My political identity group is shrinking

Well I guess I am one of those crazy leftists you are talking about, since no doubt fully supporting single-payer and a stronger social safety net is now considered a “radical redistribution of wealth” and since I no longer believe the official 9/11 story. People have tried to make me think I was crazy for years, but it doesn’t bother me anymore. If you look around this world and you think you want to be part of the majority, then I would question your sanity and morals. So I wouldn’t worry too much if I were you Onceler, I certainly don’t.
 
cawacko said:
Did you find a friend so your membership doubled?

:)
Click to expand...

I liked the attempt at humor there. We give that a solid 6.5.

the delivery had to much going on. something quick and zingy like, "great, now there's two of you" or "Two people is hardly a group".......would have been a better. But all in all good job.
 
Darla said:
Well I guess I am one of those crazy leftists you are talking about, since no doubt fully supporting single-payer and a stronger social safety net is now considered a “radical redistribution of wealth” and since I no longer believe the official 9/11 story. People have tried to make me think I was crazy for years, but it doesn’t bother me anymore. If you look around this world and you think you want to be part of the majority, then I would question your sanity and morals. So I wouldn’t worry too much if I were you Onceler, I certainly don’t.
Click to expand...

Redistribution sucks. We phase out deductions and credits way too early.
 
Darla said:
Well I guess I am one of those crazy leftists you are talking about, since no doubt fully supporting single-payer and a stronger social safety net is now considered a “radical redistribution of wealth” and since I no longer believe the official 9/11 story.
Click to expand...

Seems that way.

But it will be okay.

The first step is admitting it.
 
LadyT said:
I liked the attempt at humor there. We give that a solid 6.5.

the delivery had to much going on. something quick and zingy like, "great, now there's two of you" or "Two people is hardly a group".......would have been a better. But all in all good job.
Click to expand...

thank you LadyT and I agree with your assesment. After I hit send I said to myself it could have been phrased better.
 
Darla said:
Well I guess I am one of those crazy leftists you are talking about, since no doubt fully supporting single-payer and a stronger social safety net is now considered a “radical redistribution of wealth”
Click to expand...

It's only considered a radical redistribution of wealth if the only way you propose to pay for it is on the backs of the wealthy.

Show me how you pay for something like either of those, and I will support both wholeheartedly. Creating both without viable means for paying is beyond fiscally irresponsible; the burden it would put on future generations is unacceptable to me.

Many Americans pay close to half of their income in taxes & fees. That's just wrong. Gov't is crazy inefficient, but I don't hear anyone addressing that, as Gore tried to in the '90's. All I hear are new programs, while older ones are on the verge of bankruptcy. Healthcare is a mess, and it has to be addressed, but let's hear some better ideas than "raise the hell out of taxes for the upper income brackets & give everyone a plan"...
 
Onceler said:
It's only considered a radical redistribution of wealth if the only way you propose to pay for it is on the backs of the wealthy.

Show me how you pay for something like either of those, and I will support both wholeheartedly. Creating both without viable means for paying is beyond fiscally irresponsible; the burden it would put on future generations is unacceptable to me.

Many Americans pay close to half of their income in taxes & fees. That's just wrong. Gov't is crazy inefficient, but I don't hear anyone addressing that, as Gore tried to in the '90's. All I hear are new programs, while older ones are on the verge of bankruptcy. Healthcare is a mess, and it has to be addressed, but let's hear some better ideas than "raise the hell out of taxes for the upper income brackets & give everyone a plan"...
Click to expand...

There would have to be a payroll tax. Just as they have in every other western nation. It would take the place of the payroll deduction we (pretty much) all pay now, for our benefits. We already spend more than any other country on health care costs, that should raise anyone’s eyebrows. It is clear that we are spending it inefficiently and it is also clear that a big part of that is due to corporate influence. If Truman hadn’t failed in bringing Universal single payer health care to this country when he attempted to, due to the refusal of the southern states who feared ti would force-integrate their hospitals, we could have gotten it along with Canada, Germany, France, England, etc, and here too, it would be untouchable by now.
 
Again I fully support a flat Income tax on all earned income except military disability, SS, etc. with NO deductions. Stock income is treated exactly the same as wages, etc.
 
Onceler said:
It's only considered a radical redistribution of wealth if the only way you propose to pay for it is on the backs of the wealthy.

Show me how you pay for something like either of those, and I will support both wholeheartedly. Creating both without viable means for paying is beyond fiscally irresponsible; the burden it would put on future generations is unacceptable to me.

Many Americans pay close to half of their income in taxes & fees. That's just wrong. Gov't is crazy inefficient, but I don't hear anyone addressing that, as Gore tried to in the '90's. All I hear are new programs, while older ones are on the verge of bankruptcy. Healthcare is a mess, and it has to be addressed, but let's hear some better ideas than "raise the hell out of taxes for the upper income brackets & give everyone a plan"...
Click to expand...

Eliminating innefeciency can only go so far. It would be very good luck if you could even balance the budget. However, if the Dems would target that they could at least make a claim to fiscal responsibililty that the Republicans have proven they are incapable of, even if the Dems don't get down into fiscal conservatism.
 
Darla said:
There would have to be a payroll tax. Just as they have in every other western nation. It would take the place of the payroll deduction we (pretty much) all pay now, for our benefits. We already spend more than any other country on health care costs, that should raise anyone’s eyebrows. It is clear that we are spending it inefficiently and it is also clear that a big part of that is due to corporate influence. If Truman hadn’t failed in bringing Universal single payer health care to this country when he attempted to, due to the refusal of the southern states who feared ti would force-integrate their hospitals, we could have gotten it along with Canada, Germany, France, England, etc, and here too, it would be untouchable by now.
Click to expand...

There's just great times to do some things, and after that, it's hard to reaproach it. America almost had single payer healthcare, we almost abolished the death penalty, but we stopped just short. America has followed this pattern so many times it's sickening. And then conservatives take our failure to pursue these causes, and run with it, and pronounce how disastrous these things would've been, all while they have become huge successes in other nations that had the guts to follow through.

American progressives have to learn something. They can't be the voice of the future just by declaring it and sitting idly by. They've gotta fucking fight for it! Fight like the conservatives did! Else we'll never get out of this rut.
 
uscitizen said:
Again I fully support a flat Income tax on all earned income except military disability, SS, etc. with NO deductions. Stock income is treated exactly the same as wages, etc.
Click to expand...

We could easily establish a tax of 20% on all wages and get about what we're getting now. It's more efficient and more common sense. If poor people are truly starving and can't pay, well... we've got food stamps, and other programs for that kind of stuff. Also, they'd get the 20k-30k deduction, which would mean just about anyone who's truly poor wouldn't be paying taxes anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top