Forced or coerced charity is not charity. It's taking. We could redefine charity to include that, but it's currently not in the definition.
Granted, but this argument gets painfully close to "taxes are theft" argument that is so popular around here. I only say this because so many on the right want to redefine social security, health care (even private!), unemployment, welfare, education, etc. as "charity".
In Sweden, which is competing with Denmark for title of highest taxation, we pay 51% in taxes... on AVERAGE. And that's not counting taxes on the stuff we buy, IIRC. Sounds good?
In Sweden, which is competing with Denmark for title of highest taxation, we pay 51% in taxes... on AVERAGE. And that's not counting taxes on the stuff we buy, IIRC. Sounds good?
is that a flat tax?
No, it's the average. And, as I said, you also need to add the amount of taxes we pay when buying various things. The lowest tax bracket is around 30% plus taxes on purchases. Oh... and both these numbers are without counting the taxes employers pay for employing you - which would add another 30% to the taxes. But they like to pretend that's not taxes that hurt the employees. So, all in all, 50-70% or so.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It happened in 1986. The internet is not by any means all-encompassing. But what you need to realize is that I answered your comments with why I personally loathe Greenpeace. It wasn't a case where I felt you were not allowed to believe what you would. I honestly don't give a s@&+ what you, some guy on the internet, are thinking.
But seriously... your underpants gnome analysis is pathetic. Try: Torture animals->Get lots of influence and money->Profit.
I'm going to say this then I am going to go back to not posting on these threads.
Sissyl, you are arguing with people that, based on their posts on these boards, will NEVER believe their heroes and political ideologues are capable of evil. I gave up. I am probably to the left, ideologically, than most of them, but I refuse to look the other way when people do wrong, lie, abuse power, and exhibit criminal levels of hypocrisy. They do, or they willfully put on blinders and dismiss any criticism as either Fox News propaganda or mere ignorance.
Anyway, good luck with that, the typical "leftie" on these boards is a closed minded partisan with zero interest in reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I am completely closed minded to all of the evidence that sissy has offered to support their position that greenpeace tortured and killed kangaroos for a film.
Oh.. wait...
Taking from a man what he has earned is wrong, yes.How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality? How much do you willingly give? Or is this the usual case of the guy in the middle calling taking from the other guy fair as long as he doesn't feel it?not in favor of the political labels, but still relevantAnd it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.So, you think taking away from someone who has millions of dollars to help someone who has hundreds of dollars is unfair?
Are you in favor of our current income inequality? Are you in favor of it increasing?
No, it's the average. And, as I said, you also need to add the amount of taxes we pay when buying various things. The lowest tax bracket is around 30% plus taxes on purchases. Oh... and both these numbers are without counting the taxes employers pay for employing you - which would add another 30% to the taxes. But they like to pretend that's not taxes that hurt the employees. So, all in all, 50-70% or so.
Just curious, how many NGO's operate in Sweden to provide medical care to the poor?
Are you in favor of our current income inequality? Are you in favor of it increasing?Taking from a man what he has earned is wrong, yes.How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality? How much do you willingly give? Or is this the usual case of the guy in the middle calling taking from the other guy fair as long as he doesn't feel it?not in favor of the political labels, but still relevantAnd it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.So, you think taking away from someone who has millions of dollars to help someone who has hundreds of dollars is unfair?
I would like a better description of you mean, Andrew, beyond a brief aphorism.
Edited due to poor vision - need my glasses on when posting!
It happened in 1986. The internet is not by any means all-encompassing. But what you need to realize is that I answered your comments with why I personally loathe Greenpeace. It wasn't a case where I felt you were not allowed to believe what you would. I honestly don't give a s@&+ what you, some guy on the internet, are thinking.
But seriously... your underpants gnome analysis is pathetic. Try: Torture animals->Get lots of influence and money->Profit.
I'm going to say this then I am going to go back to not posting on these threads.
Sissyl, you are arguing with people that, based on their posts on these boards, will NEVER believe their heroes and political ideologues are capable of evil. I gave up. I am probably to the left, ideologically, than most of them, but I refuse to look the other way when people do wrong, lie, abuse power, and exhibit criminal levels of hypocrisy. They do, or they willfully put on blinders and dismiss any criticism as either Fox News propaganda or mere ignorance.
Anyway, good luck with that, the typical "leftie" on these boards is a closed minded partisan with zero interest in reality.
once you go in the G vs E direction, discourse is going to go out the window.
Now we're all bullies AND partisan hacks for asking for evidence?
HD please...
|
|
Now we're all bullies AND partisan hacks for asking for evidence?
HD please...
Asking for evidence from a computer is an exercise in intellectual laziness. Google stuff. Discover there is a whole wide left leaning world out there that doesn't think our "liberal" party is all that liberal. Follow the money on all of these organizations, left and right, and figure out whose agenda is controlling the purse strings. It isn't hard if you actually care about what you ague about.
Heck, follow the political money (for real) and tell me the Repubs get more money than the Dems. Of the top 25 money donors, according to opensecrets.org, fourteen give overwhelmingly to democrats, three lean towards Republicans, and seven give at least 40% of their donations to both parties. This has nothing to do with Greenpeace, of course, but it is an easily found example of how DNC operatives lie like crazy (you can also Google Debbie Wasserman Schultz's statements). But, it's an example of how the MSM (the NYT, for one, in a recent editorial about this subject, an editorial that directly opposes an editorial about Dem money a month before) ignores reality.
So, to answer your question, yeah, pretty much. And, when someone does present evidence, the source had better be HuffPo or something, because only ideologically pure sources are allowed. Anything else is obviously (to y'all) just some right wing crap or some tin foil hat stuff. I could, were I not leaving for work, find several examples of posts from a few regular "lefties" dismissing POVs because the source wasn't "good enough" or "propaganda".
It's the reality of internet discourse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the thing that caused stuff to get out of whack was the unfindable video Sissyl mentioned, along with a comment that she didn't need to find the video, her memory is all the necessary proof. That's where things got silly, especially as the video is essentially damning evidence of her argument. It's that the video was unfindable, not where it came from or anything like that.
For what it's worth, there are tons of things I remember that I can't seem to find online that I KNOW are real. Like you, for example. :)
Asking for evidence from a computer is an exercise in intellectual laziness. Google stuff.
You do realize that google is not actually a miniature giant space hamster right?
It is despicably disingenuous to argue that someone not finding convincing evidence for your position is intellectually lazy. It completely ignores the very real possibility that your position is lacking in evidence, or even *gasp* FALSE!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a little known fact that I am the CEO of KirthCon International, of which Paizo Publishing is actually a wholly-owned subsidiary. Therefore I indirectly control these boards, and demand that you pro-Greenpeace people shut up.
If you don't believe me, you're welcome to Google it.
bunch of crap
So, do you buy that straw wholesale?
It's a little known fact that I am the CEO of KirthCon International, of which Paizo Publishing is actually a wholly-owned subsidiary. Therefore I indirectly control these boards, and demand that you pro-Greenpeace people shut up.
If you don't believe me, you're welcome to Google it.
seems legit....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, to answer your question, yeah, pretty much. And, when someone does present evidence, the source had better be HuffPo or something, because only ideologically pure sources are allowed. Anything else is obviously (to y'all) just some right wing crap or some tin foil hat stuff. I could, were I not leaving for work, find several examples of posts from a few regular "lefties" dismissing POVs because the source wasn't "good enough" or "propaganda".
It's the reality of internet discourse.
For us to be dismissive of evidence, something would have to be presented. In the case of the Greenpeace thing, nothing was presented, other than a vague recollection of something that may have happened many, many years ago.
I don't read huffpo, nor do I consider them a terribly good source (anything read there needs to be verified somewhere else). I find your vague accusations themselves to be dismissive and to be the exact same kind of behavior you are decrying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree or disagree with his stances, I do love it when HD spots a roomful of gasoline and "innocently" strikes a match...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't find his comments on this topic interesting or insightful.
Here in the OTD section, there's maybe 15-20 people total who discuss political topics with any regularity. If take a random sample of any thread (say 50 posts, or one page) you'll see the same people over and over again. Not saying that's bad necessarily, but just indicative of the small pool he's referring to.
Of those 15-20 people, off the top of my head I can think of 5 who are definitely opposed to the left-wing. I can also think of several people, at least 2 who are left-leaning in some areas, but either don't profess it in other areas or are more right-leaning. So now we've reduced this potential pool of "left-wing" people to 8-13 people total. I think the 13 is probably high, it's probably closer to 8.
Of those 8-13, lets think about a couple of them.
Meatrace
thejeff
Anklebiter
myself
There have been myriad topics were not only has there been major divides amongst the four, we've even had topics where none of us agree with the others. It's a lot of topics too.
Presenting the left-leaning posters as being part of some sort of cohesive block who all agrees is laughable. It's a refusal to acknowledge facts and ideas presented by each of those individuals in an attempt to create a narrative that reinforces their preconceived ideas.
In essence, it's doing the exact same thing he's accusing others of doing, being dismissive and condemning without consideration. I find such behavior to be neither interesting or insightful.
I'll admit, sometimes I don't want to acknowledge facts and have a hard time rethinking my position. Would you like to start taking bets on when someone like Andrew R makes the same admission?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not "left-leaning" I'm an ultraleft communist, and I highly doubt HD had me in mind.
That is all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm relatively left wing. I think I'm the only Democrat that hd kinda likes. I have unwritten assurances that I will be killed near-last in any goblin communist uprisings. I disagree with Kirth on stuff, which is interesting more often than not.
I don't think he was either, but how many leftists do you think are on these boards?
It's not like we get together and plan out strategies, or which sources are approved, or even what ideology is even "pure". The concept that we're a unified block is false.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have unwritten assurances that I will be killed near-last in any goblin communist uprisings.
No, no, those assurances were written.
I don't think he was either, but how many leftists do you think are on these boards?
It's not like we get together and plan out strategies, or which sources are approved, or even what ideology is even "pure". The concept that we're a unified block is false.
At first I thought this was a response to Comrade Freehold, but now I think it's to me.
If so: two. I don't really consider the rest of you leftists. But then again, I'm an ultraleft.
I'll admit, sometimes I don't want to acknowledge facts and have a hard time rethinking my position.
it takes a big person to admit this. Let's get on the same page here. +1 this guys, and let's move on with a bit more humility and a bit less vitriol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not usually in favor of either humility or less vitriol, but I will skewer any of you knaves who upset my dear Madame Sissyl.
Fill your hands, you sons of biznitches!
I don't think he was either, but how many leftists do you think are on these boards?
It's not like we get together and plan out strategies, or which sources are approved, or even what ideology is even "pure". The concept that we're a unified block is false.
At first I thought this was a response to Comrade Freehold, but now I think it's to me.
If so: two. I don't really consider the rest of you leftists. But then again, I'm an ultraleft.
If there are no leftists on the boards, then my point stands that HD (and other's) generalizations of people on these boards are incorrect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, you'll notice that I never seconded HD's characterization of posters on these boards, "leftie" or otherwise.
Second, you'll notice that I said there were two leftists on these boards, not none.
Third, you'll notice that HD always put "leftie" in quotation marks. Presumably because he doesn't think you're real leftists.
Vive le Galt!
[Half-heartedly]
Vive le Galt.
John, right?
|
Are you in favor of our current income inequality? Are you in favor of it increasing?Taking from a man what he has earned is wrong, yes.How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality? How much do you willingly give? Or is this the usual case of the guy in the middle calling taking from the other guy fair as long as he doesn't feel it?not in favor of the political labels, but still relevantAnd it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.So, you think taking away from someone who has millions of dollars to help someone who has hundreds of dollars is unfair?
No but punitive taxation as a way to "get back at the rich" and give that money to others is wrong too. Fixing tax loopholes and bringing all income to the same tax rate would make things more fair without becoming unfair. Wealth inequality is better fixed by making more opportunity for the lower end than punishing the upper end and personal accountability must be part of it.
|
|
I'll admit, sometimes I don't want to acknowledge facts and have a hard time rethinking my position. Would you like to start taking bets on when someone like Andrew R makes the same admission?
I have no problem acknowledging facts, i might just fight you to prove that it is indeed a fact and everyone resists changing their views
No but punitive taxation as a way to "get back at the rich" and give that money to others is wrong too.
This does not exist. Its like worrying about an alien invasion. Might be something to consider at some point down the line, but its not here yet.
At the very worst people are going after the rich because thats where the money is. In our current economic system people are not going after the rich at all because the people who write the laws either directly or indirectly ARE the rich and they want to stay that way.
You're parroting a right wing narrative without any remote basis in fact, which is sadly on topic because thats also the main source of vitriol against environmental groups.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wealth inequality is better fixed by making more opportunity for the lower end than punishing the upper end and personal accountability must be part of it.
What are these opportunities? Current economic and social thinking of the right does not really talk about creating opportunities. You get talk of the nebulous trickle down effect which somehow allows the poor to get some kind of benefit as the rich get richer. "Personal accountability" suggests the poor are poor because they have not done anything about being not poor.
Here in Australia the new conservative government is going hell for leather to get rid of "onerous" hinderances to business. Red tape and green tape are all evil as they slow down business's ability to operate and grow. Nevermind a lot of this "tape" is there because without it in the past business had happily screwed the environment *, mistreated workers and basically did whatever they want to make a buck and bugger any side effects that came out of increasing their bank balance. One goal of the anti-red tapers is to lower wages, reduce penalty rates, remove various standard conditions relating to health and safety and the like - so business wants to make the "lower end" poorer all in the name of "increased productivity" or various other euphemisms for "reduce costs, increase profits".
Much of the "upper end" doesn't want the "lower end" to become wealthier. Much of the upper end doesn't give the proverbial flying $#@# about the lower end - provided that the lower end exists to do all the crappy jobs the upper end don't want to think about. Those jobs, that is, that have not been outsourced to countries whose lower end is even worse off.
The group in the middle - the middle class - in certain western countries has been progressively getting smaller. Some are luckily now "upper" but most would now be categorised as "lower". Yet other countries, for example those horrible high taxing social democrats in Scandinavia have a large middle class and the lot of the poor is better in a large part because of government activities (financed in part through higher taxation rates), not solely because of some nebulous opportunity creation on the part of the private sector.
* Side note on environment. I'm not a fan of everything Greenpeace does - Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd fame humorously calls them the Avon ladies of the environmental movement. But without environmental groups, of which Greenpeace is very prominent, our world would be a much worse place, irrespective of whether you believe in things like anthropomorphic climate change or not. Remember the 1952 London Fog that killed over 10,000 people, ongoing problems of toxins spewed in to the sea at Minamata in Japan or countless other examples of unchecked pollution by business? In a large part they were forced to clean up their ways due to campaigns and pressure by environmental groups. You may have your reasons for disliking them but their work has improved your quality of life.
|
|
Wealth inequality is better fixed by making more opportunity for the lower end than punishing the upper end and personal accountability must be part of it.What are these opportunities? Current economic and social thinking of the right does not really talk about creating opportunities. You get talk of the nebulous trickle down effect which somehow allows the poor to get some kind of benefit as the rich get richer. "Personal accountability" suggests the poor are poor because they have not done anything about being not poor.
Here in Australia the new conservative government is going hell for leather to get rid of "onerous" hinderances to business. Red tape and green tape are all evil as they slow down business's ability to operate and grow. Nevermind a lot of this "tape" is there because without it in the past business had happily screwed the environment *, mistreated workers and basically did whatever they want to make a buck and bugger any side effects that came out of increasing their bank balance. One goal of the anti-red tapers is to lower wages, reduce penalty rates, remove various standard conditions relating to health and safety and the like - so business wants to make the "lower end" poorer all in the name of "increased productivity" or various other euphemisms for "reduce costs, increase profits".
Much of the "upper end" doesn't want the "lower end" to become wealthier. Much of the upper end doesn't give the proverbial flying $#@# about the lower end - provided that the lower end exists to do all the crappy jobs the upper end don't want to think about. Those jobs, that is, that have not been outsourced to countries whose lower end is even worse off.
The group in the middle - the middle class - in certain western countries has been progressively getting smaller. Some are luckily now "upper" but most would now be categorised as "lower". Yet other countries, for example those horrible high taxing social democrats in Scandinavia have a large middle class and the...
Personal accountability means not doing the things that lead to being poor, children one cannot afford and drug use for instance. If someone would rather get blitzed and sleep around they have no one to blame but themselves. I would be happy to see more opportunity created via tax cuts linked to specific criteria to make sure it is not abused and increased spending to fix our crumbling infrastructure. Also getting rid of trade deals that benefit foreign workers at the expense of ours would help. we need to bring back decent paying manufacturing jobs. no one gets rich in a factory but one can live comfortably.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with Kirth on stuff, which is interesting more often than not.
I don't really mind when you and I disagree, because you generally take the time to address what I'm actually saying, and you always take the time to treat me like a person instead of an etch-a-sketch. So, thanks for that, if I haven't already said so.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wealth inequality is better fixed by making more opportunity for the lower end than punishing the upper end
Sadly, the #1 predictor of financial success is... not drive, ambition, education, or even race... but the financial resources of your parents. In other words, the most direct and meaningful way to give poor kids opportunities is to give money to their parents. Which seems like a really lousy solution even to me, but there it is.
|
|
First, you'll notice that I never seconded HD's characterization of posters on these boards, "leftie" or otherwise.
Second, you'll notice that I said there were two leftists on these boards, not none.
Third, you'll notice that HD always put "leftie" in quotation marks. Presumably because he doesn't think you're real leftists.
Mostly the third.
Agree or disagree with his stances, I do love it when HD spots a roomful of gasoline and "innocently" strikes a match...I get bored sometimes.
where would be be without a bored hd? Nowhere, that's where.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
where would be be without a bored hd? Nowhere, that's where.Agree or disagree with his stances, I do love it when HD spots a roomful of gasoline and "innocently" strikes a match...I get bored sometimes.
I like that people who actually have met me get a completely different experience from my posts than those who haven't. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Wealth inequality is better fixed by making more opportunity for the lower end than punishing the upper end and personal accountability must be part of it.What are these opportunities? Current economic and social thinking of the right does not really talk about creating opportunities. You get talk of the nebulous trickle down effect which somehow allows the poor to get some kind of benefit as the rich get richer. "Personal accountability" suggests the poor are poor because they have not done anything about being not p ty oor.
Here in Australia the new conservative government is going hell for leather to get rid of "onerous" hinderances to business. Red tape and green tape are all evil as they slow down business's ability to operate and grow. Nevermind a lot of this "tape" is there because without it in the past business had happily screwed the environment *, mistreated workers and basically did whatever they want to make a buck and bugger any side effects that came out of increasing their bank balance. One goal of the anti-red tapers is to lower wages, reduce penalty rates, remove various standard conditions relating to health and safety and the like - so business wants to make the "lower end" poorer all in the name of "increased productivity" or various other euphemisms for "reduce costs, increase profits".
Much of the "upper end" doesn't want the "lower end" to become wealthier. Much of the upper end doesn't give the proverbial flying $#@# about the lower end - provided that the lower end exists to do all the crappy jobs the upper end don't want to think about. Those jobs, that is, that have not been outsourced to countries whose lower end is even worse off.
The group in the middle - the middle class - in certain western countries has been progressively getting smaller. Some are luckily now "upper" but most would now be categorised as "lower". Yet other countries, for example those horrible high taxing social democrats in Scandinavia have a large
I'm pretty poor. There are people poorer than me I'm sure, but I'm still relatively broke more often than not. My needs are met and I have had to make some hard decisions sometimes. Sometimes those decisions mean my wife and I get into arguments, other times it means I go hungry so she can eat, or praying to God my bike doesn't get a flat tire otherwise I'm walking instead of taking the bus. But I don't participate in any of the activities you mention. Nor have I ever. I have friends who enjoy substances I don't, but they are just a poor as I am. None of them have kids save for two, and they are married to each other. The lame horse you trot out every time you speak of the poor, especially if poor non white and DOUBLY especially blacks is getting only lamer. It's not my fault I'm poor, but it's my responsibility to pay my bills and maintain whatever lifestyle I have. I'm out and out tired of being told it's my fault I don't have more money after bills are paid and that I am not a millionaire because I'm irresponsible. It seems quite the opposite - I'm broke because I AM responsible and paying my own way.
So is most the middle class. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
. I would be happy to see more opportunity created via tax cuts linked to specific criteria to make sure it is not abused and increased spending to fix our crumbling infrastructure
This is worse than idle, unevidenced speculation. This is something we have tried and the reality is This. Does. Not. work. This is not opinion, this is not supposition, this is not some touchy feely "its true for you"... its cold hard objective reality. We are already not taxing corporations. They still aren't hiring people. When you are driven entirely by profit the question is not "how many employees can i hire" its "how many employees do I HAVE to hire" to make the most profit.
Yes, it is completely unfair that you get up and go to work every day at a job you hate only to get a lifestyle that's indiscernible from someone scamming welfare. Gods know there were days at work when I thought of shanking someone to wind up on the prison crew for better medical benefits and more rights.
Perhaps the solution should be to change your level of income so that its a real incentive to work rather than a lateral move. Holding people to the fire and waiting for bootstrap levitation doesn't work. We tried it before in the 1920's and it SUCKED. If you want to try the moral argument that we can't tax the rich because that's theft go for it, but don't parrot this malarkey that if we stop stealing the money for the rich Ann Rands utopia world will come to pass.