2018 Midterm Election Thread

#2,001
#2,001
luthervol said:
2018’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States

Take a look. Pay particular attention to California and New York.

The states least dependent on Federal assistance are predominately blue.
The states most dependent on federal assistance are predominately red.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

Both have absurd taxes that their residents write off to the federal government. When that goes away those states might turn more red.
 
#2,002
#2,002
BeecherVol said:
Because he cant define "fair share".

It's best that its open ended in case you need to buy more votes later. "Fair share" may not seem fair enough in 10 years.
Click to expand...
What's that they say about a blind pig. Fair share will constantly be redefined, it's sort of a societal construct.
 
#2,003
#2,003
luthervol said:
100 / 100 or 50 / 50 is the same.
You view them as exactly equal. I gave you props. Even though I don't completely agree.
Click to expand...

And yet, if I had just given a 50/50, I wouldn't ave also told you how ridiculous it is. And I gave 100/100 as a subtle way to show that it isn't as simple as making a math formula add up. In a 1-100 formula, 100/100 is NOT the same as 50/50 any more than giving 150% effort is the same message as 100% effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and Obsessed
#2,006
#2,006
luthervol said:
What's that they say about a blind pig. Fair share will constantly be redefined, it's sort of a societal construct.
Click to expand...
It's a "concept" that you couldn't rationally defend. Let's not forget that. What it is in this context is your personal opinion, even though you've said that today's societal construct is wrong. So, you don't truly believe it's a societal construct. It's your personal opinion that you want enforced on others.
 
#2,008
#2,008
Blue states pay their “fair share” yet write it off on their taxes to the federal government. Makes ya wonder which states really get the most assistance.
 
#2,009
#2,009
Orange_Crush said:
Yes. Which you couldn't support, by the way. And we were talking fair share through tax burden. How can you use views on taxes as your personal indicator of a person's generosity and care for others if you also agree that volunteerism is a better expression of generosity than socialism?

I don't think you thought your views through very well. A person can be very personally charitable while not believing richer people OWE society more than anyone else. A person can be very personally charitable while believing that taxes/gov't are not the best or most appropriate way to help others.

Your blind adherence to socialism seems to have created irrational conclusions.
Click to expand...
I thought it through. A charitable person who believes richer people owe society no more than a poor person is still giving the "indicator". Of course a person can be very personally charitable while believing that taxes/gov't are not the best or most appropriate way to help others. I never said or even indicated otherwise.
Taxes are a given. How should the burden be shouldered? What is everyone's "fair" share? Back to square one.
 
#2,011
#2,011
SpaceCoastVol said:
So when are you going to give us a definition of 'fair'?

I guess never?
Click to expand...
He gave a general definition, it's just that he can't defend it. Thus, he has to call it his personal opinion. Then call it a societal construct, after having called the current societal construct "wrong", thus taking us back to an irrational personal opinion that he would see enforced on society as the society construct.

Well... It gets messy obviously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#2,013
#2,013
luthervol said:
I thought it through. A charitable person who believes richer people owe society no more than a poor person is still giving the "indicator". Of course a person can be very personally charitable while believing that taxes/gov't are not the best or most appropriate way to help others. I never said or even indicated otherwise.
Taxes are a given. How should the burden be shouldered? What is everyone's "fair" share? Back to square one.
Click to expand...
You're a bundle of confusion. Your beliefs melt when someone asks you to be rational and forces you to take them more than thumbnail deep.
 
#2,015
#2,015
luthervol said:
I thought it through. A charitable person who believes richer people owe society no more than a poor person is still giving the "indicator". Of course a person can be very personally charitable while believing that taxes/gov't are not the best or most appropriate way to help others. I never said or even indicated otherwise.
Taxes are a given. How should the burden be shouldered? What is everyone's "fair" share? Back to square one.
Click to expand...

The government needs to be gutted. We have entirely too many wasted departments sucking us dry. Way fewer departments mean way fewer federal employees needed. Cut government workers salaries. Cut military spending. Make the government smaller overall. Then the taxes wouldnt need to be so high. Do all of that and then maybe we could get a flat tax.

A rich person doesnt owe anyone anything in a truly free society. Regardless of how they got rich. If they inherited their money from a family member, why should that person be punished simply because of their lineage? If they worked hard to become rich, why should they be punished for their hard work?

Here is a scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, Orange_Crush and McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top