Yes, from loopholes. A good 30 trillion went to them last year alone.
30 trillion dollars went... into loopholes? What the hell does that mean? You mean 30 trillion dollars went unpaid in taxes that would have been paid without said loopholes? Citation please.
Yes but it's always modified *upwards*. Because everyone wants their cushy Lockheed Martin checks.
Oh so they are willing to talk about the military budget. I thought you said people were considered evil if they did that. So your complaint is that they spend too much on the military. OK, there's probably a fair complaint there, like any government organization they're wasteful, and since they get to have some secrecy they're even more vulnerable to corruption. Let's say you get elected today into congress. What, specifically, are you going to try to do with the military budget?
To *corporate* lobbyists. Yes it's a vague touchy feely definition. So is being a "conservative". I just want to explain what I mean though, so you understand what I mean.
The purpose of this conversation so far has been me explaining what I meant by "conservative". I'm trying to get you to nail down what you see as the difference between bad liberals and good progressives, and your definition seems to be that progressives only take money from non-corporate lobbyists? You mean like... special interest groups? George Soros? Why is money from a corporation bad, and money from a random rich person good?
Probably because you are imagining hypothetical progressives. Ron Wyden has been as vigorously against the surveillance state as Rand Paul has, and so has Bernie. Both conservatives and liberals like to paint progressives as the same as liberals, but we're more like a cross between liberals and libertarians, in a lot of ways. We disagree with libertarians vigorously on economics and the role of the corporation, but on personal freedom we agree, while most mainstream Democrats and Republicans disagree with both of us.
OK, let me get more specific here. You worked for Brianna Wu. She wants to have "Hateful speech" censored. We know she reports valid criticism as hate speech. Thus, she is pro-censorship. She also doesn't want people to be anonymous online. Thus she is pro-surveillance. So what do we agree with on in regards to personal freedom that democrats and republicans don't?
But again, you dodged the most important question, the thing that seems to be at the heart of WHY you are pushing the progressive point of view. "Everyone is losing their human rights". Who is losing what rights, specifically?
I'm counting the ones where there is daily fighting and death in which we are involved. Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya. We went into those countries and never came out again. Even a couple Republicans were trying to de-authorize force there this week.
Nice, completely straight answer. Do you propose just pulling the forces out immediately? Obviously there's a lot to dig into in regards to each specific theater, but it's good to see you've given this some thought. Thank you for clarifying.
I would assume, those who "lost" said money, and those personally invested in "losing" more of it.
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/...nment-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/
Wow! Thanks for the link, I hadn't heard about this. That's... crazy. I'll keep an eye on that story.
It may seem progressives are trying to take away your freedom of speech because they talks about manners and how to talk politely a lot. But we get censored by the mainstream Democrats just as much as conservatives do, or even more. Without vigorous freedom of speech, there would be no progressive movement at all.
I might say "don't say the N word, ya big racist!" but I won't say "I am shutting down Facebook because everyone is too racist!" Unlike some people we might mention, lol.
Except progressive democrats try to pass laws criminalizing "misgendering". They try to claim certain speech is violence. And you missed the other freedom, the freedom to defend one's own life. Progressives are OK with their politicians and celebrities having armed guards, but they don't want other people having guns. People talking about manners are not the problem.
Also, more importantly, by encouraging violent groups to attack "alt-right" gatherings, they're committing the worst kind of censorship. Shutting down opposing political ideas.
If you think the Ayn Rand crack smokers are crazy then I'm not talking about you I guess. I think the poor need subsidies to give them better chances to get ahead, like people had in the 70s. Inequality is widening like crazy, and I think a lot of that has to do with policy, and the ideologies of lawmakers. Utah has had such subsidies for education for 100 years despite being a "red" state. Now Tennessee too. I want more of that.
Well, "The poor need subsidies" could mean almost anything. Section 8 housing is a thing, as is welfare, as are food stamps, school lunch programs, etc.
I don't think just handing the richest people a pile of money is going to help people further down. But I do think letting people start businesses and run them inexpensively does create jobs. So there's a benefit to everyone in not having super high business taxes. I don't think the government, no matter how much they shuffle the money around, can create economic growth. All they can do is not stifle it.
You talk about inequality, but what does that have to do with anything? Let's say everyone in the US were to make a million dollars a year, but the richest person made a billion more. Inequality widened, but in reality everyone is better off than they were.
Inequality in how people are treated is more of a problem. People connected to prominent politicians aren't playing by the same rules as everyone else, and that's not specific to party.
Mostly by closing loopholes that were put there on purpose by both Democrats and Republicans to make the rich richer.
I disagree with you that we need more military "strength" instead of getting out of one or more of the 7 wars we are in. But I see your general point. Here are Bernie's ideas on the subject:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
Well, like I said before, I'm sure there are some loopholes to be closed, but good luck getting people to agree. I doubt there's 30 trillion a year to be had in closing those loopholes. Bernie is awfully light on details on that page, and I'm sure he's oversimplifying some stuff.
St Patty's Day
Name used by
intellectually challengedAmericans for
St Patrick's Day.
Hi
Quaint Irish Person, where can we get a green beer for
st patty's day?
Patty? Who the fuck is she then when she's at home?
by
Orish Shannon February 01, 2011
Have you had your hearing checked recently. Even in Boston, only morons say St. Patty's Day.
Do you even boston? It's all morons! Have you seen the mayor? The police commissioner?
And linking an urban dictionary article.... for shame....
