• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Biden Wants All Banks To Report Transactions To IRS

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Of course they would. They want to appear as transparent to the community at large by default. Whether or not that is actually the case is another matter altogether. But in this age of 24/7 surveillance, ehhhh
They just want to appear that they’re in the right, nothing else. So this being a “thing” seems rather suspicious, regardless of politics
We need transparency from all banks. Wouldn’t you agree? I mean they are holding everyone’s money, right?
I just need my bank to conduct its affairs for my benefit.
Reporting everything to government strikes me as too
much power for it.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You sure are loyal to the left. But when they had the
presidency &/or Congress, they waged the war too.
And the Crime Bill...that heinous "contrivance" that put so
many in prison was drafted by Biden, & signed by Clinton.
I blame both parties, & the voters.

Biden and Clinton are not "left." They are right-wingers, both capitalists.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I just need my bank to conduct its affairs for my benefit.
Reporting everything to government strikes me as too
much power for it.
But that’s the governments job. To exert power over companies under its threshold. Otherwise why bother having one?
This in standard practice in literally every country including the corrupt ones, as far as I’m aware
They all see what you do, my guy. Doesn’t matter what they say. It’s the age of surveillance. Everything is documented
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Geeze Louise....nice deflection from my showing
that Democrats (left side of the aisle) also waged
the war on drugs...& the war on the poor.

I have no love for the Democrats, at least not since the 1980s. I was just correcting your erroneous association of Democrats with the "left." They're not left-wing.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But that’s the governments job. To exert power over companies under its threshold. Otherwise why bother having one?
This in standard practice in literally every country including the corrupt ones, as far as I’m aware
They all see what you do, my guy. Doesn’t matter what they say. It’s the age of surveillance. Everything is documented
I prefer that government have less power over us,
& conduct less surveillance. But I know that I'm in
the minority on this. Biden has wide approval for this.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I have no love for the Democrats, at least not since the 1980s. I was just correcting your erroneous association of Democrats with the "left." They're not left-wing.
You're trying to impose your personal definition of "left" &
"right"...making both parties be on the "right". That's simply
not common usage. And it's still deflection by equivocation
from my countering your claim that the War On Drugs was a
Republican thing. Democrat apologist are you?
Both parties were & are responsible.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Time to start stuffing money into the old mattress I suppose.

Saving-Money-Under-the-Mattress-550x298.jpg


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...reasury-tax-proposal-partly-false/8411799002/

Please invite me to your next slumber party.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You're trying to impose your personal definition of "left" &
"right"...making both parties be on the "right". That's simply
not common usage.

Conservative capitalists and others who favor the wealthy over the working class are usually considered to be on the right. Even if both parties move in that direction, it doesn't make it any less true.

And it's still deflection by equivocation
from my countering your claim that the War On Drugs was a
Republican thing. Democrat apologist are you?
Both parties were & are responsible.

The Republicans were the ones who brought it into being. The capitalist media were also pushing it pretty heavily, so the Democrats just went along with it. Of course, they are responsible, but my pointing out these relevant facts was neither deflection nor apologia for the Democrats.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Biden and Clinton are not "left." They are right-wingers, both capitalists.

For some reason, it seems to be social stances that determine whether someone is right or left wing. If someone is fiscally small government (right wing) but socially small government (left wing), one is seen as Dem. Fiscally big government (left wing) and socially big government (right wing), you're GOP. Libertarians are the only ones who are small government on both sides. Weird, eh?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Conservative capitalists and others who favor the wealthy over the working class are usually considered to be on the right. Even if both parties move in that direction, it doesn't make it any less true.
One side of the aisle (left) tends to favor
the wealthy more than the other (right).
The Republicans were the ones who brought it into being. The capitalist media were also pushing it pretty heavily, so the Democrats just went along with it. Of course, they are responsible, but my pointing out these relevant facts was neither deflection nor apologia for the Democrats.
Still defending the Democrats, eh.
Nixon only popularized the term, "war on
drugs". It was in place long before him.

I suppose that as a socialist, every US politician
would be on the right. But for most of us, there
is a left & right.
Further confusing the issue, the term, "right", doesn't
only mean capitalist / economic liberty...it can also
mean conservative or authoritarian.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
And you must supply a photo ID for the accounts. But don’t worry, voting without a photo ID is still fine with Biden.:mad:
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
For some reason, it seems to be social stances that determine whether someone is right or left wing. If someone is fiscally small government (right wing) but socially small government (left wing), one is seen as Dem. Fiscally big government (left wing) and socially big government (right wing), you're GOP. Libertarians are the only ones who are small government on both sides. Weird, eh?

I tend to view the right as being the side for the aristocracy, the wealthy, the privileged - and they generally tend to favor governments that will enhance their privileges and advocate for tough police forces to keep the poor in line (that's why they're big law and order types). Oftentimes they're also militaristic and nationalistic since that also can increase their wealth.

The left is basically the opposite of that. The left tends to support workers, the poor, the underclass and oppressed. They tend to favor governments that will guarantee the rights of workers and ensure an equitable distribution of wealth.

An example of a good centrist Democrat would be someone like FDR, who was able to skillfully balance the forces of left and right to work in cooperation for national defense and the common good. The system he advocated was more of a mixed Keynesian system, which proved to be quite effective and prosperous for Americans of all classes during the administrations which followed, at least up until Nixon.

The only down side was that FDR did not live long enough to lead the country through the fragile and tumultuous post-war years. The Cold War was an unnecessary burden on our country and put a great deal of strain on our post-war peace dividend. I think if FDR had lived, we might have been able to avoid it.

As for the Libertarians, when I first became acquainted with them (late 70s/early 80s), I was intrigued by a more non-interventionist foreign policy they advocated. I also agree with a non-interventionist foreign policy. Some of it seemed to hearken back to the Founding Fathers, who ostensibly advocated a smaller role for government, at least back when our country was more primitive and agrarian. The industrial revolution eventually came to our country, and things changed quite rapidly. The nature of politics also changed.

That's what libertarians seem to forget. They seem to believe that all these government regulations and restrictions are/were due to some nefarious plot by politicians and bureaucrats to stick it to business. The government didn't grow from small to big overnight. Society itself became big and far more complex.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I prefer that government have less power over us,
& conduct less surveillance. But I know that I'm in
the minority on this. Biden has wide approval for this.
In a perfect world maybe. In the 80s this may have been possible. But both our goburments have had likely this power since the 90s just haven’t said as much
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
One side of the aisle (left) tends to favor
the wealthy more than the other (right).

If they favor the wealthy, that automatically puts them on the right.

Still defending the Democrats, eh.

I don't agree, but does it matter either way?

Nixon only popularized the term, "war on
drugs". It was in place long before him.

Not really until the drug counter-culture started becoming more popular. There were open calls to legalize marijuana, and cocaine became known as the "designer drug" for the jet set. It was still obviously illegal, but it wasn't really until the 1980s when both Ronald and Nancy Reagan doubled down and escalated the war on drugs, at which time the police became more militarized and the anti-drug propaganda shifted into high gear, with the "Just say no" campaign and "this is your brain on drugs" propaganda. The media also put out shows like "Cops," which launched a whole genre of reality law enforcement shows. Jimmy Carter didn't do all that.

I suppose that as a socialist, every US politician
would be on the right. But for most of us, there
is a left & right.
Further confusing the issue, the term, "right", doesn't
only mean capitalist / economic liberty...it can also
mean conservative or authoritarian.

It basically means favoring the wealthy and privileged, and also tends to be focused more on tradition, and is resistant to new ideas or any real change. In a class-based society, those who are wealthier are of a higher rank, and have less to fear from an authoritarian government.

So, as I see it, the main difference between left and right is that the right favors an unchanging society and supports that which they will believe will maintain the status quo. This is, for all intents and purposes, the overall position held by both parties. But the left tends to favor change and justice for the masses. The way I see it, the world is constantly in motion and society is in a constant state of flux and change. I think a key reason why most historical empires have fallen is because they couldn't keep up with the changes.

My main political position (beyond anything related to my views on the economic system) comes down to this: America has to be flexible and be able to adapt to a changing world. If we don't, then it may be detrimental to the lives of the citizenry. I'm not concerned about patriotism or longstanding American myths, but I do care about the survival and well-being of the citizenry, since I am also a citizen.

I'm also not as heavily devoted to an "ideology," per se. I have no problem with being labeled a "socialist," as my views tend to fall within the same ballpark as socialism. But as I said, I also believe in flexibility and adaptability. So, I don't believe in total socialism or even that it should have to be permanent.

I also try to look at all of this from an international perspective, as I believe that our own well-being and survival also depend upon the well-being and survival of other nations and humanity as a species. We must strive to seek peace and cooperation among the nations and governments of the world.

Socialism favors cooperation, while capitalism favors competition - which doesn't just end like a game of Monopoly. The competition escalates, whether it's between economic factions, class factions, nationalist factions - and that's where it can rather ugly.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In a perfect world maybe. In the 80s this may have been possible. But both our goburments have had likely this power since the 90s just haven’t said as much

The people gave them that power when they were strongly persuaded by strident and heavy-handed propaganda about how horrible communism was. This justified the continuation of the Office of Strategic Services (which was created during WW2), while changing its name to the Central Intelligence Agency. It also led to broad powers being given to the FBI, as well as the creation of the National Security Agency.

It justified maintaining a large military force (and paying for the capitalist industries to arm and equip it), whereas before WW2, America's military was kept rather small except in times of war. And back then, war actually meant a declared war, not some "police action" or some vague, ill-defined status or objective.

The irony of the Red Scares and ensuing paranoia is that the policies of anti-communism turned out to be a far more immediate threat to Western freedom and liberty than communism ever was.
 
Top