Bloomberg: Taxing the Poor is Good Because They'll Have Less Money to Hurt Thems

[Ulli]

https://pjmedia.com/election/video-bloomberg-taxing-the-poor-is-good-because-theyll-have-less-money-to-hurt-themselves/

Perhaps this is technically right, but it is not the task of government to decide the diet of citizens. This will end up in tyranny and dictatorship.  Bloomberg is on a very bad way.

[Zelhar]

He ia patronizing the poor because he thinks they must be stupid. Truth be told there is a strong correlation here.

[Israel Chai]

What a twisted logic. When there was less taxes and government everywhere, people had more money to gain intelligence with and not have to sacrifice their morality for. The government does much more damage to citizens than they do to themselves first off, especially if you include the damage government brainwashes people to do to themselves, like taking trans drugs and being obsessed with fake and evil causes. Even if you were to say "fine, give it to another than the government", if you're broke there are almost only unhealthy options as far as food, and many will turn to escapes from their depressed reality that will harm them more.

This is a typical statement of one drunk on power. When you have the power to control the lives of others, you can't say that people know how to run their own lives best, because that means that you may have made decisions that are less than perfect, that you are a damaging force in the world, and no one can live with themselves believing that they are bad people, not that the ego of the power-drunk would allow them to reach that state. As such, to live with such power without the humility-inducing actions documented by Rambam in laws of kings, you have to pretend that everyone else you control is stupid and needs you. It's a pathetic excuse, like all things of the ego are, "maybe I did bad, maybe not, but it would be worse if I wasn't doing it because I'm better at your life than you".

[Israel Chai]

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2019/11/bloomberg-polling-1-iowa-daniel-greenfield/



Bloomberg Polling at 1% in Iowa
Mon Nov 25, 2019 Daniel Greenfield
13

Michael Bloomberg's got a plan. It just doesn't make much sense.

He's skipping the debates because he's not accepting donations and thus won't qualify. That probably only helps him, because his performance at an actual debate would be terrible. Instead he's planning to use his vast cash hoard to reach voters directly. Probably with a whole lot of ads.

But even the world's best admen can't sell a truly mediocre product. And that's what he is.

Bloomberg isn't going to try and compete in the overcrowded early primaries. Instead, he's presumably hoping to take California and New York. That's probably a better bet than trying for Iowa.

    Only 2 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire told Quinnipiac that they would “definitely vote” for Bloomberg, although an additional 37 percent did say they would “consider voting” for him. And in a Monmouth poll of Iowa, Bloomberg earned the support of less than 1 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers.

And his own party doesn't like him very much.

    A YouGov/Economist poll this week gave him a 34 percent favorable rating and a 36 percent unfavorable rating among Democratic primary voters nationwide. And that Monmouth poll found that just 17 percent of Iowa Democrats viewed him favorably, while 48 percent viewed him unfavorably!

It's unlikely that Bloomberg will have much of an impact. But if he does, the beneficiaries will be the hard core socialists like Sanders and Warren, while Biden and Buttigieg will lose some votes. But, I suspect not a whole lot. Bloomberg is a weak candidate who won political elections by buying them in a city with a broken system and, at the time, a talentless Democrat field. It's understandable if Bloomberg sees some parallels, but, like it or not, Sanders, Warren, and Biden have their fan bases. Bloomberg doesn't and won't be able to buy one.

[Zelhar]

I realize the way he is saying it sounds very patronizing and bad, but the logic behind it is sound. Taxing junk food is used more as a negative incentive than as revenue source. Poor people have a bigger incentive to not eat junk food because the tax effects them more in proportion to their budget.

[Joe Gutfeld]

Banberg is a joke of a human being.

[Nachus]

                                                                          

This really is bizarre and granted, Bloomberg isn't
righteous however far from stupid. What can we really expect from the elitist left?

[Mishmaat]

I love the nickname Chaim once called him back when he was a lot less politically correct. He’s such a weasel and his “logic” is so convoluted that it’s beyond words. How about just having a national sales tax instead of punishing anyone? Whether they’re productive, which is what current tax policy effectively does, or unproductive.

[Joe Gutfeld]

Let's drown him in a big gulp from 7/11

[Israel Chai]

I love the nickname Chaim once called him back when he was a lot less politically correct. He’s such a weasel and his “logic” is so convoluted that it’s beyond words. How about just having a national sales tax instead of punishing anyone? Whether they’re productive, which is what current tax policy effectively does, or unproductive.

What was it?

This is typical of politicans, taxing you for a moral reason. Politicians want money. If they say I want more money taxes up, they look bad. If they say I want your money because I love you, taxes look good.

[Mishmaat]

What was it?

This is typical of politicans, taxing you for a moral reason. Politicians want money. If they say I want more money taxes up, they look bad. If they say I want your money because I love you, taxes look good.

Mike the k*ke. The rationale for using such a term at the time is below:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010616164948/http://www.jtf.org/why.use.term.kike.htm

[Israel Chai]

Mike the k*ke. The rationale for using such a term at the time is below:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010616164948/http://www.jtf.org/why.use.term.kike.htm

"Don't be a kike. Be a Jew. Support JTF now!" Oh my. I doubt that was a highly profitable fund-raising campaign. I went off on that like more than 5 years ago, kike maybe is from circle in yiddish, doesn't really add anything, just like saying you don't like Jews. Mike can be a kapo, that's a term with information, kike like you didn't really add anything to the description, might as well have just wrote "bad Jew" to make your point, but it contains a lot more points. Of course, there are people who don't like Jews for different reasons than JTF that putting them in the habit of saying that isn't bright.

Did anyone ever like say "wow, before you called him a kike I didn't know, but now my eyes are open"?