Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[peteblue]

What kills me regarding this issue of fairness is the uneven distribution of wealth in this country: the bottom 80% of americans own just 7% of the wealth in the USA. To me, I got no problem having my taxes go to those who can't afford health care, but I really dislike that we have slashed corporate tax and given tax cuts to the wealthy. How is that fair?

Indeed. I think I read that the top 40 wealthiest individuals in the world have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the worlds population. This is patently wrong, but we have today seen a footballer go to UTD on a weekly wage of £600,000.....there is no fairness and personally I would hope that we could put a stop to this obscene scenario and try and get people on a more equitable basis....but it’s a pipe dream, it won’t happen, and the difference will only increase under whatever governments......

 

[Pettifogger]

What kills me regarding this issue of fairness is the uneven distribution of wealth in this country: the bottom 80% of americans own just 7% of the wealth in the USA. To me, I got no problem having my taxes go to those who can't afford health care, but I really dislike that we have slashed corporate tax and given tax cuts to the wealthy. How is that fair?

Because our corporate taxes were high and the cuts are already resulting in major American companies planning to repatriate money to the country?

People tout these inequality statistics as though the bottom 80% are truly struggling to get by. That reality is true for a very small sliver of that number.

 

[Pettifogger]

I just hate these simplistic arguments. Here's a question for you, if it's so great to be in the buckets you describe, would you switch places with those people?

I'm being serious

Sometimes the cost of being successful in a civilized society is to provide for those without. Firstly, it's humane. Secondly it will help benefit society in the long run. Thirdly, it'll keep me from getting stood up against the wall at the time of reckoning.

As for the safety nets argument, well, I just hope i'm dead before the proletariat finally comes to its senses decades from now and burns everything to the ground.

I just look around and see this ever-rising income inequality is not sustainable.

Sorry, I"m super jaded right now after getting out of about 8 hours of audit committee and Board meetings.

I just find it so amusing that my arguments are simplistic, but it's a no-brainer that America should have a socialized health system where more burden is placed on those with means. I'd say I hate that level of hypocrisy, but I'm entirely used to it, so it doesn't really bother me.

Maybe it is the responsibility of those who have means to provide for those without. Nobody in this country is keeping you and similarly-minded people from doing it.
Moreover, our argument would lead an alien to believe we're Venezuela over here, and that the majority of the bottom 50% in this country didn't have multiple flat screen TVs, cars, kids going to college, etc.

To the extent you're worried about your safety at the hands of the masses, how is that not an indictment of the masses? You seem to be bizarrely conceding that the moral high ground belongs to a great many who could produce, but don't.

 

[Pettifogger]

Half of US households don't pay taxes? Come on now...

I'm am pleased to read you believe in safety nets. Providing quality health care to all is in the best interest of all and there is absolutely no reason (other than political/financial interest) that a nation as wealthy as the United States cannot (or should not) do so.

The conversation should not be "can the US afford this" or "is it fair or unfair" or any other diversion. It should be how can the resources already dedicated to health care be directed in such a way that maximizes positive, sustainable healthy outcomes for the most number of citizens possible. Private, for-profit health care systems can be a part of that discussion but we must acknowledge first and foremost that the fundamental interest (access to health care) is never going to be best served using such systems.

Avoiding doing what is right or best for all due to a concern over abuse of the system is, with all respect, a cop out. First things first. Work to find a solution that is best for all and then build in safeguards to protect it. When human nature inevitably mucks up the safeguards, revisit the safeguards and implement new ones while punishing those who abuse the system.

1) Yes, only half of households pay income tax (roughly). Feel free to fact check. I think the last data on that is a couple years old now, but I can't imagine there are any drastic changes yet.

2) I would be more open to these "do the right thing" arguments if they weren't often from a contingent of the country that thinks my "do the right thing" values are antiquated and stupid. Not to drudge it up again, but I think it's backwards to use abortion for convenience. I think it's ridiculous for our inefficient government to impose minimal, often unenforced requirements on many of those who receive the benefits of everyone else's labors.

Your position on doing the right thing and then settling on safeguards has some appeal to me. But, look at safety nets in this country over the last 8-10 years, and the general trajectory of our politics. Why would someone like me believe that keeping those safeguards in place and enforced is feasibly/likely?

 

[Khalekan]

Indeed. I think I read that the top 40 wealthiest individuals in the world have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the worlds population. This is patently wrong, but we have today seen a footballer go to UTD on a weekly wage of £600,000.....there is no fairness and personally I would hope that we could put a stop to this obscene scenario and try and get people on a more equitable basis....but it’s a pipe dream, it won’t happen, and the difference will only increase under whatever governments......

Aye up.....you will soon be changing your name to petered, Pete

Well said, Brother....

 

[verreauxi]

Because our corporate taxes were high and the cuts are already resulting in major American companies planning to repatriate money to the country?

"Repatriate" money to the country? I'm assuming you mean, in principle, they will take the money they save in taxes and use it to hire more US citizens/build more factories in the USA...is that what you mean?

 

[verreauxi]

People tout these inequality statistics as though the bottom 80% are truly struggling to get by. That reality is true for a very small sliver of that number.

The point of these statistics is to put into focus the disparity of wealth, not the misperceived or real plight of the earners. And the disparity is growing, not shrinking

The bottom 50%--not a small sliver--made 25K in 2014. I would suggest that folks earning 25K a year would definitely be categorized as "struggling to get by", especially if they have a child. More generally, it's difficult to see how this disparity is a good thing for the USA. And it seems difficult to justify cutting taxes for the super-wealthy when the bottom 50% makes only about 25-30K a year.

 

[ilikecheese]

Because our corporate taxes were high and the cuts are already resulting in major American companies planning to repatriate money to the country?

People tout these inequality statistics as though the bottom 80% are truly struggling to get by. That reality is true for a very small sliver of that number.

I found it so disheartening to see Walmart use the tax cut as a means to give bonuses...while almost in the same breath announcing the closure of 45+ Sam's Club stores. Thanks for the rubber bone.

 

[BlueTX]

1) Yes, only half of households pay income tax (roughly). Feel free to fact check. I think the last data on that is a couple years old now, but I can't imagine there are any drastic changes yet.

2) I would be more open to these "do the right thing" arguments if they weren't often from a contingent of the country that thinks my "do the right thing" values are antiquated and stupid. Not to drudge it up again, but I think it's backwards to use abortion for convenience. I think it's ridiculous for our inefficient government to impose minimal, often unenforced requirements on many of those who receive the benefits of everyone else's labors.

Your position on doing the right thing and then settling on safeguards has some appeal to me. But, look at safety nets in this country over the last 8-10 years, and the general trajectory of our politics. Why would someone like me believe that keeping those safeguards in place and enforced is feasibly/likely?

1) Income tax is not what you originally stated.
2) I never said you or your values were antiquated or stupid nor have I said anything about abortion so have no idea why these are relevant matters.

If suboptimal historical performance in the pursuit of a good idea or righteous cause stops an individual or the collective society from pursuing the good idea or righteous cause, well, what can I say? Fie on thee.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

I just find it so amusing that my arguments are simplistic, but it's a no-brainer that America should have a socialized health system where more burden is placed on those with means. I'd say I hate that level of hypocrisy, but I'm entirely used to it, so it doesn't really bother me.

Maybe it is the responsibility of those who have means to provide for those without. Nobody in this country is keeping you and similarly-minded people from doing it.
Moreover, our argument would lead an alien to believe we're Venezuela over here, and that the majority of the bottom 50% in this country didn't have multiple flat screen TVs, cars, kids going to college, etc.

To the extent you're worried about your safety at the hands of the masses, how is that not an indictment of the masses? You seem to be bizarrely conceding that the moral high ground belongs to a great many who could produce, but don't.

It's taken me a lifetime to get to this point, but my eyes are wide open to the fact that despite my wish that I am where I am b/c of sheer grit, determination, hard work and all the typical American cliches, I must recognize the incredible amount of luck that has me here. Yes, I made some good choices along the way, but that doesn't excuse the luck factor.

At the very least, it's incredibly arrogant to think otherwise.

 

[Ruairi77]

Sessions interviewed by Mueller last week, probably a whole load of 'I don't recall'
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/us/politics/jeff-sessions-special-counsel-russia.html

 

[Pettifogger]

It's taken me a lifetime to get to this point, but my eyes are wide open to the fact that despite my wish that I am where I am b/c of sheer grit, determination, hard work and all the typical American cliches, I must recognize the incredible amount of luck that has me here. Yes, I made some good choices along the way, but that doesn't excuse the luck factor.

At the very least, it's incredibly arrogant to think otherwise.

I wasn't born on third base and convinced I hit a triple, so to speak. But many of our stories shouldn't be boiled down to merely "luck" or "privilege" and there is a considerable push back to attempts to do so in this country (rightfully so). There is a tendency on one side of this debate to discount that there may be 2, 4, 6 people behind that "privileged person," and to further ignore that most of us with some success didn't get here by simply riding generational wealth and showing up.

Now, there is also a tendency on the other side to pretend that grit and bootstraps would solve all the problems, and that isn't true either. But would more grit and "bootstraps" help bridge the gap? Probably, yes. And of course, it's my view that the government need not involve itself in remedying income inequality, and thankfully, there is strong evidence that most Americans still agree. For now, at least.

 

[Pettifogger]

1) Income tax is not what you originally stated.
2) I never said you or your values were antiquated or stupid nor have I said anything about abortion so have no idea why these are relevant matters.

If suboptimal historical performance in the pursuit of a good idea or righteous cause stops an individual or the collective society from pursuing the good idea or righteous cause, well, what can I say? Fie on thee.

No, not on me.

On those who will express romanticized views about what should happen knowing that deep down, they don't care at all about how it happens or who they use to make it happen.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

I wasn't born on third base and convinced I hit a triple, so to speak. But many of our stories shouldn't be boiled down to merely "luck" or "privilege" and there is a considerable push back to attempts to do so in this country (rightfully so). There is a tendency on one side of this debate to discount that there may be 2, 4, 6 people behind that "privileged person," and to further ignore that most of us with some success didn't get here by simply riding generational wealth and showing up.

Now, there is also a tendency on the other side to pretend that grit and bootstraps would solve all the problems, and that isn't true either. But would more grit and "bootstraps" help bridge the gap? Probably, yes. And of course, it's my view that the government need not involve itself in remedying income inequality, and thankfully, there is strong evidence that most Americans still agree. For now, at least.

Now we are getting somewhere

My view is that the current administration has awoken a large minority to go out and steal all the second and third hand bootstraps from those who otherwise would use them, or have a chance to use them

We should do everything in our power to at the very least provide some bootstraps to all, recognizing that without any hope at all, societies cannot continue indefinitely

 

[Ruairi77]

Now, there is also a tendency on the other side to pretend that grit and bootstraps would solve all the problems, and that isn't true either. But would more grit and "bootstraps" help bridge the gap? Probably, yes. And of course, it's my view that the government need not involve itself in remedying income inequality, and thankfully, there is strong evidence that most Americans still agree. For now, at least.

So we need the government for the military but we should let the free market sort out income inequality?
Does this mean there should be no minimum wage?