Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The definition of rape is similar in Saudi Arabia to the one here. It's not the same definition, but it's similar.
But the US had marital rape legal in the 1970s and then we (thankfully) got rid of it.
Maybe if the world was one nation, there could be international laws that classify marital rape as rape that Saudi Arabia would abide by. Hopefully Saudi Arabia outlaws marital rape, but I have faith that in time they will do it. You just got to be patient; it's not like America legalized homosexuality in 1776; it took hundreds of years. Maybe the UN puts an embargo on countries where marital rape is legal until they prosecute marital rape as harshly as non-marital rape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Aliens from space, bandits, separatists, rebels, terrorists, so on.
The military costs will be much less than what we currently spend on the military. I also don't think aliens are a threat to humanity.
China gets sanctioned by the rest of the world that would have freedom of movement until they agree to let people in their country.
Aliens from space, bandits, separatists, rebels, terrorists, so on.
All of these entities are either not a threat or don't require nukes.
Gangs, Mafia, different beliefs, Democrats Republicans, Sunni and Shi'a.The beliefs, values, differences will not disappear simply because you say one country.
The 10th amendment lets democrats live in a left state, republicans in a right wing state, Sunni Muslims live in a Sunni state, and Shia Muslims live in a Shia state. The 10th amendment is a wonderful thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Rapists are put to death if convicted in Saudi Arabia, so they may view sex differently, but they are also tough on rape.
The world doesn't agree on everything, but I think we can all agree that rape should be severely prosecuted. The middle east tends to have higher rape penalties than the west. Because of this, I think rape is less common in the middle east than the west (although I'm not sure and the correlation isn't strong).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm trying to think it through, but you need reasons for the idea to be bad in order to not do the idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Saudi Arabia wants to end rape just like the west does. Their approach is just different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think I would prefer to lose the power advantage. My Rocky Mountains are already full to capacity.
Operation Get Out Of Debt - Google Sheets, row 843 indicates where the newcomers can move into. Every dot on the diagram represents a planned city with the land area and population of NYC. I call them the New Apples (named after the big apple).
Trade and democracy have brought the US and India closer but I'm not sure we are forgiven yet.
Which nations are India's allies and enemies? (businessupturn.com) indicates that the US is an Indian ally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- US would no longer be a superpower with the advantage accorded therein
- US would no longer be leader of the Free World with the advantages accorded therein
- US is only 4.2% of world pop. Obviously, the priorities of China and India would dominate any real global democracy at the disadvantage to US priorities.
China and India would dominate unless a lot of people move to the US from the world. If America is the first country to open up our borders, then about 1.2 billion people would move to the US, and then there would be 3 world powers; America, China, and India. India is an American ally, so there would still be western dominance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
What if every country except Russia and China initially join the world nation, we sanction the Russian and Chinese oligarchs until they give up their power, and then get Russia and China to join once they are sanctioned into submission?
Also, how would a one world nation lead to American decline?
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Electoral college determines that. Every state (now known as countries) gets 5 representatives or some number like that for being a state and the rest of the electoral votes are given according to population with one representative for every 10 million people or some ratio like that. So America would get 33 representatives and 5 senators, yielding 38 electoral votes for America.
But a lot of things should be left up to the states. The global constitution should establish the following:
1) Murder is banned.
2) Rape is banned.
3) Arson is banned.
Despite how different the world is, I think we can all agree on that.
Created:
Posted in:
I can think of a few pros to this idea:
1) We don't have to spend anymore money on the military, because what nation would we have to defend ourselves from if we were all in the same nation. This allows tax cuts to be implemented across every country.
2) Freedom of movement (and the economic benefits that come with it). Not everyone thinks this is a good idea, but fears with the idea and the pros to this idea are addressed in the following presentation: Open borders presentation - Google Slides
3) The surrender of all international nukes to the UN from every country (and the UN destroys the plans to make nukes and the nukes themselves to become nuclear power for the planet). No more nukes -> humanity is significantly less likely to become extinct from an apocalypse.
4) Countries fighting over territory when they are in the same nation is like Wyoming and Montana fighting over territory. The only time there was a war in the US over territory was over the Toledo strip and it was far less bloody. Countries fight with each other over land, but states tend to not do this because any Ohio resident that wants to be part of Michigan can move to Michigan instead of fight to make Toledo part of Michigan. This can help bring world peace.
I'm unsure if I support this, but there are pros to the idea, so what are your thoughts on this?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’d rather we produce oil here in the United States rather than the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians, or Iranians. Tell that to Joe
I prefer that too. Or America could use nuclear energy, which is cheaper and cleaner. Once America ends fossil fuel production, we don't trade with countries unless they also shift to clean energy.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Gas prices are so high right now because Saudi Arabia is making gas really expensive here because the US won't sell them weapons to do a genocide in Yemen. If your willing to sell weapons to a country you know is going to do genocide with those weapons just to get cheaper gas prices, don't call yourself pro life.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That would mean approving Keystone for the working class Americans.We have to eliminate the American oligarchs first to do that.
So be it. If that's what we need to do to get energy independence, lets do it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So then the US should buy their oil from Canada or rely on oil produced here to keep our country going.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Where is your evidence that the USSR is more right wing than both parties in the US?
Also, what matters (if you want to back only right wing countries) is if Russia is more right wing than Ukraine, which I doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We have our own population
It's not as big as China's, so we will have to find other ways to urbanize. Rather than reproduce to get there (kids are expensive), why not accept taxpayers who don't need to have their education paid for for over a decade?
Prove it or run away
areas-of-habitation_uae_emirates-population-map_720px.jpg (890×740) (fanack.com) shows the UAE becoming more densely population and more urbanized.
They did to protect the demographics of the nation. Nonwhites were considered people and our ancestors were a lot smarter than us
Are you defending white supremacy? Caring about racial demographics is racism.
But they are all on welfare. Hispanics have negative net worth
This is false. Straight Talk on Welfare Statistics (20+ Stats & Facts) | Fortunly states that the number of welfare reciepiants is less than the Hispanic population of the US. Moreover, if immigrants are disproportionally more likely to be on welfare, the solution is to kick them off of it.
19th and 20th century Ireland a good point for this. Yes, most Irish spoke English but were culturally Gaelic. Meaning they played gaelic football instead of soccer and were Catholic. They wanted separation from GB
The Irish wanted independence because of religious reasons. Yet religion isn't a problem for American sovereignty as there are many Catholic majority states(out of the Christian population)(R.85e9e3b0adab3a4ea70c1f14befd52b1 (1600×1188) (bing.com)) and none of them want independence.
Not true, immigrants and Hispanics DID not vote for Raegan. In fact, he got the same share of votes as Trump did.
Reagan got a higher share of the Hispanic vote than Trump did. But the solution to this problem is to tell Hispanics not to turn America into the leftist hell hole they fled. It worked with Californian migrants moving to Texas (58% of Californian expats to Texas are Trump supporters due to the, "Don't California my Texas" slogan.)
Moreover, you can't kick people out for disagreeing with you politically. Otherwise, we should mandate abortion for poor women because they breed future democrat voters.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Everyone that drives a car or buys food shipped from a Truck supports Russia, whether they admit it or not.
How? Not all goods are Russian.
The majority of people that want us to stay out of the conflict are likely under the delusion that American apathy does not benefit Putin in the conflict.America is doing exactly what Putin wants right now.
That's fine. Russia and Ukraine are both foreign countries. Caring about them is like caring about Azerbaijan vs Armenia.
We should sanction the oligarchs, but don't go to war with Russia. That might go nuclear.
Created:
Between Russia and Ukraine, Americans say either stay out or side with Ukraine - CBS News poll - CBS News states that only 4% of Americans support Russia.
53% want to stay out and 43% want to join Ukraine.
So if you support Russia and your American, your pretty much alone on this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
You know how DDO had polls? Try putting polls on DART.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No it doesn't. The trend of urbanization is irrespective of immigrant trends. The fastest urbanizing nations don't take in immigrants like China.
China is lucky enough to have its own population. America will just have to import population, build up our cities, and rely on people coming here to exceed China’s urbanization rate.
They urbanized the UAE.Way too broad and most likely incorrect
My claim is definitely correct.
They openly turned away thousands of non-white immigrants and did a system of merit in order to protect the white demographics.
They did this because non whites weren’t considered people then, but if these immigration policies were around in our time, America would already have open borders.
Plus migrants don't contribute to the economy. They suck off taxpayer money and hispanics have negative net worth
If an individual Hispanic immigrant consumes welfare, the appropriate thing to do would be to kick them off and make them get jobs like everyone else.
Not English speaking. And while language is a factor, culture is more important.
Define culture.
Politically, they all support democrats. If more immigrants are taken in, the second amendment will be taken away and a lot of free speech would be outlawed.
I addressed the fear of the undocumented turning the country blue in my presentation. The undocumented don’t give a shit about gun control and woke leftist policies like banning David Duke. They just want to be here and to contribute to the greatest economy on the planet. When Regean advocates for open borders, he won 98% of the states in the country (because the immigrants often vote Republican if the GOP doesn’t threat to deport their family).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Isn’t Russia left wing? They were the head of the USSR.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don’t think the vast majority of Chileans care about what’s happening in any foreign country, so why should America?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why? Why would a right winger back left wing Russia?
Don't be complaining about liberals being communists because your backing the former leader of the USSR (Russia).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Right, so it's urban and rural and not immigration
Correct, although immigration allows an area to become more urban. Racial diversity is irrelevant at best, but urbanization is useful in developing an economy.
Can you demonstrate how UAE's immigrants directly contribute to the development of the country
They urbanized the UAE.
Post 1776 America was independent of any King. Post 1776 America had open borders with any free person that wanted to settle the land for America.Nope. It specifically favored whites until 1965.
Yeah, but they allowed anyone who was white to move to America. Now, it's taboo to consider race, so the logical thing would be to let anyone move here and contribute to our economy.
Native born from immigration after 1965. I looked at the source and only from 2010 on has Asians slightly outnumbered Hispanics.
Yeah, but the proportion of immigrants being Hispanic is decreasing and the proportion of English speaking foreigners coming to America is increasing.
The point with separatism is that it is inheritably tied to a particular group that settles in a country and begins to demand rights. This is what is happening
This only happens if a group thinks they are being significantly oppressed and significantly culturally different. For example, there are counties in Dixie that are majority black, but nobody is trying to make these counties an independent country. There are German plurality areas in the great plains that have no desire to break away due to ethnicity. I live in an area with a lot of Italians and we don't want to break away from the US.
Assimilated people don't want to break away from the US and assimilation happens with time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think people of Chile care about what's happening in other countries that much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I probably have more cultural and ideological ties to the average Russian than the average American. Which is why I am supporting Russia.
Are you supporting authoritarian leftist countries to own the libs?
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
If US would actively engage in the economic warfare and push harder for sanctions it would immensely help the battle but people like yourself enable the apathy as well as people like Incel-Chud and GreyParrot who not just enable apathy but enable sadistic mockery of Ukraine's misery and scatching support for Russia, people like that are truly enabling and supporting US to pussy out of actively helping Ukraine much.
So you advocate sanctions instead of the US fighting Ukraine's battles? Just trying to understand your idea.
If this is your idea, I don't know how we are able to sanction Russian goods that effect the rich in Russia without sanctioning the goods of poor Russians. It seems unfair to punish the entire country for just the actions of Putin.
But I'm pro tariff, so I'm not against sanctioning Putin.
US has only taken the step to halt transactions in dollars by Russian banks, they can do way way more.
What more can the US do?
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Your mentality is no different to somebody who doesn't give a shit that four doors down the street, somebody was brutally murdered or abused or something.
That is something that could impact me because that abuser could come here. But a private police force can deal with murderers in a more effective way than the government.
But trying to get involved in the Ukrainian war could result in more people dying. That's what happened when the US got involved with Iraq.
America should leave other countries alone unless they are in NATO. I don't want nuclear war to happen because foreigners wanted America to save them.
I have the same mentality about Russia invading Ukraine as I would about Morocco invading Western Sahara. It's not America, so why should I care?
Created:
Posted in:
Giving nukes to a foreign country is a bad idea. That makes us more likely to start nuclear war. We need to avoid nuclear war.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
I care about issues that effect America; not foreign countries because I'm American. It's not like people from Chile care about what's happening on the Ivory Coast.
Created:
Posted in:
It doesn't make sense to keep the economy open even if people die from covid but to shut down the economy to protest a vaccine mandate.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't support Ukraine or Russia. They are both foreign countries and we need to put America first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Explain China and Japan. They have just as good, if not better, technology than we do but they accept far less immigrants.
China and Japan are both very densely populated and they have a lot of money in these countries. You don't see rural areas doing a lot of innovating. Open borders adds to the population density in a reasonable way (we won't be that overcrowded) and it adds GDP(but the plan is to put the migrants in blue counties since they want the extra taxpayers and the red counties don't).
UAE is a city, saudi arabia is rural
Saudi Arabia Urban Population 1960-2022 | MacroTrends states that 84% of Saudi Arabia's population live in an urban enviornment.
A comparable 86% is the case for the UAE (• United Arab Emirates - urbanization 2010-2020 | Statista)
Both countries are urban.
No they absolutely did not have open borders. You literally had to get a charter from the King in order to settle.
Post 1776 America was independent of any King. Post 1776 America had open borders with any free person that wanted to settle the land for America.
But at the moment Hispanics are the only group that is coming here in incredibly large numbers. This is due to location.
Hispanics are a group that for the most part is native born.
Key findings about U.S. immigrants | Pew Research Center states that Asian immigration to the US outnumbers Hispanic immigration.
Just look at Kosovo when the Ottomans allowed internal migration.Just look at Croatia when Austria allowed Serbs to settle in the border regionJust look at Danzig and WW2
All of the separatist movements happened when exclusively one neighboring ethnic group settled a nearby foreign country.
This won't happen with America because it would be hundreds of ethnic groups settling a country that for most of the ethnic groups is not bordering their own country. America is isolated from the countries that most of the immigrants are coming from. In the 1920s, there were huge numbers of Italians, Poles, Slavs, and other ethnic groups coming to America. America was not bordering any of these countries and they were all mixed up with each other. Because of this, there was no movement to make NYC part of Italy, Poland, or Russia. NYC was located very far away from these areas and due to the mix of immigrants, there was no majority in NYC in terms of language (except the English language).
The only place I have a fear of a separatist movement happening is in the south west USA, but if huge cities are placed in the blue counties across these areas (and those cities are populated by anyone that wants to settle these areas. Many blue counties would have huge cities just built where they currently exist by the private sector), then English speakers will make up the majority of the population of these areas because English is a pretty widely known world language (with 20% of the world being fluent in it and many others knowing a little bit of English), causing English to be the lingua franca of communication in these cities (since only about 15% of the population would be Hispanic and this would be the biggest other language group) and thereby, the cities would assimilate those that come to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not true. We have let in a ton of immigrants in the past 60 years but our economic well-being has most certainly stagnated.
You sure about that? We got computers, iphones, and the digital age now. That was made possible because there were extra workers in the US working on these products.
A city state that primarily sells oil will naturally have a better economy than more rural states that has seen civil strife. Regardless of immigration policy
Saudi Arabia also primarally sells oil. Economy of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia states that 42% of Saudi's economy is oil. Economy of the United Arab Emirates - Wikipedia states that 1/3 of UAE GDP comes from oil. Saudi Arabia is more dependent on oil than the UAE, yet the UAE has the better economy because of more foreigners coming to the country.
A controlled immigration setting allows for immigrants to disperse and assimilate quite easily, while open borders allows immigrants to basically colonize a section of their new country.
The immigrants that come here assimilated with enough time. I mean, British Americans living in America had a practically open borders policy for a long while and now they make up only 10% of the US population. But everyone learned English given enough time.
Open borders means open borders with every country in the world. If every single person that wanted to permanently leave their countries moved to America, only around 15% of the immigrants would be Hispanic(More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could (gallup.com)). The rest would be from areas of the world where English is fairly common (Africa, India, China). They would mix with each other in cities designed for it (built by the private sector), and they would use English as their lingua franca (similar to how the Germans, French, Spanish, Italians, and other groups used English as the lingua franca when they moved to America).
Based on this, I fail to see how a separatist movement would occur with an open borders policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
can you provide evidence on HOW it has been successful. You really just show political parties, libertarian ideology, and population numbers.
The UAE lets pratically anyone in and their economy per capita is much better than their protectionist neighbors. Same with Singapore.
The easier your immigration policy is, the better your economy is. An open borders country is the easiest approach to immigration and therefore the best way to improve an economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Open borders means free plane rides all over the country with no TSA inspection.
The migrants would pay for their own plane rides.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
How exactly do you define open borders?
Not deporting individuals for coming to the country without documentation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Sanders support dropped and avg. of 25% from 2016 to 2020. In Bernie country, the Northwest and Northeast, his support dropped by more than half. If we agree that Bernie is too old to run for office again than Bernie' support in the underage is irrelevant, right?
There are still more Sanders supporters than homeless people.
Feeding our children is one of the first and most traditional American obligations to that General Welfare.
Feeding kids is something the parents should do, not the government. If you can't afford kids, don't breed like rabbits.
Just making it clear that the rightwing ain't rooted in Christian values, in spite of constant claims to those values.
The right wing isn't rooted in theocratic values except on issues like abortion (and most pro birthers don't reference the bible for their abortion ban ideal). There is a difference between being religious and being a theocrat.
But they already did that with a smaller budget. There was less homelessness in the US in the 50's an 60's then just about any other time since NAZI Germany.
Not sure about that.
If you are going to neglect America's indigent then you have no business complaining about crime. There is an absolute and irresolvable relationship between the quality our children's welfare and the national crime rate 20 years later. History is quite indisputable on this point: you can pay now or you can pay much more later but you are very wrong, the problem is impossible to ignore.
How about we don't do anything about the homeless (unless we're housing them in the houses of Bernie Sanders supporters) and if they commit a crime, they get enslaved for their sentence and after that, they get hooked up to a better paying job?
I don't know why you think the homeless are particularly employable. Two thirds are addicts, a third suffer from profound mental diagnoses (almost all of which stem from childhood neglect and violence).
The government rehabs them while in jail and they work off their debt. People with mental disabilities can still work. Elon Musk works and he's autistic.
My State of Colorado spends about $481m on shelters, services, emergency response and healthcare on a population that ranges between 5-10,000
That's bureaucratic waste. That's over $50K/year/person. How about lets stop spending that money?
My state estimates that they can provide a homeless person with a simple studio apt or mobile microhouse for about $12,000/yr. If we can keep basic service under a thousand/month then that's a quarter of what we spend now. If we went back to the old centralized dormitories model we could probably get annual spending below $20,000/year for about a fifth of what we spend now.
And Colorado still has homeless people, implying that the government giving people free shit doesn't help them in the long term.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Broadly speaking - the entire purpose of government is to Marshall a set of collective resources of group - and use those resources to do thing that benefit the group.
Giving the homeless houses does not benefit me and it's unfair to everyone else that paid for their own house.
If you have basic level of human decency, and empathy you can appreciate that homelessness is bad that you we need to do something about; the only argument is about how that I achieved.
There's only 1 way to end homelessness; give the homeless free houses. But I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for it. Otherwise, I can deliberately become homeless so the government gives me a free house.
The easiest and cheapest way to end homelessness is to send all the homeless to the houses of people with Bernie Sanders signs in their backyard. All charity should be voluntary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Israel supporters love Israelis in Arab land
No human being is illegal. Israelis should be allowed to move into Palestine. Arabs should be allowed to move into Israel. Let people move where they want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People still practice these religions; otherwise it would have been like the Whig Party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your dodging the question. Do you support removing all deductions for the top 1%? If yes, you sound like a democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There may be deductions, but would you support getting rid of all deductions? If so, you sound like a democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
I think you know all Bernie Sanders supporters are rich kids angry at their parents and utilizing ivory tower thinking
Your thinking of Hilliary supporters. Bernie supporters are average, working class Joes and Janes. They aren't woke like Clinton supporters. They don't care what your stance on abortion and woke culture is as long as they get free healthcare and more union benefits. They love the poor. So lets ship all the homeless to Sanders supporter's houses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Biden won the election with 81 million votes and Bernie objectively had less support than Biden so I don't know where that number comes from.
A lot of people that would sit out elections would have voted for Bernie because they think democrats are too right wing. Not all Bernie Sanders supporters are of voting age. About 1/3 of the country supports Bernie.
No US politician has suggested that the US adopt or even help all the world's orphans.
I'm making a point claiming that if there are children suffering in other countries (or even in my own country), then it's none of my business. Free market includes not being forced to help out the poor.
You can't honestly claim to be a Christian without acknowledging a responsibility to care for orphans and homeless people.
America is not a theocracy. We don't make laws based on the bible. Forcing people to help out the poor because of the bible is making laws based on the bible. This is also why I don't use the bible to justify banning abortion or opening the borders.
But if you care about the homeless, your free to adopt a homeless person.
They want everybody, including themselves to do something about it as in they want governments to do something about it because that's cheapest and most effective solution
If the government, with it's $3 trillion annual budget was effective in ending homelessness, there would be no homelessness. The easiest solution to homelessness (if we even want to give people free homes) is to put them all in Bernie Sander's homes and in AOC's district. If she turns them down, she is being mean to the poor. How sad! Lol
The actual choice is between paying less money up front or much more money later, when the indigent become social problems that can't be ignored.
The problem can be ignored. We just do nothing and if they starve, less welfare bums. I'm sick of subsidizing Trump (or Biden) supporting homeless people. No more welfare state.
Republicans (Reagan was the poster child in this respect) in the 70's and 80's stupidly cleared out the orphanages and asylums as a short-term cost-saving measure only to realize too late that they ended up paying ten-fold in increased crime, emergency services, damage to the commercial appeals of city centers, etc.
Private police deal with any crime that the homeless do, and then the homeless would be working off the debt they racked up. Once their labor is done, they get a job to where they don't have to starve anymore so they don't have to steal anymore. This is a quicker more effective form of punishment and rehabilitation for the homeless than 20 years of jail/living off the government for theft. #LibetarianCapitalist.
The average cost of a homeless person to US taxpayers is currently about $100,000/year when we could easily house, feed, and provide medical care for a quarter or a fifth of that cost
How do you come to that conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
Why would you not want to be in a Bernie Sander supporter's house? They care about the poor and wouldn't molest you. You would get treated well there. If they don't take care of you and treat you well, they are hypocrites for demanding the rich do it with their money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
In most 1 party states like New York and California, the top 1 percent pay more to the Democrat party than they do in taxes.
This is false. The top 1% pay about 40% of their income to the government. They don't donate this much to the democrats.
Not to mention, the rich can only generate a fraction of the revenue needed to support government spending anyway since there's not as many ultra rich as you think in the country
A 10% wealth tax on the billionaires would raise about $1 trillion/year. Do this, cut spending, increase taxpayer count, increase GDP as a result, and we can balance the budget.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
A conservative can make the same argument about being unvaccinated or having 20 AK 47s in your home.
Created: