American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I don’t feel like reading the opinion, but I can’t help but think that it goes against the holdings of Heller and McDonald.

As in, how can you have the individual right to keep and bear arms for a traditionally lawful purpose, but not “carry” them?

As open carry has a long history of being regulated and the 2nd amendment makes no mention of it all the court has really done is maintain the legal status quo, states have the right to allow or disallow their morons to wander around with guns

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1374766133329420290
So gross.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Atheism is the largest growing "faith" in America. I cannot wait until there are enough elected officials to do away with dumb #### like "In God We Trust" and any other relic from the 1700's.

America is not a theocracy, and therefore, someone's faith should never be used to justify legislation. Expression of religion? Fine. Go for it. Having it dictate policy? Horrific, and there are countless historical examples and current ones to suggest that it only leads to more problems in any society for those that aren't "true believers".

Get that #### out of here.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Atheism is the largest growing "faith" in America. I cannot wait until there are enough elected officials to do away with dumb #### like "In God We Trust" and any other relic from the 1700's.

America is not a theocracy, and therefore, someone's faith should never be used to justify legislation. Expression of religion? Fine. Go for it. Having it dictate policy? Horrific, and there are countless historical examples and current ones to suggest that it only leads to more problems in any society for those that aren't "true believers".

Get that #### out of here.

Just a reminder that much of the religious content in government was a product of the 1950's and trying to stave off communism. Evangelicals have worked hard the last half century trying to turn America into gods chosen country. I too look forward to a day when the tide has turned.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Atheism is the largest growing "faith" in America. I cannot wait until there are enough elected officials to do away with dumb #### like "In God We Trust" and any other relic from the 1700's.

Not gonna happen in your lifetime. Atheism might grow from 10 per cent of the population to 30 per cent over the next 50 years. Eight in ten 18-29 year olds believe in some kind of spiritual force or higher power.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...belief-in-god/

Given the demographic makeup of the religiously faithful, you’re going to be waiting a long, long time before even the Democrats nominate an openly irreligious presidential candidate. Religion helps explain why Bernie Sanders has a ceiling of about 30 per cent in the party and gets zero traction with Black voters.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ite-democrats/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...oly-scripture/

[rubecube]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1375519430893957120

[GirlySports]

User pays approach. What is he, Republican? Someone should ask him if he thinks Healthcare should be user paid as well.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

User pays approach. What is he, Republican? Someone should ask him if he thinks Healthcare should be user paid as well.

I think there are some good arguments to be made for user pay on roads. At some point it needs to be figured out, anyway, because gas taxes are going to dry up as we switch to electric.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think there are some good arguments to be made for user pay on roads. At some point it needs to be figured out, anyway, because gas taxes are going to dry up as we switch to electric.

Sure, but that's a right-wing argument. If Mayor Pete is making this argument, he's in the wrong party.


[But Pete, what about major delivery and trucking corporations]
"This will be a tax on the individual doing the driving, not the entity that owns the vehicle or employs the driver."

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Sure, but that's a right-wing argument. If Mayor Pete is making this argument, he's in the wrong party.


[But Pete, what about major delivery and trucking corporations]
"This will be a tax on the individual doing the driving, not the entity that owns the vehicle or employs the driver."

What do you mean it's a "right wing argument"? Here, I'll make it liberal hippy left wing for ya.

"I live downtown in a big city and ride my bike to work. Why should I pay for roads, expensive bridges and interchanges so some acreage living pickup driving pollution spewing suburbanite can get a free ride with my tax dollars?"

There. It's not left or right, it's a society problem. Plenty of roads in socialist utopias across the pond are toll funded.

[PsYcNeT]

It's not a left or right problem, it's a class problem.

Any usage or consumption tax disproportionately affects lower income earners.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What do you mean it's a "right wing argument"? Here, I'll make it liberal hippy left wing for ya.

"I live downtown in a big city and ride my bike to work. Why should I pay for roads, expensive bridges and interchanges so some acreage living pickup driving pollution spewing suburbanite can get a free ride with my tax dollars?"

There. It's not left or right, it's a society problem. Plenty of roads in socialist utopias across the pond are toll funded.

It’s still a right wing argument.

The right wing argument is everyone pays for themselves for whatever they want or need.

The left wing argument is society decides what people want/need and then pays for it.

So any I don’t use it so I don’t want to pay for it is a right wing argument and any we should collectively pay for things that are of collective benefit is a left argument. There is more nuance and steps but at a very high level it kinda works.

[GirlySports]

They tried to do something like this in Utah in the most recent legislative session. It didn't go very far.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s still a right wing argument.

The right wing argument is everyone pays for themselves for whatever they want or need.

The left wing argument is society decides what people want/need and then pays for it.

So any I don’t use it so I don’t want to pay for it is a right wing argument and any we should collectively pay for things that are of collective benefit is a left argument. There is more nuance and steps but at a very high level it kinda works.

Generalized, sure. But you can make issues appear right or left based on what they are and what group would support them. Like, if you had a government policy where everyone got a free gun, you'd probably have a lot of right wing support for it, and less left.

I'm just saying this issue isn't necessarily something that wouldn't be strongly supported by those more liberal cities. But then maybe hen they realize the free ride they get in their Teslas is going to end, they'd have a different opinion.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by rubecube

https://twitter.com/user/status/1375519430893957120

In fairness, he's not gonna lose any seats. He's taxing the rural poor, aka Republicans.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's not a left or right problem, it's a class problem.

Any usage or consumption tax disproportionately affects lower income earners.

Why not make a road tax that's based on income? Make lower incomes exempt completely, and have wealthy families with multiple vehicles pay more

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think there are some good arguments to be made for user pay on roads. At some point it needs to be figured out, anyway, because gas taxes are going to dry up as we switch to electric.

Gas taxes are already going to disproportionately impact the poor as the rich are the ones able to afford EVs.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Why not make a road tax that's based on income? Make lower incomes exempt completely, and have wealthy families with multiple vehicles pay more

They should just roll the gas tax/road tax into a sales tax when new vehicles are purchased. This way the government collects based on new vehicle purchases whether they are gasoline, electric, hydrogen, whatever future source of fuel exists. They can structure the tax on a sliding scale so that larger vehicles and/or more expensive vehicles are taxed at a higher rate. This reduces the tax on lower incomes as they tend to be consumers of used vehicles instead of new vehicles.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

They should just roll the gas tax/road tax into a sales tax when new vehicles are purchased. This way the government collects based on new vehicle purchases whether they are gasoline, electric, hydrogen, whatever future source of fuel exists. They can structure the tax on a sliding scale so that larger vehicles and/or more expensive vehicles are taxed at a higher rate. This reduces the tax on lower incomes as they tend to be consumers of used vehicles instead of new vehicles.

But gas taxes are currently a proxy for vehicle use, and in turn infrastructure costs. If you only drive 5000km a year, and someone else is driving 30 000km a year, you both pay the same tax? that doesn't seem right, either. It's not an easy problem to solve without km tracking, and that leads to privacy issues.

And if your vehicle gets totaled in year 3, you've payed a tax up front that is supposed to be applied to 10 or 20 years of the vehicles life?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Or you could just take a tiny fraction of the bloated military budget that produces #### no modern military needs and use that to fix the infrastructure.

I should run for office.