3 ms·

The whole deal is a 'we are spending tons of cash, so we need to take it from someone' plan. This isn't a "watching out for the average person" deal.

by czbond 5y ago

belltaco 5y ago
Or maybe it's trying to close loopholes around having to pay taxes. >The whole deal is a 'we are spending tons of cash, so we need to take it from someone' plan Funny how spending tons of cash is a problem only if it benefits poor and middle class people. I never saw this outrage on trillions spent on endless wars, since that benefits rich people. But if something helps poor or middle class and hurts rich people a little, there is a big outrage.
- czbond 5y ago
  I don't believe they're the same. Specifically on wars... the lack of 'outrage' is because people have been smart enough to tie "war" to nationalism, patriotism, and "watchdog for the world" which instills a sense of pride in a majority population nationwide; instead of seeing it as a drag on prosperity, nation mongering, and self interest dealing.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  If they wanted to specifically get rid of loopholes, they would scrap The whole employer requirement of 401k and let anyone contribute to an IRA up to the same limits for everyone. But, of course, politicians want to let big businesses maintain their competitive advantage by making 401k have higher limits than IRAs. > I never saw this outrage on trillions spent on endless wars, since that benefits rich people. Tons of people have been outraged by the war, but it was politically unpopular across all income classes to be against the war in early 2000s.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    >Tons of people have been outraged by the war I am not talking about the war itself. I am talking about the outrage over spending on wars. For example, there is barely any debate in the public sphere about 'where to get money to spend on wars', but if it helps poor or middle income people, like say increased welfare payments, or healthcare or college, suddenly there is a huge outcry over "how do we pay for it".
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I meant spending on wars. I have seen many, many editorials and popular publications talk about how we can spend $x billion in Iraq and Afghanistan but not $x billion at home for various reasons.

The whole deal is a 'we are spending tons of cash, so we need to take it from someone' plan. This isn't a "watching out for the average person" deal.

by czbond 5y ago

The whole deal is a 'we are spending tons of cash, so we need to take it from someone' plan. This isn't a "watching out for the average person" deal.

belltaco 5y ago

Or maybe it's trying to close loopholes around having to pay taxes. >The whole deal is a 'we are spending tons of cash, so we need to take it from someone' plan Funny how spending tons of cash is a problem only if it benefits poor and middle class people. I never saw this outrage on trillions spent on endless wars, since that benefits rich people. But if something helps poor or middle class and hurts rich people a little, there is a big outrage.

czbond 5y ago
I don't believe they're the same. Specifically on wars... the lack of 'outrage' is because people have been smart enough to tie "war" to nationalism, patriotism, and "watchdog for the world" which instills a sense of pride in a majority population nationwide; instead of seeing it as a drag on prosperity, nation mongering, and self interest dealing.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
If they wanted to specifically get rid of loopholes, they would scrap The whole employer requirement of 401k and let anyone contribute to an IRA up to the same limits for everyone. But, of course, politicians want to let big businesses maintain their competitive advantage by making 401k have higher limits than IRAs. > I never saw this outrage on trillions spent on endless wars, since that benefits rich people. Tons of people have been outraged by the war, but it was politically unpopular across all income classes to be against the war in early 2000s.
- belltaco 5y ago
  >Tons of people have been outraged by the war I am not talking about the war itself. I am talking about the outrage over spending on wars. For example, there is barely any debate in the public sphere about 'where to get money to spend on wars', but if it helps poor or middle income people, like say increased welfare payments, or healthcare or college, suddenly there is a huge outcry over "how do we pay for it".
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I meant spending on wars. I have seen many, many editorials and popular publications talk about how we can spend $x billion in Iraq and Afghanistan but not $x billion at home for various reasons.