***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[getback]

Are you under the impression that the top 2% doesn't donate to people in need?

I'm under the impression that the top 2% make an amount capable of disrupting the economy to the point that the wealth gap is responsible for the majority of the country's social issues.

 

[dwalk31]

I'm under the impression that the top 2% make an amount capable of disrupting the economy to the point that the wealth gap is responsible for the majority of the country's social issues.

That may be true. But it wasn't responsive to my question.

 

[getback]

That may be true. But it wasn't responsive to my question.

Because you took my post the wrong way. Of course they donate $.

But that's like going out and buying flowers for the girl you just raped.

 

[whywesteppin]

You don't have to keep your savings, you know. Tax reform doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to donate to people in need. If you are truly concerned, do not get that higher tier, and donate it directly to a family in need. There are tons of people that can't afford internet at all. It is great that you are in a position where the savings are meaningless to you. Some people do not have that luxury.

My savings are still insignificant for a single mother, for example.

However, I'm going to let you in on my secret plan. See, I've realized that contributions pooled across many individuals can together make a significant difference. This is especially true if the contributions come most from those with wealth such that, after the fact, they are not financially harmed. At the same time, these contributions will make a big difference to those in society who are struggling.

I shall call these contributions "taxes."

I came to this plan once I realized that we don't live in a fairy tale land. We are human and subject to this magical force called "reality." Human behavior shapes much of what we do and should guide our policies and plans, not some whimsical hope that we push on others so that we can feel better about our tax "relief."

 

[dwalk31]

Because you took my post the wrong way. Of course they donate $.

But that's like going out and buying flowers for the girl you just raped.

It's not like that at all. Literally or figuratively. But for the people actually paying attention... the goalpost shift was flawless.

 

[dwalk31]

My savings are still insignificant for a single mother, for example.

However, I'm going to let you in on my secret plan. See, I've realized that contributions pooled across many individuals can together make a significant difference. This is especially true if the contributions come most from those with wealth such that, as a percentage, they are not financially harmed. At the same time, these contributions will make a big difference to those in society who are struggling.

I shall call these contributions "taxes."

So then you are also aware that taxes are not the only way to get contributions pooled across a ton of individuals. Megachurches, for example, do pretty well with this concept. And they make a significant difference in communities.

And even if they are insignificant, surely someone could use the money you plan to use on higher internet. If you are that concerned, donate it. No one is forcing you to keep your tax savings.

Your trickle-down theory is that by paying a lot in federal taxes, it will somehow trickle down to local people in need. Due to government waste, this doesn't always happen as imagined.

 

[getback]

It's not like that at all. Literally or figuratively. But for the people actually paying attention... the goalpost shift was flawless.

Enlighten me then...

 

[harlemtothebronx]

I usually don't say this, but why are y'all even entertaining these strawman points?

Y'all really arguing down us donating our savings 'if we care so much.'

This dude isn't even trying to subtly troll anymore.

 

[dwalk31]

Enlighten me then...

Enlighten you about rape culture? Stop it

 

[getback]

Enlighten you about rape culture? Stop it

wut?

Enlighten me as to how the "charitable contributions" of the top 2% outweighs the generations of oppression of the bottom 98%.

Because that's what I was alluding to.

 

[dwalk31]

I usually don't say this, but why are y'all even entertaining these strawman points?

Y'all really arguing down us donating our savings 'if we care so much.'

This dude isn't even trying to subtly troll anymore.

You missed the larger point that I've weaved throughout the thread. Federal taxes are not the only way to fund important programs. People can donate to causes that they believe in. And the average American having more money in their pocket will make that possible. The difference is that you believe that giving the money to the federal government is the best way to ensure that these programs work. I believe in people and that they will do the right thing and give to these important programs. And that it will be more efficient in the private market than it would be through the government.

 

[gry60]

So then you are also aware that taxes are not the only way to get contributions pooled across a ton of individuals. Megachurches, for example, do pretty well with this concept. And they make a significant difference in communities.

And even if they are insignificant, surely someone could use the money you plan to use on higher internet. If you are that concerned, donate it. No one is forcing you to keep your tax savings.

Your trickle-down theory is that by paying a lot in federal taxes, it will somehow trickle down to local people in need. Due to government waste, this doesn't always happen as imagined.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you just describe the government's main purpose as "trickle down"?

The government doesn't exist to hoard cash. That is *one* of the roles of businesses.

 

[getback]

I believe in people and that they will do the right thing and give to these important programs.

Really? That's extremely naive.

 

[dwalk31]

wut?

Enlighten me as to how the "charitable contributions" of the top 2% outweighs the generations of oppression of the bottom 98%.

Because that's what I was alluding to.

I never said it did. I stated that buddy could donate. And you said if only the top 2% had that mindset. They do. And they do it at a higher percentage than most Americans. Just facts.

You cant tax away generations of oppression. Education is one of the most important things to shift mindsets, but that is often bogged down due to media, music, etc. An entirely different conversation.

 

[Belgium]

Anyone read this yet? It's a lot to get through and digest and one reading definitely isn't enough.
Need more minds to discuss with and twitter is just a conservative victory party right now so I'm getting nothing there.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

So I've given it a couple reads now. First off I think it's more than fair to say that there is a lot of shady stuff described there in that article. By all means it looks pretty bad to me but it's easy to sit here looking at it in hindsight. There are some things the article can not provide us, such as the internal dealings of the Iran nuclear deal itself and to what extent exactly these Hezbollah investigations could really jeopardize it. In other words, were these actions involving Hezbollah worth it to preserve the nuclear deal negotiations? But again that is hard to say because we don't really know much of the impact that a tougher approach against Hezbollah could have had.

When I look at it from my personal perspective, I am a lot more comfortable with the Iran nuclear deal than I would be without it if a tougher approach against Hezbollah couldn't be reconciled with the negotiations. It's hard to argue that this approach was anything but bad but there was at least a big payoff in the completion of the nuclear deal negotiations. In terms of issues I disagree with Obama on the most it would certainly be foreign policy, though by definition it is of higher importance than the US' domestic policy to someone like me.

I don't think you can just look at these revelations as a black and white scenario though. Foreign policy negotiations especially of this nature are rarely cut and dry positives or negatives. And depending on where you're sitting it may be an overall positive to some and a strong negative to others.

 

[dwalk31]

Really? That's extremely naive.

Yea, really. I think your position on government is extremely naïve. Especially as a black man, but that's a separate topic. But I just don't think it, I've seen it. Generations of the same families stuck on government assistance despite all of the federal aid. Prisons full of people that look like me despite all of the government aid.

Yea, I think more money in average American's pockets is a good idea.

 

[gry60]

You missed the larger point that I've weaved throughout the thread. Federal taxes are not the only way to fund important programs. People can donate to causes that they believe in. And the average American having more money in their pocket will make that possible. The difference is that you believe that giving the money to the federal government is the best way to ensure that these programs work. I believe in people and that they will do the right thing and give to these important programs. And that it will be more efficient in the private market than it would be through the government.

If what you said were true, gas prices would fluctuate according to the barrel price, not demand stimulated by drivers.

In addition, efficiency is highly dependent on which side of the transaction one is and the desired outcome vs the actual outcome. In other words, if I want to get the most dollars in my pocket, it makes absolutely no sense to start giving money away as soon as I get more.

You make no sense.

 

[dwalk31]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you just describe the government's main purpose as "trickle down"?

The government doesn't exist to hoard cash. That is *one* of the roles of businesses.

Yes. You think that paying a lot in federal taxes will make local communities thrive. That it will trickle down to those struggling areas. Places like Chicago, St. Louis, and Memphis don't see it. Personally, I think that more money in the average American's pockets will allow them to build up their communities.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

You missed the larger point that I've weaved throughout the thread. Federal taxes are not the only way to fund important programs. People can donate to causes that they believe in. And the average American having more money in their pocket will make that possible. The difference is that you believe that giving the money to the federal government is the best way to ensure that these programs work. I believe in people and that they will do the right thing and give to these important programs. And that it will be more efficient in the private market than it would be through the government.

The difference I see, is you think people are inherently good and willing to donate enough money to maintain some of the biggest programs our country runs. You also assume that there are enough prudent people in the world who will be able to save enough money to have some to spare for those disenfranchised people.

Of course it isn't the only way, but it's the most expedient and reliable way to do it. And when we're talking about public assistance, expedience is what you need.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I been saying. DWalk has weaponized his ignorance. So much energy is wasted just having to explain stuff to him

Especially on economics.

 

[getback]

I never said it did. I stated that buddy could donate. And you said if only the top 2% had that mindset. They do. And they do it at a higher percentage than most Americans. Just facts.

Yeah you didn't read between the lines too well, probably my fault.

I was insinuating that they don't give enough to compensate for their history of warping the economy.

Canned goods and winter coats isn't penance enough for oppressing the rest of the population since forever.

 

[Belgium]

You missed the larger point that I've weaved throughout the thread. Federal taxes are not the only way to fund important programs. People can donate to causes that they believe in. And the average American having more money in their pocket will make that possible. The difference is that you believe that giving the money to the federal government is the best way to ensure that these programs work. I believe in people and that they will do the right thing and give to these important programs. And that it will be more efficient in the private market than it would be through the government.

What kind of important programs exactly are you referring to? Any examples?

 

[dwalk31]

The difference I see, is you think people are inherently good and willing to donate enough money to maintain some of the biggest programs our country runs. You also assume that there are enough prudent people in the world who will be able to save enough money to have some to spare for those disenfranchised people.

Of course it isn't the only way, but it's the most expedient and reliable way to do it. And when we're talking about public assistance, expedience is what you need.

And you, by contrast, feel that government is inherently good. And you feel that government is the most expedient and reliable way to manage these goals.

We can agree to disagree on that point.

 

[dwalk31]

I been saying. DWalk has weaponized his ignorance. So much energy is wasted just having to explain stuff to him

Especially on economics.

We get it. You're an economist. You have to explain the nuances to us laypeople who just don't understand your wealth of knowledge. Thanks for always enlightening us to our ignorance boss.

 

[getback]

Yea, really. I think your position on government is extremely naïve. Especially as a black man, but that's a separate topic. But I just don't think it, I've seen it. Generations of the same families stuck on government assistance despite all of the federal aid. Prisons full of people that look like me despite all of the government aid.

Yea, I think more money in average American's pockets is a good idea.

You're extremely naive to believe Americans will allocate their savings towards charities.