PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on April 07, 2017, 08:13:51 AM
-
I know the board is heavily slanted right, but this is something I sincerely would like to know. To me, socialism is illogical and fights against human nature, it suffers by the application of the laws of economics. Is this a case that socialists are just ignorant of what they don't know or am I missing something.
-
I know the board is heavily slanted right, but this is something I sincerely would like to know. To me, socialism is illogical and fights against human nature, it suffers by the application of the laws of economics. Is this a case that socialists are just ignorant of what they don't know or am I missing something.
Socialism and Communism envisions a world as they wish it to be. When things don't work out the way they wish, they have many others to blame. Blaming others makes them feel superior.
I just don't understand how so many people can be fooled by such wishes. I too "wish" the world was fair and everyone was good. But it just ain't so.
-
Socialism/Communism is just another way to create, a ruling/controlling totalitarian ELITE CLASS. The top party/org members get what they want, and have the ability to tell everyone else what to do, because government provides, and regulates everything. This power either comes from the barrel of a gun, or indoctrination using a complicit media, and educational system, OR BOTH.
-
You are already living in a socialist country without recognizing it. Do you educate your children yourselves? Do you send them to a private school? If not, you're part of socialized education. Do you maintain your own police force? If not, you're part of socialized law enforcement. Do you have a private fire brigade? If not, you are part of a socialized emergency response. Do you pay for your medical care in cash? If not, you are participating in socialized health care.
I could go on. There is no black and white when it comes to socialism, just matters of degree. Its just become a boogeyman word for Conservatives to rant about. Some nations, like Canada and many in Western Europe, have more. We have less. Some nations, like Somalia, Lebanon and Syria have less than us.
And those of you objecting to our "political class" should get real and run for office. No law is preventing you. The surprising thing to me is Congress has an approval rating just below Dracula and Hitler, yet we still keep sending the same Congresscritters back to DC. Want to know whats wrong with our government? Try looking in a mirror.
-
Providing government services like police, and armed forces for defense is NOT socialism. It is what government does, and they should be more limited in what they provide, IMHO. Schools? Yes, they've become government, socialist indoctrination centers, but weren't always like that.
-
You are already living in a socialist country without recognizing it.
Merriam-Webster:
"so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Wikipedia:
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them.[11]"
-
Steingar is not the first lib to spout this distorted definition of socialism. But he's the most educated person that I know of to make such a fundamental distortion of the truth. If I didn't know any better you would almost think that distortion was intentional.
-
Providing government services like police, and armed forces for defense is NOT socialism. It is what government does, and they should be more limited in what they provide, IMHO. Schools? Yes, they've become government, socialist indoctrination centers, but weren't always like that.
There was a time when police, armed forces, fire, everything was private. There was a time in the US when "armed forces" meant a local militia of farmers and whatnot. None of this is sacrosanct. Nations change over time, and we have become more socialized as time has passed. We may become more in the future, we may become less.
Like I said, nothing more than a Conservative Boogeyman. Canada has more, and seems to be doing OK. So does Germany, and a bunch of other countries.
On the other hand, the Conservative paradise of Somalia isn't doing so well.
-
Steingar is not the first lib to spout this distorted definition of socialism. But he's the most educated person that I know of to make such a fundamental distortion of the truth. If I didn't know any better you would almost think that distortion was intentional.
The perfessor is what my father use to call an "educated idiot".
-
Great, nice.
Using the webster's dictionary, what motivates someone to support it?
The best I can come up with is one of four reasons, none of which is positive.
- ignorance - because they don't understand what it really is
- greed - because they want more for "free"
- egotism - because they think they are doing good for all
- naivety - because they think it works
For those promoters of socialism, this is your chance to convert me. What am I missing? What is your reason that I left out?
-
Great, nice.
Using the webster's dictionary, what motivates someone to support it?
The best I can come up with is one of four reasons, none of which is positive.
- ignorance - because they don't understand what it really is
- greed - because they want more for "free"
- egotism - because they think they are doing good for all
- naivety - because they think it works
For those promoters of socialism, this is your chance to convert me. What am I missing? What is your reason that I left out?
You left out taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots" so that everyone can share in the wealth.
-
You left out taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots" so that everyone can share in the wealth.
Assuming that you are not just being facetious, what makes you think that the "haves" are just going to stand around and allow the "have nots" to take your stuff? Once again, the real world gets in the way of the liberal socialist.
-
Assuming that you are not just being facetious, what makes you think that the "haves" are just going to stand around and allow the "have nots" to take your stuff? Once again, the real world gets in the way of the liberal socialist.
The government has the guns, so the government will take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots." Basic wealth redistribution. It's a flawed system that tries to guarantee equal outcomes for everyone and only ever guarantees the elite class gets everything. It reminds me of this quote from Margaret Thatcher:
He would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich."
-
-
There was a time when police, armed forces, fire, everything was private.
What time and place was this?
On the other hand, the Conservative paradise of Somalia isn't doing so well.
Ironically[1] the civil war in Somalia is the result of decades of a "Scientific Socialist"[2] government power abuse so awful that the U.N. declared "the 21-year regime of Siyad Barre had one of the worst human rights records in Africa."[3] The civil war appears to be due mostly to attempts to re-impose a central government - absent that success the tribal clans have reverted to Somali customary law (Xeer), which existed since pre-colonial times[4].
From the abstract of reference 4:
"Many people believe that Somalia’s economy has been in chaos since the collapse of its national government in 1991. We take a comparative institutional approach to examine Somalia’s performance relative to other African countries both when Somalia had a government and during its extended period of anarchy. We find that although Somalia is poor, its relative economic performance has improved during its period of statelessness. We also describe how Somalia has provided basic law and order and a currency, which have enabled the country to achieve the coordination that has led to improvements in its standard of living."
Lastly, from the conclusion of reference 4::
V. Conclusion
Since the collapse of its central government, Somalia has not become an anarchocapitalist utopia resembling those described by theorists such as Rothbard (1973) and Friedman (1989). However, most African states do not come close to approaching many theorists’ views of an ideal state either. In a comparative institutional comparison given existing culture, ideology, history, geography, income, and resources, the interesting question is how well does Somalia function compared to realistic alternatives. Menkhaus summarized the Somali view of the state by writing,
The revival of a state is viewed in Somali quarters as a zero-sum game, creating winners and losers in a game with potentially very high stakes. Groups which gain control over a central government will use it to appropriate economic resources at the expense of others, and will use the law, patronage, and the monopoly of legitimate use of violence to protect this advantage. This is the only experience Somalis have had with centralised authority, and it tends to produces risk-aversion and to instigate conflict rather than promote compromise, whenever efforts are made to establish a national government (2003: 408).
Given this Somali view of the state, the reemergence of a national government would quite likely produce a “vampire state” that would not provide social order but would instead suck the life out of the economy. Ayittey recently wrote that the modern nation state is largely incompatible with traditional indigenous African culture and that, “The rogue African state should be left to the fate it deserves – implosion and state collapse” (2007: 238).
This paper has explored the consequences of state collapse for a country that existed under the rule of a vampire state. Far from chaos and economic collapse, we find that Somalia is generally doing better than when it had a state. Basic economic order is possible because of the existence of a common law dispute resolution system and a non-state monetary system. On that foundation we find that urban business and commercial activity is possible and that the pastoral sector has expanded. This paper’s main contribution to the literature on Somalia’s living standards has been to compare them to those of 42 other sub-Saharan African countries both before and after the collapse of the national government. We find that Somalia’s living standards have improved generally and that they compare relatively favorably with many existing African states. Importantly, we find that Somali living standards have often improved, not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government.
[1] And that meme - it's normally "If you think libertarianism is so great, why don't you move to Somalia?"
[2] http://countrystudies.us/somalia/24.htm (http://countrystudies.us/somalia/24.htm)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siad_Barre#Human_rights_abuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siad_Barre#Human_rights_abuse)
[4] http://www.observatori.org/paises/pais_74/documentos/64_somalia.pdf (http://www.observatori.org/paises/pais_74/documentos/64_somalia.pdf)
-
I ask myself this question all the time. There are two types. The first knows it doesn't work but uses it to gain personal power and/or wealth. Or they have an emotional bitterness about "the haves" and just like the idea of taking from them. These types know it doesn't work ultimately, but they don't care.
The second, the sincere believer, basically has to be ignorant of, or in denial about, or believe you can force a change in, nature itself. Mankind like any species of animal operates according to genetically programmed sets of behaviors that result from eons of evolution. We're not going to change any time soon. These forces allow socialized economies only in small tribes whose members are connected by blood and who have access to abundant resources. We are hard wired to NOT apply "sharing" principles to strangers when resources are scarce, as they usually are, but personal greed and profit motive lead to technological advances and trade which benefit all parties. The advance of civilization and technology rests on individual ambition.
Actually there is a third type, and that is the one who doesn't really know what "socialism" is at all, but endorses it because they listen to mainstream media and have heard that those evil racist Trump voters are against it, therefore they are for it. Brainwashed basically, and don't really have a clue what they're talking about. Unfortunately many young fall in this category these days.
-
Haven't read any of the responses, but I'm sure some moonbat will be along to tell us we already live in socialism, you know, because fire men, police, highways. They'll tell you that the government gave us that stuff, then we became successful. Generally these moonbats have no idea how the private sector or corporations function and they really believe this bullshit.
Venezuela is the latest example of socialism going bad and it always turns out like Venezuela. Yet those smarter than us tell us it just wasn't done right, and they know better. SMH.
-
Hey Michael, how's Venezuela doing?
-
Academics seem to always redefine history to suit their corrupt concept of political correctness, then add a dash of smug stupidity in an attempt to shut down either intelligent refutation, or simple truth.
Steingar appears to be all in on both.
The triple- zero IQ is working overtime.
-
There was a time when police, armed forces, fire, everything was private. There was a time in the US when "armed forces" meant a local militia of farmers and whatnot.
What time was that? When Kings had serfs to use as cannon fodder? There is private security today, as well as private contractors to our armed forces. You better take a walk down to the History department, and ask about the American Revolution. We had a "Continental Army" led by Gen. George Washington, as well as militia. We still have both today.
Like I said, nothing more than a Conservative Boogeyman. Canada has more, and seems to be doing OK. So does Germany, and a bunch of other countries.
On the other hand, the Conservative paradise of Somalia isn't doing so well.
Have you talked to people in Canada, and Germany? Their standard of living, and quality of life, in general has eroded due to socialism, and the leftist refugee policy. Somalia? Jim L. gave you the reality there. It has nothing to do with "Conservatives".
-
Socialism: Charity at the point of a gun.
-
Academics seem to always redefine history to suit their corrupt concept of political correctness, then add a dash of smug stupidity in an attempt to shut down either intelligent refutation, or simple truth.
Steingar appears to be all in on both.
The triple- zero IQ is working overtime.
Faculty lounge bong is firing 24/7.
-
Have you talked to people in Canada, and Germany? Their standard of living, and quality of life, in general has eroded due to socialism, and the leftist refugee policy. Somalia? Jim L. gave you the reality there. It has nothing to do with "Conservatives".
Wonder why many citizens of those countries will travel to the US (or other countries) when they need a vital procedure? Many times when they need a heart procedure or cancer treatment, rather than be put on a waiting list they can go elsewhere. Especially when time makes a difference.
-
We all have to come to terms with the fact that the majority of workers will be be replaceable by automation within the next 25 years or so. You'll only truly be employable if you have a special ability that few other people have.
So soon we'll be faced with an ethical dilemma:
Do you:
a) Kill the unemployables outright
b) Tax the employable people and give the unemployables a basic income
c) Have the unemployables starve to death and secure yourself against uprising by using deadly force
d) Regulate industry and force them to hire otherwise unemployables, even though automation is cheaper (i.e. Tax the corporations).
Socialists favor (a) and (b) - though (a) is before birth only, at least for now.
Capitalists favor (c) and (d).
It accomplishes the same thing in the end.
-
a) Kill the unemployables outright
b) Tax the employable people and give the unemployables a basic income
c) Have the unemployables starve to death and secure yourself against uprising by using deadly force
d) Regulate industry and force them to hire otherwise unemployables, even though automation is cheaper (i.e. Tax the corporations).
Capitalists favor (c) and (d).
It accomplishes the same thing in the end.
First, welcome.
Second; You are so full of shit.
-
First, welcome.
Second; You are so full of shit.
First, thank you!
Second, what an eloquent and thoughtful response.
I suggest you watch this:
-
Nope. When you say capitalists prefer the unemployables to starve to death, you don't deserve an elegant or thoughtful response, and I don't spend time watching videos that you post.
I rarely watch videos posted by people I like.
Now, if you want to open a conversation without accusing others of wanting others to starve to death, I may read what you have to say.
-
Without the lies about republicans wanting to push grandma over a cliff, liberals have very little, to nothing left. Once their lies and pathetic projections are unsuccessful, the quiver is suddenly empty.
-
Nope. When you say capitalists prefer the unemployables to starve to death, you don't deserve an elegant or thoughtful response, and I don't spend time watching videos that you post.
I rarely watch videos posted by people I like.
Now, if you want to open a conversation without accusing others of wanting others to starve to death, I may read what you have to say.
Ok, that's something I'm willing to debate on.
Without a social program for the unemployables, what is the alternative to them starving to death?
-
Without the lies about republicans wanting to push grandma over a cliff, liberals have very little, to nothing left. Once their lies and pathetic projections are unsuccessful, the quiver is suddenly empty.
I'm not accusing Republicans here of anything. The threat is specifically about how someone can endorse socialism or not. Republicans endorse LOTS of social programs including SS and Medicare. Nobody will starve in the U.S.
But that's not what the OP was asking.
-
Ok, that's something I'm willing to debate on.
Without a social program for the unemployables, what is the alternative to them starving to death?
(Note I'm not accusing Republicans here of one thing or another. The threat is specifically about how someone can endorce socialism or not).
I'm 65 years old. I heard the same arguments back in the '60s. "By the 1990's, robots will be doing all the work and humans will be enjoying a life of leisure". The only difference is now they are saying humans will be relegated to insignificance.
All those prognosticators refuse to take into effect the fact that humans will be inventing new technologies, and figuring out new ways to use that technology. I just don't believe that we are going to get to the point where machines become self sufficient and self sustaining. But we will definitely see many menial jobs become automated, so the people that now do those jobs will have to find some other way to remain relevant. Perhaps babysitting the machines in case their plug comes loose from the wall.
-
I'm not accusing Republicans here of anything. The threat is specifically about how someone can endorse socialism or not. Republicans endorse LOTS of social programs including SS and Medicare. Nobody will starve in the U.S.
But that's not what the OP was asking.
Conservatives and Republicans have always endorsed safety net programs for the truly needy. But unlike liberals, we don't consider lazy people and people that just try to scam the system as being truly needy.
My nephew with cerebral palsy is truly needy. My ex-Brother in Law that would rather go hunting and drink beer in the woods with his buddy than go to work is not. And the dozen or so twenty-somethings I saw today that were staked out at a major intersections begging for donations are not. And the 19 year old single mother that used to be my neighbor that explained that she could afford to have another baby because she would get more Government Assistance was not "truly needy". (Although you could argue that her kids were).
-
I'm 65 years old. I heard the same arguments back in the '60s. "By the 1990's, robots will be doing all the work and humans will be enjoying a life of leisure". The only difference is now they are saying humans will be relegated to insignificance.
All those prognosticators refuse to take into effect the fact that humans will be inventing new technologies, and figuring out new ways to use that technology. I just don't believe that we are going to get to the point where machines become self sufficient and self sustaining. But we will definitely see many menial jobs become automated, so the people that now do those jobs will have to find some other way to remain relevant. Perhaps babysitting the machines in case their plug comes loose from the wall.
The people in the 60's weren't wrong - manufacturing jobs today are at half the level of what they were in the 60s. Some were outsourced, some were automated. For the most part even if you bring outsourced jobs backs, it's cheaper to automate them.
Those haven't been replaced by jobs to 'babysit the machines' for the most parts. They've been replaced by minimum wage jobs that's just a tad above welfare. If those jobs get automated, there's nowhere else for those people to go.
Yes, there will be jobs for people who design new machines for the foreseeable future at least, but the menial jobs that people are relegated to now when they get displaced, those ARE going to go away.
I take it (correct me if I'm wrong), you're not in favor of artificially creating jobs where none should rightfully exist right?
-
We all have to come to terms with the fact that the majority of workers will be be replaceable by automation within the next 25 years or so.
Have the AI prognosticators finally bumped their timeline from "10 years" to "25 years"?? The old joke, related to both AI and controlled nuclear fusion was "It's only 10 years away ... and always will be."
The people who are fretting over AI seem unable to understand economics. It's a system that is inherently full of feedback. I'm not sure how best to explain their error in thinking - what people need to do is run miniature scenarios using a simple closed economic system with a tiny number of entities (under a dozen should be plenty) and see what happens when AI is introduced. Maybe make a game of it.
For example, suppose I had a machine that could make any food or product in any quantity for either (a) free or for (b) some cost C.
In the case of (a) I could let the world have access to its bounty at no cost to myself, and the issue of employment is a non-issue because everyone's physical needs can be met and no one starves. If I deny access to its output the world goes on as it did, though I personally would no longer have any need to partake of the world's economy.
In the case of (b) I sell the output at C, which for any given product could be above, at, or below the going price for the same thing already available on the market. Consider the case most AI-phobic people fear - when C is less than the best market price. The machine allows me to corner the market for every product. Everyone's money starts flowing to me while products flow to them. Everyone becomes money poor and product rich (remember that C is less than the old market price, so they have more product now than they would have in the absence of my machine.) Consumables like food and products with limited life span require they keep buying some products, but with no income themselves their money declines. But wait - they have these low cost products (like the farmer who buys a $50,000 farm tractor from me for $50.) He may at some point be able to sell his produce for what I had been selling it for. So he could stay in business. Even if the world of people foolishly spend all their money on my products, they still have their old skills and the low cost products my machine built and could basically re-establish an economy amongst themselves without output from my machine, but with prices adjusted accordingly. (I'd have to keep lowering C on the products so that eventually we get to case (a) where everything is free.) Otherwise they all made themselves so poor buying from me that I priced myself out of their economy!
-
Conservatives and Republicans have always endorsed safety net programs for the truly needy. But unlike liberals, we don't consider lazy people and people that just try to scam the system as being truly needy.
I don't think liberals considers laziness to be a disability either. They just consider the cases of abuse to be noise in the system, and have bigger fish to fry.
I also have my share of deadbeat family members and ex-family members.
-
The people in the 60's weren't wrong - manufacturing jobs today are at half the level of what they were in the 60s. Some were outsourced, some were automated. For the most part even if you bring outsourced jobs backs, it's cheaper to automate them.
Those haven't been replaced by jobs to 'babysit the machines' for the most parts. They've been replaced by minimum wage jobs that's just a tad above welfare. If those jobs get automated, there's nowhere else for those people to go.
That's one of the problems with minimum wage. Which is an entirely other discussion which I am not ready to engage in, but a minimum wage prevents kids from getting that first job that teaches them how to work and motivates them to work harder to earn a higher wage.
I take it (correct me if I'm wrong), you're not in favor of artificially creating jobs where none should rightfully exist right?
Yes, you are wrong. I think that everyone that receives something from others should do something, within their abilities, to earn it.
If you are receiving government assistance you should be out picking up litter or scrubbing sidewalks, or pulling weeds in public parks or helping in a homeless shelter or whatever your abilities allow. If you allow people to exist in relative comfort, without contributing, that is what a certain percentage of them will do. And that is what there kids will learn to expect.
-
In the case of (a) I could let the world have access to its bounty at no cost to myself, and the issue of employment is a non-issue because everyone's physical needs can be met and no one starves.
I think this is what will end up happening. Basic needs will be met by products that are almost free. The tricky part is the 'almost'. It's not foreseeable that we will ever have free energy, so even 'almost free' is still not free.
So do you fill this 'almost' gap with a social program? Or do you say 'sing for your supper' even though you have no need for the song?
-
Yes, you are wrong. I think that everyone that receives something from others should do something, within their abilities, to earn it.
If you are receiving government assistance you should be out picking up litter or scrubbing sidewalks, or pulling weeds in public parks or helping in a homeless shelter or whatever your abilities allow. If you allow people to exist in relative comfort, without contributing, that is what a certain percentage of them will do. And that is what there kids will learn to expect.
I think people who do not want to work, seldomly provide net output when they are forced to work. They don't actually contribute to society. It may make you feel better to force them to do "something", but that homeless shelter is going to be run by the volunteers who want to be there - not by the guy who doesn't.
-
I think people who do not want to work, seldomly provide net output when they are forced to work. They don't actually contribute to society. It may make you feel better to force them to do "something", but that homeless shelter is going to be run by the volunteers who want to be there - not by the guy who doesn't.
Welcome, nudnik! Glad to see a new person posting and keeping things lively. :)
Based on your statement, what would you suggest society does with those who provide no net output?
-
Welcome, nudnik! Glad to see a new person posting and keeping things lively. :)
Based on your statement, what would you suggest society does with those who provide no net output?
Provide them with enough resources to not force them into a life of crime, and opportunities for those who are able to become productive members of society to do so.
This has nothing to do with being altruistic or charitable, but acknowledging the fact that there are people who just has nothing to offer to society. Whether they are born incapable, rendered incapable, lazy or otherwise unmotivated, or have skills that are simply obsolete.
We've always had a society where there are individuals who do not contribute. We're always going to have that. We can chose to deal with them as criminals if we want, and confine them to prison or forced labor... but that costs the same as just supplying basic resources outright in the first place. If that even worked I would be all for it. But it doesn't.
In the end I just want to be left alone to live my life in peace. I don't want to be surrounded by people who have basic needs but not means - because that impacts my safety, and frankly my lifestyle. If that implies paying another 5% in taxes, then so be it. I'm either going to write them a check, or I'm going to write a check to someone else to protect me against them. But either way, they're not going to go away.
-
Providing the lazy with a standard of living sufficient to survive only creates more indolence, less productivity and more and more violent demands for that which belongs to others. Giving away other people's money to those who did nothing to earn it is a sure fire way to create more division, more violent takers and more waste.
-
Providing the lazy with a standard of living sufficient to survive only creates more indolence, less productivity and more and more violent demands for that which belongs to others. Giving away other people's money to those who did nothing to earn it is a sure fire way to create more division, more violent takers and more waste.
My father always said "As long as you keep putting the food out, the dog will just lay on the porch instead of hunt".
I've lived in other countries that don't have a social system like ours here in the US. There are not people starving in the streets in large numbers or any of the other scare stories we hear that will happen here.
-
My father always said "As long as you keep putting the food out, the dog will just lay on the porch instead of hunt".
I've lived in other countries that don't have a social system like ours here in the US. There are not people starving in the streets in large numbers or any of the other scare stories we hear that will happen here.
You must not own a dog. Most dogs want to hunt. The presence of food does not stop them from wanting to hunt.
Which countries would those be? There are very few countries with a weaker social system than the U.S. It's it was in the middle of Africa, I will grant you that, but then you didn't look far enough into the street.
-
. If that implies paying another 5% in taxes, then so be it. I'm either going to write them a check, or I'm going to write a check to someone else to protect me against them.
Spoken like someone who pays very little in taxes. Here's an idea, the treasury accepts donations beyond what you owe in taxes. Put action to your idealism and pay more voluntarily, and why stop at 5%, try an additional 40% of your gross income. Urge the rest of your progressive buddies to do the same. If you all put your money where your mouth is there would be no need for the rest of us to be forced to pay for your misplaced ideals.
-
My father always said "As long as you keep putting the food out, the dog will just lay on the porch instead of hunt".
I've lived in other countries that don't have a social system like ours here in the US. There are not people starving in the streets in large numbers or any of the other scare stories we hear that will happen here.
I have to admit, he does make a little sense. But I agree that if you take care of everyone's needs, you are going to breed a class of people that are satisfied with having their basic needs taken care of. Perhaps moving the bar from making them comfortable to just providing enough to keep them from freezing or starving, while also providing a method for them to get a foothold on a productive life.
I can't stand the idea of sending poor people a check. They are largely poor because they can't handle money. Soup kitchens, bread lines and shared public shelter will keep them alive, but very few will be ok with that. Unless the soup tastes good and the public shelter comfortable. If anyone wants more than extremely basic life sustenance, they have to show some effort to attain it. If they commit crimes, then they go to jail, which won't be much better than what I have describes, but at least they will be confined from hurting law abiding society.
In the case of my nephew with Cerebral Palsey, that isn't going to happen, but fortunately, he has family to take care of him. People like him without family to help should (in my opinion) be taken care of at a higher level than the crack head that would rather wallow in vomit and steal than get a job.
-
You must not own a dog. Most dogs want to hunt. The presence of food does not stop them from wanting to hunt.
Which countries would those be? There are very few countries with a weaker social system than the U.S. It's it was in the middle of Africa, I will grant you that, but then you didn't look far enough into the street.
I've owned dogs my whole life. Apparently you haven't.
And apparently your "worldly experiences" are confined to watching National Geographic.
-
Spoken like someone who pays very little in taxes. Here's an idea, the treasury accepts donations beyond what you owe in taxes. Put action to your idealism and pay more voluntarily, and why stop at 5%, try an additional 40% of your gross income. Urge the rest of your progressive buddies to do the same. If you all put your money where your mouth is there would be no need for the rest of us to be forced to pay for your misplaced ideals.
I paid over $100'000 in federal taxes this year.
I also paid $75k to date for a war that I did not want anything to do with, and apparently I owe another $150k on it.
Why do I have to pay for your agenda, when you don't have to pay for mine? Here's a thought - give me my war money back and I'll donate 50% of that to the charity of your choice.
-
You must not own a dog. Most dogs want to hunt. The presence of food does not stop them from wanting to hunt.
Which countries would those be? There are very few countries with a weaker social system than the U.S. It's it was in the middle of Africa, I will grant you that, but then you didn't look far enough into the street.
Animals, and people behave differently, but yes our basic survival instincts are probably very similar. I've owned dogs, and cats, and yes their instincts are to hunt, especially cats with anything that moves. However, they are MUCH more likely to hunt MORE if starving, or hungry. Much of our current welfare system encourages having more children, and NOT working, nor looking for work other than legal, or illegal activity that is not taxed, nor reported. I know educated, and seemingly intelligent/reasonable people that receive social security benefits, or are on "disability" that work under the table as not to lose their benefits. It is a scam, and illegal, but they justify it somehow. Human nature?
-
I paid over $100'000 in federal taxes this year.
I also paid $75k to date for a war that I did not want anything to do with, and apparently I owe another $150k on it.
Why do I have to pay for your agenda, when you don't have to pay for mine? Here's a thought - give me my war money back and I'll donate 50% of that to the charity of your choice.
Our Constitution calls for national defense, not a lot for "your agenda". You can make an argument that the wars Obama continued, or started are not necessary for defense. I will agree that a lot of the war on drugs, and war on terror is an excuse to grow government, and raise taxes on working people. Try to roll back the Bush, and Democrats' Dept of Homeland Security, and other unnecessary crap, and see how both parties howl that we are making the country unsafe.
-
I paid over $100'000 in federal taxes this year.
I also paid $75k to date for a war that I did not want anything to do with, and apparently I owe another $150k on it.
Why do I have to pay for your agenda, when you don't have to pay for mine? Here's a thought - give me my war money back and I'll donate 50% of that to the charity of your choice.
Strawman, stay on topic. If you truly paid $100,000 in fed taxes, first welcome to the club, second, my proposal is well within your capabilities, another 40% is easier for you than for most. It's your idea, pay for it, show the world you are serious. And rather than trying to force the rest of us, who think your idea is crap, to pay for it, get your progressive buddies to pay up too.
-
I have to admit, he does make a little sense. But I agree that if you take care of everyone's needs, you are going to breed a class of people that are satisfied with having their basic needs taken care of. Perhaps moving the bar from making them comfortable to just providing enough to keep them from freezing or starving, while also providing a method for them to get a foothold on a productive life.
I can't stand the idea of sending poor people a check. They are largely poor because they can't handle money. Soup kitchens, bread lines and shared public shelter will keep them alive, but very few will be ok with that. Unless the soup tastes good and the public shelter comfortable. If anyone wants more than extremely basic life sustenance, they have to show some effort to attain it. If they commit crimes, then they go to jail, which won't be much better than what I have describes, but at least they will be confined from hurting law abiding society.
In the case of my nephew with Cerebral Palsey, that isn't going to happen, but fortunately, he has family to take care of him. People like him without family to help should (in my opinion) be taken care of at a higher level than the crack head that would rather wallow in vomit and steal than get a job.
I think we're actually for the most part in agreement. Maybe not on what is the meaning of "extremely basic" - mine includes basic food, clothing, shelter, transportation, healthcare, energy, education and information. People need enough to be able to get themselves out of that environment.
I can also do without the check - I admit some people can't spend money. Though not sure if alternatives are really helpful. I tried getting my ex-wife not to stop buying cocaine by only giving her a credit card and no access to cash. Took about a day for her to figure out all she has to do is stand next to a gas station as people pull up, and buy their gas for them at a discount in exchange for cash. Stuff like that will always happen, but last I look welfare fraud was in the low single digits.
I also have a brother-in-law with a medical situation - except in his case there wasn't a social safety net. He is a type 1 diabetic and if he had an insulin pump around 20 years ago he would have been a productive member of society. He couldn't afford one though, and no medical plan would touch him because it was a pre-existing condition. So over the years he ended up in several diabetic comas, had progressive brain damage, and is now basically a drain on society and will be for the rest of his life. Was totally avoidable for $5500 in today's dollars, but he just didn't have it. Did society really make a sound fiscal choice by not providing healthcare to him? In the end it will end up costing us more money.
-
I paid over $100'000 in federal taxes this year.
I also paid $75k to date for a war that I did not want anything to do with, and apparently I owe another $150k on it.
Pardon my skepticism, but . . .
::)
-
Pardon my skepticism, but . . .
::)
Think Silicon Valley.
-
Think Silicon Valley.
I used to live in the Bay Area, among other places, and was a contractor/consultant to a very large software company. I found the entire environment stifling, and ridiculous. Plus, I had to dust off my Spanish just to get by. It seems that tolerance, rational thought, and logic have fled that region.
-
I think we're actually for the most part in agreement. Maybe not on what is the meaning of "extremely basic" - mine includes basic food, clothing, shelter, transportation, healthcare, energy, education and information. People need enough to be able to get themselves out of that environment.
I can also do without the check - I admit some people can't spend money. Though not sure if alternatives are really helpful. I tried getting my ex-wife not to stop buying cocaine by only giving her a credit card and no access to cash. Took about a day for her to figure out all she has to do is stand next to a gas station as people pull up, and buy their gas for them at a discount in exchange for cash. Stuff like that will always happen, but last I look welfare fraud was in the low single digits.
I also have a brother-in-law with a medical situation - except in his case there wasn't a social safety net. He is a type 1 diabetic and if he had an insulin pump around 20 years ago he would have been a productive member of society. He couldn't afford one though, and no medical plan would touch him because it was a pre-existing condition. So over the years he ended up in several diabetic comas, had progressive brain damage, and is now basically a drain on society and will be for the rest of his life. Was totally avoidable for $5500 in today's dollars, but he just didn't have it. Did society really make a sound fiscal choice by not providing healthcare to him? In the end it will end up costing us more money.
You couldn't help out your BIL?
-
Animals, and people behave differently, but yes our basic survival instincts are probably very similar. I've owned dogs, and cats, and yes their instincts are to hunt, especially cats with anything that moves. However, they are MUCH more likely to hunt MORE if starving, or hungry. Much of our current welfare system encourages having more children, and NOT working, nor looking for work other than legal, or illegal activity that is not taxed, nor reported. I know educated, and seemingly intelligent/reasonable people that receive social security benefits, or are on "disability" that work under the table as not to lose their benefits. It is a scam, and illegal, but they justify it somehow. Human nature?
My dog must be a sociopath then - she hunts purely to kill. She doesn't eat what she kills, so it doesn't really matter how hungry she is.
I agree with that it's Human nature, but I think I have a more jaded viewpoint than you. You seem to think people will change if you force them to. That they will be productive contributors if you force them to. I don't believe that they will.
I think there is a segment of population who gets satisfaction out of a job well done. And then there are others who don't. For those - I don't want to hire them, I don't want to be served by them, I don't want them to clean my car, and I certainly don't want them to prepare my food. Just stay out of my way.
And when it comes to drugs, I think it should be legal, mass produced and cheap. If you're going to take drugs, by all means go nuts. There's help if you want, if not, go ahead - kill yourself. If it's cheap enough, you won't need to steal my laptop to do it.
-
You couldn't help out your BIL?
By the time I met my wife and married into the family, the damage was done. I help him out now, but it's too late.
-
My dog must be a sociopath then - she hunts purely to kill. She doesn't eat what she kills, so it doesn't really matter how hungry she is.
I agree with that it's Human nature, but I think I have a more jaded viewpoint than you. You seem to think people will change if you force them to. That they will be productive contributors if you force them to. I don't believe that they will.
I think there is a segment of population who gets satisfaction out of a job well done. And then there are others who don't. For those - I don't want to hire them, I don't want to be served by them, I don't want them to clean my car, and I certainly don't want them to prepare my food. Just stay out of my way.
And when it comes to drugs, I think it should be legal, mass produced and cheap. If you're going to take drugs, by all means go nuts. There's help if you want, if not, go ahead - kill yourself. If it's cheap enough, you won't need to steal my laptop to do it.
Well dogs, and other animals are different from one another. I have always had German Shorthaired Pointers in which I bird hunt, but they are also family pets. They are bred to hunt. In general though, once they get their daily exercise, they are pretty happy to lounge around, as they are well fed. The cats are a different story although they sleep most of the day, and night but when awake will prey upon anything that moves, but they are also well fed.
In general though, I agree with most of what you say above.
-
You couldn't help out your BIL?
Yep, I saw that too. Give it enough time and you'll see this guys stories start falling apart.
-
The tendency of liberals to govern by sob story is nothing new and nothing about it is effective.
Once the parasites and criminal fraudsters are stopped, the cost of governing will drop by over fifty percent.
-
The tendency of liberals to govern by sob story is nothing new and nothing about it is effective.
Once the parasites and criminal fraudsters are stopped, the cost of governing will drop by over fifty percent.
Have you ever even seen a federal spending breakdown?
Defense, Social Security (Retirements Only), Medicare (not Medicaid), and Veterans affairs make up 63% of the federal budget. Add interest due and transportation and you're at 72%.
Assuming all of the rest of the government is a fraud, which of the above are the parasites and fraudsters that you're going to reduce by 22% in to drop your budget by over 50%?
-
Have you ever even seen a federal spending breakdown?
Defense, Social Security (Retirements Only), Medicare (not Medicaid), and Veterans affairs make up 63% of the federal budget. Add interest due and transportation and you're at 72%.
Assuming all of the rest of the government is a fraud, which of the above are the parasites and fraudsters that you're going to reduce by 22% in to drop your budget by over 50%?
Your split doesn't tell the budget story, which is really about mandated spending. We spend over 2.45 trillion in mandated programs. 87% of that comes in the form of healthcare spending (938 billion), and Social Security, unemployment, and labor (1.25 trillion). We literally spend every penny we take in and then borrow more to give away because some previous Congress told us that we had to spend money a certain way regardless of our abilities.
Without addressing limits on mandated spending, our budget will never be in control because mandated spending will always have the ability to outpace growth. What people want when it is free is nearly unlimited but our ability to provide that is very limited. Think about it, there are lottery winners who win tens of millions of dollars and burn through it in just a few years. You will never be provided everything you want by government.
Ok, I shouldn't say never, but doing it will require the ability to manufacture everything at no cost. Effectively it would be a machine which could instantly convert energy into matter (a star trek replicator) plus nearly limitless energy. Not in our lifetime. That is what it will take to make socialism really work without producing misery because that is when the laws of economics will break.
-
Your split doesn't tell the budget story, which is really about mandated spending. We spend over 2.45 trillion in mandated programs. 87% of that comes in the form of healthcare spending (938 billion), and Social Security, unemployment, and labor (1.25 trillion). We literally spend every penny we take in and then borrow more to give away because some previous Congress told us that we had to spend money a certain way regardless of our abilities.
Totally agree there. I was just pointing out the ludicrousness of believing that if you simply get rid of parasites and fraudsters, the federal budget would drop by 50%. In reality, in the most aggressive estimate of Welfare fraud I've seen, it would impact the budget by 0.5% - IF you can figure out perfect enforcement, and the enforcement is free.
The sad thing is - all of this fighting, all of the money spent on the elections, all of our bitter hate for each other is all over who controls maybe 5% of Federal government spending. The rest of it is pretty set in stone. Of course 5% is a lot when you're a lobby group wanting to get your share of it. But for us plebs on the ground who have to pay it, it's 5% of our taxes - which at most means 2% points of your actual tax rate. That is what all elections are about - who gets to spend that. 2% - that's the difference between a Gary Johnson and a Hillary Clinton.
Nobody even offered it back to us. Trump's massive budget changes he proposed that some people are so gleeful about and other people are in tears about... that changes 1.5% of overall spending.
There is no 'real' change.
-
I think that depends on your definition of fraud. If it is outright breaking the rules then I'd agree with a half percent. If it is manipulating your circumstances to take advantage of the most welfare you can get, then it is much, much higher.
I do not believe our government should be authorized to hand out money to individuals. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why the government can take from me and give it so someone else.
-
Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why the government can take from me and give it so someone else.
Because they can arrest you and put you in prison if you don't.
Ever notice that financial "crimes" against the State have the most onerous penalties?
-
Provide them with enough resources to not force them into a life of crime, and opportunities for those who are able to become productive members of society to do so.
This has nothing to do with being altruistic or charitable, but acknowledging the fact that there are people who just has nothing to offer to society. Whether they are born incapable, rendered incapable, lazy or otherwise unmotivated, or have skills that are simply obsolete.
We've always had a society where there are individuals who do not contribute. We're always going to have that. We can chose to deal with them as criminals if we want, and confine them to prison or forced labor... but that costs the same as just supplying basic resources outright in the first place. If that even worked I would be all for it. But it doesn't.
In the end I just want to be left alone to live my life in peace. I don't want to be surrounded by people who have basic needs but not means - because that impacts my safety, and frankly my lifestyle. If that implies paying another 5% in taxes, then so be it. I'm either going to write them a check, or I'm going to write a check to someone else to protect me against them. But either way, they're not going to go away.
This is the biggest canard of all time. There are places around this country with more severe poverty than you will ever see in some inner cities. Yet they aren't riddled with people committed to a life of crime. Look at rural Appalachia, Mississippi, and elsewhere.
So what "resources" do the poor need that they don't have today so as to prevent them from becoming habitual criminals? More Obama phones? More TVs? More air conditioning? Relax the food stamp rules so they can buy booze?
Your line of thinking is precisely why we are $20 trillion in debt, with no end in site to deficit spending so that politicians can say "Look, we did something. Now give me your vote."
-
It is always easy to spot a left wing ideologue. They always try to impose a zero sum against everything governmental.
The waste and fraud is epidemic throughout the federal government and I suspect Donald Trump has a plan to attack it, and earn the eternal hatred of the hateful leftists, especially the socialist millennials who think with their vaginas, because they're too stupid to think with their brains.
-
I think that depends on your definition of fraud. If it is outright breaking the rules then I'd agree with a half percent. If it is manipulating your circumstances to take advantage of the most welfare you can get, then it is much, much higher.
Could be. But it's not 50% of the entire federal budget. It's not even 5%.
Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why the government can take from me and give it so someone else.
Because if you were the one in a situation to need it, the government will take from them and give it to you.
-
Could be. But it's not 50% of the entire federal budget. It's not even 5%.
I don't know where your stats are from, but I suspect they are wrong. However, let's assume fraud is only 5%. It isn't just fraud that is the problem. The bigger problem is the unnecessary growth of government, especially the Feds, and the size, and number of agencies. It could probably be cut by more than 50%, and still get done what it needs to accomplish.
Because if you were the one in a situation to need it, the government will take from them and give it to you.
I don't know about that.
-
I don't know where your stats are from, but I suspect they are wrong.
The entire set of social safety net programs form 10% of federal government spending. If you have 50% fraud in there it would constitute 5% of spending. It's hard to imagine over 50% fraud in anything.
However, let's assume fraud is only 5%. It isn't just fraud that is the problem. The bigger problem is the unnecessary growth of government, especially the Feds, and the size, and number of agencies. It could probably be cut by more than 50%, and still get done what it needs to accomplish.
You cut it by 50% and you're basically telling people who for their entire life they've paid into social security, that they can no longer get the retirement benefits that they paid for. Is that what you want to do?
-
The entire set of social safety net programs form 10% of federal government spending. If you have 50% fraud in there it would constitute 5% of spending. It's hard to imagine over 50% fraud in anything.
You cut it by 50% and you're basically telling people who for their entire life they've paid into social security, that they can no longer get the retirement benefits that they paid for. Is that what you want to do?
It is not just the "waste fraud and abuse" although I think that accounts for more than you do. For one, government inefficiency counts for untold billions in waste. But the bigger problem is all the programs the government carries on that have no Constitutional basis.
-
You cut it by 50% and you're basically telling people who for their entire life they've paid into social security, that they can no longer get the retirement benefits that they paid for. Is that what you want to do?
Constitutional issues aside, if I'm going to be forced to pay into the Social Security system, I'd much rather have all that money I pay work for me in an investment account. As it is now it's essentially a free loan to the government that they've abused over the years.
-
It is not just the "waste fraud and abuse" although I think that accounts for more than you do. For one, government inefficiency counts for untold billions in waste. But the bigger problem is all the programs the government carries on that have no Constitutional basis.
Ok. Take your red pen and cut away - show me how to get to 50%:
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/2cmrrd2.jpg)
This is from:
http://usafacts.org/the-big-picture?return_to=%2Fgovernment-finances&view=spending
if you want to get actual numbers.
-
Departments, and Agencies can drastically reduce their workforce. Also, we don't need some Departments (like Education) as they are redundant, and counter productive. We should outlaw public sector unions which are just money laundering schemes for the Democrats who reward them with sweetheart contracts. That would be a great start to cost reductions.
-
We should outlaw public sector unions which are just money laundering schemes for the Democrats who reward them with sweetheart contracts. That would be a great start to cost reductions.
Let's say we all vote 6PC to be head of the FAA, and he responds in kind by buying each person on POA a brand new SR22T G6.
It would be the biggest government scandal in history... And it will be a whopping 0.2% of the Federal Budget for 1 year.
Because the numbers are so staggering even a little waste or corruption is very visible. And it's wrong, unfair and makes you feel icky all over. And it should be fixed. But ultimately this is not what's going to change your lot in life.
-
Let's say we all vote 6PC to be head of the FAA, and he responds in kind by buying each person on POA a brand new SR22T G6.
It would be the biggest government scandal in history... And it will be a whopping 0.2% of the Federal Budget for 1 year.
Because the numbers are so staggering even a little waste or corruption is very visible. And it's wrong, unfair and makes you feel icky all over. And it should be fixed. But ultimately this is not what's going to change your lot in life.
The point is that federal spending is out of control and needs to be reined in. There are obvious ones, such as the Department of Education, that could be cut. Their budget for FY17 is $69.4 billion dollars which is not a lot in the grand scheme of things but all that money starts adding up. Citing the fact that it's such a low percentage of the federal budget is not a good enough excuse to ignore it and let it go.
We'll never be able to tackle entitlement reform if we can't even control simple wastes of money in other areas of government.
-
Nice conversation, but it has nothing to do with socialism.
-
The idea that this, or that fraud/waste is such a small percentage of the budget and should therefore be acceptable is a wholly liberal position designed to minimize the response to waste fraud and continue the free flow of tax dollars to their pet waste and fraud,
-
The point is that federal spending is out of control and needs to be reined in. There are obvious ones, such as the Department of Education, that could be cut. Their budget for FY17 is $69.4 billion dollars which is not a lot in the grand scheme of things but all that money starts adding up. Citing the fact that it's such a low percentage of the federal budget is not a good enough excuse to ignore it and let it go.
We'll never be able to tackle entitlement reform if we can't even control simple wastes of money in other areas of government.
97% of the Department of Education budget is paid to the states. There are no federally run schools. So instead of paying federal taxes you'll pay state taxes. So how would that affect you in the end?
Unless your argument is that one state shouldn't be paying for another state's expenses, but then you should be careful what you wish for. Make sure your state is actually net contributor to the federal budget, otherwise this will just end up costing you more.
I'm all in favor of states right, and I don't mind this going to the states. There doesn't need to be a Federal Department Of Education - we didn't have one before 1979. I'm just not under the impression that moving it to the states will save me any significant amount of money.
-
97% of the Department of Education budget is paid to the states. There are no federally run schools. So instead of paying federal taxes you'll pay state taxes. So how would that affect you in the end?
Unless your argument is that one state shouldn't be paying for another state's expenses, but then you should be careful what you wish for. Make sure your state is actually net contributor to the federal budget, otherwise this will just end up costing you more.
I'm all in favor of states right, and I don't mind this going to the states. There doesn't need to be a Federal Department Of Education - we didn't have one before 1979. I'm just not under the impression that moving it to the states will save me any significant amount of money.
It won't save you any money because Congress will just re-appropriate the money, which is the entire point of trying to reduce federal spending and the deficit. We don't need Congress to re-appropriate the Department of Education's budget into another program. We need to begin paying down the debt.
The Department of Education was also just one example. There are so many more.
-
The idea that this, or that fraud/waste is such a small percentage of the budget and should therefore be acceptable is a wholly liberal position designed to minimize the response to waste fraud and continue the free flow of tax dollars to their pet waste and fraud,
I didn't say that it's acceptable. Just that I don't base my entire ideology and reasoning on an amount so small that it makes no material difference to me.
It's the same with Churches that don't have to pay taxes. Their mission is absolutely repugnant to me, but it seems to give a certain set of the population a sense of moral superiority which they apparently need to feel good about themselves, so I'm like - whatever, it's only $71b/year.
That's more than all of the cuts that Trump did to all of those "liberal" programs when he took office. But yeah, whatever.
We have real problems. Not token ones.
-
It is a wholly liberal position to pretend that the US economy is a zero sum game. That allows you to pander your talking points without the inconvenience of intersecting reality and therefore you can pretend that made up numbers are real and truly important.
Cutting, or attempting to cut all visible fraud and waste from federal spending would result in a YUUGGGE savings and cause untold earthquakes of hysteria from democrats because that would endanger all the vote buying that goes on with our tax dollars, not to mention all the graft, corruption and donations that waste generates.
-
97% of the Department of Education budget is paid to the states.
So what is the point of having a federal organization? If the states want the money, they can bring in the revenue themselves. Get rid of the dept of Education.
That is the socialism argument. Whether or not you see positives that come from a federal DoE depends on whether or not you believe everyone must share a common fate. The DoE is holding states back from being in control of their own excellence.
-
So what is the point of having a federal organization? If the states want the money, they can bring in the revenue themselves. Get rid of the dept of Education.
That is the socialism argument. Whether or not you see positives that come from a federal DoE depends on whether or not you believe everyone must share a common fate. The DoE is holding states back from being in control of their own excellence.
Umm...
I'm all in favor of states right, and I don't mind this going to the states. There doesn't need to be a Federal Department Of Education - we didn't have one before 1979. I'm just not under the impression that moving it to the states will save me any significant amount of money.
-
I'm all in favor of states right, and I don't mind this going to the states. There doesn't need to be a Federal Department Of Education - we didn't have one before 1979. I'm just not under the impression that moving it to the states will save me any significant amount of money.
Moving the DofE back to the States may not save a significant amount of money, but it would show that the dismantling of a Federal Bureaucracy can be done without causing mass death in the streets.
How do you justify the Federal Government collecting huge sums of money from people in every State, then turning around and parceling that money back to various states based on political considerations? Why, when I owned a business, did I have to pay in to both the State Unemployment fund AND the Federal Unemployment fund?
I can understand why the Federal Government may feel the need to assist the States with natural disasters like earthquake, Tornado or Hurricane damage. But then again, FEMA is one of the most wasteful programs in the country. How would you like to by slightly used mobile home?
-
Nice conversation, but it has nothing to do with socialism.
I'll get it back on topic and answer the thread question to boot:
Socialist = thief + coward
-
It is a wholly liberal position to pretend that the US economy is a zero sum game.
It is a central them for sure. It mandates that for anyone to get ahead, you must take from someone else, when in reality you can grow the entire pie with the goal of benefitting everyone. You don't need to make the middle, or upper middle class poorer to make the lower income people benefit. Overall economic growth, and creating opportunity is the key.
-
It is a central them for sure. It mandates that for anyone to get ahead, you must take from someone else, when in reality you can grow the entire pie with the goal of benefitting everyone. You don't need to make the middle, or upper middle class poorer to make the lower income people benefit. Overall economic growth, and creating opportunity is the key.
Yeah - 'a rising tide floats all boats'. Nice theory, but it doesn't happen in reality - under either democratic or republican rule:
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/avg%20income%20percentile.png)
-
Yeah - 'a rising tide floats all boats'. Nice theory, but it doesn't happen in reality - under either democratic or republican rule:
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/avg%20income%20percentile.png)
If you took all the money from the top 20% and split it up evenly among the bottom 80%, in a short period of time, the graph would be back to where it is today.
You can't legislate fairness. Some people are going to succeed. Some people are going to get by and some people are going to fail. That's life.
As Neil Bortz said:
The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer,
because the rich keep doing what makes them rich,
and the poor keep doing what makes them poor.
Perhaps all the "social programs" that we have for the poor de-motivates them from getting ahead and "losing their benefits".
-
I don't understand why the graph is unfair.
-
If you took all the money from the top 20% and split it up evenly among the bottom 80%, in a short period of time, the graph would be back to where it is today.
-and-
I don't understand why the graph is unfair.
I was just saying that "a rising tide floats all boats" is not a reality.
-
I was just saying that "a rising tide floats all boats" is not a reality.
Incorrect. Because some boats ride higher than others and some ride right at the gunwales, all of them come up.
But the real question is how can anyone think that focusing on the rich will ever help the poor get out of poverty? Shouldn't we be focused on teaching the poor how to get rich on their own? Or better yet, teach everyone how to do it. And/or set up the circumstances to make as many people as possible be rich.
-
Incorrect. Because some boats ride higher than others and some ride right at the gunwales, all of them come up.
But the real question is how can anyone think that focusing on the rich will ever help the poor get out of poverty? Shouldn't we be focused on teaching the poor how to get rich on their own? Or better yet, teach everyone how to do it. And/or set up the circumstances to make as many people as possible be rich.
If "everyone" is "rich" you still have the upper 5% and the bottom 10%, and everything in between. Still "unfair" according to our Communist friends.
-
Incorrect. Because some boats ride higher than others and some ride right at the gunwales, all of them come up.
But the real question is how can anyone think that focusing on the rich will ever help the poor get out of poverty? Shouldn't we be focused on teaching the poor how to get rich on their own? Or better yet, teach everyone how to do it. And/or set up the circumstances to make as many people as possible be rich.
Often, not participating in economic prosperity is a choice by the person unwilling to do the things to enable them to get ahead. You can GIVE people any standard of living you want, and many will just get used to it, feel entitled, and continue to look for someone else providing the lifestyle, and not be motivated to get it, OR MORE, on their own. I am all for a safety net, and helping those that cannot help themselves, but don't blame the successful on all the problems of the poor.
-
If "everyone" is "rich" you still have the upper 5% and the bottom 10%, and everything in between. Still "unfair" according to our Communist friends.
By the standards of most of the rest of the world, our poorest are very rich. They have potable running water, indoor plumbing, access to food, (if only the most unhealthy and cheapest, it still keeps them fat, not starving), big screen TV and cell phones. Except for the homeless, they've roofs over their heads. It's all relative, it doesn't matter how much you lift those at the bottom, they will still be seen as disadvantaged victims because others are higher. It is completely against nature to try to equalize everyone's conditions. Our species is not an egalitarian one. People will act according to their DNA, not according to an ideal forced upon them by a political ideology. Leftist theory always requires that people suddenly and against their nature, lose their tendency to self sort into a pecking order and when they don't, force and threat of punishment is used. The irony is - this is exactly that - the self sorting into a pecking order with the leftist on top. There can be no such thing as an anarchist socialist utopia. It's a fantasy. Leftism will always be about those in power keeping a lock on the rest of us while preaching their utopian ideal out of a dishonest mouth.
-
-and-
I was just saying that "a rising tide floats all boats" is not a reality.
You can't answer me can you? Once again, you put the graph up there so you obviously think you understand it. Explain it to me because I look at it and can't figure out how you draw the conclusion; ""a rising tide floats all boats" doesn't happen in reality".
-
I am all for a safety net, and helping those that cannot help themselves, but don't blame the successful on all the problems of the poor.
With the emphasis, I agree 100%
-
You can't answer me can you? Once again, you put the graph up there so you obviously think you understand it. Explain it to me because I look at it and can't figure out how you draw the conclusion; ""a rising tide floats all boats" doesn't happen in reality".
You're asking a different question now. If you look at the graph, you'll see when the size of the economy doubles, it's not that the income of the rich doubles and the income of the poor doubles. That would be the definition of "floats all boats".
Instead, the poor stays the same, and the rich goes up by more than double. Basically there is a setpoint for the poor that is just high enough to stave off anarchy and revolt, and it stays at that level.
-
You're asking a different question now. If you look at the graph, you'll see when the size of the economy doubles, it's not that the income of the rich doubles and the income of the poor doubles. That would be the definition of "floats all boats".
Instead, the poor stays the same, and the rich goes up by more than double. Basically there is a setpoint for the poor that is just high enough to stave off anarchy and revolt, and it stays at that level.
You may want to read George Gilder's book, "Wealth and Poverty". Your premise, and model is flawed. Some of those poor people didn't stay poor, and moved up. Also some of the not so poor moved down. The population of those that are poor, lower middle income, middle income, upper middle income, and "rich" changes all the time. Your model does not account for that.
-
. Basically there is a setpoint for the poor that is just high enough to stave off anarchy and revolt, and it stays at that level.
Or perhaps the setpoint is the minimum amount that one has to achieve to subsist. Because that is all some people aspire to.
When I was in my '20s, I was a manager at McDonalds. It was a know fact that (in many cases) if you gave an employee that had a decent attendance record a raise, then when they made a similar amount of money with the new salary, they often called in sick, or asked for more time off. They need a certain amount of money to get by, and that's all they will work for. On the other hand, I was always looking for ways to get in more hours (I was still hourly) because I wanted to do better and get ahead. In my many years since then, I have observed the same behavior in many other industries. You have people that do the minimum to get by, and you have people that are workaholics and will earn as much as they are able.
No government law or regulation is going to change that. It will only punish the productive.
-
You may want to read George Gilder's book, "Wealth and Poverty". Your premise, and model is flawed. Some of those poor people didn't stay poor, and moved up. Also some of the not so poor moved down. The population of those that are poor, lower middle income, middle income, upper middle income, and "rich" changes all the time. Your model does not account for that.
I mean the poor as a class, not as an individual. We obviously live in a society where the poor as an individual has an opportunity to change their fate.
And I don't even mind the growing class difference as much as other people. In 1970 you had a 1 in 19 chance (top 5%) to become 3 times as rich as the bottom 60%. In 2012 you had a 1 in 19 chance (still top 5%) to become 6 times as rich as the bottom 60%. Most of us here are in the top 5% (or at least top 20%), and we know what it took to achieve it - it's hard, but on the other hand you really just have to beat out the bottom 95%, which is not actually that hard.
All I'm saying is that the premise of: "you can grow the entire pie with the goal of benefitting everyone" isn't supported by history. Most people don't actually benefit. A few benefit.
The stuff that benefited everyone had to do with scientific discovery & invention.
-
I mean the poor as a class, not as an individual. We obviously live in a society where the poor as an individual has an opportunity to change their fate.
And I don't even mind the growing class difference as much as other people. In 1970 you had a 1 in 19 chance (top 5%) to become 3 times as rich as the bottom 60%. In 2012 you had a 1 in 19 chance (still top 5%) to become 6 times as rich as the bottom 60%. Most of us here are in the top 5% (or at least top 20%), and we know what it took to achieve it - it's hard, but on the other hand you really just have to beat out the bottom 95%, which is not actually that hard.
All I'm saying is that the premise of: "you can grow the entire pie with the goal of benefitting everyone" isn't supported by history. Most people don't actually benefit. A few benefit.
The stuff that benefited everyone had to do with scientific discovery & invention.
You keep saying the same thing, but you can't explain it or even why it is a problem. I really don't think you understand that graph, nor do the people at Mother Jones for that matter.
-
You keep saying the same thing, but you can't explain it or even why it is a problem. I really don't think you understand that graph, nor do the people at Mother Jones for that matter.
I'm not saying that it's a problem that some people make more than others. I'm saying that economic growth doesn't cause all people to equally become wealthier. The poor stays poor, even in the face of growth. Don't need to read more into that then there is.
My eventual position is that I believe the gap between the wealthy and poor will eventually be so large, that the income of the poor becomes irrelevant, and thus their contribution in terms of taxation revenue is irrelevant. At that point all of the taxes are paid by the wealthy. Currently 68% of taxes is paid by the top 5%. This percentage will keep growing and growing until it's close to 100%.
Extent that further, and even the economic activity and contribution of the poor becomes irrelevant, at which point what is the point of compensation? A basic living wage would cost the same and achieve the same. I still thoroughly believe that there should be an opportunity for upward mobility for those who can, but where this upward mobility now gives you a 6-to-1 factor if you move into the top 5%, it will grow to become a 50-1 factor.
-
I'm not saying that it's a problem that some people make more than others. I'm saying that economic growth doesn't cause all people to equally become wealthier. The poor stays poor, even in the face of growth. Don't need to read more into that then there is.
My eventual position is that I believe the gap between the wealthy and poor will eventually be so large, that the income of the poor becomes irrelevant, and thus their contribution in terms of taxation revenue is irrelevant. At that point all of the taxes are paid by the wealthy. Currently 68% of taxes is paid by the top 5%. This percentage will keep growing and growing until it's close to 100%.
Extent that further, and even the economic activity and contribution of the poor becomes irrelevant, at which point what is the point of compensation? A basic living wage would cost the same and achieve the same. I still thoroughly believe that there should be an opportunity for upward mobility for those who can, but where this upward mobility now gives you a 6-to-1 factor if you move into the top 5%, it will grow to become a 50-1 factor.
The graph you posted has nothing to do with what you just wrote, and does not support what you wrote. I think there are a lot of factors that you don't account for and there is a much data missing that you need to analyze to support your hypothesis which frankly I don't think is accurate.
I will agree with you that upward mobility has been tougher over the past 10 or 15 years, but I don't think it has anything to do with what the rich make, it has more to do with 90+ million discouraged workers unable to find suitable work. My hope is the with Trump's more business friendly attitude and "America first" mantra that things will begin to change and our economy will begin to boom. I'm hoping that the global playing field levels out a little, in that product dumping in the US will be curtailed, the corporate tax issues will be drastically improved and the business and regulatory environment change so much that companies would be foolish to continue moving jobs offshore and outsourcing.
Those are issues worth talking about, not some foolish graph from far left website that is being to used as a foundation to argue for socialism, which NEVER works.
-
The graph you posted has nothing to do with what you just wrote, and does not support what you wrote. I think there are a lot of factors that you don't account for and there is a much data missing that you need to analyze to support your hypothesis which frankly I don't think is accurate.
The Mother Jones graph may be simplistic, but it clearly illustrates that wages for the bottom 80% of earners have remained flat for 40 some years. Granted there are other factors involved but it is a fact. Coupling that with inflation over time, the buying power of those in that bottom 80% have taken a big hurt.
I will agree with you that upward mobility has been tougher over the past 10 or 15 years, but I don't think it has anything to do with what the rich make, it has more to do with 90+ million discouraged workers unable to find suitable work.
Glad that you recognize that upward mobility is far more difficult, particularly if a person doesn't own a specific skill. Personally think that has been going on for more than 25 years.. Agree that the stagnation isn't directly related to what the rich make. So, why are there 90+ million discouraged workers?
My hope is the with Trump's more business friendly attitude and "America first" mantra that things will begin to change and our economy will begin to boom.
I'm "hoping" along with you. We have a consumer society, without customers, that boom isn't going to happen. With so many people living on the borderline, how is the President going to increase demand for products? For the bottom 80%, there isn't a lot of disposable income available. Without extra cash to spend, where are the customers? Half of all tax filers pay little or no income tax, so a tax cut does nothing for them. As previously mentioned, the top 20% of earners already pay most income tax.
I'm hoping that the global playing field levels out a little, in that product dumping in the US will be curtailed, the corporate tax issues will be drastically improved and the business and regulatory environment change so much that companies would be foolish to continue moving jobs offshore and outsourcing.
Capital ALWAYS follows return. Companies will inevitably move to areas that allow them to produce goods at the lowest cost possible. Our economy is global, whether we like it or not. I'm all for making our businesses more competitive, and that competition is off-shore. Unlike the 1950's - 60's and maybe the 70's, we are not a self contained economy, capable of increasing growth without the rest of the world.
Those are issues worth talking about, not some foolish graph from far left website that is being to used as a foundation to argue for socialism, which NEVER works.
Can you point out the errors in the "foolish" graph? How in the world is that being used to promote socialism??
-
The Mother Jones graph may be simplistic, but it clearly illustrates that wages for the bottom 80% of earners have remained flat for 40 some years. Granted there are other factors involved but it is a fact. Coupling that with inflation over time, the buying power of those in that bottom 80% have taken a big hurt.
Glad that you recognize that upward mobility is far more difficult, particularly if a person doesn't own a specific skill. Personally think that has been going on for more than 25 years.. Agree that the stagnation isn't directly related to what the rich make. So, why are there 90+ million discouraged workers?
I'm "hoping" along with you. We have a consumer society, without customers, that boom isn't going to happen. With so many people living on the borderline, how is the President going to increase demand for products? For the bottom 80%, there isn't a lot of disposable income available. Without extra cash to spend, where are the customers? Half of all tax filers pay little or no income tax, so a tax cut does nothing for them. As previously mentioned, the top 20% of earners already pay most income tax.
Capital ALWAYS follows return. Companies will inevitably move to areas that allow them to produce goods at the lowest cost possible. Our economy is global, whether we like it or not. I'm all for making our businesses more competitive, and that competition is off-shore. Unlike the 1950's - 60's and maybe the 70's, we are not a self contained economy, capable of increasing growth without the rest of the world.
Can you point out the errors in the "foolish" graph? How in the world is that being used to promote socialism??
Ok, a lot to discuss here, I'll try to hit it all. First of all, the graph is adjusted to 2012 dollars, wages have gone up in all the groups but inflation has taken a severe toll making the adjusted data more flat than rising. So why hasn't purchase power increased with the wages? Well, money policy for one, and the large growth of government, which is taking new record amounts of capital out of the economy each year. Money policy, especially over the last 8 years has resulted in the money supply expanding devaluing the money already out there. If all your money is in the bank you are losing your shirt. It baffles me how the government can claim that inflation is low when the price of everything is going through the roof. Government has turned into a monster over the past 10 or so years. Regulations make it impossible for companies to respond quickly to anything. The tax code requires teams to analyze, manage and report. Want to build a new building, it can take years to secure all the permits. It goes on and on. The companies just pass this cost along and the little guy is most affected. It's ironic as the little guy tries to stick it to the corporations by voting for these things, or I should say voting for the people who say they will go after the corporations , these little guys end up paying for it all.
The 90+ million workers? They are out of work as a direct result of what I wrote about in the first paragraph. Businesses are fleeing an oppressive business environment. 35+% corporate tax rates, double taxation on dividends, regulatory nightmares.... these all drive business out. Plus disaster trade deals that allow other countries to essentially take over whole industries. That was the mass appeal of Trump, he said he was going to level the playing field, I can't wait to see what he does, I hope he is successful.
Half the tax filers pay no tax, so why do they file? Because pandering politicians use our tax money to buy their votes via credits. That was an easy one, and is an example of part of the problem. And I'm afraid the solution to that problem is going to be very painful. The issue is by accepting this pandering, these people are enslaving themselves to a system that long term, can't take care of them. What's the answer? Get the economy rolling again and get these people back to work. And we need to stop making not working so appealing, welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a job. I've read that 35% of the population lived in households that received subsidies (means tested supplements). That's an awful lot of people. Think about it, when you are in a room with 30 people, 10 of them are getting subsidies. When was the last time, you were in a public place where 35% of the people were disabled? Something is wrong. Put the money that's going into these programs to pay free loaders, the able bodied, put it back in the hands of the taxpayers, who will spend it and boost the economy.
Capital always follows return.... were that really true we would probably be in better shape. The other big part of our problem, and what probably accounts for the top 5% increased slope income on that graph is again created by government. Some time ago, probably around 40 years ago, the fat cats, some of the people in that 5% group, via lobbying, wrested control of public companies from the shareholders and gave it to their boards by having corporate laws changed. These boards are cross pollinated by other elites from other companies. Capital that used to fund research and growth is now raided by these boards with their incestuous relationships. They enrich each other with little fear of an uprising by shareholders who have had their power diminished. So the capital follows the modern day robber barrons. As far as outsourcing, I think that has been what has crushed many strong US manufacturers. I can think of one example, Motorola, a powerful cell phone manufacturer in the 80's and 90's, decided that manufacturing was dragging them down, so they sold their manufacturing to a large contract manufacturer so they could focus on "marketing". Long story short, Motorola isn't the powerhouse in phones they used to be. Personally I don't think off shore manufacturing is the panacea the MBAs thought is was going to be. I think for certain products it works, but for most it doesn't. I don't think manufacturing is dead in the US, far from it. With a little support from government rather than the asskicking that has been going on for years I think we might see a renaissance in manufacturing unparalleled in history. We'll see.
I don't think I said there were errors in the graph, just that it didn't support what he was saying. We don't live in a caste system, millions if not tens or more millions of people have crossed those "boundaries" or quintiles in that graph. You can't look at that graph and conclude people aren't upwardly mobile. Graphs like that graph, or different variations of it, are used as the main canard to promote civil unrest and class envy. Listen to Bernie Sanders and his talks on "democratic socialism", talks like his always depict the unfairness of the differences in graphs like that. And that is how socialism gets footing in society.
-
Paul, you have hit it out of the park.
-
I don't understand why the graph is unfair.
The graphic shows the percentage of people in each income group. It does not show the fact that individuals are constantly moving between groups. It's called upward mobility.
-
The graphic shows the percentage of people in each income group. It does not show the fact that individuals are constantly moving between groups. It's called upward mobility.
And downward mobility: http://fortune.com/2015/03/02/economic-inequality-myth-1-percent-wealth/
PSID data show that by age 60:
- 70% of the population will have experienced at least one year within the top 20th percentile of income;
- 53% of the population will have experienced at least one year within the top 10th percentile of income; and
- 11.1% of the population will have found themselves in the much-maligned 1% of earners for at least one year of their lives.
At the same time, it's much more rare for a person to reach the top 1% and stay there. According to PSID data, only 0.6% of the population will experience 10 consecutive years in the top 1% of earners.
-
-
The last part in that video says it all: Castro's personal worth was $900,000,000 when he died. Those who enforce socialism are fucking hypocrites.
-
Ok, a lot to discuss here, I'll try to hit it all.
Big Snip
Excellent post! Actually agree with a large measure of what you said. We may differ on how to solve the problems. ;)
-
Ok, a lot to discuss here, I'll try to hit it all.
Paul, I gave you a "Like" on that one because it's such a well argued and articulated position, not because I specifically agree with everything in there. I wish this site had different types of like/agree/dislike buttons. I'll respond more later, but traveling for the next couple of days.
-
Paul, I gave you a "Like" on that one because it's such a well argued and articulated position, not because I specifically agree with everything in there. I wish this site had different types of like/agree/dislike buttons. I'll respond more later, but traveling for the next couple of days.
I thought the same thing except I was wishing there was a "love" button because mere like doesn't express what I felt.
-
Based on the way this thread is going and especially with Paul's post, is there any interest among those here for the Fair Tax?
https://fairtax.org/index
Paul talked in his post about how the cost of everything is passed along to the consumer, which is exactly what the Fair Tax seeks to avoid, among other things.
-
Based on the way this thread is going and especially with Paul's post, is there any interest among those here for the Fair Tax?
https://fairtax.org/index
Paul talked in his post about how the cost of everything is passed along to the consumer, which is exactly what the Fair Tax seeks to avoid, among other things.
I have been pushing for the fair tax for years. Every time I bring it up, otherwise intelligent people shoot it down with invalid reasons. Like people would cheat. As if the don't cheat now, even more. Or it would create a black market, as if that doesn't exist today. I just think it would be so much better to tax consumption than productivity. And with the fair tax, hookers, strippers and drug dealers would pay taxes when they buy all those fancy cars, diamonds and other toys.
-
I have been pushing for the fair tax for years. Every time I bring it up, otherwise intelligent people shoot it down with invalid reasons. Like people would cheat. As if the don't cheat now, even more. Or it would create a black market, as if that doesn't exist today. I just think it would be so much better to tax consumption than productivity. And with the fair tax, hookers, strippers and drug dealers would pay taxes when they buy all those fancy cars, diamonds and other toys.
And everyone would be taxed. Right now a huge portion (around 50%) pay no income tax.
-
And everyone would be taxed. Right now a huge portion (around 50%) pay no income tax.
Not really. I used to be for the fair tax too but after I read more about it, I'm not sure anymore. Those under the "poverty line" would receive checks to offset the tax they paid on food and other essentials of life. Actually, we'll all get checks to offset what we spent on essentials. At least this is the plan as I read it on Wiki. This amounts to creating a huge new entitlement distribution and I'm wondering what unforeseen consequences that could have. I can see the drug addict mom using her check to buy drugs and buying less of the more expensive (because of the added tax) food for her kids. Everyone would pay the tax at the point of purchase, but the effective rate for many would still be zero.
As opposed to Canada's consumption tax. Canada exempts essential food from the GST, but makes the seller responsible for collecting or not, and so they need to keep up with what is essential and what isn't. But that's not simple. Not all foods are essential for life. Snacks are not for example. But basics, such as raw ingredients sold to households are. But ingredients sold to a snack maker are not if they are being made into snack foods. Cooking oil is essential if a housewife buys it. It is not if it is used to make Cheeto's. A meal bought at a restaurant is not essential; it must be considered luxury, and so it is taxed. But the same meal made at home from scratch would be considered exempt when you buy the meat and potatoes to make it.
All of this seems a mind boggling nightmare, as bad or worse than our IRS. As an auditor I was trying to find out whether the GST charged on a shipment of soybean oil in Canada was legitimate or not, I never could work it out. I realize the proposed Fair Tax would not work that same way, but it got me thinking that nevertheless it could end up just as bad or worse than what we have now - hard as that is to believe.
-
Not really. I used to be for the fair tax too but after I read more about it, I'm not sure anymore. Those under the "poverty line" would receive checks to offset the tax they paid on food and other essentials of life. Actually, we'll all get checks to offset what we spent on essentials. At least this is the plan as I read it on Wiki. This amounts to creating a huge new entitlement distribution and I'm wondering what unforeseen consequences that could have. I can see the drug addict mom using her check to buy drugs and buying less of the more expensive (because of the added tax) food for her kids. Everyone would pay the tax at the point of purchase, but the effective rate for many would still be zero.
As opposed to Canada's consumption tax. Canada exempts essential food from the GST, but makes the seller responsible for collecting or not, and so they need to keep up with what is essential and what isn't. But that's not simple. Not all foods are essential for life. Snacks are not for example. But basics, such as raw ingredients sold to households are. But ingredients sold to a snack maker are not if they are being made into snack foods. Cooking oil is essential if a housewife buys it. It is not if it is used to make Cheeto's. A meal bought at a restaurant is not essential; it must be considered luxury, and so it is taxed. But the same meal made at home from scratch would be considered exempt when you buy the meat and potatoes to make it.
All of this seems a mind boggling nightmare, as bad or worse than our IRS. As an auditor I was trying to find out whether the GST charged on a shipment of soybean oil in Canada was legitimate or not, I never could work it out. I realize the proposed Fair Tax would not work that same way, but it got me thinking that nevertheless it could end up just as bad or worse than what we have now - hard as that is to believe.
Hence why we need a real "fair tax".
Right now we have a large portion of the population paying nothing in, but who can vote for those who will continue to keep them from paying while increasing the taxes on those who actually pay.
Everyone needs some skin in the game, even if it's small.
-
Hence why we need a real "fair tax".
Right now we have a large portion of the population paying nothing in, but who can vote for those who will continue to keep them from paying while increasing the taxes on those who actually pay.
Everyone needs some skin in the game, even if it's small.
Are you my husband in real life? Mark, is that you? Because we JUST had this exact discussion at dinner just now....
-
Not really. I used to be for the fair tax too but after I read more about it, I'm not sure anymore. Those under the "poverty line" would receive checks to offset the tax they paid on food and other essentials of life. Actually, we'll all get checks to offset what we spent on essentials. At least this is the plan as I read it on Wiki. This amounts to creating a huge new entitlement distribution and I'm wondering what unforeseen consequences that could have. I can see the drug addict mom using her check to buy drugs and buying less of the more expensive (because of the added tax) food for her kids. Everyone would pay the tax at the point of purchase, but the effective rate for many would still be zero.
As opposed to Canada's consumption tax. Canada exempts essential food from the GST, but makes the seller responsible for collecting or not, and so they need to keep up with what is essential and what isn't. But that's not simple. Not all foods are essential for life. Snacks are not for example. But basics, such as raw ingredients sold to households are. But ingredients sold to a snack maker are not if they are being made into snack foods. Cooking oil is essential if a housewife buys it. It is not if it is used to make Cheeto's. A meal bought at a restaurant is not essential; it must be considered luxury, and so it is taxed. But the same meal made at home from scratch would be considered exempt when you buy the meat and potatoes to make it.
All of this seems a mind boggling nightmare, as bad or worse than our IRS. As an auditor I was trying to find out whether the GST charged on a shipment of soybean oil in Canada was legitimate or not, I never could work it out. I realize the proposed Fair Tax would not work that same way, but it got me thinking that nevertheless it could end up just as bad or worse than what we have now - hard as that is to believe.
Yes, that would be hard to believe. You can't be serious.
Yes, the poor get a "prebate", which sound like an entitlement, but as you correctly pointed out, EVERYONE gets a prebate. So how could it be unfair?
And consider that the prebate essentially removes the need for any sort of welfare? Just think about that for a moment! Our current entitlement system is so bloated, innefficient and out of control it numbs the mind. Nobody will be going down the the 7-11 to sell their food stamps or WIC vouchers for half price to buy booze and cigarettes. They will just buy it with their prebate money and the scammers get none of it (except for the usual wayts that fools find to part with their money).
Right now, many employers pay illegals under the table to avoid payroll taxes. With the fair tax, there are no more payroll taxes. Workers get to keep what they are told they are earning. Most of the incentive to hire illegals evaporates right there by helping to equalize pay. Illegals don't get the prebate.
As I said earlier, otherwise intelligent people can always come up with some objection to any sort of tax plan. But I really can't figure out how you can think that this plan would be anywhere near as unfair or cumbersome as the current tax code. Yeah, the Canadian and European "VAT" are incomprehensible to the point that no one has any idea how much tax they are paying. Our current tax code is what gives the Federal Government most of it's control over our daily lives and what gives politicians such great power, and which gives the rich, who can afford an army of tax accountants, such leverage. But that is why it will never happen. The all powerful politicians and lobbyists for huge companies are afraid of it because it actually does help level the playing field for anyone.
-
Yes, that would be hard to believe. You can't be serious.
Yes, the poor get a "prebate", which sound like an entitlement, but as you correctly pointed out, EVERYONE gets a prebate. So how could it be unfair?
And consider that the prebate essentially removes the need for any sort of welfare? Just think about that for a moment! Our current entitlement system is so bloated, innefficient and out of control it numbs the mind. Nobody will be going down the the 7-11 to sell their food stamps or WIC vouchers for half price to buy booze and cigarettes. They will just buy it with their prebate money and the scammers get none of it (except for the usual wayts that fools find to part with their money).
Right now, many employers pay illegals under the table to avoid payroll taxes. With the fair tax, there are no more payroll taxes. Workers get to keep what they are told they are earning. Most of the incentive to hire illegals evaporates right there by helping to equalize pay. Illegals don't get the prebate.
As I said earlier, otherwise intelligent people can always come up with some objection to any sort of tax plan. But I really can't figure out how you can think that this plan would be anywhere near as unfair or cumbersome as the current tax code. Yeah, the Canadian and European "VAT" are incomprehensible to the point that no one has any idea how much tax they are paying. Our current tax code is what gives the Federal Government most of it's control over our daily lives and what gives politicians such great power, and which gives the rich, who can afford an army of tax accountants, such leverage. But that is why it will never happen. The all powerful politicians and lobbyists for huge companies are afraid of it because it actually does help level the playing field for anyone.
I don't disagree with you and if it were put to a vote I'd probably vote for it. My concern isn't so much what is proposed, it is more what compromises and changes would be made along the way. Suppose for example, welfare is NOT stopped? Now they're getting welfare AND the prebate. And of course the rate can always be raised, just like income tax. But unlike income tax, there will be no way to shelter from it. And that would apply to everyone, not just "the rich". It's supposed to start out at 23 percent, but that's inclusive, it's actually 30% which is pretty high to begin with. For me to be comfortable with it, I'd want a Constitutional Amendment locking the rate.
For that matter, if there is no Constitutional Amendment revoking the income tax, there is nothing stopping the Feds from later on, adding back an income tax on top of the consumption tax.
I guess it's not the Fair Tax plan per se I mistrust, it's the implementation down the road. People seem to think it offers some sort of protection from the abuses of DC, but that's a fantasy; there is no real protection. The problem isn't so much our income tax system, as it is how it's been distorted and grown in a malignant way. I don't see how the Fair Tax would be much more immune to the same thing, in the long run.
-
I'm not convinced on this Fair tax deal. First, I hate watching videos to learn about something. There is a written summary but it seems very incomplete to me. I suppose when I'm in the mood I'll watch the video, but if these guys are serious, write it down, make it complete.
There are many income taxes (federal level), does this eliminate them all? It's unclear from the website. I'm talking about tax on interest, dividends, gains, royalties corporate taxes, fees and whatever. That wasn't talked about from what I could see.
Cheating, most companies don't cheat on taxes. The companies that do cheat, most seem to be those that deal in cash for services. Those are the types of transactions that seem to be easiest to evade taxes on, I don't see how a fair tax would fix that problem. I think the illegal employee issue is also concentrated with these companies.
It's unclear to me if purchases between companies would be taxed. I'm specifically talking about components and sub assemblies from one company used in products sold by another company. This wasn't clear to me. In our present tax code, the corporate tax rate, over 35%, causes products to be too expensive compared to countries with no or low corporate tax rates, this excess tax accumulates as assemblies become more complex as this profit tax may be paid dozens of times for a complex product.
Many questions, difficult to find the answers.
-
Though it is often attacked as unfair and discriminatory, the best tax plan would be EVERYONE pays ten percent.
End of story.
It makes no difference where you are on the income scale, whether you donate to churches or planned parenthood.
EVERY SINGLE Wage Earner and Business pays ten percent, period.
The amount of economic activity would blow the roof off of tax revenue and politicians, particularly democrat/socialist politicians would die a thousand deaths because they couldn't use the tax code to repay donations, bribes, and vote buying schemes.
-
Though it is often attacked as unfair and discriminatory, the best tax plan would be EVERYONE pays ten percent.
End of story.
So someone making $8/hour, 40hrs a week for 52 weeks makes $16,640. They pay $1,64 tax leaving them $14,976 , or $1,248/month.
rent =$500
utils = $100
car = $200
car ins = $50
Med ins = $250
That is $1,100/month leaving $148/month ($5/day)for everything else. Could you put gas in your care and eat once a day for $5? Do you think this will allow us to eliminate food stamps, WIC and all the other welfare programs?
-
I'm not convinced on this Fair tax deal. First, I hate watching videos to learn about something. There is a written summary but it seems very incomplete to me. I suppose when I'm in the mood I'll watch the video, but if these guys are serious, write it down, make it complete.
There are many income taxes (federal level), does this eliminate them all? It's unclear from the website. I'm talking about tax on interest, dividends, gains, royalties corporate taxes, fees and whatever. That wasn't talked about from what I could see.
Cheating, most companies don't cheat on taxes. The companies that do cheat, most seem to be those that deal in cash for services. Those are the types of transactions that seem to be easiest to evade taxes on, I don't see how a fair tax would fix that problem. I think the illegal employee issue is also concentrated with these companies.
It's unclear to me if purchases between companies would be taxed. I'm specifically talking about components and sub assemblies from one company used in products sold by another company. This wasn't clear to me. In our present tax code, the corporate tax rate, over 35%, causes products to be too expensive compared to countries with no or low corporate tax rates, this excess tax accumulates as assemblies become more complex as this profit tax may be paid dozens of times for a complex product.
Many questions, difficult to find the answers.
Go to Amazon and buy the two books that Neal Boortz wrote on the Fair Tax and I believe most of your questions will be answered.
-
Some things to think about:
Your employer has a salary package for you that includes his/her portion of your withholding for SS and Medicare. It might be that under the Fair Tax they could turn around and include that amount in your pay check since they would no longer need to pay it to the Feds.
The cost of taxes that corporations pay is included in the cost you pay for the product as a consumer, it could be in the 15-23% area. That being the case the current cost you pay for something may not change by much, if at all, under the Fair Tax even with the inclusive sales tax.
Apparently the State of Georgia has legislators trying to get a Fair Tax bill passed for the state. Personally I'm not sure that accomplishes anything on a state wide basis?
I do favor the Fair Tax approach nationwide.
-
So someone making $8/hour, 40hrs a week for 52 weeks makes $16,640. They pay $1,64 tax leaving them $14,976 , or $1,248/month.
rent =$500
utils = $100
car = $200
car ins = $50
Med ins = $250
That is $1,100/month leaving $148/month ($5/day)for everything else. Could you put gas in your care and eat once a day for $5? Do you think this will allow us to eliminate food stamps, WIC and all the other welfare programs?
Your argument is fatally flawed out of the chute.
It is neither the responsibility, or the right for government to guarantee any standard of living. I don't care where, what, how, or why people choose jobs that pay eight bucks an hour. Minimum wage laws set the poverty level for many people too self centered to succeed.
Some people chose that lifestyle and didn't have it foisted upon them. It's not my job, nor responsibility to supplement inconceivable ignorance and destructive behavior, any more than it is my Job to pay for women to have free birth control.
Democrats have successfully moved the ball ahead so far that otherwise ratio Neal people allow themselves to argue beginning at invented benchmarks such as yours.
When people have only themselves to depend upon, they will adapt. As long as assholes buy their votes by keeping them lemmings, poor and ignorant, they will lie down and let them.
Taxpayers already provide the free education that so many poor and stupid people choose to piss away. That's their problem not the taxpayer.
-
Your argument is fatally flawed out of the chute.
It is neither the responsibility, or the right for government to guarantee any standard of living. I don't care where, what, how, or why people choose jobs that pay eight bucks an hour. Minimum wage laws set the poverty level for many people too self centered to succeed.
Some people chose that lifestyle and didn't have it foisted upon them. It's not my job, nor responsibility to supplement inconceivable ignorance and destructive behavior, any more than it is my Job to pay for women to have free birth control.
Democrats have successfully moved the ball ahead so far that otherwise ratio Neal people allow themselves to argue beginning at invented benchmarks such as yours.
When people have only themselves to depend upon, they will adapt. As long as assholes buy their votes by keeping them lemmings, poor and ignorant, they will lie down and let them.
Taxpayers already provide the free education that so many poor and stupid people choose to piss away. That's their problem not the taxpayer.
Look, I agree with you.
But welfare programs exist and there is no way we are going to eliminate them. Do you have a plan in mind, or a strategy, or even any sort of hope that we can do so? The best we can do is hope to help level the playing field.
There is this think we all live in, and it is called "reality". Personally, I would be good with killing all the poor people (not really). But even if I was serious, could we agree on that, or any other proposed solution?
Just mention some strategy that you think we can use to help eliminate welfare and I will be happy to discuss it.
edit to specify: Mention a strategy or proposal that you think would actually pass.
-
Stop subsidizing destructive behavior. If people want to destroy their life, stop paying them to make it more comfortable.
Stop providing incentives to remain dependent. If a welfare mom wants to have ten kids, stop paying her to do so.
Stop lionizing idiocy. Stop sending tax dollars to colleges that teach treason.
Stop pretending gender confusion is anything but mental illness, or a childish desire to get attention. Stop protecting homosexual imbeciles from getting their feelings hurt.
Stop paying for sex change operations, abortions, birth control, and welfare for people completely able of working.
Stop allowing the democrats to buy votes by letting them set the terms of debate.
Donald Trump is willing to ignore the PC rules so why can't everything be else?
Stop using minimum wage laws to buy votes.
Stop government spending that is not actually necessary.
Let idiots live in mommy's basement if that pleases them, but stop pretending those people are anything other than parasites sucking off the tit.
Stop cities from ordering police to stand down and let thugs attack people for daring to have their own opinion. Indict the mayors and/or police leadership that allow such things to occur.
Stop subsidizing drug use, allowing perverts in the girls bathroom, giving billions to the fucking garbage at planned parenthood.
-
Stop subsidizing destructive behavior. If people want to destroy their life, stop paying them to make it more comfortable.
Stop providing incentives to remain dependent. If a welfare mom wants to have ten kids, stop paying her to do so.
Stop lionizing idiocy. Stop sending tax dollars to colleges that teach treason.
Stop pretending gender confusion is anything but mental illness, or a childish desire to get attention. Stop protecting homosexual imbeciles from getting their feelings hurt.
Stop paying for sex change operations, abortions, birth control, and welfare for people completely able of working.
Stop allowing the democrats to buy votes by letting them set the terms of debate.
Donald Trump is willing to ignore the PC rules so why can't everything be else?
Stop using minimum wage laws to buy votes.
Stop government spending that is not actually necessary.
Let idiots live in mommy's basement if that pleases them, but stop pretending those people are anything other than parasites sucking off the tit.
Stop cities from ordering police to stand down and let thugs attack people for daring to have their own opinion. Indict the mayors and/or police leadership that allow such things to occur.
Stop subsidizing drug use, allowing perverts in the girls bathroom, giving billions to the fucking garbage at planned parenthood.
All great ideas. I wonder why we haven't done them already, and why you think it is now possible to accomplish all of that.
-
All great ideas. I wonder why we haven't done them already, and why you think it is now possible to accomplish all of that.
The game is rigged by the politicians WE elect. It is not in THEIR best interest to fix all these things, and implement that list. Trump is ONE person. He is not a Monarch, nor do I want him to be. However, even with best intentions, his Republican counterparts will not go along with sweeping change, and neither will the Democrats. Until we find a way to de-incentivize big government "fixes" (which are actually destructive) by limiting what politicians can get from them in money, and power we are doomed to the current system.
Yea, I'm a pessimist today. >:(
-
I don't think there is a way to achieve this. Our civilizations are always in flux and always seem to peak with excellence then go downhill until they are destroyed and replaced by something else. I don't mean to sound so pessimistic myself, but people are simply too STUPID to do those things. Seriously, people in general are deeply stupid and cannot understand for example, why minimum wage laws lead to job loss. And they are not getting any smarter, if anything we are getting more and more stupid by the generation.
-
Term limits may be one way to turn this around. If elected officials know they can only serve a certain amount of terms, they may be more inclined to do what's right for their constituents instead of continuing to grab power. After all, they'd be a citizen again once they reach their term limit.
-
All great ideas. I wonder why we haven't done them already, and why you think it is now possible to accomplish all of that.
Because it takes politicians with a spine.
-
Because it takes politicians with a spine.
So then you are saying that your suggestions are impossible?
How can you ridicule liberals for believing in Utopia if you are counting on equally Utopian ideas?
I specifically and redundantly asked for your ideas that you though would work and you regurgitated a bunch of wonderful ideals that you know will never happen.
-
So then you are saying that your suggestions are impossible?
How can you ridicule liberals for believing in Utopia if you are counting on equally Utopian ideas?
I specifically and redundantly asked for your ideas that you though would work and you regurgitated a bunch of wonderful ideals that you know will never happen.
You are very dense tonight.
ALL it takes is a few politicians with spine and the courage to tell the democrat whores to shut the fuck up and the tide will turn.
The deeply deranged democrats are causing the pendulum to swing against them. They have become a party of liars, thieves, communists, criminals and traitors to the point that more and more people are turning against them every day,
-
You are very dense tonight.
ALL it takes is a few politicians with spine and the courage to tell the democrat whores to shut the fuck up and the tide will turn.
The deeply deranged democrats are causing the pendulum to swing against them. They have become a party of liars, thieves, communists, criminals and traitors to the point that more and more people are turning against them every day,
Perhaps, but the Republicans are experts at defeating themselves every chance they get. They can't get out of their own way to get anything done. The Democrats have a lot of internal party issues, not to mention their ideological issues, but it's hard to fight them when Republicans are too busy fighting themselves.
-
Perhaps, but the Republicans are experts at defeating themselves every chance they get. They can't get out of their own way to get anything done. The Democrats have a lot of internal party issues, not to mention their ideological issues, but it's hard to fight them when Republicans are too busy fighting themselves.
So far, since Trump has been elected, the Republicans continue to be PART OF THE PROBLEM, not the solution.
-
So far, since Trump has been elected, the Republicans continue to be PART OF THE PROBLEM, not the solution.
Are you saying that the Republicans just began being part of the problem when Trump was elected? ???
-
I don't think he is, but since the Republicans have the White House now it has become much more apparent. Prior to this they could use the excuse of not having the Presidency.
-
Are you saying that the Republicans just began being part of the problem when Trump was elected? ???
Did you see the word "continue" in my above statement?
-
Did you see the word "continue" in my above statement?
No. I missed that.
Sorry.
-
No. I missed that.
Sorry.
No worries! I am as frustrated as you with the establishment Republicans. Even more frustrated with them than the Democrats. At least the Democrats tell you they are for all the nasty stuff we dislike. The Republicans lie, and tell us what we want to hear, then promote the status quo. They ARE the SWAMP!
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-dissatisfaction-with-speaker-paul-ryan-congress-overall-is-growing-poll-finds-1493067612
-
No worries! I am as frustrated as you with the establishment Republicans. Even more frustrated with them than the Democrats. At least the Democrats tell you they are for all the nasty stuff we dislike. The Republicans lie, and tell us what we want to hear, then promote the status quo. They ARE the SWAMP!
They are pussies.
-
Agreed. I'm done with the Republicans.
-
Agreed. I'm done with the Republicans.
I'm not going that far, but I am done with the establishment types.
-
The House Freedom Caucus is trying to get actual conservative solutions passed but are demonized by their own party, which only proves that establishment Republicans aren't really for small, limited government. I'm all for compromise so long as it's moving in the right direction, but certain things are pretty simple that shouldn't require a lot of negotiation or compromise. Obamacare is the perfect example. Repeal it and give it back to the states.
-
I'm not going that far, but I am done with the establishment types.
Agreed. The Rs are bad, BUT I still don't think they are as bad as the Ds or as irrelevant as all the others. But we do have to let them know how we feel, and if there are enough of us, they may listen, at least a little.
-
Agreed. The Rs are bad, BUT I still don't think they are as bad as the Ds or as irrelevant as all the others. But we do have to let them know how we feel, and if there are enough of us, they may listen, at least a little.
Agreed. I'm done with the Republicans.
No worries! I am as frustrated as you with the establishment Republicans. Even more frustrated with them than the Democrats. At least the Democrats tell you they are for all the nasty stuff we dislike. The Republicans lie, and tell us what we want to hear, then promote the status quo. They ARE the SWAMP!
So where will y'all go to find that political satisfaction? I can understand it when your choice of Party/President doesn't turn out as promised.
Libertarian? Maybe they don't have cookies, but do have pot! ;)
Possibly a centrist Republican/Democrat? That way you can criticize both sides (and take heat from both sides)??
-
So where will y'all go to find that political satisfaction?
Supporting candidates for public office who hold the same ideals as you do seems like it would be a good place to start. Running challengers in primaries against politicians who aren't living up to what they said they'd do sends a message that people want change, even if the challengers don't win.
I can understand it when your choice of Party/President doesn't turn out as promised.
Trump has been in office for barely 3 months, I hardly think it's appropriate to say he hasn't turned out the way anybody has wanted just yet.
Libertarian? Maybe they don't have cookies, but do have pot! ;)
If pot is the sole reason why you think people vote Libertarian perhaps you should look a bit more into their platform.
Possibly a centrist Republican/Democrat? That way you can criticize both sides (and take heat from both sides)??
Centrist Republicans is essentially what the establishment is.
-
So where will y'all go to find that political satisfaction? I can understand it when your choice of Party/President doesn't turn out as promised.
Libertarian? Maybe they don't have cookies, but do have pot! ;)
Possibly a centrist Republican/Democrat? That way you can criticize both sides (and take heat from both sides)??
I didn't vote for Trump in the Primary, but did in the General. I am totally on board with him as our current President, and yes surprised I would ever say that. Not on board with many of the Republicans in Congress, however. My problem is the Republicans, except for Trump, and a few others, like their cushy, status quo, big government jobs.
-
So where will y'all go to find that political satisfaction? I can understand it when your choice of Party/President doesn't turn out as promised.
I don't think the problem is with Trump. I still have hope that he can whip the establishment Rs in line. Trump is at least trying to do what we elected him for. But the fragmentation within the party is playing into the Dem's favor.
Don't let the media spin dissuade you from seeing what is really happening.
-
Supporting candidates for public office who hold the same ideals as you do seems like it would be a good place to start. Running challengers in primaries against politicians who aren't living up to what they said they'd do sends a message that people want change, even if the challengers don't win.
That's a good start, and I will exert whatever influence I may have (particularly on the local level) to do just that!
Trump has been in office for barely 3 months, I hardly think it's appropriate to say he hasn't turned out the way anybody has wanted just yet.
Can't say it has been an auspicious start. Maybe it is just a huge learning curve, going from campaigning to governing is a BIG step. There is no doubt the President has burned political capital faster than an internet start-up. The President also seems unusually good at making enemies. The AHCA is a good example. Done by a small group, in secret, with no input from healthcare providers, insurers, or customers. Ramrodded through committee with no real debate - no wonder it fell flat on it's face. But, the President promised it would be great, the best ever, when the reality was it merely removed health insurance from millions of people and gave a substantial tax cut to a select portion of the populace. Will give the President a "win" for the Gorsuch nomination, pretty much a no-brainer.
If pot is the sole reason why you think people vote Libertarian perhaps you should look a bit more into their platform.
Apparently my attempt at humor escaped you.
Centrist Republicans is essentially what the establishment is.
Hmmm... Worked well for Reagan & Bush 1.
[/quote]
-
I don't think the problem is with Trump. I still have hope that he can whip the establishment Rs in line. Trump is at least trying to do what we elected him for. But the fragmentation within the party is playing into the Dem's favor.
"We" is not all. The President it acting pretty much as advertised. The President discovered that health care is "complicated" - just wait until he tackles tax reform!! Whether he can be effective is yet to be seen, but isn't encouraging. So, how do you define "establishment"? Anyone against the President policies?
Don't let the media spin dissuade you from seeing what is really happening.
Agree completely!!
-
he AHCA is a good example. Done by a small group, in secret, with no input from healthcare providers, insurers, or customers. Ramrodded through committee with no real debate - no wonder it fell flat on it's face.
Sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesn't it? There's a reason it failed (both Obamacare and AHCA, but speaking specifically about AHCA).
But, the President promised it would be great, the best ever, when the reality was it merely removed health insurance from millions of people and gave a substantial tax cut to a select portion of the populace.
You say "removed health insurance" as if somehow it's either A.) a right or B.) that the insurance companies were going to just start dropping people. The AHCA was a disaster for multiple reasons, but it wasn't entirely Trump's fault it didn't pass.
Hmmm... Worked well for Reagan & Bush 1.
I would hardly call Reagan a centrist Republican.
-
Sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesn't it? There's a reason it failed (both Obamacare and AHCA, but speaking specifically about AHCA).
LOL!! Alternate facts in evidence. Obamacare took nearly two years to complete, the history is there for anyone to see. Lots of public committee meetings, input and deals from the providers, insurers and patient advocate groups. The fact the Republicans choose not to participate was their call. Ask Senator Snowe what the repercussions were if one did want to take part.
The republicans had six years to figure out how to repeal and replace and couldn't do it.
But, if I accept your statement as underlined - guess that shows that Republicans behave just like Democrats when it suits their purpose.
You say "removed health insurance" as if somehow it's either A.) a right or B.) that the insurance companies were going to just start dropping people. The AHCA was a disaster for multiple reasons, but it wasn't entirely Trump's fault it didn't pass.
Whether Obamacare was spiraling to death is a separate conversation, there is merit that had serious flaws. No doubt the President touted the AHCA heavily, it was the best, the greatest healthcare, everyone would love it.... The President campaigned heavily on repeal, and strongly supported the bill, he couldn't get it done.
I would hardly call Reagan a centrist Republican.
By todays standards, Reagan was firmly a centrist. If nothing else, President Reagan was a pragmatist, through and through. He understood the political process and was more than willing to compromise to actually accomplish things.
-
LOL!! Alternate facts in evidence. Obamacare took nearly two years to complete, the history is there for anyone to see. Lots of public committee meetings, input and deals from the providers, insurers and patient advocate groups. The fact the Republicans choose not to participate was their call.
It was public, was it?
The republicans had six years to figure out how to repeal and replace and couldn't do it.
This much we agree on.
But, if I accept your statement as underlined - guess that shows that Republicans behave just like Democrats when it suits their purpose.
I believe the term for this is "politician."
Whether Obamacare was spiraling to death is a separate conversation, there is merit that had serious flaws. No doubt the President touted the AHCA heavily, it was the best, the greatest healthcare, everyone would love it.... The President campaigned heavily on repeal, and strongly supported the bill, he couldn't get it done.
You're trying to place the blame squarely on him, and it wasn't solely him. Paul Ryan couldn't get it done either. He's the Speaker of the House and the leader of the Republican party in the House and he couldn't get the House Freedom Caucus on board with it.
-
It was public, was it?
;D ;D Expected the Pelosi quote sooner or later, it was a pretty stupid remark on her part and not at all true.
You're trying to place the blame squarely on him, and it wasn't solely him. Paul Ryan couldn't get it done either. He's the Speaker of the House and the leader of the Republican party in the House and he couldn't get the House Freedom Caucus on board with it.
Perhaps you are right. Wasn't just the Freedom Caucus that had difficulty with the bill, there was a clear and definitive threat that it would not have passed the House even if the Freedom Caucus was on board. It would have been dead in the Senate. The President is the leader of the party as a whole, why would the President go to such lengths to provide the support he did if he knew it was a POS?
-
;D ;D Expected the Pelosi quote sooner or later, it was a pretty stupid remark on her part and not at all true.
It was true. So true in fact that not even a lot of Congressmen/women read the bill before they voted on it. It was so long and complicated that they just blindly voted on it because that's what the party leadership told them to do. If I remember correctly, they also didn't have much time to read it from the time the final bill was introduced until the vote was scheduled. Republicans weren't about to vote for it.
Perhaps you are right. Wasn't just the Freedom Caucus that had difficulty with the bill, there was a clear and definitive threat that it would not have passed the House even if the Freedom Caucus was on board. It would have been dead in the Senate. The President is the leader of the party as a whole, why would the President go to such lengths to provide the support he did if he knew it was a POS?
My point was that there were multiple reasons why the bill failed, not solely because of the president. It was a bad bill and it deserved to fail. I've said it before and you said it earlier in this thread, but the Republicans had 7 years to get this right and they still screwed it up and there's no excuse for it. They're still working on it but at this point I'm not optimistic because I don't believe it'll actually achieve what it should: a 100% repeal and giving it back to the states.
-
It is really hard for me to understand why so many non conservatives thin that congress HAD to pass the lousy replacement bill. It was pretty lame and pretty much exactly all you can expect from a liberal elite like Ryan. Now that it died it's ugly death, I expect congress to come forward with something MUCH better.
The idea that republicans must be in lock step or they are fragmented, death rattling, spiraling into oblivion is a strictly stupid liberal trick and not worth considering.
-
I am pleased that Congress did not pass Ryan's Obamacare Lite.
-
So where will y'all go to find that political satisfaction? I can understand it when your choice of Party/President doesn't turn out as promised.
The President isn't disappointing me at all so far. As for the party, I've never really been a Republican ideologically. I vote with them because in general, they are less destructive to the country than the Democrats.
Libertarian? Maybe they don't have cookies, but do have pot! ;)
Yes the Libertarian party probably aligns more closely with me than any of the other major parties. But lately I've not liked calling myself a libertarian. For one thing, I disagree with the party's position on some issues, and for another, a lot of people calling themselves "libertarian" are socialist libertarians which is a contradiction in terms, and really just another version of communism.
Possibly a centrist Republican/Democrat? That way you can criticize both sides (and take heat from both sides)??
Both sides are richly deserving of criticism.
But I don't like the term centrist. There are two ways to be a centrist and they are completely different. Say there were only two issues. You could be a centrist by being undecided, or apathetic, or completely compromising, on both issues. Or you could be a centrist by being extreme right on one and extreme left on the other, and taking the average would put you in the center.
My position on any one issue could be anywhere.
-
But I don't like the term centrist. There are two ways to be a centrist and they are completely different. Say there were only two issues. You could be a centrist by being undecided, or apathetic, or completely compromising, on both issues. Or you could be a centrist by being extreme right on one and extreme left on the other, and taking the average would put you in the center.
My position on any one issue could be anywhere.
Intelligent Moderate? You think about your positions?
A thought on the original topic - Socialism is doomed to be defeated by the forces of economics. Under socialism, everyone is basically equal, so every person has an equal claim on resources. However there will never be enough to go around, so not everyone can have what they want. The result must be shortages and therefore misery.
Ergo, socialism is an inferior system.
-
The Freedom Caucus has signed onto the latest repeal effort.
Maybe Gary can explain why Obama kept touting the. "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" or the "if like your insurance you can keep your insurance", or the "the average family will save $2,500 a year" when they knew it wasn't true.
-
The Freedom Caucus has signed onto the latest repeal effort.
Maybe Gary can explain why Obama kept touting the. "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" or the "if like your insurance you can keep your insurance", or the "the average family will save $2,500 a year" when they knew it wasn't true.
To be fair, very few people probably knew it was true since it was such a large bill that nobody had an opportunity to read or debate prior to its passage. The only people who truly knew were the architects of it.
-
Obamacare was designed to fail from the beginning. Obama, and the Dems knew insurance premiums, and deductibles would increase drastically for most people with healthcare insurance. They touted coverage for those that didn't have it as a right, but knew that private insurers would quickly be limited to what they could provide due to cost. The designed outcome was "single payer". A government run healthcare insurance like Medicare, and maybe even the VA eventually. This was to be Hillary's baby. It didn't quite work out they way they wanted as Hillary unpredictably LOST.
Now the Republicans don't know what to do, and are scared of the media (and Dems, same thing) killing them over it. Obamacare was a disaster, but the Dems have the media to cover it up, or at least lighten the blow. The Republicans don't have that luxury. However, they need to grow a pair, and get repeal/replace done.
-
Obamacare was designed to fail from the beginning. Obama, and the Dems knew insurance premiums, and deductibles would increase drastically for most people with healthcare insurance. They touted coverage for those that didn't have it as a right, but knew that private insurers would quickly be limited to what they could provide due to cost. The designed outcome was "single payer". A government run healthcare insurance like Medicare, and maybe even the VA eventually. This was to be Hillary's baby. It didn't quite work out they way they wanted as Hillary unpredictably LOST.
Like I said, the architects knew but I doubt the rank and file members of Congress did. There's no way the majority of them would've voted for it knowing that rates would skyrocket because they wouldn't have been re-elected. The die hards, such as Pelosi, Schumer, etc. would've voted for it regardless.
Now the Republicans don't know what to do, and are scared of the media (and Dems, same thing) killing them over it. Obamacare was a disaster, but the Dems have the media to cover it up, or at least lighten the blow. The Republicans don't have that luxury. However, they need to grow a pair, and get repeal/replace done.
Agreed. The Republicans symbolically repealed this countless times but now can't seem to find those bills and send them back up. It just goes to show where their priorities really are.
-
Like I said, the architects knew but I doubt the rank and file members of Congress did. There's no way the majority of them would've voted for it knowing that rates would skyrocket because they wouldn't have been re-elected. The die hards, such as Pelosi, Schumer, etc. would've voted for it regardless.
Agreed. The Republicans symbolically repealed this countless times but now can't seem to find those bills and send them back up. It just goes to show where their priorities really are.
Sometimes I wonder if they knew it wouldn't work. I really believe these people, the leftists who bought into O care and buy into socialism are colossally stupid. The irony is that they believe they are the smartest around.
-
a lot of people calling themselves "libertarian" are socialist libertarians which is a contradiction in terms, and really just another version of communism.
Someone claiming to be a "socialist libertarian" would be akin to saying they are a "black KKK" member..........
-
Intelligent Moderate? You think about your positions?
A thought on the original topic - Socialism is doomed to be defeated by the forces of economics. Under socialism, everyone is basically equal, so every person has an equal claim on resources. However there will never be enough to go around, so not everyone can have what they want. The result must be shortages and therefore misery.
Ergo, socialism is an inferior system.
Intelligent moderate, maybe. I do think about them, in fact, I endeavor to apply logic, facts and reality before I decide on my position on an issue, and it can change if I get new information. For example, I used to be for capital punishment. Then I found out about corrupt prosecutors and a high rate of innocent people being put to death in my state as a result of those prosecutors, so I became against it, in that context. But in principle I am for it. It's just that I figured out that, like in so many things, government can be stupid, corrupt and wrong when it tries to do something, and I feel strongly about protecting the innocent from wrong convictions.
Actually, I am in favor of capital punishment at the point of the crime's commission. In other words, by the would-be victim. And it should apply to any crime of personal assault of body or property. For example, that flash mob train robbery the other day. The riders should have been armed and should have mowed down those thugs, rather than turn over their wallets and cell phones. So I have no problem with death as a penalty for crime. But whether I would vote for or against the death penalty in the context of our criminal justice system, would all depend. Is DNA technology significantly advanced that the conviction of innocent people has drastically been reduced? Are there safeguards against corrupt prosecutors? I don't know, I'd have to look at it when it was put before me.
So what do you call that? You can hardly call it "moderate" when I advocate blasting to Hell a 14 year old trying to grab my purse, as my ideological position. That's pretty extreme. But since I cannot tell you how I'd vote on the issue, would you say I'm on the fence, or technically moderate on the issue?
I agree with your statement about socialism.
-
Like I said, the architects knew but I doubt the rank and file members of Congress did. There's no way the majority of them would've voted for it knowing that rates would skyrocket because they wouldn't have been re-elected.
I call bullshit on that; anyone smart enough to get a college degree and maybe get through law school was smart enough to do the math. Plus, it was 100% partisan vote.
-
I call bullshit on that; anyone smart enough to get a college degree and maybe get through law school was smart enough to do the math. Plus, it was 100% partisan vote.
I would imagine the Democrat Party leadership would spread the word of the salient points to their Democrat colleagues in the House, and Senate even if the rank, and file didn't read the entire thing. Also, that is what STAFF is there to do. Each politician has a staff of people to read, and summarize this stuff for them, and put it in easy to read bullet points. I know, I've done it for them. They are called briefing books, or just briefing papers.
-
I call bullshit on that; anyone smart enough to get a college degree and maybe get through law school was smart enough to do the math. Plus, it was 100% partisan vote.
I don't even think Democrats in Congress would've openly voted for the bill if they knew ahead of time that premiums would go up 116% in some states. They would've never been re-elected.
-
I think they knew just what they were doing, make it economically unsupportable while at the same ramping up the idea that health insurance is a right so when it collapsed Hillary could move forward with single payer and save us all.
-
I think they knew just what they were doing, make it economically unsupportable while at the same ramping up the idea that health insurance is a right so when it collapsed Hillary could move forward with single payer and save us all.
That's certainly plausible and something that progressives want and have wanted for a while. Bernie Sanders was very forthcoming about it and didn't try to hide it during the primaries.
-
That's certainly plausible and something that progressives want and have wanted for a while. Bernie Sanders was very forthcoming about it and didn't try to hide it during the primaries.
I will give it to Bernie. He tells exactly what he is for, just like Trump. Hillary towards the end tried to out Bernie, Bernie citing that most everything was a right. Healthcare, "free" college, a "living wage", etc. I said it before in this thread. Obamacare was designed to fail, and allow Hillary to fix with a total government solution.
-
I will give it to Bernie. He tells exactly what he is for, just like Trump. Hillary towards the end tried to out Bernie, Bernie citing that most everything was a right. Healthcare, "free" college, a "living wage", etc. I said it before in this thread. Obamacare was designed to fail, and allow Hillary to fix with a total government solution.
Absolutely agree it was designed to fail with the "fix" of being single payer government run health care.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-thanks-to-jonathan-gruber-for-revealing-obamacare-deception/2014/11/17/356514b2-6e72-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html?utm_term=.1720045fc385
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/26/jonathan-gruber-infamous-obamacare-architect-says-/
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/223578-obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-helped-law-pass
-
The pathetic obamacare bill was intended to fail just so the truly despicable democrats could use the intended suffering they would cause the poor and lower middle classes to move the socialist ball ahead. These people truly don't care who they kill to get their way.