Amateur psychiatry in today's politics. Who's really crazy?

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yeah, because all of Trump's hotels go bankrupt, and building a hotel isn't practical in the first place. Do you even read the shit you type?

And "we give tax giveaways to the rich"? You mean, letting them keep the money that they acquire?

No, guy, the rich don't "acquire' money, they steal it from the people who do the actual work.

When the poor steal, it's called crime.
When the rich steal, it's called profits.

But unlike how everybody never gave a shit about public property before and people tended to mistreat it, this time everybody will actually put their best into that public property because they'll be doing it in the name of everybody having enough turnips and a free education, which is guaranteed to motivate the proletariat. And we will revel in our abundance of necessities! Glory to the worker!

Where I'm at, our public parks are very nice. So are our schools and libraries.

Lol, that's it? Just spew a bunch of stereotypes and call it an argument?

Yes, public parks, libraries, and schools are great. So are hotels, theaters, fancy restaurants, night clubs, concert halls, sports arenas, and all other manner of unnecessary luxuries that people enjoy. You're a crazy level of authoritarian if you believe that one function of government is to direct resources to keep people from overindulging. I see no reason why far left puritans are any less worthy of my complete disregard than are religious puritans.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, public parks, libraries, and schools are great. So are hotels, theaters, fancy restaurants, night clubs, concert halls, sports arenas, and all other manner of unnecessary luxuries that people enjoy.

Concert halls and sports arenas are usually publically funded. Weak argument.

You're a crazy level of authoritarian if you believe that one function of government is to direct resources to keep people from overindulging.

It's hardly overindulging to set priorities. If you are spending money building a casino for rich people (usually with all sorts of tax breaks and subsidies and the inevitable bailout when Trump mismanages the place like he did Atlantic City) and you have bridges that are LITERALLY COLLAPSING, then you are setting the wrong priorities as a society.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yes, public parks, libraries, and schools are great. So are hotels, theaters, fancy restaurants, night clubs, concert halls, sports arenas, and all other manner of unnecessary luxuries that people enjoy.

Concert halls and sports arenas are usually publically funded. Weak argument.

You're a crazy level of authoritarian if you believe that one function of government is to direct resources to keep people from overindulging.

It's hardly overindulging to set priorities. If you are spending money building a casino for rich people (usually with all sorts of tax breaks and subsidies and the inevitable bailout when Trump mismanages the place like he did Atlantic City) and you have bridges that are LITERALLY COLLAPSING, then you are setting the wrong priorities as a society.

My argument wasn't about public or private funding. My argument was against your implication that, because hotels aren't as fundamental as schools, their builders are committing some sort of moral trespass. Apparently, when it's the government building something that doesn't serve a fundamental purpose and, despite employing a few hundred or even thousand people, still primarily benefits the wealthy owner(s) of a sports franchise, you're okay with it, huh? So your principle is that government should do the building just for the sake of government doing the building? Seems like an arbitrary reason to try and run your society in opposition to individual self interest.

You and I have fundamentally incompatible views on causality. I'll argue that there's no reason to assume that the democratic process is going to set advantageous or even reasonable priorities into place, and that more importantly, that voter base has no right prioritize the spending of other peoples' money, and then you'll attribute all credit for all wealth building to the laborers and claim that everybody else stole it from them, and that's where we'll break down and start talking past each other. I'm not gonna talk you out of wanting the government to control everyone's wealth, and you're not gonna talk me into believing that they have a valid claim to that money or the ability or incentive to spend it effectively or efficiently, so why not just agree to disagree on this bit?

 

[JoeB131]

My argument wasn't about public or private funding. My argument was against your implication that, because hotels aren't as fundamental as schools, their builders are committing some sort of moral trespass.

I realize that you went to a school where they taught about talking snakes in science class... but.

If you are spending a billion dollars in subsidies to help a rich guy build a luxury hotel,and your schools can't afford textbooks or to repair the heating system, then that is a moral trespass.

It's also awful policy, because you will end up paying for the failure of that school for decades.

I'll argue that there's no reason to assume that the democratic process is going to set advantageous or even reasonable priorities into place, and that more importantly, that voter base has no right prioritize the spending of other peoples' money, and then you'll attribute all credit for all wealth building to the laborers and claim that everybody else stole it from them, and that's where we'll break down and start talking past each other.

Obviously, no one taught you about "run on sentences" at "Talking Snake High"

The Democratic Process can work these things out just fine. The first thing we need to do is stop letting rich people buy elections.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

My argument wasn't about public or private funding. My argument was against your implication that, because hotels aren't as fundamental as schools, their builders are committing some sort of moral trespass.

I realize that you went to a school where they taught about talking snakes in science class... but.

If you are spending a billion dollars in subsidies to help a rich guy build a luxury hotel,and your schools can't afford textbooks or to repair the heating system, then that is a moral trespass.

It's also awful policy, because you will end up paying for the failure of that school for decades.

I'll argue that there's no reason to assume that the democratic process is going to set advantageous or even reasonable priorities into place, and that more importantly, that voter base has no right prioritize the spending of other peoples' money, and then you'll attribute all credit for all wealth building to the laborers and claim that everybody else stole it from them, and that's where we'll break down and start talking past each other.

Obviously, no one taught you about "run on sentences" at "Talking Snake High"

The Democratic Process can work these things out just fine. The first thing we need to do is stop letting rich people buy elections.

Lol, you're a fucking retard. I'm not religious.

Nobody was discussing subsidies for the rich. I'm not for those, either. Glad we could agree. Also of note, a tax cut is not a subsidy.

 

[JoeB131]

Lol, you're a fucking retard. I'm not religious.

Nobody was discussing subsidies for the rich. I'm not for those, either. Glad we could agree. Also of note, a tax cut is not a subsidy.

Yeah, it is.... When yougive a tax cut to the rich, someone else has to make up the difference.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Lol, you're a fucking retard. I'm not religious.

Nobody was discussing subsidies for the rich. I'm not for those, either. Glad we could agree. Also of note, a tax cut is not a subsidy.

Yeah, it is.... When yougive a tax cut to the rich, someone else has to make up the difference.

That still doesn't make it a subsidy, you moron. Words have meanings. Letting someone keep their own shit isn't the same as giving them someone else's shit. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?