So you used the wrong words? Got it.
Yes, I acknowledged my word choice gave you the wrong impression, so I attempted to clarify my statement. I’ve met you more than halfway on your assertions. Are you willing to consider the substance of my argument, or are you just a dick?
Couldn’t help yourself could you?:dubious:
Held off as long as I could. 
It’s hyperbole. But I’m sure I can find stats on homelessness, people unable to afford health insurance, and other symptoms of economic problems.
I’m not sure what your stupid rolleyes is supposed to mean, other than you didn’t comprehend my earlier post.
The standard conservative refrain regarding ANY socialized service (i.e. health care, welfare, etc) is that “socialism/communism doesn’t work”. Usually as an attempt to shut down any further discussion on the topic. While China has taken steps to move to a more market-driven economy, it does maintain many of the core tenets of a centralized state-run socialist economy. Many Western countries like Finland, Canada and Sweden also have highly socialized economies. And for all intents and purposes, those countries all “work”.
So the blanket statement that “socialism doesn’t work” is clearly false, or at the very least more complex than conservatives would have people believe.
I think that’s a minor distinction, don’t you?
Yes, it probably would be good for the city.
It is interesting though how you view it as “New York driving Amazon away” vs “Jeff Bezos taking his ball and leaving because he was butt-hurt New York dared question the lavish gift he was to bestow”.
Fair enough. And what I’m saying is that the left would do well by saying more or less what you said without all that other business that you left out about how wealthy people came by their money, or about their obligations to others. What a lot of people who are either wealthy or on their way there hear is that they are resented for being successful, and that the left wants to take their money and give it to people who weren’t successful. And it’s only amplified by how much the wealthy people perceive that money to be obtained through hard work, saving and sacrifice.
In other words, don’t waggle your finger and demand that they pay more taxes because they have it better. They’re going to perceive that as an attempt to either make them feel guilty, or an accusation of some kind.
Well considering Bezos only owns 17% of the Company, I don’t consider it a minor distinction at all.
Why do you say “butt-hurt”? As CEO, he made a decision what was in the best interest of shareholders. Why face negative publicity and sentiment from the location where he was placing a significant portion of their operations. Amazon already has enough of that in Seattle. Why not locate the HQ2 in a location that was going to welcome them with open arms. It was an economic decision for the best interest of Amazon.
If you consider just the issues that do have scientific underpinnings, then clearly reality does have a liberal bias. Belief in a young earth, denial of evolution, and denial of AGW are conservative beliefs, by which I mean that the vast majority of Americans who hold those beliefs see themselves as conservative and vote Republican. Those are all clearly refuted by the evidence. Other crazy beliefs tend to either be scattered on both sides of the aisle or skew conservative.
Nitpick: Belief in a young earth, denial of evolution, and denial of AGW are conservative beliefs. Not in the slightest. They are more likely beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, who align with conservatism.
Your statement is the equivalent of saying that economic equality through the elimination of private property are liberal beliefs by which I mean that the vast majority of Americans that hold these beliefs see themselves as liberal and vote Democrat.
All that stuff about how wealthy people came by their money was raised by the defenders of wealth inequality as something that was “essentially implied”, even if it was not said at all.
No one has said anything about an obligation to others (other than some straw from your posts), however, some have indicated an obligation to the society that has allowed them to make their fortune. If I talk about raising taxes, then the pushback is immediate that I don’t think that the wealthy deserve what they have.
If I say, “Hey, we should make this program to help out these people with their struggles, and we will pay for it with tax dollars.”, you claim that I said that the hardworking wealthy owe something to the lazy poor.
Leaving it out does no good if you insist on putting it in anyway. Any criticism or even basic observation of wealth inequality and the negative effects that that has on society is an “implication” that they have gotten their wealth through a rigged system or from ill gotten gains, even if no such mention was even whispered.
What do we need to do to get you to leave out these unfounded accusations, since you seem to think that it is very important that they be left out?
Yes, they hear that from people like you that claim to be able to tell what the left really wants to do and why.
We don’t. But you claim that we do. How can we stop you from claiming that we are wagging our fingers and demanding that they pay more taxes because they have it better when that accusation is completely fabricated?
(as far as the taxes part, I do not demand that they pay more in taxes. However, I do recognize that the govt does need to be funded, and if it needs more funding to pay for the expenditures that the elected representatives of that government have called for, then it needs to raise taxes. As taxes are pretty much the lowest they have ever been, and there was a pretty nice big tax break just last year, it may be that society finds that it needs to raise taxes on everyone again, including the wealthy, but that is not because they “have it better”.)
Probably, but some also seem to get very defensive about anything to do with the fortune that they have had in this life. For instance, no one in this thread has wagged any fingers, and yet, here you are, telling people not to wag their fingers.
Can you possibly understand that this is not about punishment, this is not about making them feel guilty, or tearing them down, or anything like that, that this is just about maintaining a functional society? It is you that makes these claims, based on nothing but your own biased perceptions.
Do you feel that the wealthy in this country really have no obligation to the country that has allowed them to become wealthy?
What I have said in this thread is the only time that I find myself annoyed with the wealthy is when they complain that, with as much as society has rewarded them, they are resentful about being asked to give a bit of it back so that others may also have a chance at achieving similar fortunes or when they are contemptuous of those who are less fortunate. Is that wrong? Is that finger wagging or making them feel guilty or an accusation of some kind?
Well, I suppose that I am actually resentful and accusatory towards the wealthy who actually did get their money through rigged systems or through cheating, like your Shkreli’s or Madoff’s, but I would hope that you would join me in condemning them.
I’ll agree with you on the first two, but on the third, that’s not a religious stance, that’s entirely a political stance, one that is embraced by elected representatives of the republican party, as well as the leader of the republican party, Mr. Trump.
Except that on the left, such views are very far to the fringe of a tiny number of people and are not accepted whatsoever by the mainstream and have no chance of ever making it into law. On the right, you are actually passing legislation to “teach the controversy” about evolution. They may only be the beliefs of fundamentalist christians, but the conservatives are certainly honoring those beliefs by enshrining them into law.
Or, perhaps they have had enough of this and don’t want another 50,000 people there.
Miss out on what? How many people in NY what more people there?
And did you see my post regarding Trumps bribe to Pam Bondi? This is what pisses people off.
“I make $500 an hour and I was all set to be happy, but some people I don’t know on the internet don’t think I deserve all of it! You want to talk about hard work?”
Why should the government reward them by lowering their taxes? The government’s job is to govern, preferably well. If that means higher taxes for those who can afford it, that’s fine. The market is supposed to reward success in the market. The reward for being rich is getting to own nice stuff in nice places, and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean they don’t have to participate in paying for the system that allowed them to thrive.
As I wrote they can say they believe whatever they want (and they do as lip service to get the votes they need) but every economic policy they actually enact is designed to create exactly what I said.
Ok, so let me ask something else.
Going with the presumption that things like water, sewer, trash, police, firefighters, electrical and gas, you know basic utilities and services, are taken care of at the local and state level, what would we have to change to have universal education up to, say a 3 year technical degree AND basic univeral health care? Basic meaning immunizations, vision, dental, and mental health with regular checkups and basic corrective procedures. If you wreck your face and lose half your teeth, you get dentures, if you want implants, that additional cost comes out of your pocket.
How would we have to change the tax laws?
I hear that this group pays almost all the taxes and that group pays very little taxes and the other group actually make money on their tax returns.
To save the trauma and controversy of radical changes to the tax system, what percentage change in taxes paid would be needed from each group to make universal education and healthcare a reality in the US?