Yes, Russia is tricky in that way. They seem perfectly willing to weaken themselves in many ways as long as they keep up this image of a superpower that will beat the snot out of you if you're not careful. It doesn't seem to bother Putin much that the Russian people have to suffer for it.
They are constantly coming with subtle (sometimes) military threats to the Baltic and Scandinavian countries. I don't think they will actually do anything like occupy Gotland as some fear. I think they just want to remind everyone that they can if they want to. It's a twisted way to maintain peace.
Does anyone else find it weird that when it comes to the DNC "can" apparently equals "should" now?
No idea what you are talking about in specific but yes politicians use weasel words and distort the truth.
Like how Trump told Truckers that repealing the Estate to tax was good for mom and pop small businesses when it only applies to estates with more than $11 million in assets for married couples. If the Republicans do away with that one, which it looks like they will, expect to see a lot more rich families owning the rest of us as they even more freely pass their fortunes to their kids.
When discussing the collusion, I think many people forget that Russia doesn't interfere with other countries' businesses because they think it will directly benefit them. They seem to be more interested in weakening the rest of the world. Because in a world of fractured, weak and divided states, Russia is safe. How many partially recognized states and quasi-states like Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Donetsk people's republic are there around Russia now?
They wouldn't help Trump because he's pro-Russia. They'd help him because he's bad for USA and USA's ties to other western countries. Which is why you can find ties to Russia just about anywhere where there's a chance you can divide people into groups that'll hate each other.
You've put your finger on it. From the mass of data coming out of Russian ad buys on social media, we've learned they were perfectly happy funding any group, generally fringe groups from the left or right, that would deepen American divides. An America focused inwards on domestic fights is not one that has the time to oppose Russia's predations in Crimea or elsewhere. A candidate (now president) who wants to weaken NATO, the counter to Russia for decades, is just a cherry on top.
The goal is also, I think, deeper than people generally consider. American can, and has, survived incompetents in government before. The real, and lasting, damage being done is to American institutions. Meritless aspersions about the integrity of Mueller or his investigation, threatening to use the DOJ against political opponents, subverting due process--all of these undermine the rule of law, and this is the real danger to American democracy. The oaths of American military and elected officials are to the constitution, and with good reason.
When discussing the collusion, I think many people forget that Russia doesn't interfere with other countries' businesses because they think it will directly benefit them. They seem to be more interested in weakening the rest of the world. Because in a world of fractured, weak and divided states, Russia is safe. How many partially recognized states and quasi-states like Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Donetsk people's republic are there around Russia now?
They wouldn't help Trump because he's pro-Russia. They'd help him because he's bad for USA and USA's ties to other western countries. Which is why you can find ties to Russia just about anywhere where there's a chance you can divide people into groups that'll hate each other.
You've put your finger on it. From the mass of data coming out of Russian ad buys on social media, we've learned they were perfectly happy funding any group, generally fringe groups from the left or right, that would deepen American divides. An America focused inwards on domestic fights is not one that has the time to oppose Russia's predations in Crimea or elsewhere. A candidate (now president) who wants to weaken NATO, the counter to Russia for decades, is just a cherry on top.
The goal is also, I think, deeper than people generally consider. American can, and has, survived incompetents in government before. The real, and lasting, damage being done is to American institutions. Meritless aspersions about the integrity of Mueller or his investigation, threatening to use the DOJ against political opponents, subverting due process--all of these undermine the rule of law, and this is the real danger to American democracy. The oaths of American military and elected officials are to the constitution, and with good reason.
Any pretense of respect for American institutions died a year before Trump was even elected. Mitch McConnell and the Republicans STOLE a Supreme Court pick from a duly-elected (twice elected) President and handed it to his successor. But that isn't all. They made it clear that if Hillary had won, she would not have been allowed the pick either. The Republican Party completely shredded whatever social contract of norms existed when this happened. There was nothing to stop them, because short of using law enforcement or military force, what COULD stop them if they decided to go down this route?? Nothing. It was and remains a move unprecedented in the history of the Republic, and it's no small coincidence that it was done to the first African-American President. I will never stop harping on this, because it is the most blatant attack on governmental norms in the history of the United States.
I thought t rump weighing in on the Bergdahl trial was about as... I don't know, un presidential as it gets (for ol mr "Ill be the most presidential of ANYONE you have ever seen". I know the defense team was lovin that for sure. The man can't even keep his big fat mouth out of trials.
I thought t rump weighing in on the Bergdahl trial was about as... I don't know, un presidential as it gets (for ol mr "Ill be the most presidential of ANYONE you have ever seen". I know the defense team was lovin that for sure. The man can't even keep his big fat mouth out of trials.
He was given a much lighter sentence than he would have because of Trump's previous comments on the case. Donald Trump is quite literally the ONLY reason Bergdahl got off with a dishonorable discharge. He caused it, by himself.
Does anyone else find it weird that when it comes to the DNC "can" apparently equals "should" now?
No idea what you are talking about in specific but yes politicians use weasel words and distort the truth.
Like how Trump told Truckers that repealing the Estate to tax was good for mom and pop small businesses when it only applies to estates with more than $11 million in assets for married couples. If the Republicans do away with that one, which it looks like they will, expect to see a lot more rich families owning the rest of us as they even more freely pass their fortunes to their kids.
I don't see how passing wealth to your children is a BAD thing. I actually hope I can do that very thing with my child. When exactly did passing an inheritance to your children become 'evil'? Oh, I know why. The government can spend that money much better than my family...
I don't see how passing wealth to your children is a BAD thing. I actually hope I can do that very thing with my child. When exactly did passing an inheritance to your children become 'evil'? Oh, I know why. The government can spend that money much better than my family...
Because it fosters meritocracies, not aristocracies.
The estate tax only comes in to play for exceedingly wealthy people--even when it comes into effect, the majority of wealth will still be passed to their children.
Does anyone else find it weird that when it comes to the DNC "can" apparently equals "should" now?
No idea what you are talking about in specific but yes politicians use weasel words and distort the truth.
Like how Trump told Truckers that repealing the Estate to tax was good for mom and pop small businesses when it only applies to estates with more than $11 million in assets for married couples. If the Republicans do away with that one, which it looks like they will, expect to see a lot more rich families owning the rest of us as they even more freely pass their fortunes to their kids.
I don't see how passing wealth to your children is a BAD thing. I actually hope I can do that very thing with my child. When exactly did passing an inheritance to your children become 'evil'? Oh, I know why. The government can spend that money much better than my family...
The Estate tax doesn't prevent anyone from passing their wealth to their children. It simply taxes the children because the money has switched hands. I don't see how it's any different to how I get taxed when the money of my employer is transferred to me, or how the Mexican restaurant gets taxed on the income they make when I pay them for an enchilada.
I don't see how passing wealth to your children is a BAD thing. I actually hope I can do that very thing with my child. When exactly did passing an inheritance to your children become 'evil'? Oh, I know why. The government can spend that money much better than my family...
Because it fosters meritocracies, not aristocracies.
The estate tax only comes in to play for exceedingly wealthy people--even when it comes into effect, the majority of wealth will still be passed to their children.
Tough shit. The government didn't earn the money so why exactly do they deserve to take it? I don't get it...
The government has no right to pick who gets to keep their money and who doesn't. This is my main beef with socialism.
There's really only so much money that you need to pass on to your kids. Think about the average kid who grows up so rich that he or she inherits $11 million--do they really need that much money? And how much of it would they waste on luxuries for themselves?
I do think the government can spend money better than a spoiled rich kid.
There's really only so much money that you need to pass on to your kids. Think about the average kid who grows up so rich that he or she inherits $11 million--do they really need that much money? And how much of it would they waste on luxuries for themselves?
I do think the government can spend money better than a spoiled rich kid.
I actually don't think this is the best argument. I think the best argument is that money gets taxed when it switches hands on a nearly endless loop.
There's really only so much money that you need to pass on to your kids. Think about the average kid who grows up so rich that he or she inherits $11 million--do they really need that much money? And how much of it would they waste on luxuries for themselves?
I do think the government can spend money better than a spoiled rich kid.
It's not about 'need'. It's about the government basically deciding who 'deserves' money and who doesn't. The idea is ludicrous to me. Does some crackhead in Cleveland sonehow 'deserve' the money more? Would that person somehow spend that money better? The tobacco and alcohol companies would love that idea for sure. It never ceases to amaze me how poor people never seem to have a hard time buying $6 packs of cigarettes, cases of Bud-Light and lottery tickets...
Speaking of the lottery, there's a 'tax' that very much hits the poor harder than the rich. I'd personally love it if the Democrats addressed that in the future...
There's really only so much money that you need to pass on to your kids. Think about the average kid who grows up so rich that he or she inherits $11 million--do they really need that much money? And how much of it would they waste on luxuries for themselves?
I do think the government can spend money better than a spoiled rich kid.
It's not about 'need'. It's about the government basically deciding who 'deserves' money and who doesn't. The idea is ludicrous to me. Does some crackhead in Cleveland sonehow 'deserve' the money more? Would that person somehow spend that money better? The tobacco and alcohol companies would love that idea for sure. It never ceases to amaze me how poor people never seem to have a hard time buying $6 packs of cigarettes, cases of Bud-Light and lottery tickets...
This argument is really silly. Deciding who deserves to own what (not only money) is the most basic function of government. Whether there is an estate tax or not changes nothing.
It is the law (defined and enforced by the government) that allows you to will money at all. Without government you could as well say when you die the person who gets to the money first can keep it. The government is also what protects your property rights in the first place.
Currently, the government says the persons defined in your will deserve most of your money if die (actually all up to a very generous threshold). What you want is that the government says the persons defined in your will deserve *all* of your money. No form of inheritance can be in any way be regarded as natural law.
There's really only so much money that you need to pass on to your kids. Think about the average kid who grows up so rich that he or she inherits $11 million--do they really need that much money? And how much of it would they waste on luxuries for themselves?
I do think the government can spend money better than a spoiled rich kid.
It's not about 'need'. It's about the government basically deciding who 'deserves' money and who doesn't. The idea is ludicrous to me. Does some crackhead in Cleveland sonehow 'deserve' the money more? Would that person somehow spend that money better? The tobacco and alcohol companies would love that idea for sure. It never ceases to amaze me how poor people never seem to have a hard time buying $6 packs of cigarettes, cases of Bud-Light and lottery tickets...
This argument is really silly. Deciding who deserves to own what (not only money) is the most basic function of government. Whether there is an estate tax or not changes nothing.
It is the law (defined and enforced by the government) that allows you to will money at all. Without government you could as well say when you die the person who gets to the money first can keep it. The government is also what protects your property rights in the first place.
Currently, the government says the persons defined in your will deserve most of your money if die (actually all up to a very generous threshold). What you want is that the government says the persons defined in your will deserve *all* of your money. No form of inheritance can be in any way be regarded as natural law.
I fundamentally disagree but would be willing to compromise if the 'bite' wasn't too burdensome. I'm not rich so it doesn't matter to me personally. If the rich folks were willing to voluntarily go for some level of estate tax that'd be fine with me. I don't, however, think it's right for the majority of people who aren't rich to decide how much of their money to take. That's the part I don't agree with mostly...
Speaking of the lottery, there's a 'tax' that very much hits the poor harder than the rich. I'd personally love it if the Democrats addressed that in the future...
The only thing I want addressed about it is I think people should only be able to claim and purchase lottery tickets between 3 and 5 am. On a weekly basis I stand in line at a gas station so someone can claim their tickets and buy new ones. It a ridiculous waste of time for everyone else in the store.
As for the lottery, it is mostly state (or multi-state) based and is usually used to fund a certain project or function of state governments. Stadiums, wildlife preservation, etc etc etc.
There's really only so much money that you need to pass on to your kids. Think about the average kid who grows up so rich that he or she inherits $11 million--do they really need that much money? And how much of it would they waste on luxuries for themselves?
I do think the government can spend money better than a spoiled rich kid.
It's not about 'need'. It's about the government basically deciding who 'deserves' money and who doesn't. The idea is ludicrous to me. Does some crackhead in Cleveland sonehow 'deserve' the money more? Would that person somehow spend that money better? The tobacco and alcohol companies would love that idea for sure. It never ceases to amaze me how poor people never seem to have a hard time buying $6 packs of cigarettes, cases of Bud-Light and lottery tickets...
This argument is really silly. Deciding who deserves to own what (not only money) is the most basic function of government. Whether there is an estate tax or not changes nothing.
It is the law (defined and enforced by the government) that allows you to will money at all. Without government you could as well say when you die the person who gets to the money first can keep it. The government is also what protects your property rights in the first place.
Currently, the government says the persons defined in your will deserve most of your money if die (actually all up to a very generous threshold). What you want is that the government says the persons defined in your will deserve *all* of your money. No form of inheritance can be in any way be regarded as natural law.
I don't find the argument silly at all. I'm for individual rights and you're not (at least in this case). From my perspective your argument is silly. Any majority can impose their will on a minority if you don't believe in individual rights. I don't agree with any forced discrimination whether it's religion, politics, skin color or level of wealth.
There's really only so much money that you need to pass on to your kids. Think about the average kid who grows up so rich that he or she inherits $11 million--do they really need that much money? And how much of it would they waste on luxuries for themselves?
I do think the government can spend money better than a spoiled rich kid.
It's not about 'need'. It's about the government basically deciding who 'deserves' money and who doesn't. The idea is ludicrous to me. Does some crackhead in Cleveland sonehow 'deserve' the money more? Would that person somehow spend that money better? The tobacco and alcohol companies would love that idea for sure. It never ceases to amaze me how poor people never seem to have a hard time buying $6 packs of cigarettes, cases of Bud-Light and lottery tickets...
This argument is really silly. Deciding who deserves to own what (not only money) is the most basic function of government. Whether there is an estate tax or not changes nothing.
It is the law (defined and enforced by the government) that allows you to will money at all. Without government you could as well say when you die the person who gets to the money first can keep it. The government is also what protects your property rights in the first place.
Currently, the government says the persons defined in your will deserve most of your money if die (actually all up to a very generous threshold). What you want is that the government says the persons defined in your will deserve *all* of your money. No form of inheritance can be in any way be regarded as natural law.
I don't find the argument silly at all. I'm for individual rights and you're not (at least in this case). From my perspective your argument is silly. Any majority can impose their will on a minority if you don't believe in individual rights. I don't agree with any forced discrimination whether it's religion, politics, skin color or level of wealth.
Saying I am against individual rights and you are for them is not accurate, though.
Property always leads to conflicting individual rights - for example, why should it be a right for one person to own more property than he can ever make use of and not a right for me to freely traverse and partake of any currently unused land? Should it be my right to put my waste into any running water on my own land? Who has more rights to a piece of land? Someone who inherited it and has never set foot on it, or the person who leased it and farmed it for 40 years? Those are not trivial questions.
Claiming something as property always limits the freedom of other persons - to some degree this is beneficial and acceptable, and in other cases it is not. It is the job of society and government to decide on that degree. It is not true that you are for individual rights and I am not; you just have an overly simple view of the right to own property (which I agree should exist in some form).
Speaking of the lottery, there's a 'tax' that very much hits the poor harder than the rich. I'd personally love it if the Democrats addressed that in the future...
The only thing I want addressed about it is I think people should only be able to claim and purchase lottery tickets between 3 and 5 am. On a weekly basis I stand in line at a gas station so someone can claim their tickets and buy new ones. It a ridiculous waste of time for everyone else in the store.
As for the lottery, it is mostly state (or multi-state) based and is usually used to fund a certain project or function of state governments. Stadiums, wildlife preservation, etc etc etc.
That's what they're supposedly used to fund. I don't buy it, however. Even if they do exactly what they're supposed to they still tax the poor more than the rich. The tobacco tax and alcohol tax also.
Edit: Gasoline tax, phone tax and utility taxes likewise...
If there is no estate tax then the interest alone on these multi-million dollar fortunes will perpetuate these rich families forever.
There's no such thing as successful trickle down economics. A rich billionaire keeping an extra 100 million dollars does nothing for anyone.
Some of the most popular parts of the government are socialism such as social security, medicare. You like roads? Why would a business build one to your house? You like Firemen putting out the fire on your house and not demanding to be paid first?
Tough shit. The government didn't earn the money so why exactly do they deserve to take it? I don't get it...
The government has no right to pick who gets to keep their money and who doesn't. This is my main beef with socialism.
"The government" is not a Them. It's us. We decide. You, me, and a couple hundred million Americans. The federal budget and taxation, specifically, is the purview of Congress--an elected, representative body.
Speaking of the lottery, there's a 'tax' that very much hits the poor harder than the rich. I'd personally love it if the Democrats addressed that in the future...
On this, we agree. State-run lotteries are effectively regressive taxes on the poor. If for no other reason, they should be shunned as poor government.
Anarchy is free, society costs money. That's where taxes come in.
Multinational corporations are fine with us all being wage slaves which is honestly not far from where we are now. Private corporations running things would be just fine with child labor, no education, etc. They are short-sighted and would dump toxic waste in your water if it would help the quarterly profit margins.
If you don't like how the government is spending money then as @CamDawg says you have a voice in who is elected. It could even be you who could be elected. Take back the power from those who have convinced you that you have no choice.
If there is no estate tax then the interest alone on these multi-million dollar fortunes will perpetuate these rich families forever.
There's no such thing as successful trickle down economics. A rich billionaire keeping an extra 100 million dollars does nothing for anyone.
Some of the most popular parts of the government are socialism such as social security, medicare. You like roads? Why would a business build one to your house? You like Firemen putting out the fire on your house and not demanding to be paid first?
Who says it's supposed to do something for everyone? It's great if the rich agree but what right do the majority have to demand it? I'm sorry, I just can't go there. If the government wants more money they CAN print more. Inflation affects everybody equally. On that there is no argument.
If a business want to stay in business they would absolutely want good roads. If the government didn't provide it then they'd have to take of it themselves if they want people to get there. Government is necessary for the macro problems, not the micro.
Also, a billionaire spends a Hell of a lot more than a non-billionaire. If they don't then they're skinflints. Being a skinflint isn't against the law however. Again, the government can function perfectly well without their money. The people that DO spend will make up for them.
I just don't agree, and never will, that because I'm not rich I'm somehow entitled to money from those that are. The money I've earned, or not earned, has been because of me and my decisions. It hasn't been given to me and I sure as Hell don't want it taken away from me...
@CamDawg ""The government" is not a Them. It's us. We decide. You, me, and a couple hundred million Americans. . "
Have you looked outside recently? I think this is firmly out the window.
'We' decide because of the government we have. That kind of attitude is relatively recent in the grand scale of things and is actually pretty precarious. The wealthy aren't going to sit around and wait for the pitchforks. I don't even disagree with them objecting to rule by majority. A moderate position similar to a lot of Europe might be a solution but even that hasn't eliminated 'old money' pretty much holding the power.
With 7 billion people on the planet, it's impossible for everybody to be rich or even middle class. It's not 'fair' but it's reality. The more people there are, the less 'fair' things will be. There is no way around it. Africa is the last frontier as far as 'modernism' is concerned. After they've entered the 21st century there will be no more cheap labor to exploit. Things will naturally become more 'fair' after that. Things are changing for the better on their own. Trying to force it will lead to violence. Violence leads to chaos. Chaos, by it's very nature, can go either direction on the spectrum with little chance of predicting it.
Liberal - I want change. Conservative - Things are OK the way they are. Radical - I want change right now and damn the consequences! Reactionary - Things were perfect x years ago and I demand to move the clock back to then! Moderate - Change is ok as long as it doesn't disrupt things too much.
I'm sure there are variants but those seem to be the major political views...
Anarchy is free, society costs money. That's where taxes come in.
Multinational corporations are fine with us all being wage slaves which is honestly not far from where we are now. Private corporations running things would be just fine with child labor, no education, etc. They are short-sighted and would dump toxic waste in your water if it would help the quarterly profit margins.
If you don't like how the government is spending money then as @CamDawg says you have a voice in who is elected. It could even be you who could be elected. Take back the power from those who have convinced you that you have no choice.
Anarchy is also sort of free for the wealthy since they're the only ones who have the money to hire people to protect themselves. As a result of that, in anarchy only the wealthy end up holding power at all. Just sayin'...
Comments
They are constantly coming with subtle (sometimes) military threats to the Baltic and Scandinavian countries. I don't think they will actually do anything like occupy Gotland as some fear. I think they just want to remind everyone that they can if they want to. It's a twisted way to maintain peace.
Like how Trump told Truckers that repealing the Estate to tax was good for mom and pop small businesses when it only applies to estates with more than $11 million in assets for married couples. If the Republicans do away with that one, which it looks like they will, expect to see a lot more rich families owning the rest of us as they even more freely pass their fortunes to their kids.
The goal is also, I think, deeper than people generally consider. American can, and has, survived incompetents in government before. The real, and lasting, damage being done is to American institutions. Meritless aspersions about the integrity of Mueller or his investigation, threatening to use the DOJ against political opponents, subverting due process--all of these undermine the rule of law, and this is the real danger to American democracy. The oaths of American military and elected officials are to the constitution, and with good reason.
The estate tax only comes in to play for exceedingly wealthy people--even when it comes into effect, the majority of wealth will still be passed to their children.
The government has no right to pick who gets to keep their money and who doesn't. This is my main beef with socialism.
I do think the government can spend money better than a spoiled rich kid.
It is the law (defined and enforced by the government) that allows you to will money at all. Without government you could as well say when you die the person who gets to the money first can keep it. The government is also what protects your property rights in the first place.
Currently, the government says the persons defined in your will deserve most of your money if die (actually all up to a very generous threshold). What you want is that the government says the persons defined in your will deserve *all* of your money. No form of inheritance can be in any way be regarded as natural law.
As for the lottery, it is mostly state (or multi-state) based and is usually used to fund a certain project or function of state governments. Stadiums, wildlife preservation, etc etc etc.
Property always leads to conflicting individual rights - for example, why should it be a right for one person to own more property than he can ever make use of and not a right for me to freely traverse and partake of any currently unused land? Should it be my right to put my waste into any running water on my own land? Who has more rights to a piece of land? Someone who inherited it and has never set foot on it, or the person who leased it and farmed it for 40 years? Those are not trivial questions.
Claiming something as property always limits the freedom of other persons - to some degree this is beneficial and acceptable, and in other cases it is not. It is the job of society and government to decide on that degree. It is not true that you are for individual rights and I am not; you just have an overly simple view of the right to own property (which I agree should exist in some form).
Edit: Gasoline tax, phone tax and utility taxes likewise...
There's no such thing as successful trickle down economics. A rich billionaire keeping an extra 100 million dollars does nothing for anyone.
Some of the most popular parts of the government are socialism such as social security, medicare. You like roads? Why would a business build one to your house? You like Firemen putting out the fire on your house and not demanding to be paid first?
Multinational corporations are fine with us all being wage slaves which is honestly not far from where we are now. Private corporations running things would be just fine with child labor, no education, etc. They are short-sighted and would dump toxic waste in your water if it would help the quarterly profit margins.
If you don't like how the government is spending money then as @CamDawg says you have a voice in who is elected. It could even be you who could be elected. Take back the power from those who have convinced you that you have no choice.
Have you looked outside recently? I think this is firmly out the window.
If a business want to stay in business they would absolutely want good roads. If the government didn't provide it then they'd have to take of it themselves if they want people to get there. Government is necessary for the macro problems, not the micro.
Also, a billionaire spends a Hell of a lot more than a non-billionaire. If they don't then they're skinflints. Being a skinflint isn't against the law however. Again, the government can function perfectly well without their money. The people that DO spend will make up for them.
I just don't agree, and never will, that because I'm not rich I'm somehow entitled to money from those that are. The money I've earned, or not earned, has been because of me and my decisions. It hasn't been given to me and I sure as Hell don't want it taken away from me...
With 7 billion people on the planet, it's impossible for everybody to be rich or even middle class. It's not 'fair' but it's reality. The more people there are, the less 'fair' things will be. There is no way around it. Africa is the last frontier as far as 'modernism' is concerned. After they've entered the 21st century there will be no more cheap labor to exploit. Things will naturally become more 'fair' after that. Things are changing for the better on their own. Trying to force it will lead to violence. Violence leads to chaos. Chaos, by it's very nature, can go either direction on the spectrum with little chance of predicting it.
My $0.02 worth...
Conservative - Things are OK the way they are.
Radical - I want change right now and damn the consequences!
Reactionary - Things were perfect x years ago and I demand to move the clock back to then!
Moderate - Change is ok as long as it doesn't disrupt things too much.
I'm sure there are variants but those seem to be the major political views...