|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States42005 Posts
On August 07 2022 19:26 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. I'll agree that once it's recognizably human and can survive outside the womb, getting an abortion should be strictly for medical reasons. But that's because I'd define "baby" as a tiny human. I think the distinction is important.
Once it can survive outside of the womb a C-section is an abortion.
|
On August 08 2022 01:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. I'll agree that once it's recognizably human and can survive outside the womb, getting an abortion should be strictly for medical reasons. But that's because I'd define "baby" as a tiny human. I think the distinction is important. Once it can survive outside of the womb a C-section is an abortion.
I think everyone should be able to agree that abortion is the deliberate act of ending a pregnancy with the intent of killing the fetus.
|
United States42005 Posts
On August 08 2022 01:20 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2022 01:10 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2022 19:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. I'll agree that once it's recognizably human and can survive outside the womb, getting an abortion should be strictly for medical reasons. But that's because I'd define "baby" as a tiny human. I think the distinction is important. Once it can survive outside of the womb a C-section is an abortion. I think everyone should be able to agree that abortion is the deliberate act of ending a pregnancy with the intent of killing the fetus.
Late term abortions wouldn’t meet that definition of abortions. There are exactly two scenarios.
1. The fetus can survive, in which case it is removed intact and given a fair chance (such as when a pregnant woman has to undergo cancer treatments that would kill the fetus if not delivered prematurely).
2. The fetus is incompatible with life, in which case the abortion isn’t what kills it.
There’s no
3. A woman decides she’s done with being pregnant at 8 months so the doctors induce birth, deliver the baby, then execute it with a headshot. That’s called infanticide and it’s already illegal.
If people insist on bringing up late term abortion of fetuses that can survive outside of the womb they should recall that they’re describing 3 and then stop arguing in bad faith.
|
On August 08 2022 01:20 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2022 01:10 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2022 19:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. I'll agree that once it's recognizably human and can survive outside the womb, getting an abortion should be strictly for medical reasons. But that's because I'd define "baby" as a tiny human. I think the distinction is important. Once it can survive outside of the womb a C-section is an abortion. I think everyone should be able to agree that abortion is the deliberate act of ending a pregnancy with the intent of killing the fetus.
No, I don't think everyone will agree with your specific assignment of intent.
|
On August 08 2022 01:20 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2022 01:10 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2022 19:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. I'll agree that once it's recognizably human and can survive outside the womb, getting an abortion should be strictly for medical reasons. But that's because I'd define "baby" as a tiny human. I think the distinction is important. Once it can survive outside of the womb a C-section is an abortion. I think everyone should be able to agree that abortion is the deliberate act of ending a pregnancy with the intent of killing the fetus.
I don't think we can agree there. There is no intent on killing the fetus. It's just an unfortunate side effect of aborting the pregnancy *before* the fetus is viable.
|
On August 08 2022 01:20 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2022 01:10 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2022 19:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. I'll agree that once it's recognizably human and can survive outside the womb, getting an abortion should be strictly for medical reasons. But that's because I'd define "baby" as a tiny human. I think the distinction is important. Once it can survive outside of the womb a C-section is an abortion. I think everyone should be able to agree that abortion is the deliberate act of ending a pregnancy with the intent of killing the fetus.
Many medical procedures to save a woman's life have the unfortunate side effect of terminating a pregnancy. This counts as an abortion in some states and is why we've seen issues.
|
The Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which is really a climate and healthcare bill. A monumental shift forward for the U.S. on its climate ambitions as it puts the country within reach of the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goal set by Biden with incentives for clean energy and a charge on methane emissions. This is the largest single climate-related spending Congress is poised to make, or any kind of climate action for that matter. And it allows Medicare to negotiate for the price of some drugs and extends expanded ACA subsidies. It's funded with some tax increases like a 15% minimum tax on corporate income and boosted IRS funding.
It just needs to pass the House next which is expected to happen on Aug 12. It could arguably be Biden's and the congressional Democrats' most lasting legacy from his presidency.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/07/politics/senate-democrats-climate-health-care-bill-vote/index.html
|
Where the conservative stance falls apart for me is that the resistance to abortions is not the slightest connected to caring for the mothers and children after birth.
Fetuses cheap and convenient to care about, and it makes me sick. It stinks of moral high ground and despise of the less resourceful.
|
Republicans are trying to jump in front of it and compare the IRS being funded to some kind of "shadow army", lol. Yes, they can do their jobs now. The terror. How will America make it through this.
In all seriousness, taxes on corporations and the rich, and actually funding the IRS were always hugely important economic plays that needed to be made. This would be their biggest piece of legislative accomplishment yet, and a much needed feather in the cap before the midterms. Now if they just address student debt like they've been swearing up and down they would, they might actually have a case to do well in the midterms.
They needed to capitalize yesterday when it comes to outrage over abortion rights, though. That's really the last piece. They've been... Not silent, but very chill about it. Show some vigor, already, it's only your most popular policy position.
|
The IRS should be funded more so long as every dollar put in extra returns more then a dollar. Its basic math.
Glad to see the Senate actually managed to do something tho, its rare these days.
|
The IRS is the only part of the government that makes a profit. Every dollar spent on the IRS returns more than a dollar to the US government, and that more-than-a-dollar comes from people who are not paying their fair share (whether on purpose or in error). Standing in opposition to funding the IRS means standing up for tax evasion.
I remember reading that IRS agents' job performance is evaluated based on how many cases they process, rather than on the complexity of the cases they process or the amount of dollars recouped. This makes it almost impossible for the IRS to investigate cases of rich people with complex taxes and creative accountants --- there's no incentive for an IRS agent to tackle a complex case even if it could reveal serious tax evasion. Instead, they very efficiently investigate open-and-shut cases of ordinary people with straightforward taxes. Of course the IRS should ensure that ordinary people's taxes are being done fairly, but it's a travesty that their system makes it impossible to go after serious tax evasion. I wonder if this has changed under the Biden administration or will change under the new legislation. You'd think this kind of thing could be presented to the public as a winning issue for whichever party takes it up (which will never be Republicans because they support tax evasion, see above).
On August 08 2022 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:
The IRS should be funded more so long as every dollar put in extra returns more then a dollar. Its basic math.
Exactly, you'd think we could all agree on this. Even if you don't like paying taxes, isn't it better if we all pay them fairly than if some do and some don't?
|
On August 08 2022 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:
The IRS should be funded more so long as every dollar put in extra returns more then a dollar. Its basic math.
Glad to see the Senate actually managed to do something tho, its rare these days.
Congress has been quite productive in recent months, including some noteworthy bipartisan legislation and action. There was gun control, CHIPS ($280 billion for science, technology, and semiconductor infrastructure), healthcare for veterans afflicted by illness from burn pits, and military aid for Ukraine. And don't forget the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill last year.
There's even the possibility that the bill to legalize gay and interracial marriage passes the Senate, as it already passed the House. It received a non-negligible amount of support from the GOP.
|
On August 08 2022 05:54 Djabanete wrote:The IRS is the only part of the government that makes a profit. Every dollar spent on the IRS returns more than a dollar to the US government, and that more-than-a-dollar comes from people who are not paying their fair share (whether on purpose or in error). Standing in opposition to funding the IRS means standing up for tax evasion. I remember reading that IRS agents' job performance is evaluated based on how many cases they process, rather than on the complexity of the cases they process or the amount of dollars recouped. This makes it almost impossible for the IRS to investigate cases of rich people with complex taxes and creative accountants --- there's no incentive for an IRS agent to tackle a complex case even if it could reveal serious tax evasion. Instead, they very efficiently investigate open-and-shut cases of ordinary people with straightforward taxes. Of course the IRS should ensure that ordinary people's taxes are being done fairly, but it's a travesty that their system makes it impossible to go after serious tax evasion. I wonder if this has changed under the Biden administration or will change under the new legislation. You'd think this kind of thing could be presented to the public as a winning issue for whichever party takes it up (which will never be Republicans because they support tax evasion, see above). Show nested quote +On August 08 2022 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:
The IRS should be funded more so long as every dollar put in extra returns more then a dollar. Its basic math.
Exactly, you'd think we could all agree on this. Even if you don't like paying taxes, isn't it better if we all pay them fairly than if some people do and some people don't?
The problem is that people don't think.
They hate paying taxes, and they pay taxes to the IRS. Giving the IRS more money sounds bad to them, and they fear that this will lead to the IRS prosecuting them over their 50$ that they maybe declared incorrectly. Thus, giving money to the IRS is very unpopular.
|
|
|
Oh god my soft support for Nikki Haley to be a more moderate Republican candidate for 2024 is over. Full on trans and culture issues biggest importance via her Fox News interview today. Sad!
|
On August 08 2022 06:02 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2022 05:54 Djabanete wrote:The IRS is the only part of the government that makes a profit. Every dollar spent on the IRS returns more than a dollar to the US government, and that more-than-a-dollar comes from people who are not paying their fair share (whether on purpose or in error). Standing in opposition to funding the IRS means standing up for tax evasion. I remember reading that IRS agents' job performance is evaluated based on how many cases they process, rather than on the complexity of the cases they process or the amount of dollars recouped. This makes it almost impossible for the IRS to investigate cases of rich people with complex taxes and creative accountants --- there's no incentive for an IRS agent to tackle a complex case even if it could reveal serious tax evasion. Instead, they very efficiently investigate open-and-shut cases of ordinary people with straightforward taxes. Of course the IRS should ensure that ordinary people's taxes are being done fairly, but it's a travesty that their system makes it impossible to go after serious tax evasion. I wonder if this has changed under the Biden administration or will change under the new legislation. You'd think this kind of thing could be presented to the public as a winning issue for whichever party takes it up (which will never be Republicans because they support tax evasion, see above). On August 08 2022 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:
The IRS should be funded more so long as every dollar put in extra returns more then a dollar. Its basic math.
Exactly, you'd think we could all agree on this. Even if you don't like paying taxes, isn't it better if we all pay them fairly than if some people do and some people don't? The problem is that people don't think. They hate paying taxes, and they pay taxes to the IRS. Giving the IRS more money sounds bad to them, and they fear that this will lead to the IRS prosecuting them over their 50$ that they maybe declared incorrectly. Thus, giving money to the IRS is very unpopular.
It would have been wise to get the commitment to not auditing people making under $25,000 at 5x the rate of everyone else codified rather than having to rely on a promise they'll stop not get worse from a commissioner that'll be replaced in a couple years.
Like many systems in the US, the tax system is absurdly convoluted and expensive in no small part due to the predatory businesses that profit from the US keeping it that way paying off politicians to ensure it.
|
|
|
United States42005 Posts
On August 08 2022 08:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2022 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 08 2022 06:02 Simberto wrote:On August 08 2022 05:54 Djabanete wrote:The IRS is the only part of the government that makes a profit. Every dollar spent on the IRS returns more than a dollar to the US government, and that more-than-a-dollar comes from people who are not paying their fair share (whether on purpose or in error). Standing in opposition to funding the IRS means standing up for tax evasion. I remember reading that IRS agents' job performance is evaluated based on how many cases they process, rather than on the complexity of the cases they process or the amount of dollars recouped. This makes it almost impossible for the IRS to investigate cases of rich people with complex taxes and creative accountants --- there's no incentive for an IRS agent to tackle a complex case even if it could reveal serious tax evasion. Instead, they very efficiently investigate open-and-shut cases of ordinary people with straightforward taxes. Of course the IRS should ensure that ordinary people's taxes are being done fairly, but it's a travesty that their system makes it impossible to go after serious tax evasion. I wonder if this has changed under the Biden administration or will change under the new legislation. You'd think this kind of thing could be presented to the public as a winning issue for whichever party takes it up (which will never be Republicans because they support tax evasion, see above). On August 08 2022 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:
The IRS should be funded more so long as every dollar put in extra returns more then a dollar. Its basic math.
Exactly, you'd think we could all agree on this. Even if you don't like paying taxes, isn't it better if we all pay them fairly than if some people do and some people don't? The problem is that people don't think. They hate paying taxes, and they pay taxes to the IRS. Giving the IRS more money sounds bad to them, and they fear that this will lead to the IRS prosecuting them over their 50$ that they maybe declared incorrectly. Thus, giving money to the IRS is very unpopular. It would have been wise to get the commitment to not auditing people making under $25,000 at 5x the rate of everyone else codified rather than having to rely on a promise they'll stop not get worse from a commissioner that'll be replaced in a couple years. Like many systems in the US, the tax system is absurdly convoluted and expensive in no small part due to the predatory businesses that profit from the US keeping it that way paying off politicians to ensure it. That is just beurocratic failure. Their auditors need to hit certain numbers and a under 25k person is way easier and faster. Hopefully with more funding they can correct that kind of thing but it would likely take a lot more and someone who cared about doing the right thing in charge, and those are rare everywhere. Edit: not to mention if you look at money spent on each bracket you will see a different story.
It’s not a bureaucratic thing, it’s due to EITC. It has high audit risk due to high potential abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
