Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
It starts somewhere.
- Status
O
OneSheep
Guest
The people in power who make that choice, as well as the people in the population who support that choice to force abortions, are not behaving morally. They don’t know what they are doing.
Slippery slope argument.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
Actually about the amount paid by the next 5 nations (List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia)
And given that we pay a much higher percentage of the costs for NATO, our military budget is subsidising the military costs of a bunch of nations. Not to mention that angry as everyone gets when we deploy, when we don’t, everyone asks why we aren’t!
Last edited:
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Neville Chamberlain called it appeasement.
A
Annie
Guest
What percentage of their income would be fair?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I know. We are supposed to go down to Central America and fix their problems so migrants don’t have to come here.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Actually, no, according to the link you provided. It is the next 8 according to one source, and the next 10 according to the other. Check your calculator…
Yeah, NATO is a little spoiled, but our government has been inclined to prefer having as much military presence as possible in nations that allow it. Trump is different on that, thankfully.
O
OneSheep
Guest
That’s one of those questions to leave to the number-crunchers and lawmakers, IMO.
A
Annie
Guest
What would be the criteria for deciding which numbers were fair? Because it seems the numbers crunchers have deemed that what people pay now is fair.
A
Annie
Guest
Oh, oops, I made a mistake thereActually, no, according to the link you provided. It is the next 8 according to one source, and the next 10 according to the other. Check your calculator…
A
Annie
Guest
Why do you think that might be?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
So far, this. I don’t recall any of our congressmen deciding that they should unfairly tax anybody.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Sorry, Annie, it’s out of my league. The fact is that our government outspends its means, period. I am not favor of raising taxes without balancing the budget and decreasing debt.
I think that it is a combination of military lobbying, visions of “Pax Americana”, and the desire from the “powers that be” to protect the integrity of the dollar.
It’s just an intuition, not worth much. We do force all nations to pay for oil with dollars, and it seems that this is part of the reason for having such a strong navy. Nations that sell oil for other currencies, such as Russia, Iran, and now Venezuela, seem to be on our government’s “hit list”. Saddam Hussein started selling oil for other currencies also, and that got him in trouble. When such an action (selling oil for a different currency) by another nation hits our currency value, then suddenly funding a war makes some sense to those who care about the power of our currency.
Of course.
With less and less effectiveness, the more the general government interferes. Onenerd only look at standardized test scores for evidence.
Not at all. You just keep mentioning fair share. We’ve already confirmed that the wealthy pay far more than their fair share, so your comment about people using public services without paying their fair share leads to that question.
Okay. Am I allowed to use streets and roads regardless of income? If I earn too much, am I restricted or ineligible to use it?
That is the case with virtually all public assistance programs. WIC, etc.
Except that isn’t the way our constitutional representative republic works.
A
Annie
Guest
Because these nations did nothing else which might have “gotten them in trouble” with the US?
A
Annie
Guest
Let me see if I can get this straight: you are qualified to say that the rich are not paying their fair share, but you have no basis on which to propose what their fair share would be? This is contradictory.
As to not getting into mountains of debt, I totally agree with you.
O
OneSheep
Guest
We have? I disagree.
Everyone who drives pays some kind of fuel tax, right? Or does that depend on the state?
Also, you’re not looking at the whole picture now. Generally speaking, people who earn more money are benefiting more from the economic structure, which is set by the government in infrastructure, trade, security, etc.
Yeah, but it’s nice to dream a little.
O
OneSheep
Guest
It’s an opinion, it is not a “qualified” opinion. It doesn’t deserve that distinction.
Maybe the wealthy are paying their “fair share” of taxes. I definitely don’t like loopholes, though. Wouldn’t it be nice if all of us could collect our incomes in the Cayman Islands? No, then our government would go bankrupt. But wealthy people do shift their incomes over there, and they have the resources to pay the accountants and lawyers to make it work.
What it really boils down to, though, is that the structure of wealth and power in the world is unjust. Poor nations in the third world are baited with loans for infrastructure, contingent upon cheap access to their resources. The people and the environment end up losing. Labor has so little power these days in comparison to when unions were allowed to help boost the working poor. Big corporations bribe (lobby) government officials to buy their products or make contracts with them.
Lobbying enables plutocracy.
The victims are those working for, or supplying, a corporation that has too much concern for its profit, and not enough concern for human rights and the environment. I think this is generally what Pope Francis is addressing, and what AOC is also addressing.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Do you propose we do away with the mortage interest deduction (which by the way I favor being eliminated)? The charitable donation deduction?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Possibly you mean this, but it does not seem rational to me to allow an enemy to gather resources and strength.
- Status