Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by njquestions
They advocate for wealth distribution. However, nobody claimed that liberals aren't giant hypocrites. So, for example, the same liberals who are socialists happen to be extremely wealthy. If I point that out, you might say "oh, well, you just claimed liberals are socialists and now you're complaining they are wealthy, which is it?" You didn't just trap me. You trapped the liberals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bklynkenny
I think you trapped me because I have no idea what you just said!
I took it to mean that many liberals who are socialists are wealthy, and since they're advocating for wealth distribution, they're hypocrites, since they have more than enough to distribute, versus middle class who is overly squeezed as it is, and will only get poorer. It's easy for them to advocate wealth distribution - they'll never notice.
I took it to mean that many liberals who are socialists are wealthy, and since they're advocating for wealth distribution, they're hypocrites, since they have more than enough to distribute, versus middle class who is overly squeezed as it is, and will only get poorer. It's easy for them to advocate wealth distribution - they'll never notice.
I took it to mean that many liberals who are socialists are wealthy, and since they're advocating for wealth distribution, they're hypocrites, since they have more than enough to distribute, versus middle class who is overly squeezed as it is, and will only get poorer. It's easy for them to advocate wealth distribution - they'll never notice.
Not entirely. The amount they have is irrelevant, since under true socialism it would all be distributed anyways. It's that their entire philosophy is a lie. Socialism oddly always results in a small elite group of rulers who have vast sums of money and live opulent lives. Not only that, but the people who profess their love for taxing the rich are abject liars. For example, Warren Buffett loves to posture as someone who wants to increase taxes on the rich. That's because his income is relatively small and he derives most of his money from the market. So he is also effectively demanding tax increases on everyone else except him. Every liberal could, at any time, send any amount of money they wanted to the government, but they all hold onto every single dime they can. The same liberals who blandly ask people to support their retirements flee the states they live in so that they do not, in turn, have to support the retirements of other liberals. All of liberalism is a lie and demonstrably hypocritical.
I took it to mean that many liberals who are socialists are wealthy, and since they're advocating for wealth distribution, they're hypocrites, since they have more than enough to distribute, versus middle class who is overly squeezed as it is, and will only get poorer. It's easy for them to advocate wealth distribution - they'll never notice.
It's easy to be for wealth redistribution when it's not YOUR wealth being taken and given to others...
A couple of threads somewhere on this board discuss California's most recent attempts to legally secede from the US.
Cities taxing everything that moves might be one of the reasons so many Americans support those efforts.
(Psst: Pay attention, Chicago...)
Cook County ( Chicago) earlier this year, followed Philly, Oakland, San Francisco and Boulder and imposed a penny and ounce tax on sugary drinks. At the time, the American Beverage Association heavily lobbied the general public to stop the tax. It passed by one vote.
The county cannot raise property taxes beyond inflation and has cut 10% of its workforce. The state Constitution protects accrued and existing pension benefits. Something has to give.
This tax is intended to bring in $225 million in incremental revenue to the county.
My "servants" should not be earning more than me. That is what a public employee is.
^ silly.
State and local governments employed about 16.2 million full time workers in 2014. In some areas of the country, the local economy is dependent on these workers and public assistance. The largest percentage of state and local workers are employed in education and corrections.
In order for a public servant to earn less than every non public servant, they would need to earn less than Minimum Wage and recieve no benefits, regardless of education, skill or experience.
The real rub in some areas is that the benefits, especially pensions, of so- called public servants are substantially greater than those recieved in the private sector for similar work. The constitutions in 7 states protect those benefits, no matter the consequences.
The general public tends to hold their elected officials responsible when schools are closed due to strikes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
