https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/not-so-fab-four-all-this-money.php
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/not-so-fab-four-all-this-money.php
And there you have it, the DemocRat platform 2020.
Same old conservative treacle, "the Democrats want to give everybody free everything." No, they actually want to tax the rich to provide the poor with the means to live. Ain't that horrible? Next thing you know, they'll be letting them darkies vote! (We done stopped that in Nawth Caroliner, thank Gawd.)
Able bodied people are "able" to fend for themselves if they choose to. If they choose not to fend for themselves, why should others pay their way?
That's shockngly ignorant. Not everyone is "able bodied," and not everyone who is "able bodied" is able to "fend for themselves." Also, people can fall on hard times and need temporary help. I guess that's never happened to you, otherwise you might be more sympathetic.
There's another consideration that might not have occured to you. Let's say that Person X is an iconic (to Republicans) no-good mooching welfare bum, too lazy to done git a gol-durn honest living. We doesn't wants to send that bum free money! But that person has children. What's more productive from a societal standpoint, to let those children starve or to give their families free food?
I guess that's what makes me a no-good bleeding-heart liberal. I'm happier with some people who don't "deserve" social welfare getting it than some who do "deserve" it not getting it. Assuming we even determine what "deserve" means.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Able bodied people are "able" to fend for themselves if they choose to. If they choose not to fend for themselves, why should others pay their way?
unless they're soybean farmers, then its ok, right?
"Free shit" is when the government increases spending and doesn't pay for it....(in other words, every Republican Administration Boilerman has voted for in his adult lifetime - most of all the current one).
But- uh, yeah...dont vote for liberals because "free shit" or something.
The top 1% earn abou $3.5 trillion. In order to pay for the green new deal, medicare for all, free college, reparations, $12k free to every adult & free pre k, the tax rate for the top 1% would exceed 100%.
With a tax rate that high, there would be no incentive to make more money, so there would eventually be no taxpayers & thus no revenue.
Tom, that's a standard c0nservative argument, that taxes function as a disincentive to earning. Whether or not your numbers are accurate (and I doubt very much that they are), you're forgetting that many of those programs would replace existing programs that are also costly (such as food stamps, welfare payments, heavily subsidized student loans, etc.). Yes, taxes on the rich would go up. But not to the extent you imply.
How do I know this? I look at the liberal (EEK!) democracies of Western Europe, all of which have systems in place that are similar to what Democrats are proposing. They seem pretty damn functional to me, with high standards of living and high levels of happiness. And yeah, billionaires are taxed at about 90% there. Yet, they continue to be billionaires!
Kevin like the oyhy2 on this board, when faced with the facts, ignore the facts & continue dreaming.
High tax states are currently experiencing an outflow if wealthy taxpayers to low tax states.
Those wonderful European economies are currently operating at near zero growth.
My tax rate is higher than the top 1%. That hasn't detered me from working for a living.
Asking they pay the same rate I do wont deter them from pursuing wealth either. And I dont have to guess. Thats the tax system we had before Ronald Reagan invented dynamic scoring and trickle down economics.
And contrary to Tom's narrative we had no shortage of aristocrats
