of concept because the situations are not comparable. In other words, you are comparing apples to headphones.

[Annoyed]

That has nothing to do with taxes and capitalism and subsidies. It doesn't work as a good proof of concept because the situations are not comparable. In other words, you are comparing apples to headphones.

I dunno, maybe you're not getting me.

A society's ideas are expressed on its language. If a Capitalist or other society believes that all wealth and the means to produce it belong to individual entities, rather than the state, it shouldn't have the idea that wealth is first the property of the state, rather than the individual in its language, except as an abstract concept used to describe other societies. I don't want that idea established in our society.

Considering a tax break to be the equivalent of a govt. gift to whoever is getting it makes exactly that assumption, and for that reason is unacceptable to me.

[DigiFluid]

FOX is all about "where is decency"
Where was Decency...

They labeled it "political correctness" and decided it was bad.

[Coco Pops]

Some tweets from the USA

Wow things are getting bad if you are trans but this is what all the fundies wanted. Soon you may not have access to medical care. Wonderful hey?


https://i.imgur.com/VbSPe5P.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/SIaJXHa.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/c9TgOXK.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/c9TgOXK.jpg



So why is this allowed to happen?

[Annoyed]

They labeled it "political correctness" and decided it was bad.

Political correctness is bad.
Not telling someone something because it might offend them doesn't do them any favor.

[Gatefan1976]

They labeled it "political correctness" and decided it was bad.

To a degree, yes.
Chasing WH officials out of eateries is bad NOW...………………
A matter or perspective.

Political correctness is bad.
Not telling someone something because it might offend them doesn't do them any favor.

You are an idiot, and I am applying your own standards, I say what I want, I let others judge. If you are the only one who does not agree, perhaps I am not at fault?

[Coco Pops]

So what do you make of the Ausssie govt wanting people who access their services having to provide biometric data from October onwards?

What if you don't have a camera on your PC?