You think ACA subsidies are greater than the tax liability for someone making 90k? I don’t.
It’s also a terrible policy.
Well I suppose if that was the only government service they consumed, you might have a point. Not a relevant one but…
Moving the goal posts. Cool.
I don’t have the right to judge the situation of those in need. I guess you do.
Lol. Well I suppose it is true that some people need the government to do their thinking for them.
1 Like
It’s so much more than that. Charity suffers from regionality and limited scope. It’s what prevents them from filling the same role as government.
Lol. Well I suppose it is true thet some people use the government to justify personal greed and disdain for those in need.
Yeah, I mean if you leave it up to people, the guy who ate himself into type two diabetes and refuses to work, just can’t compete with starving kids in Africa.
So, if I prefer to give my charitable dollar, which I remind you is finite, to build a well in Africa to give a hundred people access to clean drinking water as opposed to paying for insulin for a fat American who ate himself into type two diabetes, that is evidence I am greedy and shows disdain for the needy? Yes, I can see why you need the government to do your thinking for you.
Exactly. That guy needs to just die like he deserves.
1 Like
As you pointed out… the little kids in foreign countries don’t vote here. The fat guy with diabetes does.Libs want to make sure that fat guy knows who to vote for.
Yeah, he does. Because resources are not infinite, he needs to join the line near the back. I am not keeping him alive at the expense of dozens of innocent kids who never had a chance. Sorry.
They have no moral argument, it’s a sham. It’s about usurping the choice of others and garnering votes. They want to choose where my charitable dollar goes, not for the benefit of the needy, but for their own.
The greed part is wanting to pay less taxes at the expense of those in need. A person in need because of health issues is still a person in need. A person in need of drinking water is also a person in need. Deciding you’re going to help one person in need and not the other, especially when the justification is so that you can pay less taxes, is greed.
At the expense of dozens of kids who never had the chance or at the expense of a new car for your kids?
How about this compromise, we mandate a certain percent of your income must go to charity, but which charity, is up to you. It can maintain the current level of government spending on the needy. You in libs? Or will you make it more clear what this is really all about?
Sounds good to me. Basic welfare and medical programs need to remain funded however.
That didn’t come out of my charitable budget. Is that your standard now, we must tax everyone to help the needy to the point nobody can buy a new car?
So that’s a no, not willing to give up control and vote buying.
