In addition, the same people who had no problem with Rudy Giuliani unleashing a torrent of death threats on a mother and daughter in Georgia because one of them passed the other a mint, are now wringing their hands and wailing that it's "doxxing" for New York to have a public database of properties subject to the pied-à-terre tax and their owners, even though property values and tax information are a matter of easily searchable public record in every state in the union.
I think humans should decide that for themselves and keep their noses out of everyone else's pocketbooks.
Because I don't agree with you. Because I don't accept "difficult" and "impossible" as synonyms. Because I don't believe absolute equality if outcome is a reasonable standard. You're not peddling anything new or profound.
Once again, the options aren't "absolute control" versus "no control." People who trade in those fucktarded binaries do not get to lecture me about the real world. You are accountable for what you control, even if the guy standing next to you controls more than you do.
Tell you what. You sit on your ass and wail about that, and I will shamble off to work for a living. See which produces more tangible results in a year.
So, the rich are inevitable, up to and including their fascist coup, and just keep your head down. Captain Freedom, everyone.
You and I will have EXACTLY the same effect on the sins of the wealthy. You're just louder and more sanctimonious about it.
So shut up and eat your table scraps. In fact, let's be competitive and dick waving about how many table scraps we fight over! FREEDOM!!!
Is that true, though? Seems like it would imply a lower standard of living. And I assume this is linked to population growth, which — while not without its problems — is one of the reasons Social Security and Medicare are able to work. Consistently having more than twice as many people paying into the system as there are drawing from it can only happen with population growth.
Says the guy who thinks every gun regulation is a step on the road to inevitable banning and confiscation. Says the guy who flies into paroxysms of rage at the suggestion of gender not being binary.
i know i will hate myself for this but explain 'I am responsible for my circumstances'..... your words sounds absolute to me....using your words again what other party is named in the statement 'I am responsible for my circumstances' as being responsible for their circumstance except 'I'? now point out something completely off subject to try and redirect.....in 3.....2.....1
Because that is how it played out elsewhere, in the past. I only dig in at the suggestion peoplw be coerced into playing along. I really don't care what you call yourself if that's as far as it goes.
External elements can be beyond your control, but it is up to you to choose how to act on that. That choice comes with accountability.
i disagree actions can be constrained by the circumstance and force you to 'compromise' or limit or eliminate the very action(s) you feel is best and want to take. nothing is ever simple especially when dealing with humans. and yes absolutely accountability for your decisions and actions
The universe failing to cater to your personal vision of fair conditions and pleasant choices does not diminish your responsibility for your decisions. Everyone is going to have a different utopian vision, and the universe doesn't give a ripping shit about any of them. You adapt or you perish.
No. That foesn’t work. If someone is hoarding resources that are needed by others, people are going to try to take it.
Well, I guess you want all those stop lights and signs taken down. They're coddling you into weakness.
which says nothing about what i said the universe don't give a shit about my or your personal visions conditions or pleaseant choices that is a naive way to be, you think you are in control of you situation stooooooopid. 'utopia' there ain't one of those bubba. 'does not diminish your responsibility for your decisions' CAN YOU NOT READ OR ARE SO BLINDED BY YOUR PERSONAL SENSE OF SUPERIORITY.......what does my last sentence say. i will help 'and yes absolutely accountability for your decisions and actions'. my Momma would say to me she would say 'son this is a fool, it's time to stop suffering fools.'............. so i say at last 'have a nice day'
Keep digging. The more you claim that "it is not the only or even the most important factor" equals "it doesn't count", the more you show the board that you are either deliberately deforming what I wrote (making you a blatant hypocrite, since you constantly insult those who do that to your posts), or you didn't understand it (which says very uncomfortable things about your capacity for reading comprehnsion). The more you insist on it, the worse you look -- either way.
Define "lower standard" of living. For example, if it was cheaper and easier to repair one's car, so they didn't need to buy a newer one every so many years, does that mean that they have a lower standard of living? Or does that mean that they're able to more enjoy the non-material things that are more important to them? As for Social Security, remember that the wealthy don't pay into it the same way the majority of Americans do. Above a certain income level, the amount you pay into SS is capped. Remove the cap, and SS has a lot more money. And Medicare? Given that if the US adopted universal healthcare like much of the world has, people would see a dramatic savings, I'm not seeing the problem. The bigger issue is that we don't have enough doctors to go around.
Well, here's a good example of one of the many tradeoffs involved. Yes, cars used to be cheaper and easier to repair. But they also didn't have the huge array of sophisticated systems that cars have now — including safety systems. My car can alert me if I'm on the highway and there's another car in my blind spot; it can monitor cross traffic when I'm backing out onto a busy road; it can slam on the brakes if I'm about to crash into somebody. And many other cars on the road are alerting their drivers if I'm in their blind spot and can slam on the brakes if they're about to crash into me. That's probably why, despite Americans traveling 10 times as many miles, we have roughly the same number of fatal crashes per year as we did in 1941. Not the same rate, the same number. The fatality rate per miles driven has been cut by 90%. Being 90% less likely to get killed in a car accident doesn't seem like a trivial "material thing" to me.
Yes, the Social Security cap needs to be raised. My preferred approach, instead of the weird "donut" arrangement that Democrats have been proposing because they're terrified of Republicans saying that they're going to raise taxes (which Republicans will say anyway, whether it's true or not), would be to raise the cap significantly while also lowering the tax rate, giving the lowest-income Americans a significant break on their payroll taxes and requiring the people who disproportionately benefit from their labor to pay more into the system. I also think we should bring the retirement age back down to 65, or hell, maybe even 62. But whatever we land on, it will presumably require an expanding population in order to maintain it in the long run.
