Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[BStowers023]

Let me ask you, have you ever googled your own question? "What's wrong with a flat tax?"

 

On the first page, there's a recent article from the (conservative) National Review, the (liberal) Washington Post, and 9 responses collated by US News both for and against.

 

I really can't say anything that they haven't already said, because I'm probably dumber and definitely less informed on tax politics than everyone who wrote one of those articles. I don't have any problem with a flat tax in theory, I just think that in practice, so much has to change before it's even feasible that it's not worth talking about up front. Make the changes required to make it practical first, then start collapsing the tax rates.

 

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the promise of a flat tax being implemented in the near future would energize us and motivate us to make big changes to our government. You're free to think that, and you're free to disagree with all of those opinions above who don't think it would work. But to ask, "What's wrong with a flat tax," as if nobody's ever considered it... I dunno man.

 

I don't want to come off as smug or arrogant, I really don't, and I apologize that I do sometimes come off that way. I try hard to engage in genuine debate here.

 

 

I guess I just don't understand why some people truly believe that the more money a person works for, the higher percentage they should be taxed. I mean, I guess I do understand where they're coming from (He has more than me! I want what he has!) but I just don't understand how that falls in line with the fundamental values of our country.

 

 

Holding people accountable for their actions sounds great, but when it comes to sex and pregnancy it just doesn't work. That child will become the burden of the state and cost way more in the long run. To me this just sounds like more of the stereotypical Republican ideal of caring about the birth of a child but nothing about the quality of life (or medical care) it will have afterwards.

 

Access to contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy, prevents abortion, reduces to burden on the state (ultimately saving money), yet you're completely against it? To me, this is part of basic care that should be available to all and your employer shouldn't be able to fire you over your use of birth control.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

Personally, I don't give a shit about abortion as long as it's done preferably in the 1st trimester. I agree with you about society taking on the burden of a likely, uneducated, poor, unhealthy child that becomes an adult with the same issues. Do whatever you want with your body, just don't ask me to pay a dime for it. You fucked up, you fix it. Rape cases are a special circumstance and I'm not against funding to provide abortions and counseling for rape victims.

[greg1647545532]

I guess I just don't understand why some people truly believe that the more money a person works for, the higher percentage they should be taxed. I mean, I guess I do understand where they're coming from (He has more than me! I want what he has!) but I just don't understand how that falls in line with the fundamental values of our country.

 

Do you actually want a response to this post? Because the bolded part is a shitpost if I've ever seen one, and it's making me want to bail on this "debate."

[BStowers023]

Do you actually want a response to this post? Because the bolded part is a shitpost if I've ever seen one, and it's making me want to bail on this "debate."

 

Then you don't know what goes through the mind of a Bernie supporter. I know quite a few, more than I'd like to know but it is what it is and their literal justification for increasing taxes on the top 1% is "They don't need all of that money." I've heard it straight from the horses mouth and there's no way that idealogy is limited to just the Bernie supporters I've interacted with.

[greg1647545532]

Answer your own question, then, play devil's advocate. "What are the negatives of a flat tax?"

 

First, answer your own question from the perspective of these "Bernie supporters" you know. Surely they have a problem with a flat tax, how would they respond? Start with, "The negatives of a flat tax are..."

 

Then, answer your own question pretending to be me, based on what I've said already and the links I posted above. Put yourself in my shows and see if you can understand where I'm coming from.

[BStowers023]

Answer your own question, then, play devil's advocate. "What are the negatives of a flat tax?"

 

First, answer your own question from the perspective of these "Bernie supporters" you know. Surely they have a problem with a flat tax, how would they respond? Start with, "The negatives of a flat tax are..."

 

Then, answer your own question pretending to be me, based on what I've said already and the links I posted above. Put yourself in my shows and see if you can understand where I'm coming from.

 

 

Okay, nobody will answer my question directly but sure I'll answer yours.

 

Proposed negatives of a flat tax:

1. It penalizes low-income earners

No, it gives them more initiative to work hard and create a better life for themselves (yes, it's possible even if you're born in extreme poverty). Everyone should pay into the system if supposedly everyone is going to reap the benefits of the system.

2. It eliminates the IRS

Why is that a bad thing? Budget cuts right away! Before you get all emotional about people losing jobs, the majority of them will find their way right back in the work force.

3. It benefits the rich

Maybe, but the alternative is punishing the rich and to circle back around to the first argument, everyone is paying an "equal" percentage and the left is all about equality until it doesn't benefit them. Here's a good example.

 

 

Here's the source I pulled from

http://connectusfund.org/list-of-9-main-pros-and-cons-of-the-flat-tax

 

Here's another I read

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/pros-cons-flat-tax-4210.html

[greg1647545532]

Okay, nobody will answer my question directly but sure I'll answer yours.

 

OK, I tried really hard to answer your question in post #894, and then I posted a list of articles that directly answered your question in post #899, but now you're saying that "nobody" answer will your question. Fuck me, guess I'm nobody.

 

Furthermore, I question how much effort you put into answering mine. Is this list of negatives what you think your Bernie bro friends would say? Or is that your attempt at summarizing my argument? It's not clear which you were attempting, and I asked for both.

 

 

Proposed negatives of a flat tax:

1. It penalizes low-income earners

No, it gives them more initiative to work hard and create a better life for themselves (yes, it's possible even if you're born in extreme poverty). Everyone should pay into the system if supposedly everyone is going to reap the benefits of the system.

 

So you're saying that high taxes encourages people to work harder? Sounds like the exact opposite of what you would normally say.

 

But yes, a flat tax does put more of a burden on low income earners, so that's a negative.

 

 

2. It eliminates the IRS

Why is that a bad thing? Budget cuts right away! Before you get all emotional about people losing jobs, the majority of them will find their way right back in the work force.

 

Do you remember where you admitted that a flat tax and a graduated tax are both "simple"? I thought we already established that the complexity of an income tax was in defining "income," and that a flat tax would have no effect on the staffing required for the IRS. Did you not really believe that when you said it?

 

 

3. It benefits the rich

Maybe, but the alternative is punishing the rich and to circle back around to the first argument, everyone is paying an "equal" percentage and the left is all about equality until it doesn't benefit them. Here's a good example.

 

One of the things the left and right butt heads about is what constitutes equality. For instance, if I implement a rule that says everyone named Greg gets a free taco on Tuesday, the left might say that's unfair because there are lots of people with other names who don't get free tacos, and the right might say that the rule applies equally to all Greg's, and you're free to name your children Greg after all.

 

But this is another discussion.

 

 

 

Did you read any of the articles I posted?

[TTQ B4U]

Access to contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy, prevents abortion, reduces to burden on the state (ultimately saving money), yet you're completely against it?

 

who doesn't have access to contraception? condoms are readily available and costs are not an issue. if people honestly can't afford or manage their own contraception and it's just too much to ask then perhaps they should be forced to be sterilized as we'll only be promoting the breeding of more dumb nuts.

 

To me, this is part of basic care that should be available to all and your employer shouldn't be able to fire you over your use of birth control.

 

I disagree. If an employer such as a church or private company doesn't wish to offer it, they shouldn't be forced to do so. Not every employer offers all coverages. There are options the employee or potential employee can seek out their needs no different than anything else.

 

Why an employer would even be made aware of ones personal life such as birth control use is beyond me.

[Geeto67]

Then you don't know what goes through the mind of a Bernie supporter. I know quite a few, more than I'd like to know but it is what it is and their literal justification for increasing taxes on the top 1% is "They don't need all of that money." I've heard it straight from the horses mouth and there's no way that idealogy is limited to just the Bernie supporters I've interacted with.

 

I'm not going to pretend like there aren't stupid people in this world in gerneral, but I'm guessing most of the people you are interacting with are in their 20's? Yeah kids in their 20's generally don't know much, or maybe a better way to say it is they are still learning and much like yourself they have more confidence than knowledge.

 

Remember a few posts ago where we were talking about how as income goes up each successive dollar contributes slightly less to improving your standard of living? The name for that in economics is called "the marginal utility of money". If you take 10% of the income from a person living on $10k a year it may deprive them of something essential like food or housing, and we are just talking about $100. For a person who makes $100k a year, $10k in taxes would be felt but not enough to deprive them of something essential, and there is certainly a lot of room in their budget to pay more if they needed to without significantly affecting their quality of life. Now look at someone who makes $1million a year, $100k out of their yearly salary isn't generally going to affect their quality of life at all. So the glib 20 something answer you are looking for is the rich pay more in taxes because they are the ones who can most afford it without affecting their quality of life.

 

If you look at our tax code we have a modified flat tax of sorts - at the top bracket it doesn't matter if you make $5 million or $50 million, your income gets taxed at the same rate. Now I hear you saying (ok no I don't but humor me) "but everyone is different, what if paying taxes would impact the person making $1m a year's quality of life because of their life circumstances?" Well that is why we have deductions. If the person making $1m has 10 children to support then he gets a break from paying a portion of his taxes that other $1m owners who don't have kids don't get.

 

The point about our tax code is that it is an expirement in trying to maximize economic efficiencies to individual circumstances. If your life is simple your taxes are simple, if your life is complex, your taxes will be complex.

[Mallard]

who doesn't have access to contraception? condoms are readily available and costs are not an issue. if people honestly can't afford or manage their own contraception and it's just too much to ask then perhaps they should be forced to be sterilized as we'll only be promoting the breeding of more dumb nuts.

 

 

 

I disagree. If an employer such as a church or private company doesn't wish to offer it, they shouldn't be forced to do so. Not every employer offers all coverages. There are options the employee or potential employee can seek out their needs no different than anything else.

 

Why an employer would even be made aware of ones personal life such as birth control use is beyond me.

That's great rhetoric, but like Jeff Sessions's belief that DARE was successful at deterring drug use, or mandatory minimum sentences deter crime, or the rest of theTrump administrations belief that automation/robotics won't affect the American job market for 50-100 years, or that climate change isn't real, or that trickle-down economics work, all of this is contrary to what the facts actually prove. But facts don't matter anymore...

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[BStowers023]

OK, I tried really hard to answer your question in post #894, and then I posted a list of articles that directly answered your question in post #899, but now you're saying that "nobody" answer will your question. Fuck me, guess I'm nobody.

 

Furthermore, I question how much effort you put into answering mine. Is this list of negatives what you think your Bernie bro friends would say? Or is that your attempt at summarizing my argument? It's not clear which you were attempting, and I asked for both.

 

I literally quoted the sources I pulled those negatives from.

 

 

So you're saying that high taxes encourages people to work harder? Sounds like the exact opposite of what you would normally say.

 

But yes, a flat tax does put more of a burden on low income earners, so that's a negative.

 

So the contrary would be, giving them handouts makes them work harder? Yeah, I don't think so. If you go into a bears natural territory and start feeding it, what's it going to do? It won't continue to hunt when it knows it has a free handout. Human nature is the same. Yet, somehow your logic is that handouts will get people out of poverty?

 

 

Do you remember where you admitted that a flat tax and a graduated tax are both "simple"? I thought we already established that the complexity of an income tax was in defining "income," and that a flat tax would have no effect on the staffing required for the IRS. Did you not really believe that when you said it?

 

To be honest, I'm only playing devils advocate with the flat tax thing here. I personally believe there shouldn't be an income tax at all. Sales/Consumption tax only. You are taxed on what you buy. Wealthy people buy more and spend more so they will naturally be taxed more. Obviously we will have to raise sales and consumption tax. This actually goes more in line with yours and Kerry's ideaology unless you aren't for budget cuts and keeping jobs at the IRS.

 

 

One of the things the left and right butt heads about is what constitutes equality. For instance, if I implement a rule that says everyone named Greg gets a free taco on Tuesday, the left might say that's unfair because there are lots of people with other names who don't get free tacos, and the right might say that the rule applies equally to all Greg's, and you're free to name your children Greg after all.

 

But this is another discussion.

 

Then you would be dumb not to legally change your name to Greg if you really wanted a free taco.

 

 

Did you read any of the articles I posted?

 

Yes and the articles I provided were less biased than yours.

 

 

I'm not going to pretend like there aren't stupid people in this world in gerneral, but I'm guessing most of the people you are interacting with are in their 20's? Yeah kids in their 20's generally don't know much, or maybe a better way to say it is they are still learning and much like yourself they have more confidence than knowledge.

 

So what's the magic age? I see just as many people in their 30s and 40s out protesting ridiculous things as I do people in their 20s. But yes, the Bernie supporters I encountered were in their 20s. They are morons.

 

 

Remember a few posts ago where we were talking about how as income goes up each successive dollar contributes slightly less to improving your standard of living? The name for that in economics is called "the marginal utility of money". If you take 10% of the income from a person living on $10k a year it may deprive them of something essential like food or housing, and we are just talking about $100. For a person who makes $100k a year, $10k in taxes would be felt but not enough to deprive them of something essential, and there is certainly a lot of room in their budget to pay more if they needed to without significantly affecting their quality of life. Now look at someone who makes $1million a year, $100k out of their yearly salary isn't generally going to affect their quality of life at all. So the glib 20 something answer you are looking for is the rich pay more in taxes because they are the ones who can most afford it without affecting their quality of life.

 

If you look at our tax code we have a modified flat tax of sorts - at the top bracket it doesn't matter if you make $5 million or $50 million, your income gets taxed at the same rate. Now I hear you saying (ok no I don't but humor me) "but everyone is different, what if paying taxes would impact the person making $1m a year's quality of life because of their life circumstances?" Well that is why we have deductions. If the person making $1m has 10 children to support then he gets a break from paying a portion of his taxes that other $1m owners who don't have kids don't get.

 

The point about our tax code is that it is an expirement in trying to maximize economic efficiencies to individual circumstances. If your life is simple your taxes are simple, if your life is complex, your taxes will be complex.

 

Why do taxes have to be so complex? I'm going to keep going back to this. You are responsible for your life. Making a tax code simpler will, 1 make it more difficult or impossible for the rich to dodge taxes and, 2 force EVERYONE to pay into the system. I see where we differ. I understand your point that $10,000 is less important to a person who makes $100,000 than $1,000 for someone who makes $10,000. My argument to that is, why are you only making $10,000? It's hard for me to understand when I see people on a daily basis that bust their ass for the money they make and then people who are on Govt assistance who work 15 hours a week and then people like yourself are telling me that I need to believe that they need more handouts simply because they aren't capable. Maybe I believe in people more than you do. Not everyone needs a college degree, in fact, I think that's a very bad route for a lot of people. You can go to a Union Hall and go through an apprenticeship for 4 years, have a full-time job and get paid training, and upon completion you can make over $20/hour and get continuous raises up into the high 30s/hour with available overtime. This doesn't just apply to Union jobs, but a lot of jobs out there. People don't want tot work. You believe that the rich are responsible to take care of the poor, where as I believe everyone is responsible to take care of themselves. Handouts don't work. They keep people who are capable to make a better life for themselves in poverty.

[greg1647545532]

I literally quoted the sources I pulled those negatives from.

 

Why? I asked you two plays devil's advocate for 2 groups, the Bernie supporters you know and me. Instead, you went rogue, found some pro-flat-tax authors and told me their concerns with a flat tax.

 

So the contrary would be, giving them handouts makes them work harder? Yeah, I don't think so. If you go into a bears natural territory and start feeding it, what's it going to do? It won't continue to hunt when it knows it has a free handout. Human nature is the same. Yet, somehow your logic is that handouts will get people out of poverty?

 

We're talking about taxes, not handouts. And isn't that how taxes work? Reducing taxes on businesses encourages business. Reducing taxes on mortgage interest encourages home ownership. Reducing gas taxes encourages fuel consumption. Reducing taxes on cigarettes encourages smoking. Reducing sales taxes encourages purchasing. Reducing income taxes on low income earners encourages work.

 

That's the whole argument against raising taxes on the rich, right?! "Why would anyone work hard past a certain point if it's just going to get taken away!" That's actually true to an extent, and it's a valid argument against soaking the rich. Why wouldn't the inverse apply to reducing taxes on the poor?!

 

 

To be honest, I'm only playing devils advocate with the flat tax thing here. I personally believe there shouldn't be an income tax at all. Sales/Consumption tax only. You are taxed on what you buy. Wealthy people buy more and spend more so they will naturally be taxed more. Obviously we will have to raise sales and consumption tax. This actually goes more in line with yours and Kerry's ideaology unless you aren't for budget cuts and keeping jobs at the IRS.

 

High sales taxes discourages spending, which is bad for businesses and therefore bad for the economy. Taxes are a necessary evil, the game is how to feed the beast without borking the economy. I'm not necessarily opposed to a federal sales tax, hell I'm not even opposed to a flat tax at some hypothetical point in the future. The point is that there are pros and cons to any revenue structure, so you should be able to answer the question, "What are the negatives of a federal sales tax" and not expect your opponents to have to.

 

There's really no simple answer, and these sound bite tax plans are something of a distraction. What good would a flat tax do for government complexity when there's probably a 16 page section of an import tax code defining what "pants" are, and therefore what rate this crate of jorts from Indonesia should be taxed at?

 

Yes and the articles I provided were less biased than yours.

 

Again, that was kind of the point.

[Geeto67]

Why do taxes have to be so complex? I'm going to keep going back to this. You are responsible for your life.

 

If your life is simple, then taxes are simple for you. The code is complex because people's lives are complex. They want exemptions for child care, they want exemptions for student loans, They want exemptions for moving expenses, they want different treatment because they own a home. On the other side, politicians want to incentivize behavior economically so they offer tax breaks for going to school, they offer tax deductions for mortgages, they offer deductions for charitable donations. You keep looking at the code as this isolated thing on an island but really it is at the heart of how the political processes and incentivizes.

 

 

Making a tax code simpler will, 1 make it more difficult or impossible for the rich to dodge taxes and,

This is not true. One of the major ways the 1% of this country dodge taxes is by playing with the definition of income. A simpler tax code isn't going to solve that because it would require a really complex definition of income and that goes against it being a simpler tax code. Another way they avoid it is by playing with when the tax is collected (usually at the sale of an asset) which again a simpler tax code won't stop. I struggle at all to see how a "simpler tax code" would prevent tax dodging - remember our original tax code started simple and then evolved to be complex partially through trying to stop tax dodges, making is simpler would actually be giving those whom have been working on defeating the system a huge advantage.

 

 

2 force EVERYONE to pay into the system.

Do we need everyone to pay into the system? Or is it possible that having someone pay into a system where it hurts them financially does not provide a benefit to either society or the government? You can get into such small amounts of tax collected that it would cost the government more to collect and process it than they made collecting it - who benefits from that? Also, and I'll get into this in my next point, there are some positive social benefits that not taxing the poor partially purchases like a reduction in the crime rate.

 

Seriously, why does everyone have to pay into the system? because you think it's fair? that's not a good answer because those living at the poverty line or below are most effected and that isn't fair.

 

 

I see where we differ. I understand your point that $10,000 is less important to a person who makes $100,000 than $1,000 for someone who makes $10,000. My argument to that is, why are you only making $10,000? It's hard for me to understand when I see people on a daily basis that bust their ass for the money they make and then people who are on Govt assistance who work 15 hours a week and then people like yourself are telling me that I need to believe that they need more handouts simply because they aren't capable.

 

First of all you are getting very close to saying the disabled shouldn't get assistance, which I don't think you intend to do. Let's just assume you are talking about able bodied work eligible individuals.

 

But here is the thing: There are not enough opportunities to go around. I know it's fun to think of America as the land of opportunity and maybe there are an infinite number of opportunities on the whole (and maybe not) but that doesn't mean that every opportunity is available to every person. A jb at Mcdonalds across town is useless to an employee who can't get there if the bus doesn't go there.

 

Maybe I believe in people more than you do.

 

It's not about believing in people. It's about believing that there is an opportunity for every single individual out there that he or she can find and take. That's just not true.

 

 

Not everyone needs a college degree, in fact, I think that's a very bad route for a lot of people.

Post high school Education is a lengthy discussion that doesn't add much to this conversation at the moment. no, not everyone needs a college degree, but some jobs require more than a college degree (doctors, lawyers, etc...).

 

 

You can go to a Union Hall and go through an apprenticeship for 4 years, have a full-time job and get paid training, and upon completion you can make over $20/hour and get continuous raises up into the high 30s/hour with available overtime. This doesn't just apply to Union jobs, but a lot of jobs out there.

 

Each town that is different. Maybe in a smaller town there are a surplus of union jobs, but there are plenty of unions in more densely populated areas where there are more members than jobs to go around. I have several friends in the Electricians Union in NY for whom the waitlist for an apprenticeship was two years, and there are many union electricians that have multiple years without a single eligible job. What do you do if the union opportunity isn't available to you?

 

People don't want tot work.

 

This is the hill you've chosen to die on? that everyone who is poor doesn't want to work? really? you constantly disappoint me. Lots of people want to work and can't get work. Or they are working but have maxed out their skill set and can't get above the poverty line and there is no more advancement. To say all poor people don't want to work is single handily the dumbest thing you have written here. Why don't you go down to the home depot and tell the guys standing out there in the parking lot looking for a job that they really don't want to work. They aren't all illegals you know....sometimes they are just guys who want to work under the table.

 

 

You believe that the rich are responsible to take care of the poor, where as I believe everyone is responsible to take care of themselves. Handouts don't work. They keep people who are capable to make a better life for themselves in poverty.

 

What I believe doesn't matter when you look at it from an economic standpoint. It's pure economic efficiency to have those whose standard of living is affected the least to pay more into the system and those who can't afford it to pay less. And remember they are paying for roads, schools, etc...all the government services, not just benefits.

 

Poverty is a trap but it isn't because of the reason you think (just to be clear that reason is because you think the poor are lazy and getting free money). This is a whole different discussion that involves the prison system post civil war, the civil rights movement and discrimination in hiring, and literally 200 years of American history as well as current technological advancement that makes workers obsolete in the work force. None of this is new. To just assume all poor people are poor because they get benefits and don't want to work? that's just you being lazy (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/why-the-poor-dont-work-according-to-the-poor/279900/)

 

 

By the way, this is part of why conversation with you is maddening....you look at everything that talks about social welfare as suspicious, but you don't even bat an eye at the lie (and it is a lie that has been proven again and again to be false) that the poor don't work because they don't want to work or are lazy. I mean think about that for a second - why doesn't it sound crazy to you for someone to say the poor are poor because they are lazy? why aren't you questioning that very particular bit of nonsense that has almost no evidence of truth. Really, it is because you want to believe it. You have no interest in the actual state of the world, you just want reinforcement of your opinions, you have tied your political position to your ego and you are unwilling to let go of it. It makes you feel better about your life to think you are nor poor because you work hard.

[BStowers023]

Well we're just going to keep going around in circles here. You continue to call me dumb and ignorant because I don't see your point of view from a socialist mentality. That's exactly what's wrong with Liberals today. They refuse to understand there are different viewpoints and are quick to call everyone dumb or ignorant that doesn't think the way they do. You know this is true. That is why Trump won. Everyone got sick of people like yourself. You say people in their 20s don't have the knowledge and that might be true, what's worse is someone like yourself who does have the knowledge but still thinks the way a 21 year old liberal college student does. Get off your high horse.

[zeitgeist57]

Well we're just going to keep going around in circles here.

 

 

[Geeto67]

Well we're just going to keep going around in circles here. You continue to call me dumb and ignorant because I don't see your point of view from a socialist mentality.

 

Ignorant isn't an insult it's a statement of fact. If you don't know something you are ignorant of it, plain and simple. You lack the knowledge to continue to have these conversations and you don't want to do the leg work to get the knowledge. Instead of just saying "I don't know" or asking real questions, you make up these things or you pull some canned "conservative rhetoric" or you put forth laughably biased argumentative questions, and then claim you are impartial which insults both of our intelligence.

 

 

 

That's exactly what's wrong with Liberals today.

They refuse to understand there are different viewpoints and are quick to call everyone dumb or ignorant that doesn't think the way they do.

I am not talking about what's wrong with liberals and what's wrong with conservatives, I'm talking about whats wrong with you. You are ignoring evidence, you are ignoring knowledge, you are not taking responsibility for your own intelligence. This isn't a matter of "respecting viewpoints" this is about your inability to defend your prove your viewpoint is based on anything other than lies you have been fed, assumptions, and internal logical gymnastics. There are very intelligent conservatives out there, but Rush Limbaugh is not one, Alex Jones is not one, and You are not one. You have bought a bill of defective goods in their rhetoric and you don't question it, you have no desire to question your own belief. Not all conservatives, not the Republican part, the very specific person that is you.

 

you want intelligent conservatives to read/listen to? here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/yes-dan-mitchell-there-are-conservatives-worth-following-on-twitter/262259/

 

I have given you a literal reading list (a few posts back) of credible sources to help you understand the concepts you talk about but don't fully understand and the best you can muster is "you are being mean to me because I don't respect your opinion". Yes, I don't respect YOUR opinion - it's a patchwork of lies you bought into, assumptions you make, evidence you ignore, and your disdain for your liberal friend's half baked opinions. If you had to defend it as a PHD thesis, you'd fail. You want me to respect your opinion - put together one that isn't just your "feelings" on something. Spend some time reading political and economic theory and draw your own conclusions.

 

You know this is true.

I believe that my above paragraphs makes it clear I do not. I'm not out here calling all members of a particular ideology stupid, or saying things like "the problems with liberals are..." that's you. There is plenty of misinformation in both viewpoints and you keep churning conservative misinformation as fact. We could talk about liberal misinformation but usually you just say " think this is bullshit" and then I agree with you "like that bit about how your bernie bros feel") and then we don't discuss it. How are you so "good" at spotting liberal misinformation and so very very bad at spotting conservative misinformation? should be a simple question for you to answer....

 

That is why Trump won. Everyone got sick of people like yourself.

Trump won because he is the better marketer. When it comes to the president, the majority of americans across both sides don't really know the roles and responsibility of the president let alone how politics work or even what is in their own self interest.

 

You say people in their 20s don't have the knowledge and that might be true, what's worse is someone like yourself who does have the knowledge but still thinks the way a 21 year old liberal college student does. Get off your high horse.

 

You know why people in certain fields in higher education trend toward liberal viewpoints? it isn't this specter of liberal hiring bias conservatives like to chase around the mulberry bush - it's because they are not stupid. They read the studies, the evidence, the theories, and then they draw their own conclusions from that. I'm not talking about undergrad students - I'm talking professors and grad students.

[Mallard]

Well we're just going to keep going around in circles here. You continue to call me dumb and ignorant because I don't see your point of view from a socialist mentality. That's exactly what's wrong with Liberals today. They refuse to understand there are different viewpoints and are quick to call everyone dumb or ignorant that doesn't think the way they do. You know this is true. That is why Trump won. Everyone got sick of people like yourself. You say people in their 20s don't have the knowledge and that might be true, what's worse is someone like yourself who does have the knowledge but still thinks the way a 21 year old liberal college student does. Get off your high horse.

I didn't read his message this way at all, but I do think he's giving you some intellectual "tough love" in the hopes that you'll get motivated, bootstrap yourself and read more into the issues you seem interested in understanding deeper. There is a wealth of information out there, ready for the taking.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[greg1647545532]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y7Q6r1lPRYQ/U9-6Us6AFPI/AAAAAAAADB0/foBI2ybezwE/s1600/2014Poster31.png

[Geeto67]

I didn't read his message this way at all, but I do think he's giving you some intellectual "tough love" in the hopes that you'll get motivated, bootstrap yourself and read more into the issues you seem interested in understanding deeper. There is a wealth of information out there, ready for the taking.

 

 

Def "tough love" but I realized something else while I was reading your comment.

 

Higher education, Sometimes in undergraduate but almost always in the post graduate level, has very small tolerance for any notion that can't be defended with hard sources. If you are going to make an argument or state your opinion you have to be ready to explain how you got to the conclusion and address the critical opposition. When you defend your PhD you have to defend your choices and sources that led to your conclusion as well as defend from the critics of your sources. It has no patience if you are unable to do so and it has no interest in how much your ego is tied to your opinion and it does this in a very public way. In Law School the Socratic Method of answering questions adds a broader audience and teaches in part through humiliation.

 

Most people who haven't gone through this aren't equipped to handle this or separate the argument from themselves. They also don't understand that if you put your opinion out therein conversation with someone who has been through this teaching method you better have the knowledge to back it up and or say "i don't know" without feeling superior or inferior. Thus the gap widens between those with formal educational training and those who do not . I can understand how being faced with this people can feel stupid of insulted, but I, like many, don't know how to address it.

 

How do you explain to the group that advocates for holding people responsible for their actions that you are holding them responsible for their statements and they are not taking responsibility by blaming intellectuals for their own lack of knowledge and feelings of embarrassment? How do you further explain to them that people like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, and Donald Trump are there to exploit this feeling by reinforcing their ignorance?

[Mallard]

Def "tough love" but I realized something else while I was reading your comment.

 

Higher education, Sometimes in undergraduate but almost always in the post graduate level, has very small tolerance for any notion that can't be defended with hard sources. If you are going to make an argument or state your opinion you have to be ready to explain how you got to the conclusion and address the critical opposition. When you defend your PhD you have to defend your choices and sources that led to your conclusion as well as defend from the critics of your sources. It has no patience if you are unable to do so and it has no interest in how much your ego is tied to your opinion and it does this in a very public way. In Law School the Socratic Method of answering questions adds a broader audience and teaches in part through humiliation.

 

Most people who haven't gone through this aren't equipped to handle this or separate the argument from themselves. They also don't understand that if you put your opinion out therein conversation with someone who has been through this teaching method you better have the knowledge to back it up and or say "i don't know" without feeling superior or inferior. Thus the gap widens between those with formal educational training and those who do not . I can understand how being faced with this people can feel stupid of insulted, but I, like many, don't know how to address it.

 

How do you explain to the group that advocates for holding people responsible for their actions that you are holding them responsible for their statements and they are not taking responsibility by blaming intellectuals for their own lack of knowledge and feelings of embarrassment? How do you further explain to them that people like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, and Donald Trump are there to exploit this feeling by reinforcing their ignorance?

Yeah, I get that.

 

My comment was also a bit tongue-in-cheek by suggesting he should be motivated by your comments to bootstrap himself out of "intellectual poverty."

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[BStowers023]

Kerry: The official decider on who's ignorant and who isn't

[Geeto67]

Kerry: The official decider on who's ignorant and who isn't

 

 

Your comments stand on their own man. Pointing out the obvious is not making a decision on anything.

 

And Decider is not a word. The word you are looking for is "Authority". "Decision maker" would have also been acceptable.

[Otis Nice]

 

And Decider is not a word. The word you are looking for is "Authority". "Decision maker" would have also been acceptable.

 

Related forms Expand

decider, noun

 

But IDGAF and haven't followed this thread. Carry on trying to convince others you're right and they're wrong everyone. Have a splendid day.

[10phone2]

 

best post in this thread. at this point we know who sides with who and its okay. no one in this thread is going to change there mindset good or bad. titty pics to move on?

[TTQ B4U]

First of all you are getting very close to saying the disabled shouldn't get assistance, which I don't think you intend to do. Let's just assume you are talking about able bodied work eligible individuals.

 

I think a lot of the concern around entitlements is focused on the lazy not the disabled or elderly that would if they could put forth efforts. There's a skill and will in all of us and those that lack will are the point of contention for many.

 

But here is the thing: There are not enough opportunities to go around. I know it's fun to think of America as the land of opportunity and maybe there are an infinite number of opportunities on the whole (and maybe not) but that doesn't mean that every opportunity is available to every person. A jb at Mcdonalds across town is useless to an employee who can't get there if the bus doesn't go there.

 

you're point may be a fair and true one Kerry but until no jobs are available it doesn't mean the subject above isn't also correct and worthy of a point. there are millions of decent paying jobs out there and available for blue collar workers. I won't even call those "opportunity" in America as that is something different, these are just plain and simple decent paying jobs that lots of people make a choice either not to take or choose not to improve themselves enough to take them. If they can't get to the job then move. it's not an outrageous comment or idea.

 

It's not about believing in people. It's about believing that there is an opportunity for every single individual out there that he or she can find and take. That's just not true.

 

again, I'll disagree to a large extent. this country is absofuckinglutely the land of opportunity. just ask any of the immigrants who steam-roll over the millions I'm referencing above who are the free-loaders of America. These immigrants go out and make shit happen and get jobs and make it work. It's time we demand that same expectation of drive and will from everyone.

 

What do you do if the union opportunity isn't available to you?

 

not sit around and complain or whine. the above is an excuse. they are choosing to not do a lot of things to maintain the easy-button solution. IMO that's not acceptable in today's world any longer.

 

Poverty is a trap but it isn't because of the reason you think (just to be clear that reason is because you think the poor are lazy and getting free money).

 

for many it is not a trap and allowing this excuse to cover for those that are legit needs to end. there are plenty of poor lazy and no-will people out there and there's tons and tons of scammers milking the system. I agree with your point on efficiency but it's time to close up all the gaps of inefficiencies vs tossing more of my hard earned money at the issue. it's time to fix the leaky bucket and stop turning the faucet on more.

 

This is a whole different discussion that involves the prison system post civil war, the civil rights movement and discrimination in hiring, and literally 200 years of American history as well as current technological advancement that makes workers obsolete in the work force.

 

like your point above about a trap, it's partially true and lots of excuses. it's time to end the BS about slavery impact and discrimination, etc. there are now more than ever plenty of proven people both American born and immigrants just off the boat or plane that prove the system works for those that try. no one is expecting it to work for everyone as not every does get a trophy in life.

 

By the way, this is part of why conversation with you is maddening....you look at everything that talks about social welfare as suspicious, but you don't even bat an eye at the lie (and it is a lie that has been proven again and again to be false) that the poor don't work because they don't want to work or are lazy.

 

let's end the BS about the this. stop arguing that people are talking about everyone being in that boat. you and he and everyone knows that's not true. flip side however is there is a ton of waste and yes poor people that are getting benefits that either shouldn't or need a deep hard kick in the ass with a big middle finger saying NO MORE that are the problem in this country.

 

I have a neighbor who is now truly in a position of need. Long story short, 37 years married, never worked because hubby was awesome and had a great job but more importantly, she's more or less disabled due to a car accident years ago. No kids, no family, never was wealthy and now he's dead. She's got maybe $100k to her name plus a house and two cars she owns. Not poor but in bad shape as there's really no income and still expenses. She's in need and I think 100% worth helping.

 

Contrast that with a person I have employed at our company making $16/hr. that is continues to breed (now has 4 kids) as a single mom, who knows how many dads for those kids, that works the FMLA system, etc. and is a real PIA that everyone wishes we could just fire and move on but they are making that a tough road for many reasons. It will happen but until then it's a drain. Sorry, but no, her life choices are vastly different than my neighbor above and the time has to come to where she is told to fuck off and that everyone in society around her is done supporting her.

 

Those are the people bstowers and many others are done having to deal with and rightly so.

[Mallard]

I think a lot of the concern around entitlements is focused on the lazy not the disabled or elderly that would if they could put forth efforts. There's a skill and will in all of us and those that lack will are the point of contention for many.

 

 

 

you're point may be a fair and true one Kerry but until no jobs are available it doesn't mean the subject above isn't also correct and worthy of a point. there are millions of decent paying jobs out there and available for blue collar workers. I won't even call those "opportunity" in America as that is something different, these are just plain and simple decent paying jobs that lots of people make a choice either not to take or choose not to improve themselves enough to take them. If they can't get to the job then move. it's not an outrageous comment or idea.

 

 

 

again, I'll disagree to a large extent. this country is absofuckinglutely the land of opportunity. just ask any of the immigrants who steam-roll over the millions I'm referencing above who are the free-loaders of America. These immigrants go out and make shit happen and get jobs and make it work. It's time we demand that same expectation of drive and will from everyone.

 

 

 

not sit around and complain or whine. the above is an excuse. they are choosing to not do a lot of things to maintain the easy-button solution. IMO that's not acceptable in today's world any longer.

 

 

 

for many it is not a trap and allowing this excuse to cover for those that are legit needs to end. there are plenty of poor lazy and no-will people out there and there's tons and tons of scammers milking the system. I agree with your point on efficiency but it's time to close up all the gaps of inefficiencies vs tossing more of my hard earned money at the issue. it's time to fix the leaky bucket and stop turning the faucet on more.

 

 

 

like your point above about a trap, it's partially true and lots of excuses. it's time to end the BS about slavery impact and discrimination, etc. there are now more than ever plenty of proven people both American born and immigrants just off the boat or plane that prove the system works for those that try. no one is expecting it to work for everyone as not every does get a trophy in life.

 

 

 

let's end the BS about the this. stop arguing that people are talking about everyone being in that boat. you and he and everyone knows that's not true. flip side however is there is a ton of waste and yes poor people that are getting benefits that either shouldn't or need a deep hard kick in the ass with a big middle finger saying NO MORE that are the problem in this country.

 

I have a neighbor who is now truly in a position of need. Long story short, 37 years married, never worked because hubby was awesome and had a great job but more importantly, she's more or less disabled due to a car accident years ago. No kids, no family, never was wealthy and now he's dead. She's got maybe $100k to her name plus a house and two cars she owns. Not poor but in bad shape as there's really no income and still expenses. She's in need and I think 100% worth helping.

 

Contrast that with a person I have employed at our company making $16/hr. that is continues to breed (now has 4 kids) as a single mom, who knows how many dads for those kids, that works the FMLA system, etc. and is a real PIA that everyone wishes we could just fire and move on but they are making that a tough road for many reasons. It will happen but until then it's a drain. Sorry, but no, her life choices are vastly different than my neighbor above and the time has to come to where she is told to fuck off and that everyone in society around her is done supporting her.

 

Those are the people bstowers and many others are done having to deal with and rightly so.

How do you implement a system that weeds out the "lazy" from the people who are actually deserving whole reducing cost and not growing government?

 

It's an honest question, because in other similar instances, like mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, have cost the government more money and require more personnel to implement.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk