Democratic Nomination

Post Reply New Topic

It's true that 29,000 Pounds per Annum is not a bad salary in the UK----but people in the UK are usually more heavily subsidized than people in the US.

It is harder, probably (in general) for people living in the UK than it is for people living in the US.

Speaking in generalities, like Trump?

Sanders is the real enemy to many Democrats.

Powerhouse Nevada Union Won’t Endorse a Democratic Candidate
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZYvsJ

"The union has criticized Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal, which it has warned would replace the health care benefits the labor group has negotiated over the years"

For a subset of people who typically take things very literally I'm surprised at how many people here use the word "free" and then go on about all the people who will have to pay for those "free" things.

If it has to be paid for, it isn't free.

And then you go on and criticize other's semantics.
It's a very strange world that I experience...

The idea of raising taxes on someone who is making $29,000 per year is unconscionable to me.

Also, very large businesses could absorb a 7% additional payroll tax. A large corporation that makes hundreds of thousands or millions of products each year can disperse that additional operating cost by raising the cost of each product by a small amount. Not so for a small business most of which are operating at thin margins.

Trust me, far more recognize Trump as their enemy.
Unions that don't support Democratic candidates are few and far between.

"United We Stand Divided We Fall"

It must be noted that before 2016 candidates holding these positions that these three do currently would not have been considered moderate but solidly liberal.

My big concerns with Bernie:

- he doesn’t understand the link between economic freedom and social justice. The best example of this is probably his protectionism, but you also see it with his tax plans, abolition of private healthcare, etc.
- he is too much of a nativist. He wants to stop deportations - good - but doesn’t want to make it significantly easier to immigrate, only going back to Obama-era regulations. It’s even worse on trade, where he’s pulled the Democratic Party in a horrid protectionist direction and he doesn’t list any benefits to trade on his website.

The idea of taking anything away from anyone that they've earned, especially under the guise of calling it "free," seems unconscionable to me.

When income, property and sales taxes are all accounted for 50% of my family's earnings go to taxes. Is 50% slavery appropriate in a "free" country?

Businesses have no moral obligation to funding the public and neither do wealthy people. The fact that the majority in this country feel entitled to what others earn is pretty ugly in my eyes. The fact that those who just want and want have zero respect for those who are being forced to give up what they've earned and call what they're receiving as "free" is just a little disgusting.

I think 50% of income is probably just about acceptable if people are rich enough to not notice. Secondary taxes are another matter.

We all have a moral duty towards other human beings whether we like it or not. I'm not one of those people who thinks that more tax is always better, but there is a clear benefit not just to individuals but also to society at large when we provide people with basic services. Never mind morality, purely pragmatically it's incredibly short-sighted to be against affordable healthcare - and for some people, the only "affordable" is "free". Would you rather live in a society where people can thrive, or one where there is an underclass who have to beg and steal to survive?

Yes, rich people and business does have an obligation morally to fund the public. It's called taxation, which is a burden for the common good that we have collectively chosen, either by direct vote or through our representatives. And yes, even poor people do pay taxes - - sales taxes. It's just a matter considering who can afford how much they are taxed, based on what is comfortable for some, and what is financially devastating for others.

Mostly, poor people are poor, because of their attitude and behavior.

For example, credit card debt.

So, this "MORAL OBLIGATION" means some people are required to forever fund the bad attitude and bad behaviors of others??

People are morally obligated to do their best to be productive members of society. Morally obligated to be as much of an asset and less of a burden to society as possible. Obligated to get the best education they can. Obligated to obey the law. Obligated to abstain from getting hooked on drugs. Obligated to live within their means as much as possible.

People fulfilling those obligations to the best of their ability would significantly reduce the number of people in need of handouts.

I think Walrus and Ezra both make very good points about personal obligations and I believe that both are absolutely true; we have an obligation to take care of those less fortunate and we as individuals have an obligation to others to contribute to and be productive members of society to the best of our abilities. It goes both ways.

Really, when you think about it, it's a social contract. Neither party should breach the contract.

Or so goes the argument by people who look down on those without, or who don't want to be respon sible for their fellow people.