barbacoa taco said:

---

I should also add this. Do people even care anymore about how they are constantly being lied do?

While disinformation has always been a problem, it's really ramped up lately. It's EVERYWHERE. The current storm and recent storm are shining examples of this.

Trump and Elon are knowingly spreading disinformation, and they are easily disproven by a quick google search. But the problem is, they do not back down when confronted with refuting information. It can't be overstated how dangerous this is. I mean, good Lord, Trump didn't do a 60 minutes interview because he refused to be fact checked, and JD Vance refused to be fact checked at the debate.

The vile lies about Haitians eating pets was just one of many. But Trump is out there actively lying about the federal response to Helene, and now with Milton, just to score political points and make people angry, even if it's at their own expense.

Why don't people care? How does this not bother people? We're so desensitized to Trump's and Elon's rampant dishonesty that we just see it as normal as the sky being blue.

Whatever. Maybe a bunch of people, including a lot of Texas A&M grads think that the truth does not matter. But I do.

---

Kamala is lying too. Can you explain to me logically how taxing billionaires helps anyone? And her ads say it does.

barbacoa taco said:

---

No. It's exactly what you insinuated. Here's a quote I found from you.

Quote:

---

Sounds like you just want to punish the wealthy.

---

Just own it, it's fine. I am from Texas and went to A&M, I'm very used to hearing this opinion from conservatives. I'm not offended by it, I just think it's bad.

---

Can you logically explain to me how taxing the rich helps anyone?

And I respect your opinion.

barbacoa taco said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

So it's more xenophobic bull***** That seems to be all that's left.

---

Total projection. I do not believe the fact that legal immigrants who "are different than me" cause any fear or anxiety.

I just want immigration laws followed no matter where the immigrants come from. If they are legal, welcome.

---

The rhetoric we've heard in recent months suggests this part is not true either.

---

Do you really want to discuss "rhetoric"? When Kamala says taxing the rich somehow helps the poor? It is all rhetoric. Why didn't she do any of the stuff she is talking about over the last almost 4 years?

Simple question. Should our tax dollars go to citizens who need help before non citizens?

And I know you will say you are disappointed in the dems also but who will you vote for? Because that is all that matters.

---

Yeah I'm happy to discuss rhetoric actually. And regarding your point, constantly cutting taxes for the rich exacerbates wealth inequality, which has hurt the poor immeasurably in the past generation. This point was laid out in detail earlier in this thread. You dismissed all of it because you think any taxes on the rich are "punishing success."

Why didn't she do it the past 4 years? You are aware that the office of the VP is pretty limited, right? the VP is basically a glorified senator. This talking point is a very obtuse one.

Yeah of course our tax dollars should go to citizens before noncitizens. But there's a lot of mis/disinfo going around regarding noncitizens, and we have a responsibility to push back on it.

---

Can you post where I said taxing the rich was "punishing success"? I assume with the quotation marks you are saying those are my exact words.

There is zero benefit to anybody by raising taxes on any group. The poor do not get richer by cutting anyone's taxes. And are you saying you want to decrease wealth inequality by taxing the rich? How does it help the poor if the rich have less money? Logically that makes zero sense.

And one more time, should we enforce existing immigration laws?

---

to be honest I don't see much of a point in rehashing this entire argument. I'll just sum it up by saying that we have the means to pay for programs and things that go toward the public good. Examples include healthcare, infrastructure, schools, transportation, food, emergency relief. We just actively choose not to a lot of the time. Under Republican administrations, we cut funding to these things to pay for rich people's tax cuts. It really is a matter of what we prioritize.

Quote:

---

And should aid to non citizens be stopped so that we can spend on citizens first? Like with the recent hurricanes? What are the dems motives for pushing the aid to non citizens?

---

and there it is. You, my friend, have fallen victim to Trump's disinformation. FEMA is not sending aid to illegal immigrants from the disaster relief fund. Trump just made that up.

---

Can you read? I agreed with you that Trump is lying.

The question is why are we giving money/benefits to non citizens?

And can you post where I said "punishing success"? Or are you a liar?

I know we disagree politically, but have I ever done that to you?

---

the funds people think went to illegal immigrants were from CBP's budget, which funds FEMA's shelter and services program, which goes toward funding temporary housing and food for migrants. This actually started under Trump. and it does not come from FEMA's budget.

Not everything that benefits migrants is going toward undocumented immigrants.

If you didn't use the phrase "punishing success" you certainly implied it. I have a big problem with billionaires and multimillionaries constantly cheating taxes illegally and finding legal loopholes to literally pay less in taxes than me. You may have no issue with that at all, but I do. I think it's wrong. It's immoral. And the fact that so many of them do it has led us to where we are today, constantly having to ask how we'll pay for things.

We can pay for a lot of things. We just are often screwed over by rich *******s who think they're too special to pay taxes, and corrupt politicians who enact laws that support and encourage this behavior.

---

So who are these "rich *******s"? Could that include the Clintons, Bushes, Bidens, Trump, and soon to be Kamala?

barbacoa taco said:

---

yeah, the "all politicians lie" excuse. There's no both-sidesing Trump's aggressive disinformation campaign.

---

Cool. Explain to me logically how taxing the rich helps anyone? It is all based on envy.

My daughter is a school teacher. How does taxing billionaires help her financially?

And to be honest, she is only interested in making more money. Not "income inequality". And I can put that in quotation marks because unlike what you falsely attributed to me, you actually posted.

While I will agree that BOTH sides lie, it is absolutely clear that the Dems have the longest running, largest and most nearly complete program of propaganda in the U.S. - both debates provided many examples.

Rongagin71 said:

---

While I will agree that BOTH sides lie, it is absolutely clear that the Dems have the longest running, largest and most nearly complete program of propaganda in the U.S. - both debates provided many examples.

---

You really want to make light of someone's appearance while supporting Trump? The Republican Party today is the classic example of pointing one finger at someone with three pointing back at you.

I'm pointing three fingers in your general direction right now.

Edit to add a more or less serious note.
I like to inject a little humor into these heated discussions
and expected you to understand that the meme is about
how the media gives favorable treatment to Dems.

Sapper Redux said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

I don't understand why you think it is xenophobic to say that most of the immigrants recruited and brought into the country by the Democrat Party are going to vote for that party...of course they are.

---

Because it's a lie. Noncitizens cannot vote. Democrats are not "recruiting" noncitizens to vote. It's all lies and meant to stir up hate against immigrants, just like the eating dogs and cats hoax.

---

Hmmm, this is just the first link when you look it up on duckduckgo........

Map Shows States Where Migrants Are Being Purged From Voter Rolls - Newsweek

---

Hmmm, a five second search provided just a touch of context to your claim.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/09/12/politics/undocumented-immigrants-voting-what-matters

---

You know, as well as I do, and probably Taco does as well that immigrants can, and do vote in local elections in at least 3 states (Cali, Maryland, and Vermont). And, as the articles state, there are 10s of thousands of immigrants on the voter rolls, and therefore could vote in federal elections.

You also know that democrats voted down, rather refused to have a vote on, the SAVE act that would require proof of citizenship to vote. This lends credence, or at least should warrant further discussion, about the possibility of non-citizens voting.

And, although the known number is small, there has been voting, in federal elections, by undocumented immigrants/non-citizens.

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

yeah, the "all politicians lie" excuse. There's no both-sidesing Trump's aggressive disinformation campaign.

---

Cool. Explain to me logically how taxing the rich helps anyone? It is all based on envy.

My daughter is a school teacher. How does taxing billionaires help her financially?

And to be honest, she is only interested in making more money. Not "income inequality". And I can put that in quotation marks because unlike what you falsely attributed to me, you actually posted.

---

You really are framing this all wrong, which is why it's so frustrating to have any discussion with you. Because no, I don't believe that "taxing billionaires" will solve all of our problems. But I do think that cracking down on them and closing loopholes will go a long way, in addition to letting Trump tax cuts expire. Giving them a tax cut and letting them cheat is no different from "paying" for something.

If she's a school teacher in Texas then I feel for her. The state government has treated teachers like garbage for as long as I can remember. Schools are underfunded to the point where teachers have to buy their own supplies, teachers are still underpaid, and looked down upon, and have to deal with insufferable parents all the time, who think they only exist to be woke and indoctrinate their kids. Truly one of the most unappreciated professions out there.

Not sure if she's at a public or private school but Texas has the resources to improve our public school system. And we can bail on the horrific voucher plan that is just socialism for rich people with some Christian Nationalism sprinkled into it.

Frok said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

I should also add this. Do people even care anymore about how they are constantly being lied do?

While disinformation has always been a problem, it's really ramped up lately. It's EVERYWHERE. The current storm and recent storm are shining examples of this.

Trump and Elon are knowingly spreading disinformation, and they are easily disproven by a quick google search. But the problem is, they do not back down when confronted with refuting information. It can't be overstated how dangerous this is. I mean, good Lord, Trump didn't do a 60 minutes interview because he refused to be fact checked, and JD Vance refused to be fact checked at the debate.

The vile lies about Haitians eating pets was just one of many. But Trump is out there actively lying about the federal response to Helene, and now with Milton, just to score political points and make people angry, even if it's at their own expense.

Why don't people care? How does this not bother people? We're so desensitized to Trump's and Elon's rampant dishonesty that we just see it as normal as the sky being blue.

Whatever. Maybe a bunch of people, including a lot of Texas A&M grads think that the truth does not matter. But I do.

---

Or maybe just maybe you need to take your democrat goggles off

---

Not really, any sane person with a functioning brain who isn't so far up Trump's ass like you are can see what's going on. You probably think Trump is an honest guy who's been ethical in his business dealings, too.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Skip the BS and go to the 1minute mark to hear Elon Musk explain why the Democrats are very close to becoming the single ruling party in America.
He thinks that if Trump doesn't win 2024 that there will be no more chance to undo the Dem's massive immigration programs or to defeat them at the polls.

---

If that happens it will be because they decided to follow an unhinged atheist and a cadre of wealthy "religious zealots down the rabbit hole to oblivion.

There were two major political parties when Jesus was here, too. He had no use for either of them.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Frok said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

I should also add this. Do people even care anymore about how they are constantly being lied do?

While disinformation has always been a problem, it's really ramped up lately. It's EVERYWHERE. The current storm and recent storm are shining examples of this.

Trump and Elon are knowingly spreading disinformation, and they are easily disproven by a quick google search. But the problem is, they do not back down when confronted with refuting information. It can't be overstated how dangerous this is. I mean, good Lord, Trump didn't do a 60 minutes interview because he refused to be fact checked, and JD Vance refused to be fact checked at the debate.

The vile lies about Haitians eating pets was just one of many. But Trump is out there actively lying about the federal response to Helene, and now with Milton, just to score political points and make people angry, even if it's at their own expense.

Why don't people care? How does this not bother people? We're so desensitized to Trump's and Elon's rampant dishonesty that we just see it as normal as the sky being blue.

Whatever. Maybe a bunch of people, including a lot of Texas A&M grads think that the truth does not matter. But I do.

---

Or maybe just maybe you need to take your democrat goggles off

---

Not really, any sane person with a functioning brain who isn't so far up Trump's ass like you are can see what's going on. You probably think Trump is an honest guy who's been ethical in his business dealings, too.

---

What Zobel said. Take it to F16.

Quote:

---

Cool. Explain to me logically how taxing the rich helps anyone? It is all based on envy.

---

We should back up to this thread to try and revive this discussion and get back to something approaching philosophy, even if it is economic philosophy.

I find this statement a tricky one as it relies on a qualitative term like "rich." Taxing Bill Gates or Warren Buffett is one thing . . . .taking someone with household income of $500K because some politician declared that "rich" is another.

There is a spectrum, right? It is not a black or white, good or bad two scenario choice. A lot of taxation that funds government spending is enjoyed by society at large and is not going away so your statement that taxing the rich is "pure envy" is fairly hyperbolic and I can't agree with it.

We need entrepreneurs to want to create wealth. Our capitalist system continues to attract the best and brightest from all over the world because we have an economic system that supports that. An overly progressive tax code is therefore working against our best interests as a country,

But on the hand, I don't find unearned generational wealth to be much of a bonus to society either. Alice Walton being worth $90 Billion dollars based on sitting around most of her life and having been born to Sam Walton is the polar opposite of a capitalist system. She won the "Ovarian Lottery" per Warren Buffett's analysis

Somewhere in the middle is a setup that works for all . . . .the debate is where are we currently. You could argue that we have strayed too far into the protecting the ultra rich camp pretty easily. You could also argue that we already have too much wasteful government spending that doesn't help anyone.

This presumes the case for taxing the ultra wealthy to the benefit of all has already been made. It has not.

Zobel said:

---

No call for this tone on this board. Go to F16 with that nonsense. He didn't insult you.

---

This is a thread about political philosophy that has covered topics from Christian Nationalism to truth in politics to Elon Musk to taxing the wealthy. That poster implied that I'm blinded by partisanship in my comments about Trump becoming more and more unhinged in his dishonesty and disinformation campaign. People are so gaslit and desensitized by Trump's lies that any pointing out of said lies is dismissed as partisanship.

My response was warranted.

Defiant Ls

Quote:

---

This presumes the case for taxing the ultra wealthy to the benefit of all has already been made. It has not.

---

What do you mean by "taxing" . . . .are you saying any form of tax on the ultra-wealthy has no justification?

And really, their is not argument against taxation at this point because so much of our society already depends on it. Even Milton Friedman would only goes as far as calling for a flat tax and negative income tax for the lowest brackets.

What I mean is if you want to start talking about changing the status quo regardless of the subject we need to look at the entirety of the change.

Before you can say well these people should pay more taxes or they won the parental lottery you need to first establish
a) how that is bad for society if it even is
And
b) how the proposed change is better

Right now the focus is on "rich people bad" with no actual argument about why and "taxing them good" with no actual argument about why or how the taxes would be used.

Start with the problem you're trying to solve and then identify that taxing the rich is a reasonable means to that end.

And to your edit - ok? I would argue the status quo that so much of our society depends on taxes is bad. -That's- what we should be focused on changing. We don't have a tax revenue issue, and seizing the assets of the entirety of our ultra rich class wouldn't solve our deficit problems.

Zobel said:

---

This presumes the case for taxing the ultra wealthy to the benefit of all has already been made. It has not.

---

our current system allows for the ultra wealthy to exploit loopholes and pay less in taxes than the middle class. Not sure how anyone can say that's anything other than wrong. And cutting taxes for them isn't some beautiful thing that rewards wealth, it just exacerbates inequality and has created the billionaire class.

Rampant wealth inequality is not good for society and you don't need an economics degree to know that.

Because anytime people want to fund something for the public good, like improving public schools, expanding medicaid, funding food programs, funding foster care system, infrastructure, and public transit, we ALWAYS hear the same lame excuse of "hOw We GuNnA PaY fOr iT??" when the same people who ask that question ignore the fact that we "pay" for trillions in tax cuts to the mega wealthy every year.

appropriate tweet for this thread

Shhh people are talking. You've already made it pretty clear you don't have anything of substance to add to this discussion.

do you have any substantive response to my post or are you just gonna do your F16 drive bys?

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Before you can say well these people should pay more taxes or they won the parental lottery you need to first establish
a) how that is bad for society if it even is
And
b) how the proposed change is better

---

Well, I think we know:

a) We have a massive and growing deficit and national debt

b) We have two political parties totally unwilling to reign in spending.

c) We know that wealth is more concentrated in fewer hands today versus most of the latter half of the 20th Century by mostly every measure.

d) We have steadily diminished both income and capital gains tax rates over the last 50 years. Long Term Cap Gains was 35% in the late 1970s and 20% today. The top brackets for individual income taxes were slashed consistently to the current levels that started in the 1980s.

So this is the reality of things . . . . .if we are serious about fiscal prudence and reigning in debt, we have to tax something and the ultra-rich have it better right now than they ever had both in terms of net worth and a friendly tax code so they are the obvious targets.

---

People seem to forget this part. And those in power have been so successful in gaslighting the public into thinking that going back to the way things were is: 1) punishing success and 2) rewarding laziness. The sad thing is people who would most benefit from this often vote against their own interests

Is "touch grass" substantive enough?

barbacoa taco said:

---

Zobel said:

---

This presumes the case for taxing the ultra wealthy to the benefit of all has already been made. It has not.

---

our current system allows for the ultra wealthy to exploit loopholes and pay less in taxes than the middle class. Not sure how anyone can say that's anything other than wrong. And cutting taxes for them isn't some beautiful thing that rewards wealth, it just exacerbates inequality and has created the billionaire class.

Rampant wealth inequality is not good for society and you don't need an economics degree to know that.


Because anytime people want to fund something for the public good, like improving public schools, expanding medicaid, funding food programs, funding foster care system, infrastructure, and public transit, we ALWAYS hear the same lame excuse of "hOw We GuNnA PaY fOr iT??" when the same people who ask that question ignore the fact that we "pay" for trillions in tax cuts to the mega wealthy every year.

---

You realize "loopholes" are legal, correct?

And how is it Constitutional to give tax dollars to non citizens? Who are actually criminals breaking immigration laws.

my whole point is they should not be legal. they are clearly problematic.

goodness derm. you are clearly intelligent but tend to be really obtuse sometimes.

you would agree that just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral, right? that's an issue I remember hearing about a lot in church. to keep things germane to this forum.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Before you can say well these people should pay more taxes or they won the parental lottery you need to first establish
a) how that is bad for society if it even is
And
b) how the proposed change is better

---

Well, I think we know:

a) We have a massive and growing deficit and national debt

b) We have two political parties totally unwilling to reign in spending.

c) We know that wealth is more concentrated in fewer hands today versus most of the latter half of the 20th Century by mostly every measure.

d) We have steadily diminished both income and capital gains tax rates over the last 50 years. Long Term Cap Gains was 35% in the late 1970s and 20% today. The top brackets for individual income taxes were slashed consistently to the current levels that started in the 1980s.

So this is the reality of things . . . . .if we are serious about fiscal prudence and reigning in debt, we have to tax something and the ultra-rich have it better right now than they ever had both in terms of net worth and a friendly tax code so they are the obvious targets.

---

People seem to forget this part. And those in power have been so successful in gaslighting the public into thinking that going back to the way things were is: 1) punishing success and 2) rewarding laziness. The sad thing is people who would most benefit from this often vote against their own interests

---

Please link to any post on here calling people lazy or say punishing success.

Thanks.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Before you can say well these people should pay more taxes or they won the parental lottery you need to first establish
a) how that is bad for society if it even is
And
b) how the proposed change is better

---

Well, I think we know:

a) We have a massive and growing deficit and national debt

b) We have two political parties totally unwilling to reign in spending.

c) We know that wealth is more concentrated in fewer hands today versus most of the latter half of the 20th Century by mostly every measure.

d) We have steadily diminished both income and capital gains tax rates over the last 50 years. Long Term Cap Gains was 35% in the late 1970s and 20% today. The top brackets for individual income taxes were slashed consistently to the current levels that started in the 1980s.

So this is the reality of things . . . . .if we are serious about fiscal prudence and reigning in debt, we have to tax something and the ultra-rich have it better right now than they ever had both in terms of net worth and a friendly tax code so they are the obvious targets.

---

I upvoted that because at least you gave a reasonable response.
Which allows the reasonable response that the Laffer Curve is real.
Taxes may need to go up, and certainly most poors pay little other
than sales tax and the built increases to everything due to tax, but
I do believe the wealthy should pay their fair share, and more in war.

well this time I'm actually not talking about you, unless you consider yourself among "those in power"

Sapper Redux said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

While I will agree that BOTH sides lie, it is absolutely clear that the Dems have the longest running, largest and most nearly complete program of propaganda in the U.S. - both debates provided many examples.

---

You really want to make light of someone's appearance while supporting Trump? The Republican Party today is the classic example of pointing one finger at someone with three pointing back at you.

---

Here is the real news thing that meme was mocking....