2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Timmay]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Sounds socialist.

Participation trophies for everyone.

It would be full fledged communism if it were up to China.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

I would happily pay more in taxes if it meant the money would go to the right place, haha. Somehow, I can envision it getting siphoned off by corrupt individuals, no-bid contracts, $60 million studies about cow farts, ineffective walls...all that.

I don't trust the government to spend my money responsibly. I'd rather keep as much as I can.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Would you rather pay no taxes and pay bills on everything yourself? Or pay taxes and have some of that money not used wisely?

[lionsfan20]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Typical flippant, nonsensical response. As far as the "majority have spoken and this is what they want" no it isn't.

https://fortune.com/2019/02/04/suppo...mericans-poll/

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public...care-coverage/

https://www.studyinternational.com/n...llege-tuition/

The republican party has consistently ignored what the majority of this country wants. Hopefully in the next 10-20 years your America built around greed dies.

Edit: Oh, and the majority spoke in the last presidential election...they didn't get the person they voted for. Now i will wait for you to explain to me why it is so important for someone's vote in California to be worth 3 times less than someone that lives in Wyoming.

The representatives that WE elected built this system. Don't like it? Don't let the door hit ya were the good Lord split ya. Simple as that. If you want to wait around a few years to see if you can undo what we built over the last 200 years knock yourself out.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Timmay

It would be full fledged communism if it were up to China.

Do you believe China is a true communist country?

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by Wade Mulroy

No, genuinely curious. I know CA has much higher electoral college votes than Wyoming, so I was curious what the basis for the statement was.

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and a 578K population.

California has a pop of 39.5 million and 55 electoral votes.

That means Wyoming has one electoral vote for every 192K people and Cali has one electoral vote for every 718 K people. It means that a Wyoming presidential vote is weighted about 3.5 times higher than someone in California.

[lionsfan20]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

I would happily pay more in taxes if it meant the money would go to the right place, haha. Somehow, I can envision it getting siphoned off by corrupt individuals, no-bid contracts, $60 million studies about cow farts, ineffective walls...all that.

I don't trust the government to spend my money responsibly. I'd rather keep as much as I can.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Bingo. I have no problem helping others and I am glad to do it. I just don't trust any government to do it for me. We have seen how well that works here and in communist and socialist countries.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by lionsfan20

The representatives that WE elected built this system. Don't like it? Don't let the door hit ya were the good Lord split ya. Simple as that. If you want to wait around a few years to see if you can undo what we built over the last 200 years knock yourself out.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

NOt surprising. No legitimate response and the typical "get out."

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by Timmay

We are the United States of America and our states are separate entities. It is unacceptable to smaller states to have their affairs decided by other states simply because more people live there.
Apply this to the entire world. Would it be ok if China, with it's 1.5 billion population, and India. 1.4 billion controlled the world or would we want a level playing field?

That is what the Senate is for....to give equal representation to smaller states. The presidency is supposed to be representative of the population and the nation. States are welcome to govern on a state level, but the presidency is a national position.

There is also a substantial difference between comparing worldwide policies to nationwide policies. I could flip it right around on you and say my governing policies should not be dictated by a bunch of people that live in South Dakota.

[Timmay]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Do you believe China is a true communist country?

It is run by the CCP and I don't think that stands for Capitalist China Party.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Would you rather pay no taxes and pay bills on everything yourself? Or pay taxes and have some of that money not used wisely?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'll try to answer though.

Obviously, I understand the need for taxes. I also understand that people disagree on what federal funds should be used for and that I'm not always going to get my way.

I guess I'd rather pay and have some of it not used wisely. I would prefer to limit that though. I would prefer the government be forced to prioritize a bit more and have less overall to waste.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[lionsfan20]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

NOt surprising. No legitimate response and the typical "get out."

Why waste my time? Is anything I say going to change your mind? Nope. Just like nothing you are saying will change my mind. So not wasting my time. I am generally happy with my country. It is not perfect but nothing is. Especially when comparing it to all other countries. There is not one I would rather live in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Would you rather pay no taxes and pay bills on everything yourself? Or pay taxes and have some of that money not used wisely?

Most people fail to realize, to counter what dega said, is that they use government funded programs every day. Roads are socialistic. Schools are socialistic. Public services are socialistic.

Now imagine if these folks got what they wanted and it was up to individuals to fund all these things. First off, the average person couldn't afford it. The way a tax system works in general is that everyone pays into it, but the rich pay more into it because they can afford a higher burden. If it was up to the individual to decide when a road needed built/fixed for example, you would never be able to fund it unless you were lucky enough to convince a wealthy individual to fund it.

Socialism is OK for a ton of these folks when it benefits them. It is when it benefits someone else that it isn't OK.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Serious question. Do you trust corrupt large corporations to spend that money in the right place? I could make the exact same arguments about tax cuts for the very rich and corporations.

Serious answer: no.
Large corporations are not public officials though.

Tax cuts for corporations aren't about rich getting richer. They're about competing with other countries for jobs and such. Rich getting richer is a side effect. I'm not for rich people getting rich at the expense of the rest of us, but I'm also not for corporations going overseas.

For me, it's the lesser of two evils.


Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and a 578K population.

California has a pop of 39.5 million and 55 electoral votes.

That means Wyoming has one electoral vote for every 192K people and Cali has one electoral vote for every 718 K people. It means that a Wyoming presidential vote is weighted about 3.5 times higher than someone in California.

Gotcha, thank you.

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'll try to answer though.

Obviously, I understand the need for taxes. I also understand that people disagree on what federal funds should be used for and that I'm not always going to get my way.

I guess I'd rather pay and have some of it not used wisely. I would prefer to limit that though. I would prefer the government be forced to prioritize a bit more and have less overall to waste.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

We have been cutting taxes consistently the last 50 years, and what we have gotten is a crumbling infrastructure and a redistribution of that money to the richest 1% who haven't reinvested it into the community.

Frankly, the government isn't perfect, but I trust the government far more to spend it with properly implemented programs than Comcast, healthcare companies, Walmart, Banks, and other mega corporations.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Timmay

It is run by the CCP and I don't think that stands for Capitalist China Party.

North Korea’s proper name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

So that means they’re a democracy.

If China was truly communist there would be no capitalism there. And there most certainly is capitalism in China.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Serious answer: no.
Large corporations are not public officials though.

Tax cuts for corporations aren't about rich getting richer. They're about competing with other countries for jobs and such. Rich getting richer is a side effect. I'm not for rich people getting rich at the expense of the rest of us, but I'm also not for corporations going overseas.

For me, it's the lesser of two evils.


Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

They’ve gotten and continue to get tax cuts. Yet jobs are constantly sent overseas because it’s cheaper.

So they get cuts and still outsource. Double dipping.

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Serious answer: no.
Large corporations are not public officials though.

Tax cuts for corporations aren't about rich getting richer. They're about competing with other countries for jobs and such. Rich getting richer is a side effect. I'm not for rich people getting rich at the expense of the rest of us, but I'm also not for corporations going overseas.

For me, it's the lesser of two evils.


Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

I think I answered this before I saw it. I simply disagree, because we can at least hold government officials responsible through elections. If telecom companies or airlines take their tax cuts and do stock buybacks, there is very little that can be done to hold them accountable.

BTW, this happened exactly with companies like American. They massively increased revenue due to the Trump tax cuts. They spent a huge amount of that on stock buy backs, and were one of the first companies and industries to scream for bailout money during COVID. I found it ironic that we always here about personal responsibility and 6 month emergency funds but the airlines couldn't last two weeks before they were about to collapse.

I don't think we will disagree that big corporations are sucking the rest of us dry...but like I said that is why I would rather money go to the govenment where I at least get to vote against them.

[Timmay]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

North Korea’s proper name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

So that means they’re a democracy.

If China was truly communist there would be no capitalism there. And there most certainly is capitalism in China.

The state plans and controls the economy and a single authoritarian party holds power. That's Communism.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

They’ve gotten and continue to get tax cuts. Yet jobs are constantly sent overseas because it’s cheaper.



So they get cuts and still outsource. Double dipping.

You're not wrong.

I wonder how much worse it would be though, had steps not been taken to limit it.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by Timmay

The state plans and controls the economy and a single authoritarian party holds power. That's Communism.

Yes, but there are different levels of communism. The government does set guidelines and has final control on the economy, but on a daily basis for most businesses it works fairly close to a free market society. The Chinese government is not setting prices for Big Macs in Beijing.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

I think I answered this before I saw it. I simply disagree, because we can at least hold government officials responsible through elections. If telecom companies or airlines take their tax cuts and do stock buybacks, there is very little that can be done to hold them accountable.



BTW, this happened exactly with companies like American. They massively increased revenue due to the Trump tax cuts. They spent a huge amount of that on stock buy backs, and were one of the first companies and industries to scream for bailout money during COVID. I found it ironic that we always here about personal responsibility and 6 month emergency funds but the airlines couldn't last two weeks before they were about to collapse.



I don't think we will disagree that big corporations are sucking the rest of us dry...but like I said that is why I would rather money go to the govenment where I at least get to vote against them.

Fair enough. But you get to "vote" against corporations too. You choose which corporations to back when you buy products.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

You're not wrong.

I wonder how much worse it would be though, had steps not been taken to limit it.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

So I think fundamentally, how do you stop it? If apple can produce an Iphone in China with laborers that make 8 dollars a day, there is no way for the US to compete, so I don't know what the answer is to be honest..no matter how many tax cuts you give them they will still produce Iphones outside the US.

I do think though that those tax cuts should be contingent on keeping jobs in the US. Of course they will weight whether or not that is worth it, but at the very least as another poster said they should not be able to double dip.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Timmay

The state plans and controls the economy and a single authoritarian party holds power. That's Communism.

Wrong.

Communism is a political and economic ideology that positions itself in opposition to liberal democracy and capitalism, advocating instead for a classless system in which the means of production are owned communally and private property is nonexistent or severely curtailed.

They have capitalism, they have private property.

It is ruled by one party, it’s oppressive, I wouldn’t want to live there. But I don’t subscribe to McCarthyism.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

So I think fundamentally, how do you stop it? If apple can produce an Iphone in China with laborers that make 8 dollars a day, there is no way for the US to compete, so I don't know what the answer is to be honest..no matter how many tax cuts you give them they will still produce Iphones outside the US.



I do think though that those tax cuts should be contingent on keeping jobs in the US. Of course they will weight whether or not that is worth it, but at the very least as another poster said they should not be able to double dip.

I agree with this in principle.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk