Where is Trump's Beautiful Healthcare Plan? Here's Warren's...

[LV426]

I have a health care plan...take care if it myself ..gee what an idea!

What happens if you cannot afford to do that because your bathtub whiskey/homemade incest porn business doesn't take off, and you got cancer?

[Joe Capitalist]

Which is a non-profit group, of which he might be the Board chief, but he is not involved in the day-to-day operations of that foundation, is he?

Sylvia Mathews is COO of it, and Susan Desmond-Hellman is CEO.

What do Bill and Melinda Gates actually do for the Gates Foundation? Nothing. It's just their name. Neither of them are running it.

Why? That $100B is just sitting there, doing nothing.

The operating budget of the Gates Foundation is just $2B. Does $2B = $100B?

First of all, Putin doesn't give anything to the government, he gives everything to his rich, oligarch friends who profit, and then shields and protects them from tax liability.

Secondly, no amount of wealth they donate will balance out the $107B they are hoarding. Just like no amount of good the Catholic Church does balances out the centuries of covering up sexual assault by clergy members.

If Gates has $107B after donating for charity, then he's not really that charitable.

I know those big numbers dazzle you, but how much of his $107B has he given to charity? None of it.

Let me clarify something for you. Bill Gates owns the $107 billion. Not the government. He earned it. Not the government. If he wants to give some of it away to a charity, that's his prerogative for living in a free country.
And it's not up to you or the government to decide what he can do with the $107 billion. That's the law. That's democracy. That's Capitalism.

How much has Bill Gates given to charity? Well, here you go===>

How much money has Bill Gates given to charity?
Bill Gates has the highest amount given to charity ($35 billion) among the greatest philanthropists. The top 10 philanthropists are: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Li Ka-shing, Andrew Carnegie, Azim Premji, Chuck Feeney, George Soros, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, Phil Knight, James E. Stowers.
Bill and Melinda Gates give 95% of wealth to charity. Bill and Melinda Gates are one of the richest couples in the world but they've pledged to give away 95% of their fortune - so far £17 billion has gone to their charitable foundation which helps health projects across the globe.

Now, don't you feel stupid criticizing Bill Gates? You should.

[LV426]

Let me clarify something for you. Bill Gates owns the $107 billion. Not the government. He earned it. Not the government. If he wants to give some of it away to a charity, that's his prerogative for living in a free country.

You move the bar a lot, and this is a perfect example.

Before, you argued that people are wealthy because of hard work.

When I pointed out that Bill Gates grew his wealth faster in retirement than he ever did as a working person, you don't even address it. You completely ignored it.

Then you tried to move the bar and say that he works for his charity, but a quick search shows that he is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the foundation, that it bears his name, and that his connection to it is that he sits on the Board.

That's "hard work"? How so? How is he working so hard as a Board Member of the foundation that bears his name, that his wealth grew by nearly 40% in just 5 years? How do you grow your wealth by 40% through "hard work" while in retirement as your sole function in the organization that bears your name is simply to sit on the Board?

How is that "hard work"?

And it's not up to you or the government to decide what he can do with the $107 billion. That's the law. That's democracy. That's Capitalism.

GREED. What you're describing is GREED.

If Gates was good at spending his money, he wouldn't be sitting on a $107B pile of gold like Smaug in The Hobbit.

So we are to assume that there is nothing Gates feels is worth spending $107B since, ipso facto, it exists and he's sitting on it?

Is that your position too? That we don't need to spend money on anything else, therefore it's appropriate for Gates to hoard that wealth?

Bill Gates has the highest amount given to charity ($35 billion) among the greatest philanthropists.

OK, but that's $35B over how many years? At least 30. And his current worth is $107B, which means if you combined the two, you'd get a total of $142B over his lifetime. So that $35B looks a lot less impressive when placed in the context that it's 25% of his lifetime earnings, and he's still worth over $107B.

And did Gates solve any problems? Nope. But he created a few.

So, like I said before, you are dazzled by the gross number, and you bristle and shy away from perspective and context,

[LV426]

Let me clarify something for you. Bill Gates owns the $107 billion. Not the government. He earned it. Not the government. If he wants to give some of it away to a charity, that's his prerogative for living in a free country.

Of course he is free to do whatever he wants with his money, but two important questions arise from this defense:

1) Does the fact that he is sitting on $107B mean he thinks that he doesn't need to contribute more to charity because what he has given is sufficient?

2) If there aren't enough charitable causes to spend $107B on, what is the point of hoarding all that wealth?

[Eagle_Eye]

So let's summarize this conversation so far:

1. You said Democrats were ignoring their jobs to focus on impeachment.
2. I showed you that Democrats have sent over 300 bills to the GOP-controlled Senate who hasn't even debated them.
3. Then you screeched and changed the subject to Harry Reid, who hasn't been in the Senate in years, so you can avoid answering for the lazy Conservatives in the Senate today.

So why are you Conservatives so lazy?

And I told you that when the Dems controlled the Senate the exact same charge and number of bills were not acted on. Polite way of saying lies unless you can supply verifiable data.

[LV426]

And I told you that when the Dems controlled the Senate the exact same charge and number of bills were not acted on. Polite way of saying lies unless you can supply verifiable data.

The Democrats don't control the Senate today, you all do.

They've been handed over 300+ bills from the House, but refused to debate any of them.

So why are you so lazy?

[LV426]

And I told you that when the Dems controlled the Senate the exact same charge and number of bills were not acted on. Polite way of saying lies unless you can supply verifiable data.

You screeched that Democrats are shirking their jobs by focusing on impeachment, yet those same Democrats have passed over 300 bills to the Senate that McConnell won't even hold a debate on.

So you lied when you said that Democrats weren't doing their jobs; it's actually Conservatives who aren't doing their jobs.

When you realized that, you immediately had to invoke Harry Reid because...YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR YOUR OWN LAZINESS TODAY.

You "whatabouted" because you're a fraud, and you know it.

[LV426]

Let me clarify something for you. Bill Gates owns the $107 billion. Not the government. He earned it. Not the government. If he wants to give some of it away to a charity, that's his prerogative for living in a free country.
And it's not up to you or the government to decide what he can do with the $107 billion. That's the law. That's democracy. That's Capitalism.

How much has Bill Gates given to charity? Well, here you go===>

How much money has Bill Gates given to charity?
Bill Gates has the highest amount given to charity ($35 billion) among the greatest philanthropists. The top 10 philanthropists are: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Li Ka-shing, Andrew Carnegie, Azim Premji, Chuck Feeney, George Soros, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, Phil Knight, James E. Stowers.
Bill and Melinda Gates give 95% of wealth to charity. Bill and Melinda Gates are one of the richest couples in the world but they've pledged to give away 95% of their fortune - so far £17 billion has gone to their charitable foundation which helps health projects across the globe.

Now, don't you feel stupid criticizing Bill Gates? You should.

"YOU HATE THE RICH" is just a convenient way to avoid the economic argument that doesn't work out in your favor.

It's much easier to accuse someone else of being jealous than it is to admit your conventional wisdom is wrong.

[Eagle_Eye]

You screeched that Democrats are shirking their jobs by focusing on impeachment, yet those same Democrats have passed over 300 bills to the Senate that McConnell won't even hold a debate on.

So you lied when you said that Democrats weren't doing their jobs; it's actually Conservatives who aren't doing their jobs.

When you realized that, you immediately had to invoke Harry Reid because...YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR YOUR OWN LAZINESS TODAY.

You "whatabouted" because you're a fraud, and you know it.

TRANSLATION: EE caught me lying so now I'm trying to cover my ass.

Still waiting to see your proof liar.

[Joe Capitalist]

Again with the emotions! You definitely are a Boomer...everything is about emotions and resentment, with this underpinning of intellectual laziness and sloppiness.

Yeah, I hate the rich because they're hoarding their wealth like human dragons...why don't you hate them for doing that? They suck all the money out, trickle nothing down, and you rush to their defense. What a dumbass.

Ha! And I'M the emotional one? You hate the rich because you're jealous of them. I don't hate them for being successful. That's what Capitalism is all about. Your perception of billionaires is so misguided, so fallacious, so unwarranted, I don't know where to start. So I won't. Your set in your ways so just like all the radicalized right wing extremists who believe that all liberals are evil and hate America, you believe that all (...ok most...) billionaires are greedy, avaricious vultures who don't pay taxes because "only little people pay taxes".

I'm done with you. You can't debate facts. You just make up your own. And don't tell me I'm the emotional one. You've gone overboard with your emotions. You can't carry on a cogent conversation without freaking out.

I'm done with you.

[LV426]

Ha! And I'M the emotional one? You hate the rich because you're jealous of them.

"You're just jealous" is a convenient excuse for not admitting your worship of the Prosperity Gospel is misguided, and you have no economic argument to support it.

None.

Zero.

You have absolutely no argument other than "you're just jealous", against higher taxes on the rich.

"You're just jealous" isn't an argument, or even a valid position. It's a deflection from the weakness of the economic argument against it.

[LV426]

Your perception of billionaires is so misguided, so fallacious, so unwarranted, I don't know where to start. So I won't.

Defending billionaires also isn't a good look these days.

Your set in your ways so just like all the radicalized right wing extremists who believe that all liberals are evil and hate America, you believe that all (...ok most...) billionaires are greedy, avaricious vultures who don't pay taxes because "only little people pay taxes".

Billionaires will always defend billionaires in the end. They will not defend you. They will come up with any excuse they can for hoarding their wealth, but all those excuses fall by the wayside once you subject them to scrutiny. Their argument comes down to 'IT'S MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE!" That's not a valid argument. It's greed and selfishness. And it would be a different story if those same billionaires weren't simultaneously setting up tax deductible groups whose purpose is to concoct wild excuses and bullshit for why they shouldn't be taxed. But they are.

Also, I don't want some un-elected rich person deciding for me what the priorities are, and setting up an environment where we must bow and scrape so as not to offend their delicate fragility.

EAT THE RICH.

[LV426]

I'm done with you. You can't debate facts. You just make up your own. And don't tell me I'm the emotional one. You've gone overboard with your emotions. You can't carry on a cogent conversation without freaking out.

OK Boomer.

Over the course of this debate, your argument against taxing the rich devolved solely to lobbing allegations of jealousy at me.

The lobbing of jealousy is intended to move this debate to an emotional, philosophical one as opposed to an economic one, which are the only terms we should be debating within.

So you prod and poke and I tell you that I hate the rich because they are hoarding the wealth like dragons, and you decide now is the time to ditch out of the debate.

So you tell me that I hate the rich, and then when I say WHY I do, you run away from the debate.

Typical Republican behavior there...making an emotional argument as your sole argument, then running away from the debate when it's exposed is SUCH A BOOMER THING TO DO.

[LV426]

You can't debate facts. You just make up your own.

STOP.

What facts did I make up?

You're the one who said that rich people are rich because of "HARD WORK". Those were your exact words. Then you started moving the bar when you remembered that, hey, many rich people don't work hard and inherited their wealth (like our POTUS). So then it became an argument over semantics...I said most wealthy people didn't work a single day for their wealth, and even linked to a WaPo article explaining exactly that. So you picked up the goalposts and moved them from "you're rich because you worked hard" to "most rich people worked hard". Then when "most rich people worked hard" was shot down by the WaPo article that says most rich people inherit their wealth, you sought to move the goalposts again by asking "OK, what percentage?"

So you moved the goalposts at least twice by my count here, and my big point, that Gates grew his wealth faster once he stopped working, went unaddressed because of how inconvenient it is for you.

So we can just go back on this thread and see every single tactic of yours be introduced, then ditched almost immediately by shifting goalposts.

So ultimately, your argument boiled down to one of emotion; that I don't support higher taxes because they make economic sense for everyone, but because I'm jealous.

I'm not jealous of their wealth. I resent it just as I would resent anyone who hoarded anything. I resent that the conventional wisdom is that you earn your wealth, even after knowing Bill Gates grew his wealth faster once he stopped working, than he grew it while he was "working hard".

BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

You are the one who seems jealous here; jealous that I have an agnostic, unemotional argument in favor of my policy, and you don't.

[LV426]

You hate the rich because you're jealous of them.

Also, if you're going to use the "you're just jealous" defense of the wealthy, then you should just stop pretending you're anything other than a Republican, since that is their defense of the wealthy that you are repeating for them. So way to make yourself a useful idiot for Conservatives and Trump. Well done. Bravo. Finding common cause with Conservatives on the subject of billionaires tells us all we need to know about what kind of person you are.