Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[bad_teammate 13,522]

Just now, Anastasis said:

This is total nonsense.

People raised by parents who are good with money are given models for good money management as they grow.

People raised by parents who are bad with money are not.

I am surprised this observation is controversial.

[bad_teammate 13,522]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

I don’t have all the same values or ideals as you.  We just differ on our perception of how popular our values and ideals are.  I know mine aren’t popular enough to win national elections - they aren’t even popular enough to win Republican primaries against orange faced imbeciles and pedophile judges.

You haven’t accepted yet that America isn’t waiting with bated breath for BT’s vision to become reality.

Did I, at some point, say that my policy proposals would be swept in by popular landslide? Can you find that post for me?

[seven 1,368]

What's the point of having ubi if you still have welfare services under it?

A poor planning mom can fail to use food stamps to feed her kids just as easily as spending all the ubi. 

[Anastasis 23,718]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

People raised by parents who are good with money are given models for good money management as they grow.

People raised by parents who are bad with money are not.

I am surprised this observation is controversial.

Nothing about that is controversial.  The implication that if we just give everybody some money, a universal basic income, that they will become magically exemplars of financial responsibility is nonsensical and completely contrary to all observations of human behavior. Quite the opposite should be expected in fact. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Anastasis

[bad_teammate 13,522]

1 minute ago, seven said:

What's the point of having ubi if you still have welfare services under it?

I don't see UBI as a safety net.

The UBI and the safety net are, in my mind, completely different things with completely different purposes.

Again:

The concept behind the UBI as it makes sense in my diseased brain is that it is essentially the government saying, "Hey, we're creating a ton of wealth and we can't really distribute it equitably without tearing everything apart, so here's a baseline income that can be easily provided to everyone that's a little token towards all of us universally sharing in our national largesse."

Think of it like profit-sharing, but for a whole country. Not dissimilar to Alaska's oil dividends and such.

Just now, Anastasis said:

Nothing about that is controversial.  The implication that if we just give everybody some money, a universal basic income, that they will become magically exemplars of financial responsibility is nonsensical and completely contrary to all observations of human behavior. 

I see you've graduated from the Fondren School for Completely Disingenuous Argument Characterizations. With honors!

[bad_teammate 13,522]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

Haven’t you been pretty adamant on this board that the Democrats shouldn’t waste time with policies that might appeal (or at least not give heart attacks) to centrists, and should instead move to the progressive left on things like UBI, free college, etc.? 

Yes. Neither of those is "not talk publicly about central planning command economies and 99% tax rates" as you mentioned.

[RandomIdoit 739]

43 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't see UBI as a safety net.

The UBI and the safety net are, in my mind, completely different things with completely different purposes.

Safety nets are not permanent solutions. People do and will continue to treat them as such. This is why a lot of people would like to eliminate them if you gave everyone a UBI.

Edited July 25, 2018 by RandomIdoit

[bad_teammate 13,522]

Just now, RandomIdoit said:

Safety nets are not permanent solutions. People do and will continue to treat them as such. This is why a lot of people would just eliminate them if you gave everyone a UBI.

And then the elderly and children begin dying in the street and we resurrect the safety nets.

I know that many of you really get the biggest hard-on for austerity politics where the poor get their just desserts which somehow brings moral balance to the universe, but the reality is that very few of us in this nation have the moral stomach to make it a national policy that the elderly rot to death in shacks while Jeff Bezos buys mini-yachts to put inside his bigger yachts.

[UTGrad98 2,337]

Reading this thread makes me think Im a closet Republican.

[RandomIdoit 739]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And then the elderly and children begin dying in the street and we resurrect the safety nets.

I know that many of you really get the biggest hard-on for austerity politics where the poor get their just desserts which somehow brings moral balance to the universe, but the reality is that very few of us in this nation have the moral stomach to make it a national policy that the elderly rot to death in shacks while Jeff Bezos buys mini-yachts to put inside his bigger yachts.

Personally, I would be in favor of welfare for people who are not mentally fit or able-bodied. Anyone else, could and should work and not need any safety net, especially if they are getting a UBI. I could see a one month safety net in cases where you lose your job, but that's it. These programs should be supplemental, not primary sources of income.

[bad_teammate 13,522]

5 minutes ago, UTGrad98 said:

Reading this thread makes me think Im a closet Republican.

If you're a Democrat, that's the same thing

[Anastasis 23,718]

13 minutes ago, UTGrad98 said:

Reading this thread makes me think Im a closet Republican.

Just wait until the Republicans actually tell you what they believe in, as is being exposed currently.  You're only a few steps away from telling #bothsides to totally fuck off. 

[bad_teammate 13,522]

Why is the idea of heavily taxing the super wealthy so offensive?

[Anastasis 23,718]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Why is the idea of heavily taxing the super wealthy so offensive?

Because in every real world proposal the "super wealthy" actually end up being solidly middle class Americans.  The reality is that that is where the meat of the distribution is. You can't get it all from the billionaire supervillians.  The math just doesn't work. You got to reach your hand into the pocket of dual income households pulling in lower six figures. The functional middle class. 

[bad_teammate 13,522]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Because in every real world proposal the "super wealthy" actually end up being solidly middle class Americans. 

Like which real world proposal?

Quote

The reality is that that is where the meat of the distribution is. You can't get it all from the billionaire supervillians. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "it all". Do you mean to revenue-neutral fund all proposals?

[RandomIdoit 739]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Like which real world proposal?

I'm not sure what you mean by "it all". Do you mean to revenue-neutral fund all proposals?

How much money is it going to take for your ideas to be implemented and sustained? How much money are the "billionaire supervillains" going to provide with your tax plan? 

[Anastasis 23,718]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Like which real world proposal?

Why don't you go ahead and lay out one of the DSA's. 

[Disco Missile 456]

Just dropping in to see if this is a smash/pass thread.

Anyone ever banged a socialist before?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, Disco Missile said:

Just dropping in to see if this is a smash/pass thread.

Anyone ever banged a socialist before?

They are very giving. 

[bad_teammate 13,522]

5 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

How much money is it going to take for your ideas to be implemented and sustained? How much money are the "billionaire supervillains" going to provide with your tax plan? 

A lot. A lot.

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Why don't you go ahead and lay out one of the DSA's. 

You just told me all real world proposals are actually about taxing the middle class. You can't even name one?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

There's a difference between outlaying what someone "wants" and offering a vision as to how something could work.

$1k/mth UBI for all (no means testing)

I'd start with moderate (by my standards tax increases)

70% inheritance tax on estates $2-$4.9M/child, 99% inheritance tax on estates over $5M/child

90% income tax on annual income over $20M

My goal would not be immediate revenue neutrality. It would be nice, but not a necessary feature.

Your UBI plan would cost $3 trillion per year.  That's with no administrative fees or other related costs.  I know it is difficult to fully appreciate what this means in manic message board mental state, but this is a lot of money.  To give some scale, if we take your most hated class of US billionaires and took all their wealth and liquidated it (of course this would not be possible, but we are talking fantasy any way so it doesn't really matter) and put this wealth into a fund and from this fund we gave every +18 American $1k/month, then the fund would not last a full year.  

[Anastasis 23,718]

Y

You just told me all real world proposals are actually about taxing the middle class. You can't even name one?

You don’t want to detail a single DSA tax plan proposal. Sad!

 

[RandomIdoit 739]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A lot. Not enough.

FIFY

[dOUblewide 101]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

There's a difference between outlaying what someone "wants" and offering a vision as to how something could work.

$1k/mth UBI for all (no means testing)

I'd start with moderate (by my standards tax increases)

70% inheritance tax on estates $2-$4.9M/child, 99% inheritance tax on estates over $5M/child

90% income tax on annual income over $20M

My goal would not be immediate revenue neutrality. It would be nice, but not a necessary feature.

Have you thought about the 2nd and 3rd order effects of something like this? Not sure there are enough auctioneers and buyers to liquidate these assets. Talk about flooding the market and seriously depressing asset prices lol. Do you think these estate values are held in money market accounts or something? 

Also, Im not sure Costa Rica and Belize could deal with the increase in millionaires trying to immigrate from the US. 

On the other hand your plan might make farmland affordable again. Especially when it has to be sold. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

This guy did:

"Also, for welfare, that's it. If you blow it, you're on your own. There does have to be a line somewhere."

What an asshole, right?

In case someone fucks up. That's literally what safety nets are for.

[edit]

Holy shit I just realized what you meant when you said when you said "Did I say I was abolishing CPS?"

You meant taking people's kids away.

Holy fucking shit.

Because you're a fucking idiot who should never have kids apparently. Let me break it down for you.

Let's say it's just you and your son. I am the state and I give you vouchers every fucking month to provide food for yourself and food for your son. Instead, you swap those vouchers for something else, hookers blow whatever, and dont feed your kid. Worse, maybe you eat with your vouchers and give your son's vouchers away for blow. If I'm the state, of course I take your kid away because you're a fucking piece of shit dad and your kid is starving. This shouldn't even be up for debate. Especially from someone who claims to be a socialist, but is actually a communist. 

I thought you were an older dude who had life experience, but maybe I was wrong. Or maybe you're an older dude who never had kids. But let me break it down for you. Kids dont have a clue about what they're doing. And parents can often suck.  Parents have to make the best decisions they can, but nobody is perfect. A parent that takes his kid's food vouchers and uses them for something else while letting his kid starve should not be a parent. Now right wingers would think that parent should be shot in the face for it.  And as a dad, I understand that feeling. But as a liberal dad, I think we should try to rehabilitate the fucked up parent, but for sure, he shouldn't be the caregiver for his son right now.

I've actually never chatted with someone who is so completely disconnected from humanity as a whole. You have no personal connection with the homeless, the mentally ill, or people who suffer from substance abuse.  You seem to know nothing about parenthood either. Really, you seem to be looking at humans as mathematic equations who will all do the right thing if given the opportunity.  But that isnt how humans work. Humans make bad decisions all the time.  You say you're married but you really do seem completely disconnected from people. Society has to try to do what's best even though individuals often dont. The best interests of the child are always the most important thing. So yes, if you dont feed your child, the state should absolutely take that child away from you.  Both right now and in the utopian socialist future.  

Really, are you a socialist or are you not?  I fucking hate swam, but if I'm on my death bed and I had to give my kids to him or you to raise, I'm leaning toward him. They don't need overarching policy as much as they need a father.  For all his faults, I think he could be that. Could you?

Just remember this, comrade.  The first thing to consider every time is what is in the best interest of the child. 

TL;DR. Of course CPS. We are talking about a parent who steals food money from his kid. 

 

 

[Anastasis 23,718]

I for real think that we need a death bed which surly posters do I assign my kid to thread.

[bad_teammate 13,522]

27 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Your UBI plan would cost $3 trillion per year.  That's with no administrative fees or other related costs.  I know it is difficult to fully appreciate what this means in manic message board mental state, but this is a lot of money.  To give some scale, if we take your most hated class of US billionaires and took all their wealth and liquidated it (of course this would not be possible, but we are talking fantasy any way so it doesn't really matter) and put this wealth into a fund and from this fund we gave every +18 American $1k/month, then the fund would not last a full year.  

It's not a manic idea. It's one economists are proposing right now and it's something done in other places at varying scales in varying ways.

As I have said, the purpose is not to immediately be revenue neutral. If ever. The goal of revenue neutrality is not only something used politically to knife social welfare policy (it is NEVER a consideration on the right for any of their desired policies like putting kids in concentration camps or giving tax cuts to billionaires), it is not even necessarily a good thing. A perfectly balanced or even a surplus is not something that is necessarily beneficial to a functional society and economy. Obviously the economic factors need to be balanced in a healthy way, but the concept of "paying for it" in terms of modern capitalist economy is fuzzy at best.

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You don’t want to detail a single DSA tax plan proposal. Sad!

No, I just see you shifting the goalposts because you can't back up your initial claim and I'm not playing along with your dodge.

10 minutes ago, dOUblewide said:

Do you think these estate values are held in money market accounts or something? 

Of course not. I have no idea what you think your point is or why you think I would be sad about luxury assets losing value.

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Let's say it's just you and your son. I am the state and I give you vouchers every fucking month to provide food for yourself and food for your son. Instead, you swap those vouchers for something else, hookers blow whatever, and dont feed your kid. Worse, maybe you eat with your vouchers and give your son's vouchers away for blow. If I'm the state, of course I take your kid away because you're a fucking piece of shit dad and your kid is starving. This shouldn't even be up for debate. Especially from someone who claims to be a socialist, but is actually a communist. 

What if he exchanges the vouchers for money to pay rent and utilities, because his kid needs a place to live and lights? Fuck that asshole, right?

What is the impact on that community that is having their kids taken away for being too poor? Is it actually good for the kid? Would it be better if we just fucking gave the kid food to eat?

Why is it that, in your mind, the poor are nothing but drug users?

Edited July 25, 2018 by bad_teammate

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What if he exchanges the vouchers for money to pay rent and utilities, because his kid needs a place to live and lights? Fuck that asshole, right?

What if he puts it all on black and doubles his money? Does that make him a good parent? No. If he has a voucher for housing and it's not enough for housing and lights, he needs a better job or he needs to move somewhere else where his voucher can cover these costs.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I for real think that we need a death bed which surly posters do I assign my kid to thread.

Hey baby, I didn't forget you.  It was an either or thing.  In actuality, both swam and bad teammate would be way down the list of surly posters I would pick to raise my kids if I had to.  You would be way above both of them.

[bad_teammate 13,522]

13 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

If he has a voucher for housing and it's not enough for housing and lights, he needs a better job or he needs to move somewhere else where his voucher can cover these costs.

So take his fucking kid away for (1) not automatically finding a better job or (2) not wanting to separate his family from its community? To move where? Where do the moving costs come from?

You think the government is too stupid to do basically anything, but its maintenance of the voucher program will be so readily reactive to market forces it will never fail to provide adequate funding?

Edited July 25, 2018 by bad_teammate

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

So take his fucking kid away for (1) not automatically finding a better job or (2) not wanting to separate his family from its community? To move where? Where do the moving costs come from?

Yes. If you cannot be a responsible parent and your child's welfare is in danger, they should be taken away. CPS should be more proactive and not reactive. You always hear news stories about some children who have been abused or treated awfully who have has CPS called out to their homes over 10 times yet they were still allowed to stay there. What we are discussing is a person being given money for food and money for shelter. If that money is not enough, move. It's not expensive to move. A uhaul is $40 plus mileage. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not a manic idea. It's one economists are proposing right now and it's something done in other places at varying scales in varying ways.

Well I am talking about the scale you gave ($1k/ month to every American 18 or older).  This would cost over $3 trillion per year.  In 2017, the US only collected about $3.3 trillion total in taxes.  Military spending, which almost every one agrees is a huge bloated number, is only about $0.6 trillion per year.  You want to spend over 5 times that amount on a single program.  You also want to drastically increase the spending on other social programs.  It doesn't matter how much we increase taxes, there is simply not enough money in the economy to sustain your plans as outlined, even if we doubled the tax to GDP ratio and put us at a level among the highest tax rate countries in the world.  

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not a manic idea. It's one economists are proposing right now and it's something done in other places at varying scales in varying ways.

As I have said, the purpose is not to immediately be revenue neutral. If ever. The goal of revenue neutrality is not only something used politically to knife social welfare policy (it is NEVER a consideration on the right for any of their desired policies like putting kids in concentration camps or giving tax cuts to billionaires), it is not even necessarily a good thing. A perfectly balanced or even a surplus is not something that is necessarily beneficial to a functional society and economy. Obviously the economic factors need to be balanced in a healthy way, but the concept of "paying for it" in terms of modern capitalist economy is fuzzy at best.

No, I just see you shifting the goalposts because you can't back up your initial claim and I'm not playing along with your dodge.

Of course not. I have no idea what you think your point is or why you think I would be sad about luxury assets losing value.

What if he exchanges the vouchers for money to pay rent and utilities, because his kid needs a place to live and lights? Fuck that asshole, right?

What is the impact on that community that is having their kids taken away for being too poor? Is it actually good for the kid? Would it be better if we just fucking gave the kid food to eat?

Why is it that, in your mind, the poor are nothing but drug users?

My version of basic income would cover all necessities including rent and utilities. In fact, in my first post about UBI, I specifically indicated that vouchers should include housing and utilities.  So learn to fucking read, shitwipe.  

And fucking drug users.  lol.  Man, most drug users would at least try to feed their fucking kids before passing out and would feel terrible if they didn't get fed.  Do you not know any drug users either?  Do you know anyone?

You want to be a bad teammate.  Well you are.  Congrats.  So now what?  We want the same things, but you're disconnected from humanity, so perhaps you should shut the fuck up and let me deliver the things you want for you.  The funny thing is that I actually know AOC.  Her cell phone number is in my phone right now because of something entirely unrelated to her run for office.  Crowley's isn't.  But on top of that, you do realize that I'm a politically active person who voted for her and that only 27k votes were cast, right?  You know that when I signed her petition to run, that she was the one holding it and that I had met her already?  I've also had policy conversations with her directly.  But again, I keep falling in your trap of treating politicians like magical beings.  She isn't some magical mystery person to save you from her castle.  She's an actual person who will be the next representative from my district.  I will say though that I know my city councilman much better and he may be the next mayor.  And he surely has my support, but I've also told him unequivocally that he sucks when he sucks.  That is how local politics is supposed to work.  But again, grass roots are about people.  And you truly don't know people

Edited July 25, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[bad_teammate 13,522]

5 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Yes. If you cannot be a responsible parent and your child's welfare is in danger, they should be taken away. CPS should be more proactive and not reactive. You always hear news stories about some children who have been abused or treated awfully who have has CPS called out to their homes over 10 times yet they were still allowed to stay there. What we are discussing is a person being given money for food and money for shelter. If that money is not enough, move. It's not expensive to move. A uhaul is $40 plus mileage. 

What the hell do stories of child abuse have to do with parents just being poor? I mean I know this thread is almost exclusively about reducing the poor to drug addicts and drunks not worth our consideration, but now they're child molesters, too?

Where does the $40 + mileage money come from? Where do they move to? What guarantee is there of a job there?

It's astonishing that, as you look at the forward trajectory of the arc of history, what you see is more families being separated and more social and economic injustice.

4 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Well I am talking about the scale you gave ($1k/ month to every American 18 or older).  ... You want to spend over 5 times that amount on a single program.  You also want to drastically increase the spending on other social programs. 

Which social welfare programs would "drastically increase" in overall spending with the UBI? It would effectively replace many existing social welfare programs (which should still be available, but they would be utilized far less).

[bad_teammate 13,522]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

My version of basic income would cover all necessities including rent and utilities. In fact, in my first post about UBI, I specifically indicated that vouchers should include housing and utilities.

And pricing for housing and utilities would be controlled by the government to ensure that the vouchers covered it?

I mean, if that's your proposal, that's interesting.

[SaucyJack 3,520]

I've been told by people...many, many people, that this gentleman is her uncle.

 

[RandomIdoit 739]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What the hell do stories of child abuse have to do with parents just being poor? I mean I know this thread is almost exclusively about reducing the poor to drug addicts and drunks not worth our consideration, but now they're child molesters, too?

You are the one who is losing their shit over kids being taken away from shitty parents. No one said poor parents. FondrenRoad said parents who were taking vouchers intended for their children and selling them to buy blow. 

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Where does the $40 + mileage money come from? Where do they move to? What guarantee is there of a job there?

You are always on here crying about the poor people of Central America and how they need to be let in to the US. Where do they get the money to travel across multiple countries? Where do they move to? What guarantee is there of a job here? So these people who are so poor that minimum wage would be a blessing can find a way to move over a thousand miles but it's absurd for someone to move across town or one town over?

 

[Anastasis 23,718]

40 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Hey baby, I didn't forget you.  It was an either or thing.  In actuality, both swam and bad teammate would be way down the list of surly posters I would pick to raise my kids if I had to.  You would be way above both of them.

You have chosen poorly. I am a terrible father, and a terrible role model.  But your children will get them some 4th century jesus. 

[hobbes2702 13,475]

1 minute ago, RandomIdoit said:

You are the one who is losing their shit over kids being taken away from shitty parents. No one said poor parents. FondrenRoad said parents who were taking vouchers intended for their children and selling them to buy blow. 

You are always on here crying about the poor people of Central America and how they need to be let in to the US. Where do they get the money to travel across multiple countries? Where do they move to? What guarantee is there of a job here? So these people who are so poor that minimum wage would be a blessing can find a way to move over a thousand miles but it's absurd for someone to move across town or one town over?

[/b]

Totally comparable situations 

Edited July 25, 2018 by hobbes2702

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Which social welfare programs would "drastically increase" in overall spending with the UBI? It would effectively replace many existing social welfare programs (which should still be available, but they would be utilized far less).

You gave UBI and other programs such as housing subsidies or rent control (don’t remember the exact way you phrased it) and jobs gaurentees.  You also have a proposed tax plan.  Did you do any estimatation or calculations at all to see if your tax structure would cover the costs of all the programs you suggested in this thread?  If so, feel free to share this analysis. 

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Totally comparable situations 

Once again, I'm asking if these extremely poor people from Central America can immigrate over a thousand miles, why can't someone better off move 20 miles?

[hobbes2702 13,475]

5 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Once again, I'm asking if these extremely poor people from Central America can immigrate over a thousand miles, why can't someone better off move 20 miles?

Once again, those are not remotely comparable situations. But you knew that.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And pricing for housing and utilities would be controlled by the government to ensure that the vouchers covered it?

I mean, if that's your proposal, that's interesting.

No.  Voucher amounts would  be flexible according to the cost of living.  I don't believe in price controls.  At the end of the day, in every city, basic income should get you close enough to work in the CBD, but it shouldn't give you enough to live in the most desirable neighborhoods.  I see UBI from a democratic socialist perspective.  We should be provided with everything we need, but when it comes to what we want, we should have to work for it.  And since I know NYC, that means it should let someone live without additional income in Throgs Neck, College Point, Floral Park, Staten Island, Marine Park, Gravesend, or Ozone Park, but not anywhere in Manhattan, and not in Western Brooklyn or Queens.

Honestly, the real problem for NYC's progressive agenda is New Jersey.  Its right there on the other side of Manhattan, and it doesn't give a fuck at all, so when down on their luck NJ people need services, they take a 2.75 train ride across the river and we provide it free of charge for them.  Now, I don't mind helping the NJ poor at all.  I helped enroll an NJ shelter kid to start in fall at my daughter's elementary last week.  But for me, the real problem is that NJ failed them and NJ should help them.  Instead, NJ is worse than Texas.  North Jersey has 5 million people living in an area smaller than inner loop Houston.  But in that area, there are over 100 municipalities and school districts broken up based on income and race.  What I really want is for the NJ rich and middle income to put their skin in the game for their own people.  Instead, they may as well be Mississippi when it comes to segregation.

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Once again, those are not remotely comparable situations. But you knew that.

I'm not comparing the circumstances. It doesn't matter why these two different people are moving for this comparison. I'm comparing the ability of 2 different people to move from one place to another. One has more resources than the other, yet is not able to move 20 miles when the worse off person can successfully move 1,000+? My point is, a person could move across town or to the next town over if they were already being given a housing voucher and a food voucher. The moving expenses would come from, wait for it...........a job.

[Enchubben 5,600]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Why is the idea of heavily taxing the super wealthy so offensive?

Because it’s their money and they earned it. And if for some random reason I find myself in that situation I don’t want someone else deciding they need to take 99% of my income and 90% of my inheritance for my kids to go towards someone else’s bad habits or irresponsibility.

Further, at those previously suggested tax rates, what incentive is there to earn more money after that threshold? 

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

Because it’s their money and they earned it. And if for some random reason I find myself in that situation I don’t want someone else deciding they need to take 99% of my income and 90% of my inheritance for my kids to go towards someone else’s bad habits or irresponsibility.

Further, at those previously suggested tax rates, what incentive is there to earn more money after that threshold? 

except it will NEVER happen to you, sorry .  So the super rich are exploiting your naive rear end and making you fight really hard for them, keeping you in fantasy land while raping you. It's awesome really to watch this movie unfold, the acting superb, the plot predictable but satisfying. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You have chosen poorly. I am a terrible father, and a terrible role model.  But your children will get them some 4th century jesus. 

Jesus was feeding worms in the 4th century just like now.  But really, I could deal with them having to learn evangelical shit.  When they become adults, they can make their own decisions either way.  I can't deal with them not getting fed though because they wouldn't even make it to adulthood.  You're still above B-T, and swam.....  Let's just say neither of them are high bars.  But you're also capable of adult conversation, and you don't seem violent, so you're easily in the surly top 25%.  Make the "take my kids when I'm dead" thread. It would actually be pretty interesting.

For real, I can't understand how anyone could think its okay to take a voucher specifically earmarked to feed a child, and yet not feed that child with it.  If you had to go somewhere for work and left your kids at your sisters house and gave her 200 dollars to feed them for a few days, and you came back and she didn't feed them at all but instead spent the 200 on an autographed Bieber picture, you'd straight up hit her with a baseball bat.  The weird thing is that B-T is a fucking communist, so he is super nanny state, but god forbid the state stop parents from stealing food vouchers from their kids.

[Enchubben 5,600]

1 minute ago, Orca of Peace said:

except it will NEVER happen to you, sorry .  So the super rich are exploiting your naive rear end and making you fight really hard for them, keeping you in fantasy land while raping you. It's awesome really to watch this movie unfold, the acting superb, the plot predictable but satisfying. 

You are almost 100% right that I will never be that rich. Still doesn’t change my mind. I take responsibility for being as rich or as poor as I end up and just because I am not as successful as others, it doesn’t mean I feel we should take from others that are successful.  

I take pride in working hard, even if it is for someone else.

[Orca of Peace 109]

11 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

You are almost 100% right that I will never be that rich. Still doesn’t change my mind. I take responsibility for being as rich or as poor as I end up and just because I am not as successful as others, it doesn’t mean I feel we should take from others that are successful.  

I take pride in working hard, even if it is for someone else.

i'm a middle class lifelong wage slave and I know for a fact that CEOs don't work 500x harder than me or are 100x smarter but make 300x.  I've worked at places where big chunks of staff got laid off while the 5 or 6 decision makers killed the company and took $400k-$2mil from the company for their own bonuses (per SEC? filings) as the company went down. It is a form of wage slavery and aristocracy. So they "earned it" as you said, but off the back of hundreds or tens of thousands of very hard working dudes like you and me. They have the legal power to control things but in a moral sense it's wrong. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

13 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

What Enchubben said, but also: one of BT’s proposals was an estate tax on everything above $2,000,000.  You are crazy if you think that will never possibly affect anyone who isn’t a Rockefeller, especially if we aren’t adjusting in the future for inflation.

the American aristocracy has total contempt for us regular folk, yet working class or middle class with stupidly fight very hard for them. The brainwashing is very deep, you are being raped and you love it.  Estate tax on $100mil then, is that still too low? Not to kill the super rich but some reasonable %.  Make corporate rules so that the fat cats cannot rob the piggy bank, sure it's govt interference but so are a lot of other things. Be creative, and don't be fooled that you will ever be super rich, just isn't true, it's  a drug they feed you while you are being raped.