You asked me to sell you on a better plan and I tried to do so, so this is my last contribution.
Agree, drug laws are archaic and badly in need of reform.
True, a poor person in the US is better off than a poor person in, say, Somalia. So what? How destitute does a poor person have to be to satisfy you that they are not living soft? It's like you tell a rape victim you were only raped by one man, some women are raped by ten men, so shut up and stop crying, bitch.
Yes, animals "work" in the sense they need to feed themselves, and, in some cases, their offspring. But animals don't work on plantations or in factories, they don't toil while others sip daiquiris on the veranda. Once they are fed, they stop "work" until they need to eat again. There are no animal slavemasters, kings, feudal lords, billionaires. The nearest thing in animal world are the drones in social insects, males who do no work but exist solely to fertilize the queen. Insects have no choice. We do. The ones who live soft off other people's work aren't poor people.
Good points. But you still seem to think that I equate all poor the same and I said I didn't at all? I still stand by my opinion that some of the poor are poor because of their choices in life.
You claim you are not equating poverty and bad choices, but you want to scrutinize how poor people spend their money. Why not assess how well the rich spent what they got in their trillion dollar tax cut, especially since Trump has promised an even bigger tax cut for the rich? Why not prohibit them from using their tax cut, that we all pay for, on safari hunting where very rich Westerners pay desperately poor countries to slaughter endangered animals? Why not demand their new yachts be energy efficient?
If someone makes enough money to spend it foolishly, but doesn't abuse government aid, then it is their freedom of choice to spend it as they like and if/when they blow it all they have no one to blame but themselves. Regarding legal tax cuts, I cant blame a rich person for utilizing something that has been voted in. That is something, I take up with my elected officials. Now I am with you. I think we need a tax overhaul; that includes another 1% tax increase on anyone making 1 million a year or more, a 3% increase on anyone making 10 million or more and a 5% increase on anyone making 100 mill a year or more. That's actually a substantial amount of revenue that could then pay to repair and upgrade many of our infrastructures like roads and bridges, power plants, damns, etc.
Combine that with getting rid of the corporate loopholes for any companies showing a net profit quadruple the loophole or more. So, after paying all bills and wages, if they make 4 or more times the write off they were eligible for previously, they are no longer. This will ensure we can still give help to start up companies, but allow larger, more profitable companies to pay their share. Here is another one. Why don't we tax companies that ship by the shipment based on a percentage of estimated wear and tear on the highways? So those who bring in more semis into their facilities, pay more in logistical taxation. I bet we aren't so far off on our thoughts when it comes to tax write offs for the corporate world and the rich.
We have always had wealth inequality in this country but it has exploded in the last 40 years or so, starting with Reagan era tax cut that heavily favored the wealthy, and increasing exponentially ever since. The idea that the very wealthy should pay their fair share suddenly became an outrage and to this day we are supposed to be appalled that rich should pay more taxes. This country had greater growth and more equitable growth when the rich did pay higher taxes; countries in Western Europe have pulled ahead of the US in many social indicators in large part because they have less inequality.
You are not far off here (Not saying you are anywhere else, lol):
Sorry for the size, couldn't get it smaller. Anyhow you can see, you are not far off. A 10% decrease in the bottom 90% since 89'. What I find interesting is that the top 10 percent have not joined up and morphing into one class. And it looks more like two classes. The top 10% rich and the bottom 90% poor. This is indeed alarming. HOWEVER, what I see in this graph is even though the bottom 90% is continually declining, it isn't as sharp, during the republican years. For example. Look at the start of 1989 and into 1993. It is on the slight incline. That is the end of Regan, beginning of Bush Sr. Then it dives more from 1993-2001, during Clinton's admin. Now Look at 2002-2004. There was actually a slight incline. That was when Bush JR was president. You can then follow the increase of the top 1% and it roughly has the same pattern, though does take a good dive during the Clinton admin during his second term. Other than that, the increase line up fairly closely to that of the Dems years in office. So, though I do agree with you that the separation is increasing and alarming, I do not agree this is by the republicans doing alone. It is clear by the graph above, that the dems have at least some of it to answer for if not the majority of it.
I am reminded of the end of Lord of the Rings (book, not movie) when Sam is holding the ring and realizing how powerful it is and how much power it could give him. Then his "good sound Hobbit sense" comes to his aid. "For him, a garden to work with his own two hands, not a garden grown to the size of a realm that others work at his command." Maybe we all need some good sound Hobbit sense. Because no one needs $25 billion, $50 billion, $100 billion. No one.
Do you honestly think Bill Gates and Paul Allen would not have created Microsoft if they thought their personal fortunes would stop at, say, $5 billion?
I'm not sure what you mean by stopping. No I don't think they would, but i'm also not sure of the relevance? Fact is, whether someone needs money or not, if they legally earned it, its theirs to do with as they wish. I'm by no means, rich, but I hold no grudges against the rich for being rich.
So, your choice, @Orion Bailey. If you want to vote for a rude, crude, vicious, vulgar, stupid, ignorant, incompetent, utterly corrupt narcissist who cares for nothing but his ego and his wealth, who promises another tax cut for the rich but is taking school lunches from close to a million American children, who puts children in cages and sexually assaults women, who calls anything that does not praise him fake news, who kowtows to Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, well, you still have that choice. We still have elections. Do you trust Trump to keep them free and fair?
This isn't about Trump. It isn't about Polozi, or Romney and it isn't about Yang or Warren. This is about idealogies. Or that is my intent. I want to keep current politicians running or in office out of it unless it has to do with their political ideologies. rude, crude, vulgar, stupid, etc, are opinion words based on biased viewpoints that could be used for many politicians on both sides of the isle. Clinton had his dick sucked in the white house for cryin out loud. I don't linger on it, but its a double standard to me when I hear about his crude behavior from people who supported Clinton( I supported Clinton btw.) If we are ever going to break out of this standoff we have before all out civil war and anarchy comes, we need to start calling apples apples and oranges oranges. Stop dismissing one act while condemning another act, when they are the same thing! This craziness that Trump is the evil end all is ridiculous and I remember hearing the same thing about Bush Jr. Guess what? We got through it!!!!!!
If people would put as much energy into pushing a legit ideological agenda aimed at improving our future instead of getting people to hate trump.. HE WOULD LOSE THE ELECTION! But I don't want to vote for a party or group of people who show sooo much anger and hostility towards someone, no matter WHAT he has done. It's a sign of biased opinions that feed into illogical actions, more often than not. Would you listen to someone who sounds like they have just been sexually violated, or robbed, or kidnapped?
That is what some people sound like when they describe their dislike of Trump, and I don't find it stable. Just look at the Iowa Caucus.
For as much as I don't care for Trumps antics.. They are just antics and Dems fall for it every time. I'm tired of the bitching. I'm tired of the end all statements about being evil if you vote for him, i'm tired of the blanket hatred without the ability to debate thoughts.
One more point. Donald Trump is now the most powerful president in the history of the United States of America. He has absolutely no moral compass; he has said, and believes, that he can do anything he wants. He has said, falsely, that Article 2 of the Constitution, which he has not read, gives the president the right to do anything. And now the Senate majority is going along with it. They are saying he can break laws, lie, harm allies, endanger national security, corrupt elections, and it's just fine as long as they get right wing judges, tax cuts for the rich, and most of all stay in power. The Attorney General, who although appointed by the president is supposed to work for we the people, concurs; not only does he claim the president has absolute immunity to do anything, he also intends to use the Department of Justice, the full weight of the federal government, to go after Trump's opponents. Is this the man you want to give this power to?
First sentence. Would getting fellatio in the white house be considered having a moral compass? This excuse to hate Trump is soooooo old considering..... Question. Do you think there is a chance he says some of these things because he is amused by the reactions he gets? or if he actually believes everything he says? Ill give you a hint. I say stuff.... well used to say stuff all the time around here that I didn't believe, just to get a rise out of someone who I thought would take it literally and get their feathers ruffled. Didn't really pan out all that well for me and it probably wont for him either, but I don't believe he believes everything he says. I think he is just tossing the lure in the water and waiting for a nibble.
But again, it shouldn't be about him He isn't republicanism. He is the current sitting president and can only be so for a max of 5 more years. Even if he is reelected, I do not believe it to be the end of the world, like some would have it seem. That is the beauty of our system. No one gets to sit in power for too long.
we all have choices. I'm choosing to try to better understand why you are a democrat and you have provided some good answers. I have enjoyed our conversation so far, so I hope you choose to continue. This real.y isn't about me. It isn't about you either. It's about trying to better understand others whom we have differences of opinions on, rather than choosing a hostile path that further separates us all and continues us on the path of frustration, anger and violence. I originally wanted to try to have this discussion with
@Stevenson and @calvin natt, but they chose to not participate do to personal reasons. You have legit opened up to me with your thoughts and ideas on things and I appreciate that. Its only in doing so cna we come close together as humans even when we agree to disagree on certain things.
And, I will get you a shirt for sure I promise. When I get the next one it will be in your size and Ill send it off.
Thanks for the debate Crandt, I hope we can continue.
