Tax the poor, it is good for them!

Posted by Russpilot 4 years, 4 months ago to Politics
21 comments | Share | Flag

Bloomberg is one rich flippin' idiot. How the people ever elected him, much less multiple times just completely baffles me.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
    My cousin is in NY. I was told he and his kind keep getting votes because they're holding state pensions hostage, threatening to reduce and or seize them to stabilize NYs ever deepening debt (which they caused)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lnxjenn 4 years, 4 months ago
    I think when he was originally elected, he was the Guilliani replacement at the time. But he turned quite quickly, within the first couple years. I worked for a guy that year (2002) in NYC and he was part of the campaign (when he wasn't working with us). I am not sure what Bloomberg did was what he was expecting. I haven't spoken to him in a long long time. I'm glad I don't live in NYC anymore. My time there was limited and I don't think I would ever go back, after what him and DeCommio have done to the City.

    I don't think he knows what the poor actually do. There's a lot of times, they can't afford the healthy stuff, so they buy the cheap crap, that makes them sick, etc. So he has no self awareness, such as most politicians.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years, 4 months ago
    Bloomberg is an elitist. He didnt do so well in NYC, so I dont know why he is touting his time as mayor. The city is in shambles.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 4 months ago
    Despite that not quite being what he said, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with taxing poor if your into income taxes.

    There are several arguments, not the least of which is the “skin in the game “ one - people are all for programs until they find out how much it will cost them. Then support falls like a rock in fizzy water.

    Then there is the argument that there is more income there to be had - the availability pool argument.

    Then my favorite: it is what the Scandinavia countries the socialist mistakenly love so much do. Bernie and Co. Don’t seem to realize that those countries they claim we should be like tax their poor. The highest bracket kicks in at a level that would be roughly 50-70k/year here. Imagine them arguing that anyone making 50k/year is “the rich”. And that is their highest bracket entry points.

    Those facts really put them into a tizzy. Watching the face contort as a self-styled socialist learns his favored “socialist paradise” countries tax the poor brightens one’s day.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 4 years, 4 months ago
    Blunderberg wants an eternal slave/welfare state. He is in the same league as Oligarch G. Soros. He is out to destroy America. Well, if that happens there will be a Civil War!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 4 years, 4 months ago
    It occurs to me we really are a "Nanny State". The members of Congress seem to think they can pass laws to govern every inch of our lives.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by walkabout 4 years, 4 months ago
    The country could benefit from an amendment to forbid any method of taxation that has the intent of altering behavior. (Such alteration is unavoidable, but should not be the intention of the tax.) We should also repeal the 16th Amendment as it reinstated slavery and we had just fought and killed 600000 Americans deciding slavery is immoral.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 4 years, 4 months ago
    When I first heard that this was said I didn't believe it. Then as I heard commentary it began to make sense, liberals and Democrats reason that most people other than themselves are incapable of making ration decisions therefore must be led by the enlightened few. !!To stem obesity merely raise the price (TAX) of sweetened drinks and limit the sizes which can be sold!! Result: 'fat' poor people become poorer, 'fat' rich people can afford it. Perhaps this has been the strategy of the Democrats all along, keep the poor poor and the middle class poorer than it was and then make them beholding to Democrat elite who offer the crumbs from the banquet they are enjoying.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mlifgr 4 years, 4 months ago
    First let me say that I am not a fan of Bloomberg. I actually listened to the interview, and what is being quoted is not what he said. He did not say tax the poor, it is good for them. What he said was tax the things that are killing the poor (the infamous sugary fizzy drink) in order to make them unaffordable. Less consumption of junk food will make the poor healthier.

    If you look into welfare/food stamp benefits, you will find that Congress has been lobbied by the likes of Pespi, Coca Cola, Nabisco, Hershey and other such companies, to make junk food readily available to the poor. If a product has a nutrition label, it can be purchased through the above programs - it doesn't have to be nutritious, it just has to have the label. A bottle of Pepsi has the label it is OK - A bottle of Vitamin Water, no label no good. Consumption of high volumes of junk food leads to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. This crap should be removed from the eligibility lists in food programs. Taxing it to make it unaffordable is just another option - like the $10 pack of cigarettes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      Problem with that logic is that the $10 pack of cigarettes didn't stop anyone smoking. I still see the beggars puffin' away as they pander for money at ever freakin' stop light in town.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo