Dieben, you're more articulate than me so I'm going to sit this discussion out. Gimme a yell if you need to tag me in
Alright, you baited me in to a post. You're right, there are Ayn Rand lovers in other parts of the world. My point was that your argument is foreign to me. Financial inequality has been demonstrated to hurt all levels of society, from the poorest to the wealthiest. Despite that, I understand why the rich and powerful might take advantage of America's corrupt political system to better their position. What I cannot understand is why the fools who will be most hurt by those same policies still vote for these ******bags. I really want Sanders to be elected. In my eyes, he is the only candidate who stands a chance of steering the US in the direction it needs. But if he doesn't get the nomination, I really hope Drumpf gets in. You guys need to realise that your democracy is a joke, which should have been the lesson learned from 8 years of being the laughing stock of the world when Dubya was at the helm.
As both the son of legal immigrants and someone who will be going to college soon, I'm going to be voting for whoever doesn't want to deport my parents and will make college cheaper for me. Of course, depending on who gets in to office, I might need to start learning a different language in college as well as math. Part of the reason seems to be for non-economic reasons, such as everyone's favorite hot topics of gun control, border control, and women's rights.
Not entirely, though I will admit that is a very large part of it. I'm also looking for someone that will attempt to start turning the public school system into something more competent, but that doesn't seem to be much of an voting issue for some reason.
As I said earlier I have no intention of getting into the thick of things here, but food for thought for all of you— When we talk about "stealing"—where does this concept come from? Why do people even have things that can be stolen in the first place? How does it happen, and what does it mean? Is it worth it to distinguish between private property and personal property? Is it worth it to define harm? Also, in a discussion of what should be, it is interesting to me that some of you rest your arguments on what is legal right now. Couching arguments in documents like the Declaration of Independence only really makes sense if you believe in the philosophy behind that document. Appealing to the law only really makes sense if you believe it's written by people whom you trust to write it. Just some thoughts ^_^
Just as a quick clarification, the DofI is not a legal document and the only people bound to it were the folks who signed it and started a, what's the word, revolution? Weren't they breaking a contract? I don't know—I never swore on/to any legal documents. Maybe they'll make me if I get picked for jury duty next month
I think I'm ok with the government stealing my money to maintain the roads and keep libraries open, along with the whole police force deal so that other people don't steal my money instead.
If the federal government restricted its spending to things authorized by the constitution, I'd be much happier about paying taxes.
I don't think this is necessary, I doubt you will read them. http://www.oecd.org/social/in-it-together-why-less-inequality-benefits-all-9789264235120-en.htm http://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/SOTU_2015.pdf Oxfam also have great reports but I cannot find the one I'd specifically like to link Why do people always do this on the internet? Accuse someone else of name calling and then, in the very same sentence, call names? If you think I am illogical, feel free to demonstrate where my logic is flawed. Otherwise, you're name calling But you cannot, you don't understand my premise, as I don't understand yours. What is your vote based on?
I AM being harmed by the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries present practices. I and others like me are suffering because of excessive profit seeking by these companies. There is no theft of money being discussed here, there isn't even a cliche redistribution of wealth. This is a proposal for effective policymaking that makes for a fair tax burden across all socioeconomic tax brackets. Why are you ignoring his statement entirely and instead focusing on him using an emoji? There were multiple crimes committed (stock manipulation, fiduciary fraud, and a great many other illicit predatory practices), but only one banker was ever held accountable for his actions with a prison sentence. The individuals who benefited the most from 2008's crisis were those who participated in white collar crimes that caused that very same crisis. -- If that is all you can recall of that documentary, then I can only conclude that you have not in fact seen it. -- This has nothing to do with free market institutional status. My argument stands. Your inference is wrong, I meant exactly what I said. Bureaucrats are not the persons who put people in jail, that claim is baseless. There have been instances of bureaucrats overstepping their boundaries, just as there have been instances of those who do not do enough or even anything at all. -- You have not responded or refuted my point that privatized prisons should be done away with and that incarceration should be solely within the governments purview. There is no stealing being discussed. The government has a fundamental privilege to tax. If you consider that to be theft/stealing and you choose not to pay your taxes, then you have committed a crime. My argument is for revising the existing tax code to eliminate the means/loopholes used by people to get out of paying taxes when they are otherwise more than capable of paying them. I am also affirming my support for a government policy that utilizes its revenue in a way that is equally beneficial to all of its citizens and raises the standard of living, improves the economy, and improves the national life expectancy. I am not a "left winger", let alone a stereotype of either party. I am someone who has done their homework, gone to college, has a job, works their ass off, and wants to have a civil discussion about the issues. You're justified in saying that capitalism and the wealthy are not the problem. Heck, I even agree with you that the government is a big part of the problem. What we are saying, in plain terms, is that the current rules of governance have been written by those in power, who are mostly extremely wealthy individuals, to benefit themselves and maintain their positions in power. American politics are no longer about right and left, Republican and Democrat. Both parties are financed and run by persons who have benefited ridiculously from the economic subjugation that the majority of Americans, both you and I, are faced with. Oftentimes, companies will actively choose to perform crimes since the current fines imposed are often dwarfed by the profits gained by doing the crime. There is an unprecedented amount of money in politics right now. As these political contributions and lobbying efforts have grown, the regulations in place have grown progressively more lax. Laws that had been in place to prevent the very crimes that led up to the 2008 collapse were removed after extensive lobbying efforts by the investment firms who caused the collapse. This begs the question of why? Why would any of these incredibly successful entities make the decision to give money away to political causes and lobbying efforts if they were not going to receive anything in return? It makes zero economic sense for them to do so unless they DO in fact gain returns on their donation investment. We have seen time after time after time perplexing decisions made in governmental policy even when they were contrary to public interest and desire. We have seen increases in prices and decreases in quality in the aftermaths of industry-favoring policy making. It is the government's duty to enact legislation now that economically benefits all citizens as much as possible. The current practices fail to do this and are largely detrimental to the citizens. This is what I want to be fixed. I do not know you, I do not know your situation or your history. What I do know is that almost every candidate has enough conflicts of interest (yes, even Trump) so as to make it immensely unlikely that any of them will serve in our nation's best long-term interests. The exception to this is, crazy it may sound, the candidate who has had a consistent, lifelong record of avoiding these conflicts of interest. The citizenry has been given the raw deal for far too long now by both sides of the political elite, so the time has come for a new deal that reasserts that the rights of all citizens must be protected and respected.
I have no idea what you meant by either of these statements, please be so kind as to explain them in extensive detail so that I may understand your perspective on this subject. Invoking logic and then proceeding to belittle the person you are responding to does nothing to contribute to discussion. If you are remotely interested in discussing any of these topics with seriousness, you need to actually say what it is you are arguing in favor of. Then, you would do best to find some external documents of a credible nature, as I have, and use their data and findings to support your argument. This sort of curt response neither explains nor conveys your views, nor does it provide citable contrary evidence to refute what has been stated. ------ Here are sources for our assertions that policies that foster growth in wealth inequality (which are currently in place) are damaging America. Source A Source B Source C Source D Source E Source F Source G Source H Source I Source J Source K I'm beginning to get the impression that you are not here for a civil discussion of policy and are instead intent upon trolling. Nevertheless, I will assume for the moment that your condescending and patronizing tone is unintentional in your posting and that it is merely the result of my impaired ability to perceive social cues. I am in favor of equal rights, this does not change the fact that the median household pays more of its income towards taxes than a household in the top 1% of earners. [citation] This chart shows that even though we have a progressive income tax system (or as you called it, disproportionate), the revenue of the rich is more reliant upon capital gains, interest, and dividends than that of the median household. Since those sorts of revenue are taxed at a lower rate than that of income, the revenue of the wealthy receives a lower overall tax rate compared to the median household. Ergo: Wealthier individuals are receiving benefits that less wealthy people do not receive. This undermines the economic rights of lower income individuals. Thus, unequal treatment is in play. All that is being asked is that capital gains, interest, and dividends be taxed the same as income. -------- If someone has a severe chronic medical disability, as I do, that has a treatment available that allows that person to function normally, then that treatment should be affordable to them regardless of their income because it is a basic human necessity for them to live. When a company raises the price on this treatment by more than 1000% or makes alternatives that are less effective or outright detrimental to their recipients' health, then they are infringing on the rights of those recipients. Let me put this plainly, their choice to pursue profits in excess of what is reasonable or necessary for business (pursuing wealth inequality in their favor) is directly damaging to the right of those recipients to live since it lessens or removes entirely the recipients' ability to pay for the treatments that allow them to live. -------- Economic pressure is a phrase in the common parlance which refers to unfavorable economic conditions. E.g.: Sudden, unnecessary huge price hikes of historically inexpensive medications. Inequality of wealth is a term that refers to the unequal distribution of net worth (assets - liabilities), in a nation and is a consequence of policies (e.g. tax loopholes) and practices (e.g. price gouging) that concentrate disproportionate amounts of assets/funds into the hands of a wealthy few. If a price for a medication I need is raised by 1000%, then I am forced to decide whether I can afford this medication that I need to live. If I cannot afford it or must take it less frequently than prescribed after such a price hike, then my health and well being have been harmed by that price hike. -------- The government already has medicare, medicaid, and social security. I am arguing that these are no longer sufficiently addressing the needs that they were originally designed for and that a broader system is necessary to address these needs effectively. Characterizing these programs as free stuff does them a harsh disservice, as without them our nation would be in considerably more dire straits. You asked me if I was in favor of equal rights. I am. I am in favor for the right that everyone have equal access to medical care. I am in favor of everyone paying their taxes in full. I am in favor of using the taxes that people are finally paying to finance health care for the poor and the wealthy equally. I am in favor of equal rights, now what about you?
That's a start. I also want to eliminate using taxation to control behavior (loopholes and excessive excises, by whatever name), and to halt the violation of 4th and 5th amendment rights by federal agencies. I have to disagree. A right to life is just that. It doesn't create an obligation for others to keep you alive, in much the same way the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but doesn't require the government to provide them. I believe your health is actually being harmed by your medical condition. The drug company certainly doesn't seem to be helping, but I don't see any right it's violating. Have you tried calling or writing the company to ask for help? Many will provide coupons or vouchers. I've been a volunteer (unpaid) caregiver off and on for the last 15 years, and I've often seen this work. If you're buying from a pharmacy, check the prices at Wal-Mart and your local supermarkets. After a friend of mine had a heart attack, he took his prescriptions to CVS. They wanted more than $600 to fill them, which he couldn't afford. I took him to Publix, and he got them all for about $110. That's the spin, and occasionally it's true. Those without political connections can do it through financial inertia. For many, this can be achieved simply by living below one's means and spending or investing money wisely. When this behavior is maintained over time, the money tends to pile up. In extreme cases, it can make people downright rich. I'm a strong supporter equal opportunity, which rarely results in equal outcomes. None of these have any constitutional basis for existing. If the government had established them by constitutional amendment rather than blatant malfeasance I wouldn't object to them. This is exactly the sort of thing reserved for the states (or the people) in the 10th amendment. I don't believe it's a harsh disservice, nor do I think we'd be in considerably more dire straits without them. I think we'd be better off if the feds didn't meddle in healthcare, or agriculture, or any other area where they have no constitutional authority. As I understand "access", it doesn't mean someone else paying for it. It just means you can't be arbitrarily turned away. I'm not, and we will probably never agree on this point. But it doesn't mean I don't like you.
