Eileen Gu and birthright citizenship

[rightwinger]

Ok, I agree people can’t afford the lifestyle they used to have. Stuff is expensive right now, my question is, why blame wealthy people? The economy is messed up mostly because of the government.

Still, you’ve not answered my question, how much wealth tax will make things right? At what point will things be fair?

Why?

Because they are the ones responsible for trickle down
They have received massive cuts in taxes, massive write offs and incentives. Unions have disappeared

Meanwhile wages have been stagnant, benefits cut, job security is non existent

The gap between workers and employers has widened

 

[rightwinger]

Still, you’ve not answered my question, how much wealth tax will make things right? At what point will things be fair?

I would like to see us return to tax rates we saw before Reagan
At least 50 percent for income over a million

 

[Dragonlady]

Ok, I agree people can’t afford the lifestyle they used to have. Stuff is expensive right now, my question is, why blame wealthy people? The economy is messed up mostly because of the government.

Still, you’ve not answered my question, how much wealth tax will make things right? At what point will things be fair?

Because 80% of all the wealth in the USA is now held by the top 10% of wealthy Americans, and such an imbalance is not economically sustainable. In Denmark, that economic split is 50/50. In Canada, it's 60/40.

Because your wealth and income gap is the WORST in the first world.

Because wealthy people have been the beneficiaries of all of the Republican tax cuts, destruction of the union movement which built the American middle class, and the wage stagnation which resulted.

It's hard to know how much of a wealth tax is needed to balance things out, but you cannot continued bankrupting the middle and working class to benefit the wealthy. You've gone too far, and there will soon be no way back.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Vance, the moron, clearly didn't think that one through, but then Vance was hired for looks, not his smarts.

The main reason why athletes born in the USA compete for other nations is that it is much harder to make the US team, than it is in other nations, especially in the "luxury sports", such as skiing or figure skating.

The same thing happened with Russian figure skaters prior to the Ukrainian invasion, especially for Pairs and Ice Dance. Finding a partner for your talented daughter is the most difficult thing for those who aren't skating singles. Importing a Russian male partner became so common in the 1990's and 2000's that such pairs were referred to as "rent a Russian", because all expenses were being paid by the girl's parents.

Gu wouldn't have had any problems making the US team. She simply chose the CCP over the country where she was born, went to school, and trained to compete. It's a slap in the face to America.

 

[rightwinger]

Gu wouldn't have had any problems making the US team. She simply chose the CCP over the country where she was born, went to school, and trained to compete. It's a slap in the face to America.

We will get over it

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why?

Because they are the ones responsible for trickle down
They have received massive cuts in taxes, massive write offs and incentives. Unions have disappeared

Meanwhile wages have been stagnant, benefits cut, job security is non existent

The gap between workers and employers has widened

Ok, so is this about wealthy people, or about corporations?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because 80% of all the wealth in the USA is now held by the top 10% of wealthy Americans, and such an imbalance is not economically sustainable. In Denmark, that economic split is 50/50. In Canada, it's 60/40.

Because your wealth and income gap is the WORST in the first world.

Because wealthy people have been the beneficiaries of all of the Republican tax cuts, destruction of the union movement which built the American middle class, and the wage stagnation which resulted.

It's hard to know how much of a wealth tax is needed to balance things out, but you cannot continued bankrupting the middle and working class to benefit the wealthy. You've gone too far, and there will soon be no way back.

It’s not just the republicans, democrats have had their hand in tax cuts too.

A wealth tax wouldn’t work.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

We will get over it

Well hopefully, she'll move to China permanently, and we won't have to get over anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ok, I agree people can’t afford the lifestyle they used to have. Stuff is expensive right now, my question is, why blame wealthy people? The economy is messed up mostly because of the government.

Still, you’ve not answered my question, how much wealth tax will make things right? At what point will things be fair?

The economy is messed up because of the government, which is run by people who are out to make as much money as they can, and they usually get it from rich people, who tell the politicians what to do.

So, the rich run the government.

There was a conversation about what is "fair" and it's impossible to come up with something that would satisfy everyone.

We know the rich should pay more, but the rich don't want to pay more and the rich have more spare cash to manipulate people into thinking a flat tax is fair.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It’s not just the republicans, democrats have had their hand in tax cuts too.

A wealth tax wouldn’t work.

Wouldn't work in a political system in which the rich control the whole thing.

Would work with Proportional Representation.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The economy is messed up because of the government, which is run by people who are out to make as much money as they can, and they usually get it from rich people, who tell the politicians what to do.

So, the rich run the government.

There was a conversation about what is "fair" and it's impossible to come up with something that would satisfy everyone.

We know the rich should pay more, but the rich don't want to pay more and the rich have more spare cash to manipulate people into thinking a flat tax is fair.

The rich DO pay more, but people think they should also pay a higher rate.

 

[pknopp]

Nobody can tell us what a “fair share” is.

The fairest way is if I pay 20%, the rich should pay 20%. That’s how it’s supposed to be.

NOT fair is if I have to pay 20% and the rich have to pay 49%

To those who much is given, much should be expected.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

The rich DO pay more, but people think they should also pay a higher rate.

That's the sort of thing you say when you've got nothing to say.

 

[ThisIsMe]

To those who much is given, much should be expected.....

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

??

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wouldn't work in a political system in which the rich control the whole thing.

Would work with Proportional Representation.

Hopefully we’ll never have proportional representation. I don’t want people from NY deciding what goes on in my state. I like that my vote has meaning.

 

[pknopp]

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

??

Has your eye offended you?

 

[ThisIsMe]

That's the sort of thing you say when you've got nothing to say.

If I didn’t have anything to say, I wouldn’t have said it

 

[ThisIsMe]

Has your eye offended you?

Probably..more than a few times lol

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hopefully we’ll never have proportional representation. I don’t want people from NY deciding what goes on in my state. I like that my vote has meaning.

The ignorance in what you've just said is amazing.

1) Who decides what happens in your state?

From Presidential elections it's Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia who decided the president. Everyone else from the other 46 states can go stuff themselves. The system essentially chooses the president, as both Bush and Trump (the only two Republicans to have been elected president this century) became presidents with less votes than their opponents.

In Congress it's slightly better, but still people in other states, and the system are deciding what happens.

2) Your vote has NO MEANING.

You have two choices. This means the main parties don't have to care about you and what you think. And they don't.

With PR this would change. But you don't care about that, you care only that the Republicans have an unfair advantage.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The ignorance in what you've just said is amazing.

1) Who decides what happens in your state?

From Presidential elections it's Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia who decided the president. Everyone else from the other 46 states can go stuff themselves. The system essentially chooses the president, as both Bush and Trump (the only two Republicans to have been elected president this century) became presidents with less votes than their opponents.

In Congress it's slightly better, but still people in other states, and the system are deciding what happens.

2) Your vote has NO MEANING.

You have two choices. This means the main parties don't have to care about you and what you think. And they don't.

With PR this would change. But you don't care about that, you care only that the Republicans have an unfair advantage.

If we had proportional representation, NY and California would decide what goes on in my state. At lease with the EC, my state has a voice.

Let’s put it this way there have been 19 Republican presidents and 16 Democratic presidents I’d say that’s a pretty even split and the electoral college has provided that. If we went with the proportional representation that you’re talking about the Democrats would have a complete lock on the presidency forever.

And we do have proportional representation. Two senators for every state to represent the state and then a number of representatives based on the population of the state to represent the people. So the more people have state has the more representatives they have that’s proportional is it not?

Also, a popular vote wouldn’t do anything to make candidates campaign in more states if anything it would make them campaign in less states. They would focus on high population centers, but places like New York in California, which are going to go blue no matter what or places like Texas and florida that are going to go red no matter what they would have no reason to campaign there.