Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/opinion/trump-tax-plan.html

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/opinion/trump-tax-plan.html

Yeah, I don't like it that righwingers are stupidly corporatists.

Small government? Big corporations?


There's no huge functional differences between a huge behemoth of a government and the near-corporatocracy that we live in, now. Our lobbyists are generally part of these large groups, sometimes supported by multiple corporations, that influence our government.


5tu32CCA_Ig

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/opinion/trump-tax-plan.html

There's two reasons for con's "cucking" the rich:

1. Supply side economics, as the article says.

2. (The bigger reason, imo), Because of a belief that government is so inefficient/corrupt, that any excuse for raising taxes is just that: An excuse. Tax and raid the trough.

You just have to deal with the extra quick quote in my post: forgot to delete that when copying and pasting your post ID into my chopped up quote of your post.

Maybe just maybe the fact that big government has a monopoly on force and businesses don't might have something to do with the fact that some people are more concerned about the overreach of a government taxing them for programs or restricting their personal freedom in ways they cannot refuse without suffering retributive force, as opposed to a corporation they can choose not to give money to.

I don't trust the republicans either when it comes to protecting personal liberty, but the idea that big government is just some republican boogieman is a joke.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're not this naive. Surely you don't see how that's how our government acts, now? According to the research, that's what they do, now: operate as a corporatocracy and/or serving the top 10%.




I don't think I have much to say on this other than, in general, leftists in the US are for more big government. As are our rightests. Both "sides" are actually rightists. I'm being specific to our Dems and GOP.



I disagree with you, here. I don't think any GOP member would agree with your statement and almost all of them would agree that regulation is required. Just not a whole bunch of it. You'd be correct if you were talking about some of the members of the powerless libertarians.




I agree. Our GOP peeps claim "personal freedom" and "but mai foundin' fahtherz!" while standing for anything but actual Lockean Freedom:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-freedom/

And, no, I am not committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Locke was quite specific on what personal freedom meant.

I also think a lot of it is to do with perceiving wealthy people as "betters" in their aspirations. This is clear with how many view Trump, it is so submissive.

I cuck for classical liberalism/libertarianism. Big Federal government is a no no left or right.

Originally posted by Kurk
I cuck for classical liberalism/libertarianism. Big Federal government is a no no left or right. You see as a traditional European Socialist I love wealth redistribution.

I believe in wealth redistribution, but only if those with the wealth are obscenely rich, to the point of limiting other people's freedom. If the freedom of the individual is prized above everything else, it creates a paradox where the most successful individuals hoard their wealth and slowly create an environment where a huge amount of other people are unable to do whatever they want due to social and economic instability and inequality (see: much of the modern western world).

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
I also think a lot of it is to do with perceiving wealthy people as "betters" in their aspirations. This is clear with how many view Trump, it is so submissive.

The was a strange phenomenon, the "salt of the heart" and "heartland" people of America, which are bluecollar working class magically viewing a shady fat billionaire New Yorker as their champion; who was going to break the very system which made and keeps him filthy rich. They got conned and instead of admitting it, they double-down and continue to muck for him

Originally posted by Robtard
The was a strange phenomenon, the "salt of the heart" and "heartland" people of America, which are bluecollar working class magically viewing a shady fat billionaire New Yorker as their champion; who was going to break the very system which made and keeps him filthy rich. They got conned and instead of admitting it, they double-down and continue to muck for him Same with Brexiteers, over in the UK. They won't admit they have been duped and screwed the next generation.

Originally posted by Scribble
I believe in wealth redistribution, but only if those with the wealth are obscenely rich, to the point of limiting other people's freedom. If the freedom of the individual is prized above everything else, it creates a paradox where the most successful individuals hoard their wealth and slowly create an environment where a huge amount of other people are unable to do whatever they want due to social and economic instability and inequality (see: much of the modern western world). What about Bill Gates? He doesn't just hoard his wealth and sit on it like Scrooge McDuck. Obviously he's done great things as a philanthropist. How confident are you in the government's ability to accomplish anything close to what Gates has done? Eradicating Polio is nothing to take lightly.

Originally posted by Kurk
What about Bill Gates? He doesn't just hoard his wealth and sit on it like Scrooge McDuck. Obviously he's done great things as a philanthropist. How confident are you in the government's ability to accomplish anything close to what Gates has done? Eradicating Polio is nothing to take lightly. People like Gates are a great example of the wealthy using their money for the betterment of mankind. If people were naturally predisposed to being like Gates, then sure, let the companies have at it all they want. As it is, most businessmen are not like Gates, and business often actually hinders progress, e.g. oil and car companies blocking full integration of clean energy-reliant vehicles, and just the whole insanely maldeveloped class system in general.

Originally posted by Scribble
I believe in wealth redistribution, but only if those with the wealth are obscenely rich, to the point of limiting other people's freedom. If the freedom of the individual is prized above everything else, it creates a paradox where the most successful individuals hoard their wealth and slowly create an environment where a huge amount of other people are unable to do whatever they want due to social and economic instability and inequality (see: much of the modern western world).

It's far too late to fix the dam, I'm afraid.

We're already at a point where the lower/middle classes are being abandoned by businesses in favor of capturing money from the rich and "almost rich". Various supermarkets, for example, have adopted a strategy where all the affordable mass produced junk is replaced with much more expensive "premium" items that would appeal to people living along the shoreline and such..

That's also why drugs get hiked 1000%, and health care expenses keep skyrocketing. More profit in the 10% that has 99% of the wealth, even if that bottom 90% can no longer afford to give you their money (Which is pocket change in comparison.)

Originally posted by Kurk
What about Bill Gates? He doesn't just hoard his wealth and sit on it like Scrooge McDuck. Obviously he's done great things as a philanthropist. How confident are you in the government's ability to accomplish anything close to what Gates has done? Eradicating Polio is nothing to take lightly.

Bill Gates is a solid example but, unfortunately, a bit too anecdotal. Most who've amassed disgusting wealth and are incredibly affluent are not utilizing their wealth like Gates is.

I would argue that corporations are good for the poor.

Hear me out.

Corporations have this mass production advantage and an almost untouchable working formula in their services with the BEST people working to keep their automated service to people at the BEST price possible.

This over production means that goods and services could trickle down (mostly cheap materials like food) could go to literally homeless people with a combination of charity.

I was so surprised that when I was at a homeless shelter, I was expecting crap, but I got high quality food, things like corn flakes, milk, a toothbrush with paste. Now, obviously, it was the charity that made that available, but the actual production was due to corporations. This could also be applied to Union Carbide, US steel, Exon, and US oil. The mass production has indeed been beneficial to the poor.

IE, mass production trickles down further and further. I know, most of you might be thinking, democratic collectivism where robot politicians decide who is entitled to what rations, but on the other hand, poor people really do take corporations for granted in how so much production could create such growth over the last century.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
I would argue that corporations are good for the poor.

Hear me out.

Corporations have this mass production advantage and an almost untouchable working formula in their services with the BEST people working to keep their automated service to people at the BEST price possible.

This over production means that goods and services could trickle down (mostly cheap materials like food) could go to literally homeless people with a combination of charity.

I was so surprised that when I was at a homeless shelter, I was expecting crap, but I got high quality food, things like corn flakes, milk, a toothbrush with paste. Now, obviously, it was the charity that made that available, but the actual production was due to corporations. This could also be applied to Union Carbide, US steel, Exon, and US oil. The mass production has indeed been beneficial to the poor.

IE, mass production trickles down further and further. I know, most of you might be thinking, democratic collectivism where robot politicians decide who is entitled to what rations, but on the other hand, poor people really do take corporations for granted in how so much production could create such growth over the last century.

I'd argue they definitely can be in relatively isolated incidents and could be leaps and bounds greater for every income class.

Originally posted by The Lost
I'd argue they definitely can be in relatively isolated incidents and could be leaps and bounds greater for every income class. Well, they are beneficial because mass production. The scale of benefit is arguable, but overall, mass production and protection of corporations has benefited the poor.

We could debate at what scale they benefit the people and how we use governmental power to provide the BEST for the people, but that is a small government vs large government debate.

Originally posted by cdtm
It's far too late to fix the dam, I'm afraid.

We're already at a point where the lower/middle classes are being abandoned by businesses in favor of capturing money from the rich and "almost rich". Various supermarkets, for example, have adopted a strategy where all the affordable mass produced junk is replaced with much more expensive "premium" items that would appeal to people living along the shoreline and such..

That's also why drugs get hiked 1000%, and health care expenses keep skyrocketing. More profit in the 10% that has 99% of the wealth, even if that bottom 90% can no longer afford to give you their money (Which is pocket change in comparison.) I mostly agree that it's too late to fix, but I operate on a principal of "do as you'd do in a perfect world," so I still argue it could and should be strived for: that perfect balance of democracy, socialism, incredibly moderate authoritarianism, and a focus on what 'freedom' can be, the kind of freedom where everyone can do as they please as long as it doesn't disrupt everyone else's freedom. I know, though, it's a pipe dream and likely unachievable.

However, overall, you make a very fair, realistic, and unfortunate, point.

We live in a world where it is actually cheaper and more cost-effective to be rich. If that doesn't show how broken things are, I don't know what else does.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
but on the other hand, poor people really do take corporations for granted in how so much production could create such growth over the last century. The corporations are one of the main reasons that there's such a huge inequality divide (and thus so many homeless people) in the first place, you plum. Giving a bit of free food away should be a given, considering everything else they've done.

Originally posted by Scribble
I mostly agree that it's too late to fix, but I operate on a principal of "do as you'd do in a perfect world," so I still argue it could and should be strived for: that perfect balance of democracy, socialism, incredibly moderate authoritarianism, and a focus on what 'freedom' can be, the kind of freedom where everyone can do as they please as long as it doesn't disrupt everyone else's freedom. I know, though, it's a pipe dream and likely unachievable.

However, overall, you make a very fair, realistic, and unfortunate, point.

We live in a world where it is actually cheaper and more cost-effective to be rich. If that doesn't show how broken things are, I don't know what else does.

The corporations are one of the main reasons that there's such a huge inequality divide (and thus so many homeless people) in the first place, you plum. Giving a bit of free food away should be a given, considering everything else they've done. Corporations boosted the economies of western civilisation and have done so since medieval guilds; protection of goods.

The inequality divide is a byproduct. Thatcher made the point that the poorest under a capitalist system will ultimately live better lives than under a socialist system. For example, rednecks in the 80s lived better lives than eastern europeans in the 80s.

I made the anecdote of charity, but it's trickle down economics, bro.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Corporations boosted the economies of western civilisation and have done so since medieval guilds; protection of goods.

The inequality divide is a byproduct. Thatcher made the point that the poorest under a capitalist system will ultimately live better lives than under a socialist system. For example, rednecks in the 80s lived better lives than eastern europeans in the 80s.

I made the anecdote of charity, but it's trickle down economics, bro. Thatcher made that point, completely missing the other point that a further fusing of socialism and capitalism would probably make things even better for everyone. Just because the poorest in this country are 'better off' here than in another country, it doesn't mean that this system isn't still broken and that their lives aren't still marred by a lack of social mobility or opportunity and that they don't still live in abject poverty.

Being pissed on from a great height is preferable to getting shat on from a great height, but personally I'd just rather not get pissed on or shat on at all. I'm certainly not going to wave up to the suit with his knob out pissing on me and say "Well done bro, thanks for saving me from getting shat on! Top bloke! Capitalism for the win!"

Your own lack of social mobility combined with what could be described as your "cucking" for big business of late is an interesting element to this, though, so at least there's that.

Why is Foxsteak gone?

Dunno. I think Ziggy is next, though. Posting a thread promoting scientific racism is probably gonna net the dude a ban.

Foxsteak was a known sock. If they're a still-recent permaban, then their shelf-life is generally pretty short.

Originally posted by Scribble
Foxsteak was a known sock. If they're a still-recent permaban, then their shelf-life is generally pretty short.

Oh really? Who was Foxsteak?

Yeah, I'd imagine so. That's why I figure Supra might be on the chopping block, seeing as he was banned, like, a few weeks ago and has been shit-stirring. Who knows, though?

Originally posted by The Lost
Oh really? Who was Foxsteak?

Yeah, I'd imagine so. That's why I figure Supra might be on the chopping block, seeing as he was banned, like, a few weeks ago and has been shit-stirring. Who knows, though? Lord xyz/"It's xyz!"


Is Ziggy supposed to be Supra/TI? See I initially thought that but he seems a lot more extreme than anything that TI said in the past.

I thought Ziggy himself said the mods were going to allow him to return (as he is a sock) as long as he didn't promote conflict on here. Seems he's already violated the terms.

Originally posted by Scribble
Lord xyz/"It's xyz!"


Is Ziggy supposed to be Supra/TI? See I initially thought that but he seems a lot more extreme than anything that TI said in the past.

No, it's another sock of 'Ziggystardust', the casual racist guy.

Originally posted by Scribble
Lord xyz/"It's xyz!"


Oh God.

EDIT: nvm I misunderstood

Originally posted by Kurk
I thought Ziggy himself said the mods were going to allow him to return (as he is a sock) as long as he didn't promote conflict on here. Seems he's already violated the terms.

Yeah, looks like it. That thread was awful too. Whatever. Ultimately, it's obviously their decision.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it's another sock of 'Ziggystardust', the casual racist guy. Did he play guitar (in a NSBM band)?

Originally posted by The Lost
Oh God.

EDIT: Wait, what? It's Ziggy? Seriously? He just has... two accounts going at once? Wow, that is so weird. You sure?. Oh no I just meant Foxsteak, Foxsteak is xyz

Originally posted by Emperordmb


I don't trust the republicans either when it comes to protecting personal liberty, but the idea that big government is just some republican boogieman is a joke.
It's a bogeyman, America is incredibly deregulated compared to other developed Western nations. Like holy fck, we just passed a law protecting banks from legal persecution for fcking over civilians.

Originally posted by Scribble
Oh no I just meant Foxsteak, Foxsteak is xyz

haermm

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it's another sock of 'Ziggystardust', the casual racist guy.

I was wondering why a person so racist, who used to be engaged to an Arab Muslim woman, would be making all those posts on reddit.

My bad, TI. Please forgive me for confusing you with Ziggy.

Foxsteak was banned for racist shit.

"Black people are monkeys and whites are neanderthals.

I mean, this is hardly knew, but now Harvard can prove it with science. #americaneducation

Now prove the east asians have down syndrome."

And you don't think an all purpose offense statement like that was meant facetiously? I mean what race was he trying to promote the superiority or inferiority of?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And you don't think an all purpose offense statement like that was meant facetiously? I mean what race was he trying to promote the superiority or inferiority of?

oh stop. he spammed the forum with casually racist shit.

No, he's a well known racist, he has a history of it on his other accounts. He's mentally unwell and has been duped into believing racist crap.

If you factor in his previous known racism, then "I was just joking" doesn't really hold water

edit: Or what BF just said. Though I personally find his "I'm mental" to be a pathetic excuse he uses for his low behavior

Originally posted by Robtard
If you factor in his previous known racism, then "I was just joking" doesn't really hold water

edit: Or what BF just said. Though I personally find his "I'm mental" to be a pathetic excuse he uses for his low behavior

I get the feeling that you don't like Andrew at all. hmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
I get the feeling that you don't like Andrew at all. hmm

There's not much to like. He's a meanspirited idiot with a lot of misplaced confidence.

Originally posted by BackFire
Foxsteak was banned for racist shit.

"Black people are monkeys and whites are neanderthals.

I mean, this is hardly knew, but now Harvard can prove it with science. #americaneducation

Now prove the east asians have down syndrome."

It might be Ziggy's turn. You may want to take a gander at the Battle Bar thread in the Star Wars Versus forums...

Originally posted by The Lost
It might be Ziggy's turn. You may want to take a gander at the Battle Bar thread in the Star Wars Versus forums...

Yep.

Originally posted by The Lost
It might be Ziggy's turn. You may want to take a gander at the Battle Bar thread in the Star Wars Versus forums...

Visited. Learned something new that I didn't want to learn. Left.

This is on you for tainting my mind. You will answer for your sins.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Visited. Learned something new that I didn't want to learn. Left.

This is on you for tainting my mind. You will answer for your sins.

WHOA. Don't shoot the messenger, champ!

Two retards gone in one day. I chuckled. I'm sure in their rage-y incel minds they've "won" again or something.

Originally posted by Robtard
Two retards gone in one day. I chuckled. I'm sure in their rage-y incel minds they've "won" again or something.

"dude they were so triggered, right bro?"

Originally posted by Scribble
Thatcher made that point, completely missing the other point that a further fusing of socialism and capitalism would probably make things even better for everyone. Just because the poorest in this country are 'better off' here than in another country, it doesn't mean that this system isn't still broken and that their lives aren't still marred by a lack of social mobility or opportunity and that they don't still live in abject poverty.

Being pissed on from a great height is preferable to getting shat on from a great height, but personally I'd just rather not get pissed on or shat on at all. I'm certainly not going to wave up to the suit with his knob out pissing on me and say "Well done bro, thanks for saving me from getting shat on! Top bloke! Capitalism for the win!"

Your own lack of social mobility combined with what could be described as your "cucking" for big business of late is an interesting element to this, though, so at least there's that. The poorest aren't better off than in other countries than in the UK, they live on the streets sleeping rough just like everywhere in the world. It's why every Christmas I give 200 sterling to Crisis, have a monthly direct debit to Crisis and ask people instead of giving me Presents to gift Crisis whatever they can afford. The poor are in Poverty in the UK and the poorest live off the kindness of others.

Originally posted by Robtard
Two retards gone in one day. I chuckled. I'm sure in their rage-y incel minds they've "won" again or something. I had to look up incel, my new fave word for most of the alt-righters here. Thanks for that Rob.