So what defines right and left?

Taxes don't go up on the citizenry because a company gets a tax break, credit, or deduction. If taxes are raised to offset those breaks, credits and deductions, that's the government's fault, not the fault of the companies, or the individuals.

 

No, the money doesn't belong to the people...lol. That notion is straight up Communism.

Everyone does have the same tax relief. There isn't a single break, credit, or deduction that isn't available to every person and company in The United States.

 

All businesses in all industries are allowed to deduct their expenses prior to calculating taxable income. This principle is the cornerstone of our business tax structure.

To act as if the tax that is avoided by virtue of writing off those expenses is somehow a subsidy is simply not based in reality. There are many however that bogusly call this a subsidy when attacking fossil fuels, and far more still that believe this purposeful deception ( the useful dupes).

 

I know what a subsidy is.
It is a tax break which shorthands the taking and then given back as subsidies.
Everything else is semantics.

 

Sigh

Taxation is not communism.
It is capitalism.
Nor everyone has the same tax relief. It depends on your company.

 

The "totalitarian" Robespierre.

Robespierre would have been the first totalitarian leader to have been part of a comitee of 12 people who was valided every month by the assembly. At the end of his short life, he was really sick, and couldn't siege often at the comité de salut Public, and by a strange fate, every time he sieged there was less executions.
The terror was asked by Danton following the slaugthers of September. And it has to be remembered that at that moment the country was invaded by every other european countries, that there was effectively a lot of people working to the demise of the revolution.

He would also have been also the only dictator defending the consitution of the year 1 (1793) who would have brought male universal right of vote. So why didn't he brought that constitution in action. Maybe it's the moment to remember that the country was both into a civil war and was partially invaded. He defended also the abolishement of slavery that angered a lot of people who didn't liked that we could touch "their" "property". He stood against propaging revolution through war and to attack other countries this way.

The country was effectively betrayed. First let's remember the escape of the king. I don't have a specific hostility to Louis XVI, but when you flee the capital to join army and crush the legitimate elected assembly because you fancy yourself too much as "god by divine right". How could we call that ? High treason.
Further happened, many people fled and joined foreign armies, Dumouriez is a good example. Furthermore following the case of the "iron box", it was discovered that the king Louis XVI was working to undermine the country. That people who were admired and even brought to the Pantheon such Mirabeau where in fact engaged in double dealing, him and less known people.
The french people had every reasons to think there was traitors and people engaged in double dealing, because they were betrayed.

Then happened the slaughters of September. At that moment the terror was decided to avoid any other bloodshed of that kind. You can't have the same kind of justice in times of war than in regular time.

Interestingly enough, people who was member of the comite de salut public (and so as much as responsible in the terror than robespierre), lived a long life for many of them, many of them became directors. They abolished the year 1 constitution and decided that only rich people could vote because they were more "capable" (how convenient). They were no different from the aristocrats that were ungrateful toward the people feeding them. Neither a lot of members of the comité de sureté général were worried, yet they were the one supposed to decide who should go to the revolutionary tribunal.
Again, by a strange game of fate, many people who participated in atrocities in the french country side was by the influence of Robespierre called back to answer for their crimes (such was the case of Carrier), and Carrier knowing that he would loose his head worked against Robespierre.

The black legend of Robespierre is like the black legend of the middle age just a legend, if serious historians have shown something it's just propaganda who started under the life of Robespierre.

Is he innocent completely ? No, he was took in the tragedy that was that time. Saint-Just, his friend understood also that when ruling during a time of both war of invasion and civil war there was no "innocent ruling". But, his rights clearly are bigger than his wrongs.

And who had interest do defend him in a public manner ? The directors ? The one that seized power by themselves. No. Napoleon ? That little weasel had to justify how he could concentrate all power in his hands. The royalist ? Should I really explain why.

But what did Napoleon and King Louis XVIII thought of Robespierre.

Napoleon :
"Billaud and the other terrorists seeing that Robespierre was weakened (by his sickness) and would without doubts make their head fall united against him and excited the honnest people to overthrow the so-called tyran, but in truth to take his place and make the terror reign even more. The people of Paris, by overthrowing Robespierre, thought he destroyed tyranny, to only make it flower more". (Not sure how I translated things).
"The thermidorian threw everything on Robespierre, but this one before dying told he was a foreigner to the execution because he didn't sieged for six weeks to the comitees. Napoleon told that at the army of Nice, he saw long letters of Robespierre to his brother, blaming the horrors of the comissar of the convention, who destroyed the revolution by their tyranny and their atrocities.

Louis XVIII (younger brother of Louis XVI) (around 179
" Your opinion on Robespierre is hazardous if not wrong, statemen shouldn't be considered along ordinary people morality. In 1793 and 1794, it was about to save the social body and if it was proved that the leader of the Jacobin did created the gallows of the terror to destroy the factions and to establish back the legitimate royal governement that France entirely desired, we should see in him at the opposite a strong head, and has Sylla a great stateman (roman general that became a dictator to save the roman republic then abdicated). Richelieu would have done more than Robespierre in the same place.

Robespierre is a great stateman, a hero, a marty, a true defender of democracy, that however lived through the most tragic period of France.

 

You obviously don't know what a subsidy is.

You do realize that it would be impossible for a business to stay afloat with the ability to deduct losses. Right?

Let me give you and example and I'll just use round numbers for simplicity:. If a company makes $100,000 in gross profit, spends $80,000 in expenses, then has to pay 34% on that $100,000 which is $34,000. The company would be perpetually in dect to the government and that is unsustainable.

 

Your claim that wealth belongs to the people, is communism...lol

Every company is eligible for every tax break, credit and deduction.

 

Clearly you do not.

 

Anecdotic evidence are arguable at best. Unfair systems would always bring the example of a slave that got freed, that a peasant could always being maked noble and enjoy the life idleness of nobility. That's only a valve to make unfair systems bearable. It doesn't change that his young man has worthiness, but I still believe that every young people would deserve a quality education.

 

You didn't answer the question.
And I knew that...but that's not what was relevant to that point now is it?

 

Yes, sorry. My answer: everything.

 

Thanks for the insult.

FYI, I just expressed my beliefs and I do not need to defend them.

 

I vote for moderate democrats.

 

I vote for moderate dems.

 

Yep, sorry.

 

I would say Google the political compass and that'll explain it.

There's a questionnaire that goes with it that you can answer and it will tell you where you line up. I think it's a little absurd because I'm one of those people that have left-wing opinions about certain things and right-wing opinions about others and even extreme left and right wing opinions about a few things and I would think most people are this way so this division is really serving no purpose but to balkanize people.

 

It has.

 

Sounds pretty communist to me, with a touch of fascism.

 

Do you consider yourself to be on the left or not?

 

Meanwhile the revolution fertilized the soil of France with rich and poor alike all having in common little more than a distaste for the numerous excesses if a revolution increasing run by thugs and morons.

 

Depends on the issue.
I don't subscribe to tribal oaths.

 

If you wish to discuss the very complicated period in French history please start à thread to make it relevant.

 

Inadequate rebuttal, lacks substantiation and robustness.

 

Where are you on on abortion?