RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,976
- 191,922
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Do you trust Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, and the Mercers too? Because your argument implies they should be trusted to spend on the social good over the government as well.People like Bloomberg are literally GIVING their money away for causes they believe in. You might feel the government can give away Mikes money better by enlisting harsher tax laws but I trust Mike a little more, besides the wealthy will always skirt these laws. The middle and lower classes always get screwed.
I always make the abortion comparison, god forbid Roe is overturned, you don't think the Don is sending his sidepiece to Europe to get the procedure done?
I don't read comments like that and cape for billionaires, lol, they don't give a **** about me. I DO roll my eyes because its an easy sound bite without much meat. Bloomberg deserves his wealth as much as any wealthy (top 20%) individual does, of course there is luck involved, of course Bloomberg benefited from societal systems.
IMO fiscal/monetary policy should be overhauled, look no further than who is winning from this crises. 80% of the country is praying for the stimulus and the other 20% is buying homes over ask for gods sake. But don't tell me Bloomberg having 100M to spend towards election while others are poor is obscene....it's an oversimplification.
Also, Altruism from billionaires is not doesn't mean they our socioeconomic system has to be injected with a **** ton of bad economics just so his wealth can increase so he can have more money to spend how he would like. Because he wants to spend his money on causes he believes in, that doesn't mean the system needs to make sure he has as much as possible to spend on whatever he wants
BTW, Please show me a country that has built a successful social safety net off of the backs of altruism from billionaires? Please, I will wait. Sorry, but it is utterly ridiculous to argue that billionaires should be trusted above a well-functioning government. Society democracy should not depend on charity from the rich.
Billionaires can exist and poverty greatly reduced. It is not an either-or, no one in here made that argument. So I don't know what strawman you have an issue with. However the economic and moral argument is stronger for the poor being priortize. Right now the affluent are.
But you think someone slighted a billionaire, you boy Bloomberg, and you took your shirt off and put your cape on. It is as simple that income inequality in America is obscene. Someone has 100 million to drop like it is nothing while people starve is an example of that.
And you again make this weird argument of you believe in reform out of one side of your mouth. But act like the status quo is unavoidable out the other.
Mike Bloomberg can do whatever the **** he wants with his money, but for a functioning society, and equitable society, people like Bloomberg would have less money to throw around, and or people with a respectable standard of living.
So yes, again, this level of income inequality is obscene.
It is that simple.
Last edited: