***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

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.

Dude has no idea what the hell he is talking about. All the charitable donations in the country can not make up for the mass cuts the GOP are making.

We have explained this to him and he still will repeat this "just donate" deflection

He fundamentally does not how his silly his argument it.

Or he is trolling

I will go with trollin

 

[dwalk31]

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

Ok

 

[iamdef]

Y'all know the deal, he gone flip whatever y'all talkin' like a burger patty. We know this song and dance

 

[dwalk31]

Dude has no idea what the hell he is talking about. All the charitable donations in the country can make up for the mass cuts the GOP are making.

We have explained this to him and he still will repeat this "just donate" deflection

He fundamentally doe not how his silly his argument it.

It how does and his trolling

I will go with trolling

It is literally the exact same money. If it is enough with taxes, then it is enough with donations. You just don't believe that people will give. Which is fine. You prefer to trust the government with the responsibility. We can agree to disagree on whether that is best.

 

[whywesteppin]

the government is, at least in theory, accountable to the people. not true for individuals.

 

[dwalk31]

the government is, at least in theory, accountable to the people. not true for individuals.

At least you acknowledged the theory.

 

[iamdef]

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.

So you don't think the gov't is inherently good?

 

[RustyShackleford]

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.

We get it, you are a troll.

I am not trying to flex some economic expertise. It isn't even warranted. And like I say often, I am hardly an expert

You don't know fundamentals, day one logical things that you don't even need Marco 101 to know. Hell dudes from all walks of life cut up your economic arguments worst than me. I just say bluntly you are making a bad one.

And the only people I correct are people like you and Ninja, because you guys routinely say dumb stuff.

You are peddling deflections and voodoo economics. Period

And I wish you would show the same understanding for the fundamentals of the law as a lawyer. As I do for the basic of economics.

So you are welcome. If you want me to stop educate yourself. Lesson one, stop trying to pass off bad Political talking points as good public policy.

 

[getback]

IYou just don't believe that people will give..

For developed countries, we rank horribly in that department.

 

[dwalk31]

We get it, you are a troll.

I am not trying to flex some economic expertise. It isn't even warranted
You don't know fundamentals, day one logical things that you don't even need Marco 101 to know. Hell dudes from all walks of life cut up your economic arguments worst than me. I just say bluntly you are making a bad one.

And the only people I correct are people like you and Ninja, because you guys routinely say dumb stuff.

You are peddling deflections and voodoo economics. Period

And I wish you would show the same understanding for the fundamentals of the law as a lawyer. As I do for the basic of economics.

So you are welcome. If you want me to stop educate yourself.

Most americans are getting a tax cut. You think this is bad. That is the bottom line. The personal attacks really have nothing to do with the substance. As always, I'm not going to get into a who knows more about economics with you. If it were the law, maybe. But even with that, I acknowledge that people have different views. We call them arguments. And both sides can have merit despite the other side disagreeing with them. That is how I look at this thread. Your approach, however, is a "I'm right; you're wrong." Which is a non-starter. If you don't want to engage, don't.

 

[dwalk31]

For developed countries, we rank horribly in that department.

How does our government rank in terms of systematic oppression?

 

[appleheaddmv]

this bamma dude dwalk31... smh... just can't face the reality of things that are happening... maybe he's constantly trying to argue that things are not that bad because deep down he's really terrified like the majority of us about the direction of this wack a** country... "Kanye shrug"...

 

[InTheHallway]

Well, I'm not going to go back amd read the exchange but I too have a little bit of experience in Economics ...

I'll just ask this simple question - Are the incentives in this Tax plan greater than the current, as they relate to production of the widespread economy, i.e. are more people goinng to produce more stuff (or the same people produce more stuff) given the new tax law?

Ultimately, this is the only economic question to answer as the construct of greater good is too subjective and impossible to resolve given the variability of human thought ...

 

[getback]

How does our government rank in terms of systematic oppression?

I guess that would depend on one's definition of oppression?

 

[dwalk31]

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

Far too many to name. St. Jude is one.

 

[appleheaddmv]

Most americans are getting a tax cut. You think this is bad. That is the bottom line. The personal attacks really have nothing to do with the substance. As always, I'm not going to get into a who knows more about economics with you. If it were the law, maybe. But even with that, I acknowledge that people have different views. We call them arguments. And both sides can have merit despite the other side disagreeing with them. That is how I look at this thread. Your approach, however, is a "I'm right; you're wrong." Which is a non-starter. If you don't want to engage, don't.

But you are wrong though... about most of what you spew on here... smh

 

[iamdef]

this bamma dude dwalk31... smh... just can't face the reality of things that are happening... maybe he's constantly trying to argue that things are not that bad because deep down he's really terrified like the majority of us about the direction of this wack a** country... "Kanye shrug"...

More like Trump hasn't crossed him yet so he still supports him

 

[iamdef]

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

Let's not head back to this conversation because it's already been explained that although some companies survive from donations there are some that cannot. CHIPs is one of them. He's gonna hang onto the fact that if some can do it the rest can too. Bootstraps 2.0

 

[dwalk31]

Well, I'm not going to go back amd read the exchange but I too have a little bit of experience in Economics ...

I'll just ask this simple question - Are the incentives in this Tax plan greater than the current, as they relate to production of the widespread economy, i.e. are more people goinng to produce more stuff (or the same people produce more stuff) given the new tax law?

Ultimately, this is the only economic question to answer as the construct of greater good is too subjective and impossible to resolve given the variability of human thought ...

Maybe it is the way you wrote it, but it doesn't seem like a simple question to me. My guess, tho, would be no the incentives are not greater.

 

[dwalk31]

But you are wrong though... about most of what you spew on here... smh

So most americans aren't getting a tax cut?

 

[whywesteppin]

nobody thinks giving people more money is bad. our issue is that a) some people will pay more, b) the amount of these refunds are disproportionate across people, c) the money is coming from ******* somewhere.

that reads too much like a Ryan/McConnell talking point packaged for the lowest common denominator (reflexive trump voters).

 

[iamdef]

I'm still stuck on how someone could disagree that the gov't is inherently good but still trust and believe this plan is the best option available or set to benefit the people

 

[appleheaddmv]

nobody thinks giving people more money is bad. our issue is that a) some people will pay more, b) the amount of these refunds are disproportionate across people, c) the money is coming from ****ing somewhere.

THIS!!!!!! Dude be acting like he doesn't understand... SMH

 

[dwalk31]

nobody thinks giving people more money is bad. our issue is that a) some people will pay more, b) the amount of these refunds are disproportionate across people, c) the money is coming from ****ing somewhere.

So then what do we disagree on? You think giving people more money is good. Ok, we are good there. Some people will pay more, but the majority wont. We are good there. It is disproportionate, but of course it is. What in America isn't? And we all know where the money will eventually come from. Welfare reform. Paul Ryan has run on this consistently. Do you think welfare reform is bad?

 

[biggie62]

And please explain to me how a $500 tax cut will make a difference when they will result in either being dropped from their insurance or have their premiums skyrocket by 50-100% and end up being say now $450 per month. It’s a net loss for many of these people. And the people who will be hit hardest are the lower income by all of this. Those of us in white collar work will just take the savings to our portfolios or savings and enjoy the 401k growth. Those people will end up in a worst spot than they already were.

And guess who pays when they go to a doctor and can’t afford their costs. We actually do.

Being naive is a gentle explanation of what you are because you aren’t even acknowledging the notion that you maybe wrong.