Reply With Quote
Yes, there are people luckier than you.
There are also people who work harder and a better than you.
Don't be bitter
Because it's morally right. I think "you" deserve a larger chunk of my money than a minimum wage fast food worker since I can afford to pay more in taxes than them. Why is this idea so controversial? I get it, bootstrap Americans and all that, we're a nation that's self-reliant and doesn't whine, but as long as like layoffs of workers when companies are posting record profits is happening in the "greatest in country in the world," I think the whining is justified.
Yes, there are people luckier than you.
There are also people who work harder and a better than you.
Don't be bitter
Winning the House must have gone to people's heads - emboldened these ideas. That NY abortion bill, this VA governor and now this - 100% over 1.5 million or 70% over 1 million - smh.
a 10% tax rate with an 18,000 standard deduction gives Taco Bell kids a tax-free job and the average middle class guy making 70,000 a livable take-home-pay of 63,000. (San Francisco Bay Area not withstanding. 70K in SF puts you on par with a chicken butcher in frickin' Malaysia.)
We already have a progressive tax system.
Where is your morality about the NY abortion bill or what that VA governor said?
Blue Mecca, SF problems.
I agree
And the medical profiteering industry pisses me off by far the most
The big American insurance company execs making $20M a year salary each + big bonuses + big money off investments, while the people on the floor working for them are lucky to make $45K a year
de able
Medical profiteering? OMG
I didn't react like a billionaire would react, though. I clearly said that I should be expected to give up more than the Taco Bell worker since I have more disposable income to allow that. Billionaires (and their defenders) often propose a flat tax or some other nonsense using the "relative" argument. If I expect myself to give up more than the Taco Bell worker, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those with more wealth than me to give up more than I do. Why is this bad?
also, I did my math wrong. The guy making 70,000 with an 18K standard deduction and a 10% tax would have 64,800 left over, not 63K. Factor in Medicare and SS (the latter of which should also go the way of the dodo) would bring it down to around 63K.
It's billionaires vs taco bell workers, y'all.
Cuts off at 39%, whether you make 600K per year or 60 million per year. Not progressive enough.
Yep, it's a totally right thing to do to raise a drug price by 400% when a compe or drops out. Fun fact: A lot of that price gouging profiteering is being funded on your dime. We pay near the most per capita in tax dollars for health care, so when a Medicare recipient gets a 100K bill for a 2 hour hospital stay (which is price gouging/profiteering), you're paying for it. Should make you angry.
SF is a ed up city. It's covered with feces and hardly anyone can afford to live there.
Pelosi is your rep, if you have any complaints.
Agreed. What does the dude want, a
The drugs are low hanging fruit. Don't fool yourself, the surgeons are the biggest culprit. My mom's heart doctor charges $250K per pacemaker surgery and he does 3-4 operations per day and only works 3 days per week. That's well over a ing million a week. That greedy pig should be in jail, not in the hospital... but the problem is, the compe ion is all the same these days in this ed up country...
You're embarrassing yourself. MP is giving you way better responses than you deserve and you're going into derp mode. Try harder. Especially if you're going to mock high schoolers for their debate skills in another thread on the same night.
I don't know the fine print of the bill, but I do support late term abortion if: The mother's is unlikely to survive to the birth, the fetus is 100% unlikely to survive the birth. The latter is a gray area, though, since it's possible, even if it's a million to one shot, the fetus could perhaps survive. The moral decision in the former should be up to the mother and father in deciding whose life is more valuable: mother or child. I can't determine that, obviously.
SF is disgusting. But Silicon Valley is pretty nice. It's all expensive as , though.
You've got to go mother, 100% of the time. It's not even a decision at all. You go with the established citizen every time. Whose f'd up idea was it to even consider that a decision?
The far right pretends to care so much about unborn babies, but they don't give a rat's ass about people when they are actually alive... hence why the U.S. ranks 41st in life expectancy, and falling a little every year
#41stPlaceYEAH!
The most progressive cities have the worst wealth inequality.
And ironically the most capitalism. You think that Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram, and all the rest aren't laughing all the way to the bank...? Hah!
I understand Darrin's at ude. Red blooded Americans hate "whiners" and have mythologized self-determination and independence to unrealistic levels, so no prideful Americans want to come off as "needing" a billionaire's money or any other kind of "hand out" in order to succeed. Ironic thing is that many of these billionaires got handouts from mommy and daddy, the government, or in the case of athletes, actors, etc won the genetic lottery (a handout by nature). And maybe people like Darrin have the economic freedom to reject such handouts. Great! But many don't have the luxury, and might not be able to "bootstrap" themselves into the American dream. Been proven that a person is likely is stay in the same economic class as the one their parents were in.
How about the most progressive countries?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
