The Trump Presidency

Julio3000 said:
Hmm. Those sound like the kind of questions best answered by free people voting in free and fair elections!

Not exactly something Venezuela is known for, FWIW.

You act like this is either a hard question or some kind of steel trap gotcha. It's neither. It's the opposite. Seems to me there is always tension around taxation and social services, economic freedom vs. freedom from want, etc. I expect, in America, there always will be.

So how much? Unlike you, I'm not comforted by assuming I have the answers. Probably more than you'd be happy with, and probably less than your bolshier Scandinavians.
Click to expand...

That's all I needed to hear. You do have a line. Just like I do. Our lines are further apart, but I am not some heartless monster because my line is reached faster than yours.

The left seems to think that if a program is cut, the money disappears and the service dies. On the contrary - the money is put in the hands of private citizens - and I think that is a very good thing.

Me personally? I think it's immoral to run a deficit. That means we have to borrow or create money - thus punishing future generations who had no say in the matter. Do you agree?

Me personally - I think it would be immoral for me to rob a rich person and use the money to perform meals on wheels. Would you agree?
 
sturg33 said:
There's a lawmaker in Texas who wants to fine people for masturbating.

I'm certain julio would object to this - because it's a dumb lawmaker trying to dictate a citizen's life in order to improve the overall good (in his opinion).

But when it comes to taxes and what they're used for - by all means, let the lawmakers run wild. You know - for the overall good.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, because progressive taxation of one's income to fund the public good is exactly like infringing the autonomy of one's physical person for . . . um, why, exactly?
 
Julio3000 said:
Absolutely, because progressive taxation of one's income to fund the public good is exactly like infringing the autonomy of one's physical person for . . . um, why, exactly?
Click to expand...

See that's my point.

"The public good" in that law maker's opinion. Our government funds things like analyzing the mating habits of centipedes. They think that is worth confiscating money from citizens in order to serve the public good.

I don't think that serves the public good. I think not taxing people the amount of money would serve more good than that study.

This Texas lawmaker thinks he's helping the public good by forcing his own morality on the rest of us. I don't agree with him.

Per usual, my argument is consistent. Yours is picking and choosing what aligns with yours politics.
 
sturg33 said:
...

The left seems to think that if a program is cut, the money disappears and the service dies. On the contrary - the money is put in the hands of private citizens - and I think that is a very good thing.
Click to expand...

Because private citizens were doing a bang-up job cleaning up toxic ****holes before the EPA existed. Like private citizens with full agency and ownership of their bucks were providing clean water, electricity, and the polio vaccine to rural America. Or defeating fascism in Europe. Or providing health care to seniors and the indigent. Seriously, this is a game I can play ad infinitum.

Me personally? I think it's immoral to run a deficit. That means we have to borrow or create money - thus punishing future generations who had no say in the matter. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

I think it's never that clear-cut. There's room for flexibility, and, frankly, your position is the one appealing to emotion, contra your usual complaints about "the left."

Me personally - I think it would be immoral for me to rob a rich person and use the money to perform meals on wheels. Would you agree?
Click to expand...



Sure, boss, unless you're trying to [cue dramatic music and zoom camera] get me to admit that OMG TAXES ARE THEFT NO MATTER HOW NOBLE THEIR INTEN--errrgh!

That was a close call. You nearly had me, and this is only, like, the 259th time you've used the same conceit.
 
Julio3000 said:
Because private citizens were doing a bang-up job cleaning up toxic ****holes before the EPA existed. Like private citizens with full agency and ownership of their bucks were providing clean water, electricity, and the polio vaccine to rural America. Or defeating fascism in Europe. Or providing health care to seniors and the indigent. Seriously, this is a game I can play ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

sigh... as I mentioned earlier - there are some functions the federal government has uses for... but it has become an albatross. There is room to cut - and cut a lot

Julio3000 said:
I think it's never that clear-cut. There's room for flexibility, and, frankly, your position is the one appealing to emotion, contra your usual complaints about "the left."
Click to expand...

It is that clear cut. I'm about protecting individual liberty. when we create a deficit, we are forcing our spending on future generations who did NOT vote us into office or choose these programs. That is simply unethical. Ethics isn't emotional


Julio3000 said:
Sure, boss, unless you're trying to [cue dramatic music and zoom camera] get me to admit that OMG TAXES ARE THEFT NO MATTER HOW NOBLE THEIR INTEN--errrgh!

That was a close call. You nearly had me, and this is only, like, the 259th time you've used the same conceit.
Click to expand...

I have used that before. And yet again, can't ever get a response from anyone on it. Just mockery. If you answered the question directly, I think you would agree that it wouldn't be right to do that... but maybe I'm wrong.
 
sturg33 said:
See that's my point.

"The public good" in that law maker's opinion. Our government funds things like analyzing the mating habits of centipedes. They think that is worth confiscating money from citizens in order to serve the public good.

I don't think that serves the public good. I think not taxing people the amount of money would serve more good than that study.

This Texas lawmaker thinks he's helping the public good by forcing his own morality on the rest of us. I don't agree with him.

Per usual, my argument is consistent. Yours is picking and choosing what aligns with yours politics.
Click to expand...

Your opinion as stated above is also a value judgement, no? As to the public good?

In general, your opinion that the polity is better off if Dick Dollars keeps $1.00 of his millionth $1.00 earned, rather than .65--that's a value judgement too, isn't it?

Being consistent is fine, as long as you don't confuse it with being right in some cosmic sense. I think Emerson had some words about that.

What's ultimately funny about this is that only one of us is really trying to force his morality on the other. The chutzpah is admirable. You're accusing me (or pretty much every politician ever, or anyone who believes in representative democracy and taxes, I guess) of "trying to force my morality on the rest of us" while you simultaneously browbeat me for not agreeing with you that taxes are morally indefensible theft and that it is a moral chasm equivalent to the Fall for your monies to be confiscated by the government and used to study centipedes ****ing or whatever. Quit forcing your morality on the rest of us, dude.

You've already said that what separates us is degree. You've said that government is necessary, or near enough. That means it's going to be run with our money. Once you start gaming out how that's going to happen, it's pretty hard to avoid "picking and choosing based on politics."
 
Julio3000 said:
What's ultimately funny about this is that only one of us is really trying to force his morality on the other. The chutzpah is admirable. You're accusing me (or pretty much every politician ever, or anyone who believes in representative democracy and taxes, I guess) of "trying to force my morality on the rest of us" while you simultaneously browbeat me for not agreeing with you that taxes are morally indefensible theft and that it is a moral chasm equivalent to the Fall for your monies to be confiscated by the government and used to study centipedes ****ing or whatever. Quit forcing your morality on the rest of us, dude.
Click to expand...

LOL man Hawk was right that you like to twist.

How am I forcing my morality on you? I'm "forcing" nothing from the state. I'm advocating giving you more freedom to do with what you wish. You're advocating me less freedom to do with what I wish.

That's a really pathetic spin job, and I expect more out of you.

Also - you never did answer the question - but I'm no longer surprised
 
Julio3000 said:
Your opinion as stated above is also a value judgement, no? As to the public good?

In general, your opinion that the polity is better off if Dick Dollars keeps $1.00 of his millionth $1.00 earned, rather than .65--that's a value judgement too, isn't it?
Click to expand...

The (what I assumed was obvious) difference here is my opinion is having control over my life... where his opinion controls millions of lives.

You know how you support woman's right to choose? Gay marriage? Transgender bathrooms? I assume you do that because you don't think it's right that a bureaucrat should be able dictate the personal & private lives of people.

Neither do I. And that includes the wallet
 
Love me some "public good". The problem with taxing for the public good is that the people who determine what's in the public good are often people like Trump. Now your taxes are going to be used to build a wall.... for the public good. Good old representative democracy. 33.3 % want chocolate, 33.3 % want vanilla, 33.3% hate both, so everyone gets force fed chocolate!

5md1mltk5tly.jpg
 
Debating what is right and wrong without any real agreement as to what is right and wrong and why it is so and why it is so for everyone seems to just end in frustration.
 
sturg33 said:
The (what I assumed was obvious) difference here is my opinion is having control over my life... where his opinion controls millions of lives.

You know how you support woman's right to choose? Gay marriage? Transgender bathrooms? I assume you do that because you don't think it's right that a bureaucrat should be able dictate the personal & private lives of people.

Neither do I. And that includes the wallet
Click to expand...

But that's not really up for discussion. The government is going to dictate what happens to that man's wallet. The question being posed is how much the government should dictate what's in his wallet vs. what is in the wallets of others.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Love me some "public good". The problem with taxing for the public good is that the people who determine what's in the public good are often people like Trump. Now your taxes are going to be used to build a wall.... for the public good. Good old representative democracy. 33.3 % want chocolate, 33.3 % want vanilla, 33.3% hate both, so everyone gets force fed chocolate!

5md1mltk5tly.jpg
Click to expand...

Non sense. Who doesn't like chocolate?
 
I'm not a fan of cutting the Army CoE, otherwise that looks pretty good to me. Too bad congressional republicans don't have the balls to do it.
 
So long as States have the money to put people in prison for victimless crimes I will never find their cries about cuts legitimate. If they have the money for swat teams to raid homes of peaceful people who smoke pot then they have the money for after school programs. I am very fiscally conservative but if we have to spend then atleast let it be something positive. Meals on wheels is much better than swat teams raping and pillaging.
 
Pretty intense clown show going on re:Trump's wiretapping claims.

Yesterday Spicer cites a Fox News opinion host saying that GCHQ (British intelligence) spied on Trump at Obama's request.

GCHQ says hell no. WH reportedly apologizes to Brit ambassador, then denies that they apologize. Brit statement says they were given assurances that allegations would not be repeated.

Trump asked about it today by a German reporter. Says don't ask me, ask Fox.

Shepard Smith of Fox News division says allegations are not verified by Fox News.

Criminy.
 
I think the dumbest cut is to the National Institute of Health. Private industry won't pick up the research slack that would occur as a result of these cuts.
 
That was my point on the other thread, MOWheels is the shiny object.

One of our PI's - who on federal grants - conducted research moving the ball on HepC ,AIDS and other viral diseases. Contributed mightily to the cure for HepC.

How would we centralize and coordinate that research?

NIH does more than hand out money.

And yes Sarah, they "study fruit flies"

A competitive private sector has no place making decisions regarding that level of research.

that has to come from a centralized entity. In cases around the globe, that is national governments.

How did we get to where we are having this type of conversation
 
I think it would be difficult for anyone to have watched the joint press conference with Merkel today and to come to the conclusion that Trump is capable of showing leadership commensurate with his position.

Step it up, homes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top