View Single Post
Old 07-25-2019, 04:33 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,642
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
The job he has done, yes. The man himself, no.
Sounds like a fine hair to split.

Of course not. You said the money for these things comes from sales and property taxes, not income tax. Federal funds derived from income tax also contribute to roads and schools.
You are correct in that I phrased that poorly in that it you could take it to say I said that they were not paid at all by income taxes, my bad. But my point still stands that the taxes that fund the bulk of these things are regressive, and that is in reply to someone trying to make the case that poor people do not pay any taxes towards their roads or schools.

If you say you like grapes, I can say that they require pesticide which is killing children in Costa Rica, you must like killing children.
That wouldn't follow. But, if I said I liked grapes, and that I demanded more grapes at a lower cost, and the only way to get more grapes at a lower cost is to introduce harmful pesticides that kill children in Costa Rica, then yes, that is something that I would be responsible for. I will note that I was talking about responsibility, it is your strawmanning here that adds in the "must like" part. If I really want these grapes, then I can accept the responsibility that my desires cause harm, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I never said you liked the consequences of the policies that you advocate for, I only said that you refuse to take responsibility for them.

Seems childish to me, but if you wish to make that sort of argument, go ahead.
Agreed that your strawmanning of my argument is childish, but it is not my argument to advance, it is on you to decide if it is the sort of thing that you would like to continue.
No. The former does not require the latter. You can have low tax and fiscally responsible spending.
You say you are into finance. If someone came to you, and said that they didn't want to work so much anymore, would you advise them that they need to cut their spending before they quit their job?

This is what has happened, people complained that they didn't want to pay into taxes, and, rather than decrease our spending, then decrease taxes, we just decreased taxes, driving up our debt, leaving that responsibility to future generations, rather than accepting the reality ourselves.

No. The former does not require the latter. You can speak softly and carry a big stick, be a deterrent, have a small war to head off a larger one, etc etc.
Right, you *can* do that, but that is not the foreign policy of the man that you say you like the foreign policy of.

No. The former does not require the latter. The humanitarian crisis at the border exists because we have a porous border.
No, the humanitarian crisis is because the people who used to be able to enter the country are no longer able to, it is the change in policy that has caused the crisis. People being separated from their families is not due to us having a porous border, it is due to the administration having a policy of deterrence to inflict pain and misery as a punishment for trying to escape the violence that we helped cause.
I would in fact argue the exact opposite. Our lax border policy creates the crisis.
Did we have a lax border previously? If so, then why was there no crisis then?
The law if incentives suggest this is true. People tend to not flock to fish in ponds that are devoid of fish.
Well, that is true, we could end immigration by making our country so shitty that no one wants to come here.