Bigga
Well-Known Member
And that would make you a complete fool.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Donald Trump
- Thread starter RichardDunneOwnGoal
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
And that would make you a complete fool.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
And that would make you a complete fool.
Why? You don’t ask what we think, you assume you already know. It’s not a hard follow to suggest if somehow given the power to govern, you’d act the same with your “subjects”. It’s a behavioral flaw that manifests itself in the stringency of your ideology. It just happens to be a leftist ideology, but it could just as well be right wing one.
Incidentally, the reason I tend to lean left rather than right is that I find right wing extremism more dangerous to life and limb, even as member of the “elite”.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Why? You don’t ask what we think, you assume you already know. It’s not a hard follow to suggest if somehow given the power to govern, you’d act the same with your “subjects”. It’s a behavioral flaw that manifests itself in the stringency of your ideology. It just happens to be a leftist ideology, but it could just as well be right wing one.
Incidentally, the reason I tend to lean left rather than right is that I find right wing extremism more dangerous to life and limb, even as member of the “elite”.
IF I had to govern, my attitude wouldn't be "it sucks to be you!" as policy. For the greater good, I would make sure we pitch in as a community cos together as a people we are stronger with less tendency for tribalism. But, as I said before, no system is perfect as there are too many variables to consider.
'The greater good' is always something to work towards even if there are flawed parts. You build a house with foundations first, you can work out the individualism of a house after.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Nigel approves of racism - surprised?
https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-says-donald-trumps-go-back-comment-was-genius-11776339
https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-says-donald-trumps-go-back-comment-was-genius-11776339
Not START. INF treaty.The mad **** has withdrawn the USA from START.
He as to be mentally unstable,because that is fucking madness.
He's probably already made it a condition of a trade deal that we have his missiles in the UK again.
So if no-one ever argued for trickle-down economics, what justification is there for giving more and more money to the rich? If it doesn't trickle down to the poor, why on earth would we let the rich get away with it?Actually, the real con is from the elitist left who have convinced the world that anyone ever argued for a "trickle down economics"
There is still a 100,000 dollar bet out there to find the Economist who argued for the "trickle down economics." If you can find him, I'm guessing you can win that bet.
As for where the answer lies, it's not between pure capitalism and Pure Socialism. It's rather in knowing that no system solves the problem. The one proven to solve the most though (since the history of humans began) has been free enterprise.
I'm sure a better system exist. We just haven't found it yet. But it's certainly not any of the ones we've previously tried.
That sounds like the real con.
M
M
mat
Guest
The answer lies somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism.
One of the biggest cons of all time is that the rich capitalists in power have convinced the people that trickle down economics always benefits the poor. It doesn't, but it does always benefit the rich.
I remember Obama being interviewed by Bill Maher at the end of his term and he listed exactly what you just said. He believed personally that health and education should be socialised. Infrastructure could be privatised as private companies wouldn't let roads and bridges fall into disrepair as ig would affect theirs and workers profitability. Its probably on You tube somewhere so I'm happy to be corrected.
Yeah sure.I remember Obama being interviewed by Bill Maher at the end of his term and he listed exactly what you just said. He believed personally that health and education should be socialised. Infrastructure could be privatised as private companies wouldn't let roads and bridges fall into disrepair as ig would affect theirs and workers profitability. Its probably on You tube somewhere so I'm happy to be corrected.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/american-roads-llc-files-bankruptcy-0.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna741346
M
M
mat
Guest
I seem to remember seeing that. Not long after Trump took power he said he wanted to rebuild the nation's roads and bridges. Saw hoe much it would cost. Then changed his mind.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,600
“Giving” more money to the rich?????So if no-one ever argued for trickle-down economics, what justification is there for giving more and more money to the rich? If it doesn't trickle down to the poor, why on earth would we let the rich get away with it?
That sounds like the real con.
By that, I take it you mean “taking away less in the form of tax”? That’s a completely different thing.
Of course I mean that. In a society where the majority are not rich, why allow a few people to accumulate disproportionate wealth?“Giving” more money to the rich?????
By that, I take it you mean “taking away less in the form of tax”? That’s a completely different thing.
What good does it do? Where is "the public good" in allowing it?
Yep. Tax the rich. It's the only way.I seem to remember seeing that. Not long after Trump took power he said he wanted to rebuild the nation's roads and bridges. Saw hoe much it would cost. Then changed his mind.
So if no-one ever argued for trickle-down economics, what justification is there for giving more and more money to the rich? If it doesn't trickle down to the poor, why on earth would we let the rich get away with it?
That sounds like the real con.
Hmmm! I was writing a response to the above, when I saw this:
Oh boy! As @SWP's back succinctly put it " changing the tax rates isn't giving money to the rich.Of course I mean that. In a society where the majority are not rich, why allow a few people to accumulate disproportionate wealth?
What good does it do? Where is "the public good" in allowing it?
I was doing a write-up on the fallacy of 'trickle down Economics', but I see here from your claim that your claim was amore fundamental one than I had thought. So I'll address this one.
we are NOT 'allowing' some people to become 'disproportionately' rich. They are doing so (becoming rich) off of their acquired knowledge, skills, decisions, choices and luck.
You seem to have the wrong understanding of what the Government's role is in a free society: I assure you it is not to restrict the free association and exchange of good and services amongst it's citizens. Rather it's to collect revenue in other to prosecute it's agenda.
The Govt's concern thus is generally to figure out what is the most revenue it can collect. Well, as luck would have it, American Govt's have experimented with different tax rates at different times. The results of those experiments are well documented in, amongst other places, "The Economic Report of the President." Where the revenues and expenditure of govt is documented. You can match tax rate in different years to revenues.
It will behoove anyone who wants to know the facts and truth to check it themselves.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,600
So fucking mental that some people don’t understand that. I literally can’t find any empathy for that viewpoint.we are NOT 'allowing' some people to become 'disproportionately' rich. They are doing so off their knowledge, skills, decisions, choices and luck.
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
Of course I mean that. In a society where the majority are not rich, why allow a few people to accumulate disproportionate wealth?
What good does it do? Where is "the public good" in allowing it?
Too much wealth concentrated at the top is bad for an economy as it becomes frozen. Let it go to circulate freely.
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
we are NOT 'allowing' some people to become 'disproportionately' rich. They are doing so (becoming rich) off of their acquired knowledge, skills, decisions, choices and luck.
Ah choices. You can’t have the deserving rich without the deserving poor.
Mandatory public services. 10% on every billion over a billion goes into an infrastructure project. It’s not as if they are going to miss it. They can even have their names on it.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Nah! I'm worse than a Republican. I'm an independent. I lean Libertarian. I've said so many times. You just don't listen. You spend so much time trying to define others according to your ideology.
Again, I represent me. I am a common man just like many. But we are not a monolith and thus common sense suggests "a dear leader" just wouldn't work.
You are a good student of leftist diversionary tactics. Throw up lots of claims and accusations against others and claim victory.
My views on Health Care, Military, Capitalism, Trump's administration, or immigration are not all governed by an ideological bent like yours. Nuance matters.
So if you want, pick one. We can examine our views on the one and discuss why we hold such views. But the kitchen sink tactic of yours only works with college kids who don't realize it for what it is, a tactic.
Ho! Ho! Ho!!
It's Christmas come early!
Go on then, let's have it.
Explain to me the flaws of a universal system like Medicare-for-all and then win me over about not deserving a basic Human right for health care...
This'll be good.
*opens popcorn for the ready*
*finished popcorn ages ago, taps watch*
Tic-fookin-toc!
Oh Bigga :) There you go again getting confused as to who's side the burden of proof lies.Ho! Ho! Ho!!
It's Christmas come early!
Go on then, let's have it.
Explain to me the flaws of a universal system like Medicare-for-all and then win me over about not deserving a basic Human right for health care...
This'll be good.
*opens popcorn for the ready*
Seeing as we don't already have the system, the burden of proof is on those of you "super more intelligent" to explain why we should adopt such a system. Not the other way around..
And for the record " Medicare for All" is a soundbite. Catchy. But not very useful for serious discussion. What is required here is knowledge of the specifics.
But let's start at the beginning: What do you mean by "Medicare for All" what is included and excluded. Who's bill do you favor? And why?
Are you suggesting bill HR 1384 or 2463? Bill S. 1129 or 1261. Or is it one of the less popular ones? They all have similarities and differences. Is any of this even familiar to you?
Are you familiar with what is included/excluded? Do you have a grasp on the fuzzy claims and their meaning? What precisely would be covered? what would doctors be paid? And how would the progra bem be financed?
How will government reign in costs? Prescription drug negotiations? Ok. We got that. What else! Patent period restrictions or removal? Compulsory licensing? How does that play our in 10, 15 or 35 years? Do we have comparable examples? How did they work out.
More immediately, how do we understand the fuzzy terms? What exactly does it mean by "Medically necessary procedures"? Sure, a broken leg applies. But does gender realignment surgery? How about Facelift for the depressed? Where is the line? Who draws it?---- BTW I'm talking about the specific language in H.R. 1384 now. But we can focus on any other of your choosing
We can discuss S. 1129 ( Sanders bill in the Senate) and it's specifics. But any of these discussions will require that you know more than just buzzwords and generic claims..
So if you really want a discussion, it would behoove you to familiarize yourselves with the specifics of the bills at issue and then you can apply your ideology as you see fit in light of those specifics.
Luckily for you, all the 'positives' of the Sander and to a lesser extent Jayapal bills are well highlighted on Sanders Presidential platform. But fair warning, relying on that alone will leave you at a severe disadvantage.
So the floor is yours. What bill in particular and what specifics of "Medicare for All" are you a supporter of?
Let's have at it.
Just 10%? Wow... You Sir won't make it here as a Republican, talk less a Democrat. No Government Republican or Democrats in the last 100 ever years has taxed at a rate that low.Ah choices. You can’t have the deserving rich without the deserving poor.
Mandatory public services. 10% on every billion over a billion goes into an infrastructure project. It’s not as if they are going to miss it. They can even have their names on it.
Well, spoke too soon. See you after the game.*finished popcorn ages ago, taps watch*
Tic-fookin-toc!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.