These are the stupid ideas the Democrats come up with. There are three billionaires in Oregon. Three. If this passes I suspect they will just move.

At the federal level, this would be unconstitutional.

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Because decreasing social spending creates not just one more problem, but multiple. Just look to Texas and the border crisis as a prime example. If there was more federal money for it, we could both secure the future of Medicare and Social Security and secure the border while providing a better immigration system.

    But the false dichotomy of decreased social spending for a more secure border is all Republican politicians are ever interested in. It’s a solution insofar as it generates political support for their short-term, misanthropic policies. In any other way, it’s only ever a problem.

    • PrincessEli@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why the fuck would I support paying more taxes to secure the future of programs that I want thrown in the bin?

          • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Those two sentences aren’t related.

            Social security and medicare both were policies designed to fix social problems in their time. That those problems are either mitigated or nonexistent is a testament to their effectiveness.

            As for redistribution, I agree! End fossil fuel and other corporate subsidies posthaste! Wtf does Tesla, Amazon, Alphabet, J.P. Morgan or any other large conglomeration need a tax break for?

            • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              The great depression did not end because of any of the social security programs. It ended because of ww2 (most of those programs were suspended or eliminated to support ww2).

              • Lookin4GoodArgs@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Does it? I hear that, buy why/how does it impact the poor the most? I mean…aside from the fact that they have relatively less money anyway because economic institutions ensure they do…how else are they impacted?

            • PrincessEli@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              Subsidies =/= tax breaks. Surely you understand how giving money and not stealing are different. If not, I hope you enjoy my Christmas present of not robbing you blind.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I don’t mind paying taxes for things like roads, water, etc. Those are things we all need.

            I am against wealth distrubution. I don’t even mind social safety nets but we allow people to abuse them.

            The government shouldn’t be taking my money and sending it to someone else who didn’t earn it. That doesn’t create success.

            If welfare was successful then why haven’t we seen poverty eliminated? All it does is keep people on welfare and not being productive members of society.