If you could apply the death penalty to the use of political rhetoric .....

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I always find the use of the phrase “grow jobs,” or “grow the economy” to be irritating.

That’s not political-speak, it’s business-speak. It’s one of the many usages you learn to suggest to businesspeople that you’re a savvy insider, or at least a numbers-driven realist.

[foolsguinea]

@Anaamika

No one else hates “family values”? I would pay good money to see this phrase taken out and shot. What this means is “families in the sense WE define them, not anyone else’s definition.”

I think that’s a phrase designed to seem like it means more than it really says. It’s meant to exploit positive associations with the word “family,” but the hearer is meant to fill in what it means himself.

@Rand_Rover

I’d go with the whole concept of “sustainability”–it’s really devoid of content other that “I like it.”

Well, the term may be misused, but it has a real meaning, & that should not be denigrated. If you think it’s meaningless, you’re really missing something.

So let’s dump, “family values” & use “sustainability” properly.

@What_the

I was talking about the “political death penalty”… utter removal from future political discourse. There is nothing more fundamentally wrong and useful only for political class warfare than to say that allowing one person to keep something is actually giving it to them. Especially when it is suggested that some lesser group of people are the ones supposedly doing the giving.

This is clearly the point the OP wants to [del]debate[/del] hammer on. I find the phrase, “lesser group” revealing. The OP seems to think that the richer are more worthy.

I would say that relative income is less a matter of intrinsic virtue than successful negotiation, & a touch of luck in many cases. Tax rates are another matter to be negotiated, same as prices or fees.

@Khaki_Campbell

WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF TEH MONIRITAYYSS !!!11!!1!!! cries

I’m not sure which is more offensive, this or “lesser groups”.

@Arcite

“Nation of Immigrants”: colonists are not the same thing as immigrants.
“Single moms”: conflates victims who deserve our sympathy and support, namely widows and abandoned wives, with women who deliberately chose to have a child out of wedlock or had the lousy foresight and judgment to spread their legs for some bad boy who never had any intention of sticking around.

So…colonists are worse or better than immigrants?

As for single moms, how about you cut out the sweeping value judgements, OK? There are stories you don’t know. For example, my father did want to marry my mother; she didn’t want to marry him, but after he got her pregnant–she says he forced himself on her–she didn’t want to give up the baby either.

@What_the

You’re wrong but it doesn’t make much diference. The estate, a separate entity, pays the tax… the beneficiaries get what’s left after the government takes what it wants.

FWIW, I agree with you here. If the state wants to tax inheritance, & justify its death taxes/estate taxes/inheritance taxes by saying they are on inheritance, it should tax inheritance income after the estate is divided.

But I think there is a good argument for taxing estates as such, it’s just not being made by those who claim it’s really an income tax. Like payroll taxes, the estate tax is more an “outgo” tax; but really it’s a tax on wealth. That doesn’t make it wrong.

[etv78]

The notion that if you’re not a: able-bodied, heterosexual, male WASP, you’re hell-bent on “destroying” the country. (whatever “destroy” means)

[QuarkChild]

This is only indirectly related to politics, but I hate it when people (politicians and otherwise) talk about “oil production.” Petroleum is not produced. It is extracted. Calling it “production” makes it sound renewable, which I think is dangerously misleading. And yet everyone always says “production” and never “extraction.”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Crude oil is extracted. All the things we actually care about (gasoline, plastics, lubricants, kerosene, asphalt, diesel, paraffin and so on) are produced.

[What_the]

@foolsguinea

This is clearly the point the OP wants to [del]debate[/del] hammer on. I find the phrase, “lesser group” revealing. The OP seems to think that the richer are more worthy.

What adjective would have been better?

Clearly I meant lesser in the luck required to win life’s lottery.

[foolsguinea]

Oh, yes, clearly.

Why do people like you insist that life be a lottery anyway? Why is it better to hire one guy at $500,000/yr. than ten at $50,000/yr.?

[HMS_Irruncible]

@What_the

What adjective would have been better?

Clearly I meant lesser in the luck required to win life’s lottery.

It gets so old hearing that the pretense that rich are more deserving because they’re more hardworking, so I have to appreciate your refreshing (if oddly circular) logic that rich people deserve more because they’re rich.

[What_the]

@foolsguinea

Oh, yes, clearly.

Why do people like you insist that life be a lottery anyway? Why is it better to hire one guy at $500,000/yr. than ten at $50,000/yr.?

I’ve gotta remember to use that little green face when I’m being sarcastic.

The “life’s lottery” argument is generally used by those who want to justify taking from one person and giving to another isn’t it?

[What_the]

@Cosmic Relief

It gets so old hearing that the pretense that rich are more deserving because they’re more hardworking, so I have to appreciate your refreshing (if oddly circular) logic that rich people deserve more because they’re rich.

I find your use of the word “deserve” interesting. The things that I think people deserve have little to do with rich/poor or hardworking vs slacker.

[GoodOmens]

@Stratocaster

“We need to focus on Main Street, not Wall Street!”

Exactly. Kill it, dig it up, and kill it again.