Can some Democrat please explain how rich people are taking money from poor people when poor people don't have any money or pay taxes?

[RingOfFire]

It's like some kind of insane mantra.

Democrats keep screaming that rich people are taking away poor people's money. They have some kind of stick up their ass that makes them repeat this over and over ad nauseam. It's about the only thing they have to say.

They have no ideas to make the country better, no proposals to actually help those poor people, no contributions whatsoever to the country except whining and complaining about things that make absolutely no sense. Their party is completely bankrupt both figuratively and literally now that they are no longer able to raise any money because people are sick of hearing this constant Insanity from them.

I mean who is still stupid enough to believe what the Democrats are trying to sell in 2025? Poor people by definition don't have any money. They also don't pay taxes, rich people pay almost all of the taxes. If it weren't for rich people it would be no tax collection at all, the country would collapse and we would go back to living in caves. Either Democrats are colossally stupid or that's exactly what they want.

So by what kind of logic could rich people be taking money from poor people? Can some Democrat please explain that hallucinogenic logic?

[alli-112]

I mean, you're comparing the existing system to itself and wondering where the gap is. We're comparing the existing system to other systems, like co-ops. (Ex. where all employees own a part of the business or are entitled to a part of the profits.)

The idea is that the rich utilize underpaid labor to make huge profits (millions and billions of dollars). If those corporations put more effort into providing a good wage to their employees who are, in general, the ones actually producing or enabling value for the company, they would still make a profit, though maybe not as large AND their employees would be able to live better lives.

There's also essentially an idea of moral responsibility and the morality of being a billionaire. No one ever needs billions of dollars, the individual contributions of one person to society never are actually worth billions of dollars, so why should anyone have that much money? The value was not produced by the individual holding the assets, so why are they holding them?

I'm not personally saying that business owners shouldn't be allowed to profit, I'm pro-mixed market, I just think society in general would be better off if employers saw employees as people deserving of earning a good portion of the value they create, rather than resources to be taken advantage of.

You don't have to agree with it, but it's still a valid thought process.

[RingOfFire]

It's only a valid thought process if you believe that you have a right to dictate what other people may and may not decide for themselves. Who appointed you the moral authority of the human race?

No one forces anyone to take a job in this country. Who says that people who take those jobs are "underpaid.". That's your judgment not theirs. They are paid a competitive wage. The employer is offering as much as they are willing to pay and the employee is accepting it. It is a voluntary exchange between two willing participants. That is the consensus of the marketplace which is made up of every consumer in America, without forced coercion by politicians and bureaucrats. It's the most democratic process known to the human race.

Are we to believe that you and a handful of politicians and bureaucrats have better judgment than the 350 million people who make up the consumer market?

[RingOfFire]

I can't even imagine any attitude more arrogant, self-important or self-anointed as this concept the Democrats have that makes them think they have a right to force their idea of what constitutes "morality" and fairness on two parties who voluntarily agree to a transaction both believing that they are better off having engaged in it.

It's the most arrogant state of mind I can possibly imagine and should have no place in a free society.

[alli-112]

I mean, like I said, I'm pro-mixed market, but I also think that systems that operate more similarly to co-ops are often better for the people involved. I value the well-being of individuals and communities over the ability of any given individual to profit above others.

You wanted to know why people think that way. To the best of my knowledge, this is why. The companies DO take advantage of cheap labor in order to profit more, the disagreement comes from whether or not you think that's acceptable.

But also, when your options are "something, even if it's not enough" from someone who has more than enough and "literally nothing", people will generally take the something. That person may be "better off", but that doesn't mean that have everything they need. I'd personally prefer that the people taking the "something" would have enough, even if it means that the people who have more than enough will have a little less.

[Anonymous]

Democrats in America are the most naive people on the planet. They want to bite the hand that feeds them. The top 10% of earners pay 76% of all income taxes paid. Said another way, the smartest and most productive members of society already financially support the rest of the population. Here's a great idea... let's penalize them for being productive by taking even more of their money and giving it to less productive people. As Karl Marx said, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

[RingOfFire]

The United States already has the most progressive income tax in the world.

[exitseven]

Everything that President Trump is doing will benefit Americans. Lower taxes, lower prices, more jobs and fewer regulations will make our lives better. Can anybody really say with a straight face that things werre bettrr when Biden was president?

[RingOfFire]

A straight lying face maybe. Where's an emoji for that?

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[OlderAndWiser]

Lie. Whine. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[RingOfFire]

🤣🤣🤣

[Anonymous]

I kind of admire one of the Republicans that voted
against it. He basically said it's all a scam, but his voting base are all scammers so he needs them to vote for him. He doesn't give a shit what's right, it's all about him. The Democrats are the same but, they won't admit it. Nancy Pelosi said kids will die. She knows she's a lying piece of shit, but she doesn't care. She knows how stupid her voters are. Her job is safe for another 100 years. Term limits are the only answer. One and done. Nobody in their right mind believes that able-bodied people should get welfare. But if it gets them votes, they don't care.

[IamRight]

No they can’t, their replies will just flip to whatever benefits them at the moment. Leftists can’t stick to a opinion other than "Trump bad".

[Dongie]

I know. They just say shit that makes us look bad. The truth matters not.

[Dargil]

They are pilfering money from social programs intended for the poor.

[RingOfFire]

Be specific. How is asking able-bodied, non-pregnant people with no children who are receiving welfare payments to look for part-time work or volunteer part-time "pilfering money from social programs intended for the poor?"

That is what this bill does. It was actually Bill Clinton's proposal to implement this "workfair" program. Is that asking too much of able-bodied people who are living off of other people's money? 20 hours a week at a job or they can even volunteer for 20 hours a week to fulfill the requirement?

That's not pilfering anything. It's common sense.

[RingOfFire]

When Bill Clinton did it during his term, the Democrats were applauding it. Now all of a sudden it is pilfering from the poor?

[RingOfFire]

And by the way. That money doesn't belong to "the poor.". It was pilfered mostly from the rich who pay the vast majority of the taxes.

[Dargil]

I was alluding to liberal Democrats.

[RingOfFire]

Okay then 😂

[Ariesman81]

Again, you're smart enough to understand that stopping the flow of free money is seen as a loss to those who are on the receiving end.

[RingOfFire]

It is not a loss to those who are on the receiving end because it is not their money. You can't have something taken from you that you never owned in the first place.

[Ariesman81]

Ahh... but if it's become an expectation, it will still feel like a loss.

[RingOfFire]

It may feel like a loss, but that doesn't make it a loss, it makes it an hallucination.

According to Democrats we are supposed to set public policy based on hallucinations?

[Ariesman81]

I fail to see the hallucination part. If ownership gives you a company vehicle and then decides to take it away, does it not negatively affect your finances?
I agree that it's ownerships right to remove perks in order to keep the company afloat, but I as recipient of that perk will scrutinize the way in which those freed up funds are reallocated.

[noohair]

If you cut a government program that gives money to poor people, that is what they are talking about.

[RingOfFire]

So why did they lie and say that they are taking people's money when it is not their money in the first place.

if the Democrats ideas are so good why do they always have to give dishonest portrayals and use dishonest language to present their case?

If their ideology is so good why are they so afraid of letting people know what it really is?

[jamesgoldman]

Not a Democrat but this will be entertaining