No such place exists. Best you can do is get information from many points of view from different perspectives and inform your opinion knowing that all participants involved, including you, are biased. It's also helpful to learn each specific bias and find the narrative they try to create with the stories they run, how they run them, and the facts they include or omit so that you know what is missing and what is being crafted.
I think my big pet peeve is a news outlet conveying themselves as unbiased or balanced and be blatantly the opposite. Fox news comes to mind as does CNN and NPR. If your going to be biased make it known so I can properly digest the information presented.
It seems that social media, ironically, created a dark age of journalism that would make the yellowist of journalists from yore blush. It reminds me of shoppers paralysis. Information overload makes us stupid.
um. TBH, I think both examples you mention for the US and UK are what make those two places better than China. Is it better to have a benevolent dictator or democracy? You seem to choose the benevolent dictator by your post. Democracy has always meant that a babbling man-child can be elected. Freedom means that you can impose self-inflicted injuries. The benevolent dictator is only better so long as they stay benevolent.
China does have an interesting culture that has a very long sighted view. One example I can think of was a canal between two major cities taking hundreds of years that lasted through different dynasties and governments. Their civilization is thousands of years old and yet when the reigns of power change the important long term goals are still kept even if it takes a while.
No, I said " Tweets sound a whole hell of a lot better than anything either you or I have mentioned. ". My point was that in your OP there is nothing that Trump, or any US president, can do to look capable while not strengthening Un's position in the world stage. Between failed policy that emboldens Un or failed policy that angers Un, threatening tweets are hardly a problem.
The war games and aggressive stance have been tried for just as long. When do we say that has failed?
I agree. So if either policy is failed. What's next? Action? Threatening Tweets sound a whole hell of a lot better than anything either you or I have mentioned. They are not constructive but nor has the last 30 years of policy. Again, to your OP what policy will make trump look capable? Obama did the opposite and he looked like a damned fool while acting presidential. Nothing can be done to look capable because there is nothing capable of working that hasn't been tried short of war.
Their motivation at the moment is MAD with the US
No matter what we do then they can do that. Sanctions, diplomacy, posturing, or threats be damned. The UN is a toothless animal. Non-proliferation is a failed policy. How many other nations or leaders will take note of that weakness and abuse it for their own ends? Once they get those weapons you cannot remove them. Hooray, Chamberlain in the 21st century where every despot and madman have a nuke.
had other successes, like progress on the kidnappings. The joint economic area is another example.
That's good but has done nothing for the underlying problem.
Stick with the sanctions and food aid. Work with China.
I mean, I agree but hasn't that been tried the last few number of decades with limited to no success? At some point it is a failed policy. Continuing a failed policy is stupid that will be taken advantage of by other foreign entities.
at least that route does not lead to a catastrophic war
Does it? It hasn't lowered tensions. It hasn't stopped the rhetoric. It hasn't stopped the posturing. It hasn't limited nuclear proliferation. It hasn't done anything to establish a peace agreement beyond the armistice. Seems like all it has done is buy time for NK to build up so that we are in the situation we are in today. Seems to be the policy of Neville Chamberlain. Are you sure that NK will be content with their current border and drop their idea of unity of the peninsula when they achieve the nuclear capabilities they aspire? Can you guarantee the US will always be there for SK and Japan?
Perhaps, the way to get China to do more is for Japan and SK to get their own nuclear weapons. It seems that without the UN actually enforcing non-proliferation it is a failed policy that sanctions or food aid will not solve. MAD is a viable alternative that has worked before. It is reasonable that if SK or Japan face a nuclear armed madman neighbor they be armed as well to defend themselves to the extent of any attack.
Compared to petty insults or threatening tweets... I'll take the insults and threats.
They keep baiting Trump, knowing that he will be unable to resist responding with a tweet or vague threat, which only makes him look even less capable of actually doing anything to improve the situation and strengthens Un's position as a player on the world stage.
Ok, so what is the proper response? How does he respond without improving Un's position on the world stage? Or how does he respond to limit the nuclear capabilities of NK? Considering the last 30-50 years I don't think there has been any response that has worked.
Besides, if the only response are Tweets or vague threats then that is definitely better than preemptive war.
Does war follow the news or does the news follow war? Unless the war is a spark like a surprise attack then it is a build up until the straw breaks the back. Sure, you can "track" the media and possibly conclude that war is inevitable but you are mixing up correlation and causation. War happens because of multiple events that are news worthy. Big shocker. Should the media not report that stuff?
The 2nd Iraq war was a buildup. Many things happened until war was inevitable. Those many things were reported on. What's the argument here? Were those things not noteworthy? When does the news not speculate on what something means with experts? elections, war, natural disasters, tragedies, terrorist attacks, etc ad infinitum.
War is news worthy and is reported on during times before war. That framed as the "media is gearing us up for war" is ridiculous. The media isn't "gearing us up" for anything as they are following escalating tensions that ends in war. Yes, you can look back with hindsight 20/20 and "predict" jack about current events.
I guess we should destroy modern civilization and revert to cavemen and hunter-gatherer because "whatever the cost". Why are you using the internet if you willing to pay "whatever the cost"?
I really don't understand why you feel it is so unreasonable to expect each state to get back resources from the federal government roughly in proportion to what they pay in taxes, on average.
I have said multiple times that it undermines federalism and using collectivism to judge an individual. You are applying an average to an individual. An individual pays taxes, claim deductions, etc. Yet, you have said repeatedly you want exceptions written into the law that says if the state average is low then that individual, despite paying their fair share, gets less because reasons. Or that, even if it would lower the cost of federal initiatives (labor, less regulation, etc), investment be applied to wealthy states which furthers the divide in the nation between rich and poor states.
I sympathize with the homeless problem and again, the argument you should make is to lower federal taxes and spending so that CA has more resources within its borders to address the problem. NOT argue that people pay more individually and get less individually based on where they live. That is not equality under the law. Again, two people making the same should pay the same amount of federal taxes (assuming the same deductions applied). CA chose higher state taxes they can choose to lower them and that is much easier than changing federal tax code which again, is the point of federalism.
We can agree to disagree. This conversation is now going in circles.
universal healthcare is not about risk pools. insurance under the ACA takes away the risk assessment.
So why shouldn't states that routinely take in extra money in federal aid have to pay more in federal taxes?
Why can't the poor pay more taxes? Why can't the hungry feed themselves?
What, precisely, do you think I'm doing when I'm arguing that state taxes should remain federally deductible?
That an individual pay more yet receive less because the state doesn't have SV to pay for stronger social programs like CA.
If we lose that deduction, it will reduce available money that goes into the local economy
Then cut state taxes and spending.
This is completely different,
What about my other examples.
chose to not charge enough taxes to cover your needs, and forces the federal government to make up the difference
Different states have different needs. Not every state has SV to pay for an expansive welfare state. You undermine the point of federalism. The problem in CA are purely the making of CA.
are punishing me individually
You have an odd idea of individuality if you think paying less means unfair to you because state aggregates.
risk of forcing California to choose between financial collapse and secession
If that is really all you can come up with a solution then the CA mindset is indeed very elitist. Ever thought of lower taxes, cutting back on state funding or using other avenues of tax to fund those programs? CA budget is crap before and they continue to propose/pass legislation without foresight of fiscal responsibility. Not every state has a SV to pay for the extensive welfare that CA has. Calexit, won't happen and will be worse for CA if it did.
That's actually a great example in favor of my position. Businesses pay different unemployment insurance costs depending on their rate of claims. What I'm saying is that this should be true for a lot more things than it currently is. States that constantly rely on federal aid should pay more in taxes so that things balance out.
If you also think it is an argument against insurance, universal healthcare, or any individual subsidy by a group. How far are you willing to take that logic? Again, it undermines the point of federalism. Not all states will have powerful economies and there will inevitably be areas that require additional help even if that help is unwanted. It would be politically easier to reduce federal spending than to do what you are saying. Again, the point is individual deductions on federal taxes. Not state aggregate federal taxes in relation to individual federal benefits. Those are two different topics. Saying you don't receive the same benefits as the poor... Well so what? You pay less than the other guy making the same as you by choice.
The richest parts of Silicon Valley have good infrastructure. Much of the rest is an absolute disaster
From what I have seen and heard of the rest of the state is disaster as well. I would imagine that the rich parts of the city are even better off. Semantics.
The one thing the Bay Area has going for it is better services for the homeless.... country's homeless end up in California eventually.
Props to them, I don't think anyone cares beyond the people in the Bar Area but when you apply those programs at the federal level is when you get push back. I woudn't doubt that homeless end up in CA because free movement. That is applicable anywhere so any policy for healthcare, welfare, or helping the homeless have to accommodate that. Welcome to federalism. That doesn't explain why two citizens making the same pay different amounts because choice.
Unfortunately, the federal government gives out its money to California at less than a per-capita rate, and we have 2.25x the per-capita rate of homeless, so this influx of homeless from the rest of the country means that California effectively has to pay for other states' homeless problems through our state income taxes.
Then argue that more of your money should stay in the state. Is there any right or federal individual benefit that is limited to what you are arguing? How does insurance work without young and healthy? How does unemployment work without the employed? How does welfare work without the wealthy?... Seriously, CA raises taxes and you are upset you pay high taxes and that you should be more equal than a guy making the same. You individually do not pay 2.25x the per-capita rate for homeless in federal taxes. You individually do not give out 2.25x the amount in federal taxes. You individually pay less in federal taxes by choice. Can you understand the point of the individual and that to the guy paying more than you in federal taxes it is unfair to him.
I understand the sentiment and I would be against it too. However, you want your cake and to eat it too. It is not my fault that you chose higher taxes and you are punishing me individually because collective thinking.
they invariably do so by cutting programs that help the poor and elderly, while continuing to pump money into military equipment
I can relate and understand that. However, if they feel that it isn't the business of the federal government to provide the bulk help to the poor and elderly they are forced to pay taxes on federal programs they don't want. The real question is why do those programs have to be federal? If CA wants to have higher taxes to help their poor and elderly I don't think anyone would be upset about it. If TN had horrible care then just as those residents in coastal states highly effected by hurricanes can use their feet so to can they do so for weak social programs. However, when it is federal then all citizens are forced to pay so if you are going to pay you might as well try and get something out of it.
The military is constitutionally allowed and provides a very tangible benefit. We can argue about lowering that spending but it is one of the few areas both sides agree. The military is a good thing and it does more than line the pockets of contractors.
Because for every $1 I pay in federal taxes, I get 80 cents back into my state year after year, and for every $1 that most red states pay in taxes, they get back up to $1.80 year after year. I'm not sure how you can fail to understand something that simple. This isn't about emergencies. This is about conservative states leeching off of liberal states consistently and reliably year after year. Those of us in blue states are tired of it, and we're not going to put up with any tax plan that pushes the balance even further in that direction. If you want to take away our income tax deduction, you'd better be prepared for us to demand our fair share of all those additional federal taxes we're paying, which means all those red states are going to see serious cuts in federal spending on their needs and will have to either raise taxes or cut services. Those are your choices.
This really ircks me. You pay taxes and you don't always get out what you pay. News at 11. Why do you think some argue taxes are theft? You pay into the unemployment pool while employed, yet you may never draw on it because you never lost your job. You pay into helping disabled workers yet you may never be disabled. Maybe you are saying only invest national labs in CA with high labor costs and high regulations making any major project very expensive ballooning spending which inevitably creates two extremes of the haves and have nots.
It's a very elitist position. SV is the reason why CA turns a federal profit (so to speak). I have heard about CA being two states in one; SV with other cities and the rest of the state being ignored with failing infrastructure with increasingly harder laws to follow commanded from on the high rooftops of SV that don't have to live with the hard laws they pass because city living.
I understand that you are paying less federal taxes individually and use Silicone Valley to justify why you should get something more from the government than someone else the law was designed to help. You are using the rich to fuck over other people because you want your cake and to eat it too. People in CA should pay less because they are wealthier and SV. That is why I said initially that what you are saying undermines one of the points of federalism. We can agree to disagree.
I shouldn't have wrote two responses. Sorry. It makes the conversation harder to follow because I think we both made our main points in the other post. I want to say I answered that question in the other post. Any who, cheers.
Because the discussion is about taxes and the associated deductions an individual can claim. It is a discussion purely about federal taxes.
What matters is how much we get back for each dollar paid in taxes, and we get lower taxes because the federal government is cheating us... requires the federal government to spend money in states proportional to the taxes paid by the citizens of those states.
To put it bluntly, FEMA should have exceptions to their responses based on positive federal contributions at the state level even if you individually are a net contributor? That is what you are arguing Puerto Rico, not paying federal income tax, therefore should not receive help because they are a net loser of federal taxes? An individual is punished because he lives in a poor state but an individual pays less because he lives in a rich state because Silicone Valley...... Wow.
The sad thing is, many in those small states would want less federal spending as well but whenever they propose smaller federal government or spending it is seen as regressive. Instead of shrinking the government you think it's better to use state metrics to judge individual benefits... I am honestly dumbfounded.
I am not sure how you can argue that you are being cheated when you are literally paying less federal taxes individually.
"It's an argument for making federal spending more fair, by decreasing federal spending in states that get back more than they pay in taxes",
How is it fair when two citizens of different states making the same amount of money pay different levels of federal tax? Do we decrease any federal entitlement based on an ability to pay the same as the more affluent?
"because of the federal spending imbalance" a federal spending argument not a tax collection argument "How is that an argument for lowering federal spending?" Because equality under the law. In your example, the person in TN making $100k may not take in any federal aid should not be burdened by higher taxes than a person in CA making $100k. A state as a whole may take more in federal does not therefore mean that an individual should pay higher federal taxes because state taxes are lower.
Because you even state as much that because of federal spending imbalance. Federal taxes i.e. spending is the issue not collection. Are you saying that depending on where you live you should pay higher taxes? Should entitlements be under the same conditions?
If Californians are unhappy with TN people receiving higher federal payments then they should argue for lower federal spending i.e. lower federal taxes. People in TN decided they want lower taxes, if TN people are being helped by federal programs paid for by CA federal collection, then it is in CA best interest to lower federal taxes. However, if Californians are unwilling to lower federal spending then they have no grounds to argue the amount any state take in federal aid so long as that aid is lawful. We do not restrict federal aid or entitlements because of federal tax collection amounts.
Again, which of the two people in your example pays higher federal taxes out of pocket making $100k? Federal state tax deductions is only to the benefit of high tax states like California who then use that benefit to fund state initiatives. Why should the people of TN pay higher federal taxes? If you don't want to pay such high taxes, then perhaps CA should vote to lower state and federal taxes.
It's less fair because people in TN chose lower state taxes while CA chose higher taxes? I am not sure I understand, which of the two people in your example pays higher federal taxes out of pocket making $100k?
Property is more expensive in CA, why is that the fault of people in TN? Ignoring charity because that is not mandatory like tax.
I am not sure the point in talking about tax spending when the topic is tax collection. Yes, TN may take in more federal dollars but that is an argument for lower federal spending not changing how each state citizen pays different federal taxes. Is there any federal entitlement that is restricted by the persons ability to pay the same as someone else in another state? That undermines the point of federalism.
You got me. That one part of a sentence that could be replaced with other examples if I wasn't lazy. Also, that ny prof isn't the only one being a racist ass hole.
no, i am not going to find you a link because i dont' care enopugh.
Again, what was the argument of the original post.
type of posts you make create more white supremacists than Spencer could ever do because all he needs to do is show your post or articles like "white nuclear family creates white supremacy"
What is the main argument of that sentence and what is the supporting reasons behind it? If i removed the 'or articles like 'white nuclear family creates white supremacy' would you have a reason to bitch and woudl my argument still stand ?
I saw it in passing I wrote it when it came to mind it wasn't the argument and wasn't the only supporting reason behind my argument.
Rachel Dolezal isn't black because nobody considers her black. It's a social construct. Society does not consider her black. Simple.
I keep reading both your posts and this just sticks out to me. I am dumb founded by it. Anything is permissible under that logic because truth is relative. If you are fine with that we can agree to disagree but TBH I loathe nihilism.
If that was my main point you might have a point. Notice how it was in parenthesis and how I didn't link to any actual article but rather a search. That's because I saw it in passing, it came to mind when I was writing the post, it is one example among many. Sue me.
I did not suggest that. I suggested "it's a post-modern philosophy that is pervasive these days... at what point should we embrace nihilism because our definitions are so fluid they are useless".
Ask a biologist what delineates a subspecies. They will say it depends. Sometimes it's morphological sometimes it is genetic. Anthropologists want a word that is similar to 'subspecies' but the different populations are genetically the same. Race was that word but it has a history and has been conflated with subspecies. Originally meant to classify by languages, then by geographic region, to the modern morphological classification. Race as a social construct with no biological basis is only true if you change the definition which some experts are trying to do. There is a difference is saying; "The word 'race' has a history that has been conflated with 'subspecies' in anthropology, we need a different word to describe 'morphologically distinct but genetically similar' instead using a historically loaded word." versus "'race' is a social construct so Rachel Dolezal is really black because she got a perm and makeup. " Colloquially, 'race' is the laymens morphological distinction of the human race. That doesn't mean it is a social construct with no biological basis because anthropologists want a different word to mean something like "lineage" or "ancestry" (note that both those terms follow a specific genetic line even if that lineage isn't distinct enough for a subspecies classification). All because the human race is a biologically young species and because there is no distinct point of individuals where the parent is a distinct sub species from the offspring.
When people like Rachel Dolezal use that as justification for their 'blackness' is the post-modern philosophy I am talking about. Or when GP uses it as a stand in to deflect "X race had their last hooray" is what I am talking about. There is a nuanced discussion about the term 'race' and the categorization of the human species by anthropologists. But ignoring the colloquial meaning with laymen to justify bad behavior is the permissive nature of post-modernity that I am talking about that I think leads to nihilism.
No rational person calls having two same race parents as racist. You're literally making that up
policies that favored white Christians so much they implemented policy to make them a minority. Brilliant. There is an underlying condescension in your posts that makes me wonder how far that will manifest in policy when white christian is minority. will it be akin to revenge justified by the past.
Race is a social construct without biological basis.
This is retarded. What are alleles. Culture is what you are talking about. Why was Rachel Dolezal chastised and not embraced by the left? it's pretty sad that what you and others are saying is that labels are more powerful than physical characteristics. It's a post-modern philosophy that is pervasive these days that I find asinine and dangerous. At what point should we embrace nihilism because our definitions are so fluid they are useless therefore all actions are permissible? Pedos were born that way, why is it right for society to discriminate against them when they cannot choose what they are attracted to? Attraction is a social construct after all. -.-
Honestly, your posts have a subtle hint of racism. You seem to only be concerned about groups instead of individuals. The type of posts you make create more white supremacists than Spencer could ever do because all he needs to do is show your post or articles like "white nuclear family creates white supremacy" (just happened to see that headline today because having two same race parents that stayed together is racism) and it's easy to see a very firm bias. Would it be racist to change the races around?
Slashdot Mirror
Where does one go for truly unbiased coverage?
No such place exists. Best you can do is get information from many points of view from different perspectives and inform your opinion knowing that all participants involved, including you, are biased. It's also helpful to learn each specific bias and find the narrative they try to create with the stories they run, how they run them, and the facts they include or omit so that you know what is missing and what is being crafted.
I think my big pet peeve is a news outlet conveying themselves as unbiased or balanced and be blatantly the opposite. Fox news comes to mind as does CNN and NPR. If your going to be biased make it known so I can properly digest the information presented.
It seems that social media, ironically, created a dark age of journalism that would make the yellowist of journalists from yore blush. It reminds me of shoppers paralysis. Information overload makes us stupid.
um. TBH, I think both examples you mention for the US and UK are what make those two places better than China. Is it better to have a benevolent dictator or democracy? You seem to choose the benevolent dictator by your post. Democracy has always meant that a babbling man-child can be elected. Freedom means that you can impose self-inflicted injuries. The benevolent dictator is only better so long as they stay benevolent.
China does have an interesting culture that has a very long sighted view. One example I can think of was a canal between two major cities taking hundreds of years that lasted through different dynasties and governments. Their civilization is thousands of years old and yet when the reigns of power change the important long term goals are still kept even if it takes a while.
No, I said " Tweets sound a whole hell of a lot better than anything either you or I have mentioned. ". My point was that in your OP there is nothing that Trump, or any US president, can do to look capable while not strengthening Un's position in the world stage. Between failed policy that emboldens Un or failed policy that angers Un, threatening tweets are hardly a problem.
The war games and aggressive stance have been tried for just as long. When do we say that has failed?
I agree. So if either policy is failed. What's next? Action? Threatening Tweets sound a whole hell of a lot better than anything either you or I have mentioned. They are not constructive but nor has the last 30 years of policy. Again, to your OP what policy will make trump look capable? Obama did the opposite and he looked like a damned fool while acting presidential. Nothing can be done to look capable because there is nothing capable of working that hasn't been tried short of war.
Their motivation at the moment is MAD with the US
No matter what we do then they can do that. Sanctions, diplomacy, posturing, or threats be damned. The UN is a toothless animal. Non-proliferation is a failed policy. How many other nations or leaders will take note of that weakness and abuse it for their own ends? Once they get those weapons you cannot remove them. Hooray, Chamberlain in the 21st century where every despot and madman have a nuke.
had other successes, like progress on the kidnappings. The joint economic area is another example.
That's good but has done nothing for the underlying problem.
Stick with the sanctions and food aid. Work with China.
I mean, I agree but hasn't that been tried the last few number of decades with limited to no success? At some point it is a failed policy. Continuing a failed policy is stupid that will be taken advantage of by other foreign entities.
at least that route does not lead to a catastrophic war
Does it? It hasn't lowered tensions. It hasn't stopped the rhetoric. It hasn't stopped the posturing. It hasn't limited nuclear proliferation. It hasn't done anything to establish a peace agreement beyond the armistice. Seems like all it has done is buy time for NK to build up so that we are in the situation we are in today. Seems to be the policy of Neville Chamberlain. Are you sure that NK will be content with their current border and drop their idea of unity of the peninsula when they achieve the nuclear capabilities they aspire? Can you guarantee the US will always be there for SK and Japan?
Perhaps, the way to get China to do more is for Japan and SK to get their own nuclear weapons. It seems that without the UN actually enforcing non-proliferation it is a failed policy that sanctions or food aid will not solve. MAD is a viable alternative that has worked before. It is reasonable that if SK or Japan face a nuclear armed madman neighbor they be armed as well to defend themselves to the extent of any attack.
Compared to petty insults or threatening tweets... I'll take the insults and threats.
They keep baiting Trump, knowing that he will be unable to resist responding with a tweet or vague threat, which only makes him look even less capable of actually doing anything to improve the situation and strengthens Un's position as a player on the world stage.
Ok, so what is the proper response? How does he respond without improving Un's position on the world stage? Or how does he respond to limit the nuclear capabilities of NK? Considering the last 30-50 years I don't think there has been any response that has worked.
Besides, if the only response are Tweets or vague threats then that is definitely better than preemptive war.
Does war follow the news or does the news follow war? Unless the war is a spark like a surprise attack then it is a build up until the straw breaks the back. Sure, you can "track" the media and possibly conclude that war is inevitable but you are mixing up correlation and causation. War happens because of multiple events that are news worthy. Big shocker. Should the media not report that stuff?
The 2nd Iraq war was a buildup. Many things happened until war was inevitable. Those many things were reported on. What's the argument here? Were those things not noteworthy? When does the news not speculate on what something means with experts? elections, war, natural disasters, tragedies, terrorist attacks, etc ad infinitum.
War is news worthy and is reported on during times before war. That framed as the "media is gearing us up for war" is ridiculous. The media isn't "gearing us up" for anything as they are following escalating tensions that ends in war. Yes, you can look back with hindsight 20/20 and "predict" jack about current events.
You are wrong. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sit...
I guess we should destroy modern civilization and revert to cavemen and hunter-gatherer because "whatever the cost". Why are you using the internet if you willing to pay "whatever the cost"?
Promise, I won't tell anyone. Cheers.
I really don't understand why you feel it is so unreasonable to expect each state to get back resources from the federal government roughly in proportion to what they pay in taxes, on average.
I have said multiple times that it undermines federalism and using collectivism to judge an individual. You are applying an average to an individual. An individual pays taxes, claim deductions, etc. Yet, you have said repeatedly you want exceptions written into the law that says if the state average is low then that individual, despite paying their fair share, gets less because reasons. Or that, even if it would lower the cost of federal initiatives (labor, less regulation, etc), investment be applied to wealthy states which furthers the divide in the nation between rich and poor states.
I sympathize with the homeless problem and again, the argument you should make is to lower federal taxes and spending so that CA has more resources within its borders to address the problem. NOT argue that people pay more individually and get less individually based on where they live. That is not equality under the law. Again, two people making the same should pay the same amount of federal taxes (assuming the same deductions applied). CA chose higher state taxes they can choose to lower them and that is much easier than changing federal tax code which again, is the point of federalism.
We can agree to disagree. This conversation is now going in circles.
universal healthcare is not about risk pools. insurance under the ACA takes away the risk assessment.
So why shouldn't states that routinely take in extra money in federal aid have to pay more in federal taxes?
Why can't the poor pay more taxes? Why can't the hungry feed themselves?
What, precisely, do you think I'm doing when I'm arguing that state taxes should remain federally deductible?
That an individual pay more yet receive less because the state doesn't have SV to pay for stronger social programs like CA.
If we lose that deduction, it will reduce available money that goes into the local economy
Then cut state taxes and spending.
This is completely different,
What about my other examples.
chose to not charge enough taxes to cover your needs, and forces the federal government to make up the difference
Different states have different needs. Not every state has SV to pay for an expansive welfare state. You undermine the point of federalism. The problem in CA are purely the making of CA.
are punishing me individually
You have an odd idea of individuality if you think paying less means unfair to you because state aggregates.
risk of forcing California to choose between financial collapse and secession
If that is really all you can come up with a solution then the CA mindset is indeed very elitist. Ever thought of lower taxes, cutting back on state funding or using other avenues of tax to fund those programs? CA budget is crap before and they continue to propose/pass legislation without foresight of fiscal responsibility. Not every state has a SV to pay for the extensive welfare that CA has. Calexit, won't happen and will be worse for CA if it did.
That's actually a great example in favor of my position. Businesses pay different unemployment insurance costs depending on their rate of claims. What I'm saying is that this should be true for a lot more things than it currently is. States that constantly rely on federal aid should pay more in taxes so that things balance out.
If you also think it is an argument against insurance, universal healthcare, or any individual subsidy by a group. How far are you willing to take that logic? Again, it undermines the point of federalism. Not all states will have powerful economies and there will inevitably be areas that require additional help even if that help is unwanted. It would be politically easier to reduce federal spending than to do what you are saying. Again, the point is individual deductions on federal taxes. Not state aggregate federal taxes in relation to individual federal benefits. Those are two different topics. Saying you don't receive the same benefits as the poor... Well so what? You pay less than the other guy making the same as you by choice.
The richest parts of Silicon Valley have good infrastructure. Much of the rest is an absolute disaster
From what I have seen and heard of the rest of the state is disaster as well. I would imagine that the rich parts of the city are even better off. Semantics.
The one thing the Bay Area has going for it is better services for the homeless.... country's homeless end up in California eventually.
Props to them, I don't think anyone cares beyond the people in the Bar Area but when you apply those programs at the federal level is when you get push back. I woudn't doubt that homeless end up in CA because free movement. That is applicable anywhere so any policy for healthcare, welfare, or helping the homeless have to accommodate that. Welcome to federalism. That doesn't explain why two citizens making the same pay different amounts because choice.
Unfortunately, the federal government gives out its money to California at less than a per-capita rate, and we have 2.25x the per-capita rate of homeless, so this influx of homeless from the rest of the country means that California effectively has to pay for other states' homeless problems through our state income taxes.
Then argue that more of your money should stay in the state. Is there any right or federal individual benefit that is limited to what you are arguing? How does insurance work without young and healthy? How does unemployment work without the employed? How does welfare work without the wealthy? ... Seriously, CA raises taxes and you are upset you pay high taxes and that you should be more equal than a guy making the same. You individually do not pay 2.25x the per-capita rate for homeless in federal taxes. You individually do not give out 2.25x the amount in federal taxes. You individually pay less in federal taxes by choice. Can you understand the point of the individual and that to the guy paying more than you in federal taxes it is unfair to him.
I understand the sentiment and I would be against it too. However, you want your cake and to eat it too. It is not my fault that you chose higher taxes and you are punishing me individually because collective thinking.
they invariably do so by cutting programs that help the poor and elderly, while continuing to pump money into military equipment
I can relate and understand that. However, if they feel that it isn't the business of the federal government to provide the bulk help to the poor and elderly they are forced to pay taxes on federal programs they don't want. The real question is why do those programs have to be federal? If CA wants to have higher taxes to help their poor and elderly I don't think anyone would be upset about it. If TN had horrible care then just as those residents in coastal states highly effected by hurricanes can use their feet so to can they do so for weak social programs. However, when it is federal then all citizens are forced to pay so if you are going to pay you might as well try and get something out of it.
The military is constitutionally allowed and provides a very tangible benefit. We can argue about lowering that spending but it is one of the few areas both sides agree. The military is a good thing and it does more than line the pockets of contractors.
Because for every $1 I pay in federal taxes, I get 80 cents back into my state year after year, and for every $1 that most red states pay in taxes, they get back up to $1.80 year after year. I'm not sure how you can fail to understand something that simple. This isn't about emergencies. This is about conservative states leeching off of liberal states consistently and reliably year after year. Those of us in blue states are tired of it, and we're not going to put up with any tax plan that pushes the balance even further in that direction. If you want to take away our income tax deduction, you'd better be prepared for us to demand our fair share of all those additional federal taxes we're paying, which means all those red states are going to see serious cuts in federal spending on their needs and will have to either raise taxes or cut services. Those are your choices.
This really ircks me. You pay taxes and you don't always get out what you pay. News at 11. Why do you think some argue taxes are theft? You pay into the unemployment pool while employed, yet you may never draw on it because you never lost your job. You pay into helping disabled workers yet you may never be disabled. Maybe you are saying only invest national labs in CA with high labor costs and high regulations making any major project very expensive ballooning spending which inevitably creates two extremes of the haves and have nots.
It's a very elitist position. SV is the reason why CA turns a federal profit (so to speak). I have heard about CA being two states in one; SV with other cities and the rest of the state being ignored with failing infrastructure with increasingly harder laws to follow commanded from on the high rooftops of SV that don't have to live with the hard laws they pass because city living.
I understand that you are paying less federal taxes individually and use Silicone Valley to justify why you should get something more from the government than someone else the law was designed to help. You are using the rich to fuck over other people because you want your cake and to eat it too. People in CA should pay less because they are wealthier and SV. That is why I said initially that what you are saying undermines one of the points of federalism. We can agree to disagree.
I shouldn't have wrote two responses. Sorry. It makes the conversation harder to follow because I think we both made our main points in the other post. I want to say I answered that question in the other post. Any who, cheers.
You keep myopically focusing on federal taxes
Because the discussion is about taxes and the associated deductions an individual can claim. It is a discussion purely about federal taxes.
What matters is how much we get back for each dollar paid in taxes, and we get lower taxes because the federal government is cheating us... requires the federal government to spend money in states proportional to the taxes paid by the citizens of those states.
To put it bluntly, FEMA should have exceptions to their responses based on positive federal contributions at the state level even if you individually are a net contributor? That is what you are arguing Puerto Rico, not paying federal income tax, therefore should not receive help because they are a net loser of federal taxes? An individual is punished because he lives in a poor state but an individual pays less because he lives in a rich state because Silicone Valley... ... Wow.
The sad thing is, many in those small states would want less federal spending as well but whenever they propose smaller federal government or spending it is seen as regressive. Instead of shrinking the government you think it's better to use state metrics to judge individual benefits... I am honestly dumbfounded.
I am not sure how you can argue that you are being cheated when you are literally paying less federal taxes individually.
"It's an argument for making federal spending more fair, by decreasing federal spending in states that get back more than they pay in taxes",
How is it fair when two citizens of different states making the same amount of money pay different levels of federal tax?
Do we decrease any federal entitlement based on an ability to pay the same as the more affluent?
"because of the federal spending imbalance" a federal spending argument not a tax collection argument
"How is that an argument for lowering federal spending?"
Because equality under the law. In your example, the person in TN making $100k may not take in any federal aid should not be burdened by higher taxes than a person in CA making $100k. A state as a whole may take more in federal does not therefore mean that an individual should pay higher federal taxes because state taxes are lower.
Because you even state as much that because of federal spending imbalance. Federal taxes i.e. spending is the issue not collection. Are you saying that depending on where you live you should pay higher taxes? Should entitlements be under the same conditions?
If Californians are unhappy with TN people receiving higher federal payments then they should argue for lower federal spending i.e. lower federal taxes. People in TN decided they want lower taxes, if TN people are being helped by federal programs paid for by CA federal collection, then it is in CA best interest to lower federal taxes. However, if Californians are unwilling to lower federal spending then they have no grounds to argue the amount any state take in federal aid so long as that aid is lawful. We do not restrict federal aid or entitlements because of federal tax collection amounts.
Again, which of the two people in your example pays higher federal taxes out of pocket making $100k? Federal state tax deductions is only to the benefit of high tax states like California who then use that benefit to fund state initiatives. Why should the people of TN pay higher federal taxes? If you don't want to pay such high taxes, then perhaps CA should vote to lower state and federal taxes.
It's less fair because people in TN chose lower state taxes while CA chose higher taxes? I am not sure I understand, which of the two people in your example pays higher federal taxes out of pocket making $100k?
Property is more expensive in CA, why is that the fault of people in TN? Ignoring charity because that is not mandatory like tax.
I am not sure the point in talking about tax spending when the topic is tax collection. Yes, TN may take in more federal dollars but that is an argument for lower federal spending not changing how each state citizen pays different federal taxes. Is there any federal entitlement that is restricted by the persons ability to pay the same as someone else in another state? That undermines the point of federalism.
good gravy you must be bored.
You got me. That one part of a sentence that could be replaced with other examples if I wasn't lazy. Also, that ny prof isn't the only one being a racist ass hole.
no, i am not going to find you a link because i dont' care enopugh.
Again, what was the argument of the original post.
type of posts you make create more white supremacists than Spencer could ever do because all he needs to do is show your post or articles like "white nuclear family creates white supremacy"
What is the main argument of that sentence and what is the supporting reasons behind it? If i removed the 'or articles like 'white nuclear family creates white supremacy' would you have a reason to bitch and woudl my argument still stand ?
I saw it in passing I wrote it when it came to mind it wasn't the argument and wasn't the only supporting reason behind my argument.
Rachel Dolezal isn't black because nobody considers her black. It's a social construct. Society does not consider her black. Simple.
I keep reading both your posts and this just sticks out to me. I am dumb founded by it. Anything is permissible under that logic because truth is relative. If you are fine with that we can agree to disagree but TBH I loathe nihilism.
If that was my main point you might have a point. Notice how it was in parenthesis and how I didn't link to any actual article but rather a search. That's because I saw it in passing, it came to mind when I was writing the post, it is one example among many. Sue me.
I did not suggest that. I suggested "it's a post-modern philosophy that is pervasive these days... at what point should we embrace nihilism because our definitions are so fluid they are useless".
Ask a biologist what delineates a subspecies. They will say it depends. Sometimes it's morphological sometimes it is genetic. Anthropologists want a word that is similar to 'subspecies' but the different populations are genetically the same. Race was that word but it has a history and has been conflated with subspecies. Originally meant to classify by languages, then by geographic region, to the modern morphological classification. Race as a social construct with no biological basis is only true if you change the definition which some experts are trying to do. There is a difference is saying; "The word 'race' has a history that has been conflated with 'subspecies' in anthropology, we need a different word to describe 'morphologically distinct but genetically similar' instead using a historically loaded word." versus "'race' is a social construct so Rachel Dolezal is really black because she got a perm and makeup. " Colloquially, 'race' is the laymens morphological distinction of the human race. That doesn't mean it is a social construct with no biological basis because anthropologists want a different word to mean something like "lineage" or "ancestry" (note that both those terms follow a specific genetic line even if that lineage isn't distinct enough for a subspecies classification). All because the human race is a biologically young species and because there is no distinct point of individuals where the parent is a distinct sub species from the offspring.
When people like Rachel Dolezal use that as justification for their 'blackness' is the post-modern philosophy I am talking about. Or when GP uses it as a stand in to deflect "X race had their last hooray" is what I am talking about. There is a nuanced discussion about the term 'race' and the categorization of the human species by anthropologists. But ignoring the colloquial meaning with laymen to justify bad behavior is the permissive nature of post-modernity that I am talking about that I think leads to nihilism.
No rational person calls having two same race parents as racist. You're literally making that up
https://www.bing.com/news/sear...
I said "just happened to see that headline today". Some NY prof is saying that.
It is weird to me when people say things like "X race is going away or X race has been in power long enough "... It seems racist to me.
policies that favored white Christians so much they implemented policy to make them a minority. Brilliant. There is an underlying condescension in your posts that makes me wonder how far that will manifest in policy when white christian is minority. will it be akin to revenge justified by the past.
Race is a social construct without biological basis.
This is retarded. What are alleles. Culture is what you are talking about. Why was Rachel Dolezal chastised and not embraced by the left? it's pretty sad that what you and others are saying is that labels are more powerful than physical characteristics. It's a post-modern philosophy that is pervasive these days that I find asinine and dangerous. At what point should we embrace nihilism because our definitions are so fluid they are useless therefore all actions are permissible? Pedos were born that way, why is it right for society to discriminate against them when they cannot choose what they are attracted to? Attraction is a social construct after all. -.-
Honestly, your posts have a subtle hint of racism. You seem to only be concerned about groups instead of individuals. The type of posts you make create more white supremacists than Spencer could ever do because all he needs to do is show your post or articles like "white nuclear family creates white supremacy" (just happened to see that headline today because having two same race parents that stayed together is racism) and it's easy to see a very firm bias. Would it be racist to change the races around?