By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Do you consider yourself more left or right wing?

 

I am...

More left leaning 52 61.90%
 
More right leaning 32 38.10%
 
Total:84
the-pi-guy said:
Chrkeller said:

That what many on the left do not understand.  Products don't magically appear.  Somebody put up money and time.  Most people don't work for free.  

On the contrary, a major basis of left wing thought is pretty much that people are putting in their effort. 

You said several pages ago that you create more wealth for your company than you are given. That's the point. Companies are taking advantage of their workers. 

And the people with power want you to be mad at the ones who make less, and not the ones who actually benefit from the system.  

I do generate more money than I cost and that is fair.  They provide stability and I'm not putting up the capital.  Those who put up the capital take on more risk, thus deserve more cookies.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Around the Network

I believe everyone should have the same human rights, I believe the working class shouldn't struggle to survive while the elites get handout after handout. I am against indoctrinating children into the cult called religion, specifically Christianity. I don't fall back to a de facto standard position of fuck poor people and fuck immigrants any time something bad happens.

So obviously I lean left.



Chrkeller said:
Chris Hu said:

I get it you are okay with the people doing the least amount of work getting the most rewards and rigging the system to get even more by doing even less.

So inaccurate I'm not going to give a real response.  I'm just going to chortle.  

If you won’t give him a real response, will you give one to my last quote to you? The one that has data and good faith arguments?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
Chrkeller said:

So inaccurate I'm not going to give a real response.  I'm just going to chortle.  

If you won’t give him a real response, will you give one to my last quote to you? The one that has data and good faith arguments?

I can look.  I didn't willfully avoid it.  Typically, from my perspective, I get questions for multiple people and it is hard to keep up on.  Let me look.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

zorg1000 said:
Chrkeller said:

I would suspect US culture has shifted a lot since those times.  Same with human behavior.  

Richest country with 4% of the population...  strikes me as though we are doing something right.

I just worry when people, could be my interpretation, want to make drastic changes, when clearly a lot is working.

And if it helps, I think capital gains should go away.  Income should be taxed as income, source shouldn't matter.  Investment should be taxed, for everyone as ordinary income.  

What changed in terms of culture/human behavior that means we needed to have lower taxes in order to remain the richest country?

During the 40s-70s, the US was about 5-6% of the global population and the richest country so not sure how that supports that we are currently doing something right that we previously weren’t.


https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

Pretty much lays out that from the mid 40s-mid 70s (post-war economic boom/golden age of capitalism), income grew at the same rate across the income spectrum. Inflation adjusted income went up about 100% for the median household along with the top 5% of households.

Since that point (Reagan/Bush/Trump tax cuts), inflation adjusted income has gone up just under 50% for the median household but a bit over 100% for the top 5% of households.

It also shows that since 1979 (Reagan/Bush/Trump tax cuts), income after taxes and transfers went up 73% for the middle 60% (middle class) while it went up 326% for the top 1% (the rich).

It’s not about people wanting to make drastic changes, it’s about people seeing that we had a system that was making life better for the average citizen and wanting to go back to that. We were the richest, strongest, most innovative country back then and we still are so I don’t see how slashing taxes over the last ~40 years has done anything but hurt the working/middle class while stuffing the pockets of the rich and causing the federal debt to skyrocket.

So I am happy to address the two bolded points.

1) technology.  back in the 50s community was strong because people went outside and talked with each other.  Today everyone is behind a screen and I think the sense of community isn't as strong, which makes it a challenge to sell community as a selling point.  

2) Honestly, I am not against adjustments.  Personally, I think all income should be taxed as ordinary income.  My issue with the left is "tax the rich."  What is rich?  How much are we going to tax them?  Honestly it comes off as Trump like to me, make claim with zero details (which isn't a plan) and claim it the best.    



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Around the Network
Chrkeller said:

I do generate more money than I cost and that is fair.  

There's not an objective standard for fairness.  

Chrkeller said:

I do generate more money than I cost and that is fair.  They provide stability and I'm not putting up the capital.  Those who put up the capital take on more risk, thus deserve more cookies.  

Are they really taking on more risk, when the government is there to bail them out? Often giving them huge subsidies to start up their business?

Small business owners are definitely taking a risk, but past that? What risk are people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk taking? 



the-pi-guy said:
Chrkeller said:

I do generate more money than I cost and that is fair.  

There's not an objective standard for fairness.  

Chrkeller said:

I do generate more money than I cost and that is fair.  They provide stability and I'm not putting up the capital.  Those who put up the capital take on more risk, thus deserve more cookies.  

Are they really taking on more risk, when the government is there to bail them out? Often giving them huge subsidies to start up their business?

Small business owners are definitely taking a risk, but past that? What risk are people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk taking? 

Yes, they are taking on more risk.  Senior stakeholders have to make way more difficult decisions than the average worker.  That is just a flat-out fact.  

Bill Gates was a college dropout and started a bunch of businesses, how was that not risky?  Elon putting his money into a bunch of start-ups, how is that not risk?  

Let us do a simple analogy...  I walk into a casino.  I don't put any money on the table...  but when it is time for a payout, I have my handout... why?  I didn't place a bet, someone else did.  

At the end of the day, nothing is free.  And anybody who thinks senior stakeholders have less hours, stress and responsibility are absolutely ****ing clueless.

edit

I mean Jesus dude.  Not only did Gates drop out of college, but he ran a business out of his garage...  how in the **** was that not risky?  Bill Gates is the very definition of risky.      

And thanks to Bill Gates 228,000 people have jobs...  

Are you unaware that Microsoft was a small start-up?  Bill Gates wasn't handed a plate of cookies...  he made the plate of cookies.  Which is EXACTLY my point.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 11 September 2025

i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Chrkeller said:

Yes, they are taking on more risk.  Senior stakeholders have to make way more difficult decisions than the average worker.  That is just a flat-out fact.  

Bill Gates was a college dropout and started a bunch of businesses, how was that not risky?  Elon putting his money into a bunch of start-ups, how is that not risk?  

At the end of the day, nothing is free.  And anybody who thinks senior stakeholders have less hours, stress and responsibility are absolutely ****ing clueless.    

No one is saying anything is free.

But you seem to think that the universe just granted people money for working hard. 

I also think it's a bit hypocritical to talk about risk, when that suggests that there is some kind of element out of their control. Which you deride when people talk about things being out of their control when it comes to poorer people.  

Specifically talking about Bill Gates and Elon Musk today. If every single one of their businesses went down right now, do you honestly think they would be penniless and on the street? 



the-pi-guy said:
Chrkeller said:

Yes, they are taking on more risk.  Senior stakeholders have to make way more difficult decisions than the average worker.  That is just a flat-out fact.  

Bill Gates was a college dropout and started a bunch of businesses, how was that not risky?  Elon putting his money into a bunch of start-ups, how is that not risk?  

At the end of the day, nothing is free.  And anybody who thinks senior stakeholders have less hours, stress and responsibility are absolutely ****ing clueless.    

No one is saying anything is free.

But you seem to think that the universe just granted people money for working hard. 

I also think it's a bit hypocritical to talk about risk, when that suggests that there is some kind of element out of their control. Which you deride when people talk about things being out of their control when it comes to poorer people.  

Specifically talking about Bill Gates and Elon Musk today. If every single one of their businesses went down right now, do you honestly think they would be penniless and on the street? 

How about you answer my questions first?  You do a great job of avoiding questions and asking more from me.  How was Bill Gates not the definition of risky?  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Chrkeller said:

And thanks to Bill Gates 228,000 people have jobs...  

Are you unaware that Microsoft was a small start-up?  Bill Gates wasn't handed a plate of cookies...  he made the plate of cookies.  Which is EXACTLY my point.  

It doesn't always work that way. 

Walmart hires something like 2 million, but they also displaced a lot of jobs and a lot of small businesses. 

Chrkeller said:

How about you answer my questions first?  You do a great job of avoiding questions and asking more from me.  How was Bill Gates not the definition of risky?  

I said now. 

Do you think that a billion dollar company has the same or bigger risk as one that's run out of a garage?  

Bill Gates also was never the definition of risky. He came from a relatively well off family. If MS didn't work out, he would've had options. He wouldn't have lost his house if it didn't work out.  He even said himself, he would have just gone back to Harvard if it didn't work out.