WNX Posted December 26, 2019 Report Share Posted December 26, 2019 Because why would we wanna stop spending money we don't have? v_v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted December 27, 2019 Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 Same reason we waste so much money on defense and warfare, BECAUSE *Censored* AMERICAN PEOPLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 27, 2019 Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 Same reason we waste so much money on defense and warfare, BECAUSE *Censored* AMERICAN PEOPLE You either have to spend money on offense or defense. And don't act like the left has a moral high ground on spending other people's money. Cash for clunkers ring a bell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango kid Posted December 27, 2019 Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 You know I have to be 21 the buy cigarettes in America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 27, 2019 Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 You know I have to be 21 the buy cigarettes in America Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango kid Posted December 27, 2019 Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 You know I have to be 21 the buy cigarettes in America Why is that? New federal law signed by Trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 27, 2019 Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 Well, dang. Didn't see that coming. Probably because of vaping. But it appears Juul was backing it as well. Dominant e-cigarette maker Juul has backed these new restrictions at both state and federal levels. (Tobacco giant and Juul investor Altria also supports the move.) Raising the buying age could take regulatory pressure off tobacco companies in other areas, like flavored e-cigarettes, which have been banned in three states and several municipalities, including New York City as of this week. https://www.vox.com/2019/12/27/21039149/fda-officially-raised-age-to-buy-tobacco-from-18-to-21 I don't personally support it, but the bill was bipartisan. Not trying to be a smartass, but if you want the government to take care of your healthcare (ACA and singlepayer), expect them to do crap like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted December 28, 2019 Report Share Posted December 28, 2019 Don't these kids order alot of those online? Are the states that banned e cigs also banning regular cigs? Doubtful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted December 28, 2019 Report Share Posted December 28, 2019 Same reason we waste so much money on defense and warfare, BECAUSE *Censored* AMERICAN PEOPLE You either have to spend money on offense or defense. And don't act like the left has a moral high ground on spending other people's money. Cash for clunkers ring a bell? You don't have to spend billions of dollars on either. The money wasted on that can be used to help people, which is one of the main things the left want to do, hence "spending other people's money." So yeah, they have a moral high ground as their goal is to help the poor, whereas the right want to give free handouts to the wealthy and to businesses. A program that was about reviving a slow industry and putting more fuel efficient cars out there in exchange for bad ones? Yeah, that wasn't bad at all. You know I have to be 21 the buy cigarettes in America Why is that? New federal law signed by Trump One of the few good things he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 28, 2019 Report Share Posted December 28, 2019 "A newly updated analysis from economists at Resources for the Future finds that the actual benefits of the program were pretty meager. The paper examined U.S. car sales using trends in Canada as a control group, and estimated that about 45 percent of cash-for-clunker vouchers went to consumers who would have bought new cars anyway. In the end, the program boosted U.S. vehicle sales by just 360,000 in July and August of 2009 and provided no stimulus thereafter. What’s more, the program increased average fuel economy in the United States by just 0.65 miles per gallon." https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/was-cash-for-clunkers-a-clunker/2011/11/04/gIQA42EhpM_blog.html “In the event of a future economic recession, we would not recommend repeating the CARS program,” Brookings researchers Ted Gayer and Emily Parker wrote, using the acronym for the Car Allowance Rebate System. “While the program did accomplish both of its goals of stimulating the automobile market and decreasing carbon emissions, there are more cost-effective policy proposals to achieve these objectives.” https://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/brookings-cash-for-clunkers-program-barack-obama-administration-cars-stimulus-099134 And for the last time, it is not a free handout to the rich to tell them they can keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AONO. Posted December 28, 2019 Report Share Posted December 28, 2019 The basic principle is that the rich can stay rich only on the back of the lower class. But, ok, anti tax in general? Then it would only make sense that people less wealthy should benefit more from the exact tax cuts. Seems pretty reasonable to advocate for less wealthy people keep more of their money, since they can use it to better their standard, education, tune up investments, spending... while the corporate and wealthy people have proved time and time again that the more profit they get is not invested back as it was "supposed to", and by that same basic principle the get even richer. It's about priorities, there is never money for healthcare, education, working towards more sustainable solutions, but there is for greed. And that's all fine because people easily eat it up, due to their lack of... well, education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veVGLwT5vxw a quick valid opinion and an example on the matter of priorities. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianweller/2019/05/30/the-2017-tax-cuts-didnt-work-the-data-prove-it/#a360b8058c13 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/why-donald-trumps-economic-dream-crumbled/601153/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-tax-cut-didnt-just-disappoint-it-flopped/2019/11/19/09a59eba-0b10-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789540931/2-years-later-trump-tax-cuts-have-failed-to-deliver-on-gops-promises It's easy to deliver on populist rhetoric of banning Muslims, deporting people, building walls, disastrous foreign policies... but I have a hunch the kinda lied when they expected some totally different results with this policy. Totally unexpected. Man, people feared on the idea of "collectivism" that would come with social policies for universal healthcare and what not. Yet, they it came with the spin of nationalist populism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwNHtA3hsUs also an insight which puts my thoughts into words better on the general situation for the last 5 years at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 29, 2019 Report Share Posted December 29, 2019 The basic principle is that the rich can stay rich only on the back of the lower class. But, ok, anti tax in general? Then it would only make sense that people less wealthy should benefit more from the exact tax cuts. Seems pretty reasonable to advocate for less wealthy people keep more of their money, since they can use it to better their standard, education, tune up investments, spending... while the corporate and wealthy people have proved time and time again that the more profit they get is not invested back as it was "supposed to", and by that same basic principle the get even richer. It's about priorities, there is never money for healthcare, education, working towards more sustainable solutions, but there is for greed. And that's all fine because people easily eat it up, due to their lack of... well, education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veVGLwT5vxw a quick valid opinion and an example on the matter of priorities. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianweller/2019/05/30/the-2017-tax-cuts-didnt-work-the-data-prove-it/#a360b8058c13 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/why-donald-trumps-economic-dream-crumbled/601153/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-tax-cut-didnt-just-disappoint-it-flopped/2019/11/19/09a59eba-0b10-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789540931/2-years-later-trump-tax-cuts-have-failed-to-deliver-on-gops-promises It's easy to deliver on populist rhetoric of banning Muslims, deporting people, building walls, disastrous foreign policies... but I have a hunch the kinda lied when they expected some totally different results with this policy. Totally unexpected. Man, people feared on the idea of "collectivism" that would come with social policies for universal healthcare and what not. Yet, they it came with the spin of nationalist populism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwNHtA3hsUs also an insight which puts my thoughts into words better on the general situation for the last 5 years at least. The rich don't have to stay rich on the backs of the lower class. Face it. The reason the rich are rich is because they (or their family members) have given a product that society wants a high supply of. That is what capitalism is all about. Providing a service that translates into a mutual transaction. I am not anti-tax. The Articles of Confederation proved that the federal government requires taxation in order for the country to sustain. However, the federal government only have certain roles afforded to them by the Constitution and I believe that they have overstepped their boundaries in a ton of ways. The New York Times also stated that most Americans received a tax cut in this article. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html Less wealthy people do keep more of their own money when it comes to income tax. Filed your taxes lately? I doubt you put in as much as the government gave back to you in April. Same for most Americans. And you act like these rich people are just hoarding their money in jars buried in their yards or is hiding it under their mattresses. In actuality, they put money into banks who then lend it out for mortgages and loans for small businesses to start up and stay afloat. There it is. There is that elitist attitude that got Trump elected in the first place. "I can't be wrong, so they must be uneducated." It wasn't a Muslim ban. They deported illegal immigrants, same as every President, securing our border, same as every President. Not getting us into unnecessary wars is disastrous foreign policy now? Since when has the left become pro war? I don't want the government in my healthcare deciding who dies and who lives. Like Bernie said, the only way to achieve this in America is for the banning of private insurance which would be disastrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 It's a common misconception that the money hoarded by the wealthy is their own. Even if it's not from generational wealth, it's still made through unethical means and/or off the back of laborers. But this is another reason why I know the right aren't pro-life at all, other than being okay with spending money in things that kill people and opposing minimum wage increase with shitty logic. They actually think it's okay for the wealthy to hoard wealth and not have to pay taxes (which ironically they whine about immigrants/undocumented immigrants not paying taxes) while getting free handouts or bailouts, while poor people who actually need money get blamed or shamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 So...Trump says (seemingly without any evidence to back such a claim)...that Iran is planning an attack on the US embassy in Iraq, and they will be "held responsible for it". For the love of god...this dude is just making claims about shit that hasn't even happened now. Even if this were a thing that was potentially going to happen...why would it be okay for the president to speak about it in this fashion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AONO. Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 I'm predicting a war with Iran in 2020. He needs it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 I'll tell you what he needs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King RyderFan Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 I'll tell you what he needs... Head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 I'll tell you what he needs... Head? What is even wrong with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King RyderFan Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 I'll tell you what he needs...Head? What is even wrong with you? No one knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted January 1, 2020 Report Share Posted January 1, 2020 So...Trump says (seemingly without any evidence to back such a claim)...that Iran is planning an attack on the US embassy in Iraq, and they will be "held responsible for it". For the love of god...this dude is just making claims about shit that hasn't even happened now. Even if this were a thing that was potentially going to happen...why would it be okay for the president to speak about it in this fashion? ...................and the US embassy was attacked in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted January 3, 2020 Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 So...Trump says (seemingly without any evidence to back such a claim)...that Iran is planning an attack on the US embassy in Iraq, and they will be "held responsible for it". For the love of god...this dude is just making claims about shit that hasn't even happened now. Even if this were a thing that was potentially going to happen...why would it be okay for the president to speak about it in this fashion? ...................and the US embassy was attacked in Iraq. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted January 3, 2020 Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 So we bombed Iraq or Iran and killed Soleimani, with some people saying we basically killed someone who took out ISIS or something. This might trigger WWIII, and people digged up Trump's old tweet saying Obama would attack a ME country for votes. So many innocent lives will be lost in ME, it sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunchbox Posted January 3, 2020 Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 What a *censored*ing actual idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted January 3, 2020 Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 This whole thing is shitty, especially for the people in the Middle East already affected by US's love for violence. And yet we still have the audacity to complain about and oppose refugees when we for the most part create them in the first place. wish we could only send Trump's sons, son-in-laws, and his supporters off to any potential war caused by him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted January 3, 2020 Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 I don't understand you guys. Trump removes troops, you bitch. Trump sends troops, you bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.