Best Posts in Thread: Negros NPA

I'm not for communism, but did want to talk about your second point.

I think it's a little shortsighted to think that everyone wants to sit on their butts all day and let the rich pay for everything. I'd say a big part of the issue is there just isn't enough opportunity to support everyone working at decent pay. The Philippines is a perfect example of that. Way more people than the economy can support.

I have a good friend who owns some section 8 housing and his tenants are primarily single woman with a couple of kids. They are on public assistance and also getting disability payments for he kids who have ADD. People can make more money doing nothing, so why not kick back. The system is broken.

I'll thought I would add a little color to the numbers you threw out.

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax

With respect to the 45% paying no taxes. Everyone pays taxes, not everyone pays income taxes, but everyone pays taxes on almost everything they buy or consume. Those taxes go to the government. In addition, taxes are baked in to product costs in the form of tariffs, so there is another instance where they pay. The other misleading part of throwing that number out is that a significant number of those are retirees. They have to stop working at some time, don't they?



With respect to the "rich" paying for everything. They certainly pay more $$, but what I found interesting is that they don't necessarily pay a higher percent. It it harder for me to come up with 25% for them to come up with 25%. Who should we feel more sorry for? I know you don't feel sorry for anyone, and I'm not asking your for you feel sorry for me either, just asking you to think.


The images are from:
Who doesn’t pay taxes, in eight charts

I just find it curious that it's easier to sympathize with people that have more money than they know what to do with it, than people who barely survive from one day to the next. Do you really believe people chose to struggle from day to day?

 

One definition of a "terrorist" is 'a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims'. If the NPA threatens to burn down buildings unless certain 'taxes' are paid then I would say they do fit the description of 'terrorists'. This is similar to the extortion of the Mafia "Take out our 'fire insurance' or your place may (WILL) burn down." Often terrorist groups lose their 'cause' and become indistinguishable from criminals. But then again, Nelson Mandela was seen as a 'terrorist' under a repressive minority government and then elected President under a majority government of his own people. So was he ever a 'terrorist'? I felt that the IRA had a valid cause to re-unite Ireland, but as soon as they targeted civilians I changed my attitude and despised them.

My view, therefore, is that The Philippines has a democratically elected government (we can think what we want about HOW some get elected, but Duterte has a massive majority and I think his right to be President cannot be disputed) and those who disagree with the rule of law need to go to the ballot box - if they think threatening ordinary innocent people is the right way then they are misguided. Who wants to be governed by people who use threats to gain their objectives? They would just bring that MO into government to fill their own pockets with property stolen from the innocent.

 

It was 39% with the next placed candidate at about 24% - I call that a clear difference. The only people who get elected with overwhelming majorities are Kim Jong-Un and his like - and I think there is a reason for that (otherwise they become 'chop-to-go'!)

 

If agreeing with the definition of the word terrorist as used by the US government, the Philippine government and the European Union, then it is ludicrous to say that the NPA is not a terrorist group. They have been declared a terrorist organization by the United States government, the Philippine government, and the European Union. I am assuming that these entities have enough information to make such a determination.

 

The NPA have been busy burning private property. A couple of months ago they burnt some mining equipment near Siaton.
Duterte did not win the election with a majority, however he does have an approval rating close to 80%.
The Npa did start with a political goal (communism) which appears to have been reduced to doing whatever to avoid getting a real job.

 

The big differentiator between your two examples is one is by choice and one isn't.