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.
All working people pay taxes for a variety of things that benefit society as a whole. Roads, schools, national defense, national parks, libraries, and firefighters, to name a few. All of these things contribute to our quality of life.
I was using the word investment in the sense that all of those examples represent the act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result. Like providing higher education and health care, paid for with public funds as an investment in the future of this country. Because well-educated and healthy people hold higher-paying jobs and pay more taxes.
Tax revenue can be redistributed in a way that benefits all of us, rather than providing huge corporate bailouts, massive tax breaks to corporations, and funding needless and ill-conceived military actions.
The rich have benefited from an extremely favorable tax system over the past 30 years. In return, they have reduced the number of stable, well-paying jobs. They have kept wages low or moved their operations overseas to increase profits and keep their shareholders happy. Trickle-down economics has failed us.
title of the thread, some of the posts, the labels and stereotypes implied, and the silliness of of the implications.
There have been many unintended tangents. I failed to clearly state my original point. Which was that almost every Trump supporter I've chatted with thinks that Bernie supporters just want free stuff. Because they're lazy.
There have been many unintended tangents. I failed to clearly state my original point. Which was that almost every Trump supporter I've chatted with thinks that Bernie supporters just want free stuff. Because they're lazy.
That's a completely separate argument than the current title.
Personally, I pretty much tune out from anyone who adamantly identified themselves as progressive, or conservative, liberal, or reactionary. The current terms are so far off the poly sci definitions that it's, comical.
That being said, since progressive is in the title, the point about equating wealth to financial success as a jab at conservative is rather insulting. Wealth can take many forms: family, relationships, land, a healthy garden, spirituality. Being a target for progressives because I am more closely aligned to the originalist political philosophy, I find it sad, some would say hypocritical (not me, I don't use the term for points) to then be lectured about financial success. One who walked away from financial success, for much lower compensation, because it enriched me in ways financial success didn't.
Sanders is... Naive is the first word that comes to mind.
Trump is too crass for many middle of the roaders
Hillary is blantantly corrupt.
I'll be writing in my candidate, again, the same as I have for 20+ years.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Probably not the answe one wants to hear, but points can be made without taking shots to sound 'smart'.
That's a completely separate argument than the current title.
Personally, I pretty much tune out from anyone who adamantly identified themselves as progressive, or conservative, liberal, or reactionary. The current terms are so far off the poly sci definitions that it's, comical.
That being said, since progressive is in the title, the point about equating wealth to financial success as a jab at conservative is rather insulting. Wealth can take many forms: family, relationships, land, a healthy garden, spirituality. Being a target for progressives because I am more closely aligned to the originalist political philosophy, I find it sad, some would say hypocritical (not me, I don't use the term for points) to then be lectured about financial success. One who walked away from financial success, for much lower compensation, because it enriched me in ways financial success didn't.
Sanders is... Naive is the first word that comes to mind.
Trump is too crass for many middle of the roaders
Hillary is blantantly corrupt.
I'll be writing in my candidate, again, the same as I have for 20+ years.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Probably not the answe one wants to hear, but points can be made without taking shots to sound 'smart'.
Short answer: if one so closely aligns themselves with current political definitions/labels... They limit themselves. An open mind walks the individual path. That can be community or individually inclined. Neither of which is bad.
Our nation's capital is a prime example. The area around the capitol in DC has been "gentrified" and people who have lived there for generations have been forced to move.
We used to own a house on 7th st that increased in price 10X. The neighborhood was a mix of black and white people and was a decent neighborhood. All the blacks are now gone- all of them. Something is just not quite right with that situation.
No one is forcing people to move out. But DC has been a hell hole for a long time. I grew up there. It's time something is done. The changes they are making are awesome but real estate is going sky high. Not good. And no, the blacks are not gone now lol
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.
