Post your memes here! Time for some fun.

ThatOwlWoman said:
Universal health care. Promotion of equal rights for all citizens. immigration reform. Protection for American workers. Higher taxes on the uber wealthy and lower taxes on the middle class. No wars. Cordial international relationships with our allies.

Need more examples? There are plenty.
Click to expand...
Okay. So Socialism with equity of outcomes not equity of opportunity and open borders...

Protection of American workers? Do you mean forced unionization here?

Then you circle back to Socialism. Steal from the rich give to the worthless.

So, Socialism with a One-World dictatorship. How Communist of you.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Okay. So Socialism with equity of outcomes not equity of opportunity and open borders...

Protection of American workers? Do you mean forced unionization here?

Then you circle back to Socialism. Steal from the rich give to the worthless.

So, Socialism with a One-World dictatorship. How Communist of you.
Click to expand...

It is difficult, if not impossible, to have a rational conversation with someone who hauls out the labels of "socialism" and "communism" and other RW straw men rather than considering what was said. Taxes for instance. Why do you consider raising taxes on the uber wealthy, who pay far far less here than they do in other civilized nations, to be a bad thing? Why do you refer to the middle class -- which both of us are members of -- as "worthless"? Why did youi throw in the "open borders" nonsense?
 
HKX8j3nXwAIoFaP
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to have a rational conversation with someone who hauls out the labels of "socialism" and "communism" and other RW straw men rather than considering what was said. Taxes for instance. Why do you consider raising taxes on the uber wealthy, who pay far far less here than they do in other civilized nations, to be a bad thing? Why do you refer to the middle class -- which both of us are members of -- as "worthless"? Why did youi throw in the "open borders" nonsense?
Click to expand...
My objection is not simply “raising taxes on the wealthy is always bad.” My objection is that your answer has no limiting principle.

What check or balance exists in your worldview against runaway spending?

In 1910, the federal government needed roughly $10 per person to operate. By 1960, it was roughly $450 per person. Today, federal spending is around $20,000 per person.

So when your answer is “make the rich pay more,” my question is: then what?

If that still does not cover the spending, do we borrow the rest? If borrowing becomes a problem, do we tax the upper-middle class? Then the middle class? Then add VAT-style consumption taxes like Europe? At what point do you admit the spending itself is the problem?

That is the part you keep avoiding. You are treating the wealthy as a moral escape hatch. As long as you can point at billionaires, you do not have to explain the actual fiscal math.

A serious system needs restraint. A serious system needs a point where people say: no, government cannot simply promise everything, spend anyway, and then hunt for someone else to blame when the bill comes due.

“Tax the rich” is not a fiscal philosophy. It is a slogan. The real issue is whether there is any check at all on the spending appetite behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top