Bernie and Jane Sanders, under FBI investigation

[Sebastian]

Trump is like Khan Noonien Singh? That's some whole other level Trump worship right there.. He's literally the fucking Ubermensch...?

You should be buried alive for that comment....

Burrriiieeddd Alliiiiiiivvee.....

Burrriiieeddd Alliiiiiiivvee.....

Burrriiieeddd Alliiiiiiivvee.....

Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect...

And like Khan, Trump's ego will be his undoing.

 

[-Akronite-]

Ah yes, the "taxes" excuse. So plunder is OK so long as it's a government entity run by Democrats that is doing the plundering. Gotcha.

Yes, Gouri used the old "explaining the concept by which we have an operational government" excuse, what a fallacy-riddled mess he is.

We tax at a progressive rate because it makes sense for those doing the best in this country to give the most back. Not all poor people simply made bad life decisions. Furthermore, someone having made some bad life decisions (more than likely paired with shitty circumstances) is not an excuse to let people live in poverty or die because they can't afford healthcare OR deny them an education given that's the main mode of social mobility available.

I think it's great that you give to charity. Unfortunately, in the world we live in charities are only patches to a larger tear in society. People fall through the cracks. People, by the way, human lives, not just stereotypes unworthy of a decent livelihood.

It's kind of hilarious that you're trying to take the moral high road here. PLUNDER (yeah go ahead and keep using that word), how can we stand by while Bernie PLUNDERS the rich to give to the poor! Why should the government primarily benefit those that need help? ... Wait, what? You're literally arguing that the most well-off people in this country are the ones getting the raw deal and somehow liberals should feel bad for going after the rich when you're making horrible generalizations about the poor in this country. Fuck off with that.

 

[Cratylus]

Yes, Gouri used th

e old "explaining the concept by which we have an operational government" excuse, what a fallacy-riddled mess he is.

We tax at a progressive rate because it makes sense for those doing the best in this country to give the most back. Not all poor people simply made bad life decisions. Furthermore, someone having made some bad life decisions (more than likely paired with shitty circumstances) is not an excuse to let people live in poverty or die because they can't afford healthcare OR deny them an education given that's the main mode of social mobility available.

I think it's great that you give to charity. Unfortunately, in the world we live in charities are only patches to a larger tear in society. People fall through the cracks. People, by the way, human lives, not just stereotypes unworthy of a decent livelihood.

It's kind of hilarious that you're trying to take the moral high road here. PLUNDER (yeah go ahead and keep using that word), how can we stand by while Bernie PLUNDERS the rich to give to the poor! Why should the government primarily benefit those that need help? ... Wait, what? You're literally arguing that the most well-off people in this country are the ones getting the raw deal and somehow liberals should feel bad for going after the rich when you're making horrible generalizations about the poor in this country. Fuck off with that.

I know, I'm such an insensitive prick for not willingly and eagerly wanting to give over even more of my income to a government who has demonstrated a penchant for waste, fraud, and abuse. By the way, my son needs some medical treatment. I could've paid for it myself, but I had to pay my cell phone and cable bill this month. I'll be over to your house later tonight to collect what's rightfully mine. You know, cuz my son needs it and we all have to chip in to help him.

Oh, and I almost forgot to add... Go fuck off YOURSELF.

 

[Randolphkeys]

In your world, the "greater good" ultimately outweighs my individual right to my own property and the fruits of my labor.

I've always liked your posts, Cratylus, so I'm going to call you on this. The U.S. does a better job of achieving this goal than any other in history, and you know this. We have discussed historical civilizations. Additionally, the taxation to the highest tax brackets in the U.S. has been dropping precipitously - cost of living factored in - even when Dems controlled 2/3rds of the national government. Nobody wants to take an individual's property by suggesting basic infrastructure. That's a trap for the uninformed.

 

[Cratylus]

I've always liked your posts, Cratylus, so I'm going to call you on this. The U.S. does a better job of achieving this goal than any other in history, and you know this. We have discussed historical civilizations. Additionally, the taxation to the highest tax brackets in the U.S. has been dropping precipitously - cost of living factored in - even when Dems controlled 2/3rds of the national government. Nobody wants to take an individual's property by suggesting basic infrastructure. That's a trap for the uninformed.

Look, Keys. I get it that people want to help the less fortunate. Hell, my wife and I give SUBSTANTIALLY more than the average household in this regard. Where I draw the line, however, is when I am FORCED to contribute to that goal when I know for a fact that the money that is forcibly taken from me will be wasted and used in an inefficient manner. Show me some examples of the government doing a better, more efficient job of spending money in a charitable fashion than private entities can and do, and then I might be more willing to listen to the progressive agenda.

Moreover, I've seen firsthand how the "top down" approach is significantly less efficient with regards to effectively combating problems like homelessness, hunger, drug abuse, etc. The closer the funds stay to the local and individual level, the less likely there is to be the waste, fraud and abuse, and the more likely there is to be more personal involvement.

What chaps my ass is people like Akronite calling me out as if because I don't support the progressive agenda somehow I'm evil, immoral, insensitive, and not doing my fair share. I guaran-damn-tee I'm doing far more than he is to help others who are TRULY needy. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

 

[DJTJ]

Look, Keys. I get it that people want to help the less fortunate. Hell, my wife and I give SUBSTANTIALLY more than the average household in this regard. Where I draw the line, however, is when I am FORCED to contribute to that goal when I know for a fact that the money that is forcibly taken from me will be wasted and used in an inefficient manner. Show me some examples of the government doing a better, more efficient job of spending money in a charitable fashion than private entities can and do, and then I might be more willing to listen to the progressive agenda.

Moreover, I've seen firsthand how the "top down" approach is significantly less efficient with regards to effectively combating problems like homelessness, hunger, drug abuse, etc. The closer the funds stay to the local and individual level, the less likely there is to be the waste, fraud and abuse, and the more likely there is to be more personal involvement.

What chaps my ass is people like Akronite calling me out as if because I don't support the progressive agenda somehow I'm evil, immoral, insensitive, and not doing my fair share. I guaran-damn-tee I'm doing far more than he is to help others who are TRULY needy. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

What do you donate to? Legit asking. Your concerns about "donating" to poverty when it's abused is super interesting when a large portion of well known non/not for profits misuse and abuse funds and really help so few people that it's almost a joke.

 

[Randolphkeys]

@Cratylus I normally stay in my own lane in one very important philosophical division: Tax and Spend vs. Anti-Governmental Regulation.

The reason I stay out is that I've had nothing but circular arguments in my life, they are philosophies on how government should be run. The tug of war between the two philosophies will outlast us both. That said, I've worked for privately funded non-profits. I'm obviously right now a publicly funded educator, union and all. My experience runs counter to yours because philanthropic ventures tend to be the experimental ground, not necessarily a success story. If you take the longview with my field, there's good ideas funded by private investors, and terrible ones. Eventually, the government engine thanks the privately funded ventures for an experiment that succeeds, and asks why so much money was wasted on the ones that were money down the drain... because truly conservative spending would dictate funding the status quo appropriately.

But it's a philosophical decision, I know I can't sway a hard-wired philosophy very easily, especially to a grown adult with success. Recognize my success equally in this discussion, that's all I ask.

 

[Wrathe]

What do you donate to? Legit asking. Your concerns about "donating" to poverty when it's abused is super interesting when a large portion of well known non/not for profits misuse and abuse funds and really help so few people that it's almost a joke.

His point isn't to invest in "miracle factories". His point, I believe, is fixing these issues top down isn't something that works well. Work it bottom up. Help the people closest to you, those in your community. Do it yourself. You see it get done, you see the change. If you can't do it yourself, know people who do locally, invest in them. See their results, be a part of your community that way.

I know your point was charities wastefulness and there's charts of how like 8 cents on a dollar actually goes to the charity, etc. I don't think he was talking about mailing a few dollars off to a charity, but actually driving change on a local level. Hoping the Government uses our taxes to fix our issues? Might as well light your $ on fire and then just wish really hard for change. It's about as effective.

 

[DJTJ]

His point isn't to invest in "miracle factories". His point, I believe, is fixing these issues top down isn't something that works well. Work it bottom up. Help the people closest to you, those in your community. Do it yourself. You see it get done, you see the change. If you can't do it yourself, know people who do locally, invest in them. See their results, be a part of your community that way.

I know your point was charities wastefulness and there's charts of how like 8 cents on a dollar actually goes to the charity, etc. I don't think he was talking about mailing a few dollars off to a charity, but actually driving change on a local level. Hoping the Government uses our taxes to fix our issues? Might as well light your $ on fire and then just wish really hard for change. It's about as effective.

"I get it that people want to help the less fortunate. Hell, my wife and I give SUBSTANTIALLY more than the average household in this regard."

"I guaran-damn-tee I'm doing far more than he is to help others who are TRULY needy. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on."

Literally two quotes in his quoted post. He's talking about donating, and he's acting like it makes him superior to everyone else posts after talking about how much he hates waseful government taxation.

But if you're voluntarily giving money to someone who isn't using it correctly, should you really be calling taxes theft if the end users abuse the system?

 

[Huber.]

What do you donate to? Legit asking. Your concerns about "donating" to poverty when it's abused is super interesting when a large portion of well known non/not for profits misuse and abuse funds and really help so few people that it's almost a joke.

Donates large amounts of money to RCF so people like Akronnite can insult citizens that don't wan't to give 50%+ of their income to others in safe environment.

 

[Wrathe]

"I get it that people want to help the less fortunate. Hell, my wife and I give SUBSTANTIALLY more than the average household in this regard."

"I guaran-damn-tee I'm doing far more than he is to help others who are TRULY needy. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on."

Literally two quotes in his quoted post. He's talking about donating, and he's acting like it makes him superior to everyone else posts after talking about how much he hates waseful government taxation.

But if you're voluntarily giving money to someone who isn't using it correctly, should you really be calling taxes theft if the end users abuse the system?

So are you making the argument that the government more efficiently wastes our money than whatever charities he'd respond back w/?

Just curious, is that data out there, the return of a $ when ran though the US government?

 

[-Akronite-]

I know, I'm such an insensitive prick for not willingly and eagerly wanting to give over even more of my income to a government who has demonstrated a penchant for waste, fraud, and abuse. By the way, my son needs some medical treatment. I could've paid for it myself, but I had to pay my cell phone and cable bill this month. I'll be over to your house later tonight to collect what's rightfully mine. You know, cuz my son needs it and we all have to chip in to help him.

You keep framing it this way as if that's how any of this actually works. I'd gladly pay more taxes if it meant your son and all the nation's sons and daughters didn't have to fear death for being poor.

Oh, and I almost forgot to add... Go fuck off YOURSELF.

Do it on the daily anyway, so sure.

 

[-Akronite-]

What chaps my ass is people like Akronite calling me out as if because I don't support the progressive agenda somehow I'm evil, immoral, insensitive, and not doing my fair share. I guaran-damn-tee I'm doing far more than he is to help others who are TRULY needy. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

I don't think you're immoral or evil dummy.

YOU came here trying to call out progressives as if they were morally repugnant for PLUNDERING the well-off and threw around talk of poor people making bad life decisions. Oh, but now you're a victim of my rhetoric?

Also, you can find countless examples of government programs helping people AND private entities being shitwads with their charitable donations. One isn't automatically better than the other. You shouldn't be so mad that there is a large portion of the country that wants to push tax dollars democratically toward programs that help those in need or spreads out the cost of living. It's not as if you're some pure libertarian that wants to get rid of emergency services and shit, we just disagree on where we draw the line and devote our attention in government.

I'd like to live in a world where we don't even need charities to help people pay medical bills and shit. But I'm happy that you put your money where your mouth is and give to causes, because it shows that you actually believe what you're saying rather than being some asshole that just wants lower taxes.

 

[-Akronite-]

Donates large amounts of money to RCF so people like Akronnite can insult citizens that don't wan't to give 50%+ of their income to others in safe environment.

Donates large amounts of money to RCF so people like Huber can shitpost memes and transparently troll while pretending they're part of the conversation.

 

[Wrathe]

You keep framing it this way as if that's how any of this actually works. I'd gladly pay more taxes if it meant your son and all the nation's sons and daughters didn't have to fear death for being poor.



Do it on the daily anyway, so sure.

No one can argue against utopia, seriously. I mean no poor? No fear of death? That's amazing? Where do we all sign up? You think people DON'T want this? Honestly? You guys act like anyone who shares a conservative view doesn't want these things.

We disagree on how to get them.

You want to take from the rich and give to the poor, I get it. I liked the Robin Hood character too. And just like in his book, it's important to label people w/ money as evil, that way it's justified in taking from them.

Now in this case, the rich isn't the King and his Castle, unfairly taxing his people for his own gain. In fairy tales, Kings are evil because they unfairly tax their people to squalor in the name of the Kingdom. The people wither, starve, and die; while the King enjoys his riches.

What's odd, is that story sounds MORE like the one you're proposing and not really the direction we feel would solve our pains.

I think the fault, however, is when we talk to people, we assume their utopia is our dystopia and "talk" from there.