(06-14-2019 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

The songs sums it up nicely:
"Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Til there are no
Rich no more"

Apparently when the song came out in 1971, the "creative" classes were very bothered by the last line of that verse. As we know, those classes only approve of trenchantness that they agree with.

(06-14-2019 10:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 07:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 01:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='Rice93' pid='16145298' dateline='1560482823']
[quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='16145120' dateline='1560472072']
[quote='Rice93' pid='16144719' dateline='1560454439']
[quote='georgewebb' pid='16144625' dateline='1560451170']

Getting tired of you telling me to not believe my lying eyes. I was here last June, I am here now. I see the difference. Maybe next year, when you have the June 2019 stats, you will too. Why the difference? Maybe more cash. Maybe global warming. Maybe mass delusion. You tell me why. You have the advantage of being 2,000 miles away and using last year’s data.

*sigh* I never said there isn't an uptick of visitors to Las Vegas in June, 2019. I would have no basis to take that position. Maybe there will be 5,000,000 visitors this month. Maybe it will be consistent with previous years. I am just saying that there is no evidence that I could find that suggests that Trump's booming economy has led to more people taking their extra money to Las Vegas when you compare it to 2016 (which is what you suggested in your original post).

Quote:So what are YOU doing with your extra disposable income? Spending it or saving it?

Increasing 529 contributions.

Isn't that rather selfish? Certainly would be better for society if you contribute that extra income to the IRS for the public good, rather than hoarding it for your own family's private gain. After all, you stated that you're not the kind of person who "deserves" extra income in the first place, so why are you hoarding it? And of course, hoping to convey the benefit of one's wealth to one's children is arguably the most deplorable sentiment of all.

The more we learn, the more it seems that you may not really be a "progressive" after all -- at most, one of their useful innocents.

Well... you just nearly repeated what I said.

"(probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity)."

Not sure why you cut that part out other than to take a shot at me for being deplorable.

Honestly I didn't see that part. I apologize.
To be clear, you're not deplorable by my standards; but you seem at least borderline deplorable by "progressive" standards -- which is a criticism of "progressivism", not of you.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes. If I was a completely principled person I'd find a way to get that tax windfall to the those that deserve it more. Which wouldn't be sending a check to the IRS, mind you.

But "progressives" insist on the opposite: they insist that letting people like you and me direct our money to causes of their choice is a WORSE use than that taking it for the IRS.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  In that way, and in many others, I have fallen short of the ideal. (I have, by the way, increased my charitablenbcontributions)

My own charitable contributions are disproportionately large and have been for years -- so much so that my accountant says they put me at some risk of audit. Do I win the virtue stakes?

Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

(06-14-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I see Lad has responded with his oh so predictable Socialist platform - workers of the world, unite!

Again, I refer everybody to The BLS statistics. Higher wages, more take home. Clearly unfair. More employment, less unemployment. How mean.


The Democrats don’t hate prosperity. Mainly, they don’t like to see it as a result of Trump’s actions, and they really don’t like it if it makes getting elected tougher.

Back to the agenda - bring down Trump, and don’t care who it hurts.

Caring about the welfare of workers is not socialist...

.... This is a great example of how the word socialism is needlessly thrown around...

Then why are so many Democrats "needlessly" eager to call themselves socialists? Two possibilities are:
(1) They are ignorant;
(2) They don't actually, or at least are not content to, "care about the welfare of workers"; rather, they hope to use the supposed "welfare of workers" as an excuse to control the economy, which is to stay, to control the people.

Henry Ford's maxim suggests (1) may explain it. On the other hand, historical precedent around the world suggests that (2) is pretty likely. In the case of some particularly high-profile, particularly stupid Democrats, both reasons are probably true.

How many elected democrats are eager to call themselves socialists? I see people like Bernie calling himself a democratic socialist, and he's very clear as to why he uses the two words.

(06-14-2019 10:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 07:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 01:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='Rice93' pid='16145298' dateline='1560482823']
[quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='16145120' dateline='1560472072']
[quote='Rice93' pid='16144719' dateline='1560454439']
[quote='georgewebb' pid='16144625' dateline='1560451170']

Getting tired of you telling me to not believe my lying eyes. I was here last June, I am here now. I see the difference. Maybe next year, when you have the June 2019 stats, you will too. Why the difference? Maybe more cash. Maybe global warming. Maybe mass delusion. You tell me why. You have the advantage of being 2,000 miles away and using last year’s data.

*sigh* I never said there isn't an uptick of visitors to Las Vegas in June, 2019. I would have no basis to take that position. Maybe there will be 5,000,000 visitors this month. Maybe it will be consistent with previous years. I am just saying that there is no evidence that I could find that suggests that Trump's booming economy has led to more people taking their extra money to Las Vegas when you compare it to 2016 (which is what you suggested in your original post).

Quote:So what are YOU doing with your extra disposable income? Spending it or saving it?

Increasing 529 contributions.

Some people use their gains to fund 529s. I am using my gains to help fund maintaining my invalid sister. Others may buy a car. Others may take a vacation to Vegas. Others may use it to fulfill a lifelong dream of playing in the World Series. Is this such a leap? *sigh*

Agree. But I'm really not the population that deserves the tax break IMO.

Some say that the people who actually pay the taxes are those who are deserving of any breaks.

Quote:I'll take it for my kids' 529 (probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity). My receiving a tax windfall doesn't help the issue of income inequality.

And what is happening is that you are receiving more freedom to do whatever with the income that *you* earned. 529 it, spend it on hookers and blow, give it to income challenged people, burn it, or invest it. Awesome and simple concept at its core.

The interesting thing is that for every action in that list above (but one) that money is providing a far better multiplier than the government friction stop that taxes represent overall.

And further, one would hope, is that you respect the freedom not only of *your* liberated money, but that of others as well.

I have no issue with you wanting to (and actually performing the action of) use(ing) it to affect income inequality. Your money, your right to to with it as you please. The main issue with progressive stances is that simple respect of those amounts for others typically isnt held.

And the main problem with conservatives stances is that they fail to publicly recognize that the government has an important role to play in keeping society running and providing for the common good - and that costs money.

We have a woefully neglected infrastructure system because Republicans have morphed into the party of every policy proposed by the Democrats is socialist or taxes must always be cut, deficit, integral services, etc. be damned.

We need better roads and bridges to make travel more efficient, the movement of most major electrical infrastructure underground so we do not need to waste millions in repair costs after every major storm, and so on.

(06-14-2019 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I see Lad has responded with his oh so predictable Socialist platform - workers of the world, unite!

Again, I refer everybody to The BLS statistics. Higher wages, more take home. Clearly unfair. More employment, less unemployment. How mean.


The Democrats don’t hate prosperity. Mainly, they don’t like to see it as a result of Trump’s actions, and they really don’t like it if it makes getting elected tougher.

Back to the agenda - bring down Trump, and don’t care who it hurts.

Caring about the welfare of workers is not socialist...

.... This is a great example of how the word socialism is needlessly thrown around...

Then why are so many Democrats "needlessly" eager to call themselves socialists? Two possibilities are:
(1) They are ignorant;
(2) They don't actually, or at least are not content to, "care about the welfare of workers"; rather, they hope to use the supposed "welfare of workers" as an excuse to control the economy, which is to stay, to control the people.

Henry Ford's maxim suggests (1) may explain it. On the other hand, historical precedent around the world suggests that (2) is pretty likely. In the case of some particularly high-profile, particularly stupid Democrats, both reasons are probably true.

How many elected democrats are eager to call themselves socialists? I see people like Bernie calling himself a democratic socialist, and he's very clear as to why he uses the two words.

I see many Democrats tripping over themselves to call themselves socialist and to characterize other First World democracies as socialist (which is pretty offensive to many citizens of those countries).

Why does Sanders use the term socialist if he doesn't mean it? Either he means it (which would be bad but honest); or he doesn't mean it but thinks the voters do (which would be bad and dishonest); or he doesn't know what he means (which come to think of it seems likely).

(06-14-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 07:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  *sigh* I never said there isn't an uptick of visitors to Las Vegas in June, 2019. I would have no basis to take that position. Maybe there will be 5,000,000 visitors this month. Maybe it will be consistent with previous years. I am just saying that there is no evidence that I could find that suggests that Trump's booming economy has led to more people taking their extra money to Las Vegas when you compare it to 2016 (which is what you suggested in your original post).


Increasing 529 contributions.

Isn't that rather selfish? Certainly would be better for society if you contribute that extra income to the IRS for the public good, rather than hoarding it for your own family's private gain. After all, you stated that you're not the kind of person who "deserves" extra income in the first place, so why are you hoarding it? And of course, hoping to convey the benefit of one's wealth to one's children is arguably the most deplorable sentiment of all.

The more we learn, the more it seems that you may not really be a "progressive" after all -- at most, one of their useful innocents.

Well... you just nearly repeated what I said.

"(probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity)."

Not sure why you cut that part out other than to take a shot at me for being deplorable.

Honestly I didn't see that part. I apologize.
To be clear, you're not deplorable by my standards; but you seem at least borderline deplorable by "progressive" standards -- which is a criticism of "progressivism", not of you.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes. If I was a completely principled person I'd find a way to get that tax windfall to the those that deserve it more. Which wouldn't be sending a check to the IRS, mind you.

But "progressives" insist on the opposite: they insist that letting people like you and me direct our money to causes of their choice is a WORSE use than that taking it for the IRS.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  In that way, and in many others, I have fallen short of the ideal. (I have, by the way, increased my charitablenbcontributions)

My own charitable contributions are disproportionately large and have been for years -- so much so that my accountant says they put me at some risk of audit. Do I win the virtue stakes?

Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

(06-14-2019 11:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I see Lad has responded with his oh so predictable Socialist platform - workers of the world, unite!

Again, I refer everybody to The BLS statistics. Higher wages, more take home. Clearly unfair. More employment, less unemployment. How mean.


The Democrats don’t hate prosperity. Mainly, they don’t like to see it as a result of Trump’s actions, and they really don’t like it if it makes getting elected tougher.

Back to the agenda - bring down Trump, and don’t care who it hurts.

Caring about the welfare of workers is not socialist...

.... This is a great example of how the word socialism is needlessly thrown around...

Then why are so many Democrats "needlessly" eager to call themselves socialists? Two possibilities are:
(1) They are ignorant;
(2) They don't actually, or at least are not content to, "care about the welfare of workers"; rather, they hope to use the supposed "welfare of workers" as an excuse to control the economy, which is to stay, to control the people.

Henry Ford's maxim suggests (1) may explain it. On the other hand, historical precedent around the world suggests that (2) is pretty likely. In the case of some particularly high-profile, particularly stupid Democrats, both reasons are probably true.

How many elected democrats are eager to call themselves socialists? I see people like Bernie calling himself a democratic socialist, and he's very clear as to why he uses the two words.

I see many Democrats tripping over themselves to call themselves socialist and to characterize other First World democracies as socialist (which is pretty offensive to many citizens of those countries).

Why does Sanders use the term socialist if he doesn't mean it? Either he means it (which would be bad but honest); or he doesn't mean it but thinks the voters do (which would be bad and dishonest); or he doesn't know what he means (which come to think of it seems likely).

He uses the term "democratic socialist" from what I've seen. But maybe he has changed?

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Isn't that rather selfish? Certainly would be better for society if you contribute that extra income to the IRS for the public good, rather than hoarding it for your own family's private gain. After all, you stated that you're not the kind of person who "deserves" extra income in the first place, so why are you hoarding it? And of course, hoping to convey the benefit of one's wealth to one's children is arguably the most deplorable sentiment of all.

The more we learn, the more it seems that you may not really be a "progressive" after all -- at most, one of their useful innocents.

Well... you just nearly repeated what I said.

"(probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity)."

Not sure why you cut that part out other than to take a shot at me for being deplorable.

Honestly I didn't see that part. I apologize.
To be clear, you're not deplorable by my standards; but you seem at least borderline deplorable by "progressive" standards -- which is a criticism of "progressivism", not of you.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes. If I was a completely principled person I'd find a way to get that tax windfall to the those that deserve it more. Which wouldn't be sending a check to the IRS, mind you.

But "progressives" insist on the opposite: they insist that letting people like you and me direct our money to causes of their choice is a WORSE use than that taking it for the IRS.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  In that way, and in many others, I have fallen short of the ideal. (I have, by the way, increased my charitablenbcontributions)

My own charitable contributions are disproportionately large and have been for years -- so much so that my accountant says they put me at some risk of audit. Do I win the virtue stakes?

Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Progressives have a monopoly on virtue competition?

(06-14-2019 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Caring about the welfare of workers is not socialist...

.... This is a great example of how the word socialism is needlessly thrown around...

Then why are so many Democrats "needlessly" eager to call themselves socialists? Two possibilities are:
(1) They are ignorant;
(2) They don't actually, or at least are not content to, "care about the welfare of workers"; rather, they hope to use the supposed "welfare of workers" as an excuse to control the economy, which is to stay, to control the people.

Henry Ford's maxim suggests (1) may explain it. On the other hand, historical precedent around the world suggests that (2) is pretty likely. In the case of some particularly high-profile, particularly stupid Democrats, both reasons are probably true.

How many elected democrats are eager to call themselves socialists? I see people like Bernie calling himself a democratic socialist, and he's very clear as to why he uses the two words.

I see many Democrats tripping over themselves to call themselves socialist and to characterize other First World democracies as socialist (which is pretty offensive to many citizens of those countries).

Why does Sanders use the term socialist if he doesn't mean it? Either he means it (which would be bad but honest); or he doesn't mean it but thinks the voters do (which would be bad and dishonest); or he doesn't know what he means (which come to think of it seems likely).

He uses the term "democratic socialist" from what I've seen. But maybe he has changed?

That's is why I think the third explanation (he doesn't know what he means) might be right.
- If he means socialism that is compatible with democracy: there is no such thing. Not now, not ever.
- If he means parliamentary democracy with lots of social insurance, entitlements, and so on, there is a time-honored name for that: social democracy.
But Sanders intentionally uses a term that is at best unnecessary, at worst delusional, and in either case confusing. If the public reacts critically to this term, it's hardly the public's fault.

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Isn't that rather selfish? Certainly would be better for society if you contribute that extra income to the IRS for the public good, rather than hoarding it for your own family's private gain. After all, you stated that you're not the kind of person who "deserves" extra income in the first place, so why are you hoarding it? And of course, hoping to convey the benefit of one's wealth to one's children is arguably the most deplorable sentiment of all.

The more we learn, the more it seems that you may not really be a "progressive" after all -- at most, one of their useful innocents.

Well... you just nearly repeated what I said.

"(probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity)."

Not sure why you cut that part out other than to take a shot at me for being deplorable.

Honestly I didn't see that part. I apologize.
To be clear, you're not deplorable by my standards; but you seem at least borderline deplorable by "progressive" standards -- which is a criticism of "progressivism", not of you.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes. If I was a completely principled person I'd find a way to get that tax windfall to the those that deserve it more. Which wouldn't be sending a check to the IRS, mind you.

But "progressives" insist on the opposite: they insist that letting people like you and me direct our money to causes of their choice is a WORSE use than that taking it for the IRS.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  In that way, and in many others, I have fallen short of the ideal. (I have, by the way, increased my charitablenbcontributions)

My own charitable contributions are disproportionately large and have been for years -- so much so that my accountant says they put me at some risk of audit. Do I win the virtue stakes?

Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

(06-14-2019 11:45 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Then why are so many Democrats "needlessly" eager to call themselves socialists? Two possibilities are:
(1) They are ignorant;
(2) They don't actually, or at least are not content to, "care about the welfare of workers"; rather, they hope to use the supposed "welfare of workers" as an excuse to control the economy, which is to stay, to control the people.

Henry Ford's maxim suggests (1) may explain it. On the other hand, historical precedent around the world suggests that (2) is pretty likely. In the case of some particularly high-profile, particularly stupid Democrats, both reasons are probably true.

How many elected democrats are eager to call themselves socialists? I see people like Bernie calling himself a democratic socialist, and he's very clear as to why he uses the two words.

I see many Democrats tripping over themselves to call themselves socialist and to characterize other First World democracies as socialist (which is pretty offensive to many citizens of those countries).

Why does Sanders use the term socialist if he doesn't mean it? Either he means it (which would be bad but honest); or he doesn't mean it but thinks the voters do (which would be bad and dishonest); or he doesn't know what he means (which come to think of it seems likely).

He uses the term "democratic socialist" from what I've seen. But maybe he has changed?

That's is why I think the third explanation (he doesn't know what he means) might be right.
- If he means socialism that is compatible with democracy: there is no such thing. Not now, not ever.
- If he means parliamentary democracy with lots of social insurance, entitlements, and so on, there is a time-honored name for that: social democracy.
But Sanders intentionally uses a term that is at best unnecessary, at worst delusional, and in either case confusing. If the public reacts critically to this term, it's hardly the public's fault.

There actually is a term democratic socialism, but you seem to be right that Sanders is trying to use a definition for democratic socialism that doesn't exist and is incorrect, and that he's much closer to a social democrat (based on my quick Googling/Wikipedia-ing).

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... you just nearly repeated what I said.

"(probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity)."

Not sure why you cut that part out other than to take a shot at me for being deplorable.

Honestly I didn't see that part. I apologize.
To be clear, you're not deplorable by my standards; but you seem at least borderline deplorable by "progressive" standards -- which is a criticism of "progressivism", not of you.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes. If I was a completely principled person I'd find a way to get that tax windfall to the those that deserve it more. Which wouldn't be sending a check to the IRS, mind you.

But "progressives" insist on the opposite: they insist that letting people like you and me direct our money to causes of their choice is a WORSE use than that taking it for the IRS.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  In that way, and in many others, I have fallen short of the ideal. (I have, by the way, increased my charitablenbcontributions)

My own charitable contributions are disproportionately large and have been for years -- so much so that my accountant says they put me at some risk of audit. Do I win the virtue stakes?

Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... you just nearly repeated what I said.

"(probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity)."

Not sure why you cut that part out other than to take a shot at me for being deplorable.

Honestly I didn't see that part. I apologize.
To be clear, you're not deplorable by my standards; but you seem at least borderline deplorable by "progressive" standards -- which is a criticism of "progressivism", not of you.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes. If I was a completely principled person I'd find a way to get that tax windfall to the those that deserve it more. Which wouldn't be sending a check to the IRS, mind you.

But "progressives" insist on the opposite: they insist that letting people like you and me direct our money to causes of their choice is a WORSE use than that taking it for the IRS.

(06-14-2019 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  In that way, and in many others, I have fallen short of the ideal. (I have, by the way, increased my charitablenbcontributions)

My own charitable contributions are disproportionately large and have been for years -- so much so that my accountant says they put me at some risk of audit. Do I win the virtue stakes?

Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Honestly I didn't see that part. I apologize.
To be clear, you're not deplorable by my standards; but you seem at least borderline deplorable by "progressive" standards -- which is a criticism of "progressivism", not of you.


But "progressives" insist on the opposite: they insist that letting people like you and me direct our money to causes of their choice is a WORSE use than that taking it for the IRS.


My own charitable contributions are disproportionately large and have been for years -- so much so that my accountant says they put me at some risk of audit. Do I win the virtue stakes?

Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

(06-14-2019 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 07:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  *sigh* I never said there isn't an uptick of visitors to Las Vegas in June, 2019. I would have no basis to take that position. Maybe there will be 5,000,000 visitors this month. Maybe it will be consistent with previous years. I am just saying that there is no evidence that I could find that suggests that Trump's booming economy has led to more people taking their extra money to Las Vegas when you compare it to 2016 (which is what you suggested in your original post).


Increasing 529 contributions.

Some people use their gains to fund 529s. I am using my gains to help fund maintaining my invalid sister. Others may buy a car. Others may take a vacation to Vegas. Others may use it to fulfill a lifelong dream of playing in the World Series. Is this such a leap? *sigh*

Agree. But I'm really not the population that deserves the tax break IMO.

Some say that the people who actually pay the taxes are those who are deserving of any breaks.

Quote:I'll take it for my kids' 529 (probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity). My receiving a tax windfall doesn't help the issue of income inequality.

And what is happening is that you are receiving more freedom to do whatever with the income that *you* earned. 529 it, spend it on hookers and blow, give it to income challenged people, burn it, or invest it. Awesome and simple concept at its core.

The interesting thing is that for every action in that list above (but one) that money is providing a far better multiplier than the government friction stop that taxes represent overall.

And further, one would hope, is that you respect the freedom not only of *your* liberated money, but that of others as well.

I have no issue with you wanting to (and actually performing the action of) use(ing) it to affect income inequality. Your money, your right to to with it as you please. The main issue with progressive stances is that simple respect of those amounts for others typically isnt held.

And the main problem with conservatives stances is that they fail to publicly recognize that the government has an important role to play in keeping society running and providing for the common good - and that costs money.

We have a woefully neglected infrastructure system because Republicans have morphed into the party of every policy proposed by the Democrats is socialist or taxes must always be cut, deficit, integral services, etc. be damned.

We need better roads and bridges to make travel more efficient, the movement of most major electrical infrastructure underground so we do not need to waste millions in repair costs after every major storm, and so on.

I double dog dare you to find a conservative who states 'fk building roads', or 'fk the bridges' in lieu of being taxed for those items.

Some of those 'infrastructure' plays you regale us with include the (in)famous Alaska bridge to nowhere, mind you. Or how about the fing California 'high speed rail' between farm communities extending only 50 mile.

I dont think there is a single conservative that disdains the 'core function' of government you wax so eloquently about --- defense, disaster relief, etc at the Federal level; roads, bridges, highways, dams at the less than Federal level.

But for all your yelping about 'how conservatives disdain infrastructure and core government', you amazingly gloss the fk over the actual monies spent on them. Compared to the gd social welfare state, the issues on 'infrastructure' are a friggin spit in the ocean when stacked against the fing 2.75 trillion or so in 'mandatory spending', of which about 85% is directed to Social Security and medicare/medicaid.

And yes, dont you gd call these as 'earned benefits' -- there is no fing way I will *ever* see any decent fraction of the monies I have pumped in the pyramid/redistributionist-centric scheme of Social Security.

On top of that it is the progressive ideology that wants to double down on things like 'hell lets pay for college for *everyone*' (on my back, mind you) and all of the other Madoff-like programs that are proposed by the progressive school of thought this election cycle.

So no, I dont buy your 'conservatives whine about roads' schtick --- most if not all conservatives I know are true business people and realize these are investments in the economy. The real issue is is the fing redistribution machine that the Federal government applies on a Manhattan-project scale each and every fiscal cycle. *That* is what most conservatives ***** about.

(06-14-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Some people use their gains to fund 529s. I am using my gains to help fund maintaining my invalid sister. Others may buy a car. Others may take a vacation to Vegas. Others may use it to fulfill a lifelong dream of playing in the World Series. Is this such a leap? *sigh*

Agree. But I'm really not the population that deserves the tax break IMO.

Some say that the people who actually pay the taxes are those who are deserving of any breaks.

Quote:I'll take it for my kids' 529 (probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity). My receiving a tax windfall doesn't help the issue of income inequality.

And what is happening is that you are receiving more freedom to do whatever with the income that *you* earned. 529 it, spend it on hookers and blow, give it to income challenged people, burn it, or invest it. Awesome and simple concept at its core.

The interesting thing is that for every action in that list above (but one) that money is providing a far better multiplier than the government friction stop that taxes represent overall.

And further, one would hope, is that you respect the freedom not only of *your* liberated money, but that of others as well.

I have no issue with you wanting to (and actually performing the action of) use(ing) it to affect income inequality. Your money, your right to to with it as you please. The main issue with progressive stances is that simple respect of those amounts for others typically isnt held.

And the main problem with conservatives stances is that they fail to publicly recognize that the government has an important role to play in keeping society running and providing for the common good - and that costs money.

We have a woefully neglected infrastructure system because Republicans have morphed into the party of every policy proposed by the Democrats is socialist or taxes must always be cut, deficit, integral services, etc. be damned.

We need better roads and bridges to make travel more efficient, the movement of most major electrical infrastructure underground so we do not need to waste millions in repair costs after every major storm, and so on.

I double dog dare you to find a conservative who states 'fk building roads', or 'fk the bridges' in lieu of being taxed for those items.

Some of those 'infrastructure' plays you regale us with include the (in)famous Alaska bridge to nowhere, mind you. Or how about the fing California 'high speed rail' between farm communities extending only 50 mile.

I dont think there is a single conservative that disdains the 'core function' of government you wax so eloquently about --- defense, disaster relief, etc at the Federal level; roads, bridges, highways, dams at the less than Federal level.

But for all your yelping about 'how conservatives disdain infrastructure and core government', you amazingly gloss the fk over the actual monies spent on them. Compared to the gd social welfare state, the issues on 'infrastructure' are a friggin spit in the ocean when stacked against the fing 2.75 trillion or so in 'mandatory spending', of which about 85% is directed to Social Security and medicare/medicaid.

And yes, dont you gd call these as 'earned benefits' -- there is no fing way I will *ever* see any decent fraction of the monies I have pumped in the pyramid/redistributionist-centric scheme of Social Security.

On top of that it is the progressive ideology that wants to double down on things like 'hell lets pay for college for *everyone*' (on my back, mind you) and all of the other Madoff-like programs that are proposed by the progressive school of thought this election cycle.

So no, I dont buy your 'conservatives whine about roads' schtick --- most if not all conservatives I know are true business people and realize these are investments in the economy. The real issue is is the fing redistribution machine that the Federal government applies on a Manhattan-project scale each and every fiscal cycle. *That* is what most conservatives ***** about.

I double dog dare you to find elected conservatives in Republican states and Congress that vote for increasing infrastructure spending at a rate that is needed to fix our aging system, or proactively fix issues like above-ground utilities.

Heck, it took Texas' conservatives 2 years to approved Harvey funding. TWO YEARS. And we still haven't done jack **** with regards to protecting the bay from an Ike-like event that could do catastrophic damage to the ship channel and our local economy.

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

Not only would they think that -- they would mandate that public healthcare for her, *and* everyone else that might need it. *That* is the core of progressivism.

I mean crap, they *mandated* what type of health insurance must be bought by each and every individual....... kind of instructive in that regard....

As for 'democratic socialism', in one of his tomes Ludwig Mises wrote quite deeply about it. Don't have it at my fingertips though.

The gist is that there was a third quadrant 'that was as far from socialism as it is capitalism, and has the characteristics of each'. His view was that it was collectivism as an economic theory (i.e. apart from capitalism and nearer to true socialist economics), and very near national socialism as it still provided for private property rights at the mercy of government programs. The system had the authorities answerable for their fkups via a democratic process.

He was not a huge fan of it, needless to say. I'll try and hunt it down.

Bernie's very recent speech on his views really tended to illuminate for me the very collectivist ideals that he sees inherent in it.

(06-14-2019 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

Not only would they think that -- they would mandate that public healthcare for her, *and* everyone else that might need it. *That* is the core of progressivism.

I mean crap, they *mandated* what type of health insurance must be bought by each and every individual....... kind of instructive in that regard....

Yes - the idea being that someone would not be forced into bankruptcy due to factors outside their control, or have to worry about whether or not they should call an ambulance because they can't afford the bill, and so on.

(06-14-2019 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

Not only would they think that -- they would mandate that public healthcare for her, *and* everyone else that might need it. *That* is the core of progressivism.

I mean crap, they *mandated* what type of health insurance must be bought by each and every individual....... kind of instructive in that regard....

Yes - the idea being that someone would not be forced into bankruptcy due to factors outside their control, or have to worry about whether or not they should call an ambulance because they can't afford the bill, and so on.

Good god you cant even discern the comment due to your left lurch. I have no issue that those cases are better -- but you are so fing over the left field wall you cant even bother to discern that pretty much *all* fing choice in health care has been wiped out.

*That* is the core of progressivism. So get the **** off your 'poor poor people you heartless bastards' schtick -- no one is maddy poo about that.

But the fact of the matter is that *everyone* now has the same piece of fing crap insurance. Again, progressivism at its top shining moment....

I *would* like to be discriminatory in *my* fing choice on the matter. *That* is the point. Good god. Read the fing sentence.