http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6190326.story
Printable View
It's stuff like this (which isn't limited to CA) which has me increasingly convinced that I'm a complete chump for working, paying taxes, paying my bills, trying to obey the law, etc.
I dont see a problem.
Besides the fact that they are stopping it, I really dont have a problem with it. If people want to spend their welfare check on gambling let them. If they lose it (and they will), it's not like they get extra money. We redistribute money because in every economic transaction there are winners and losers and when the winnings exceed the losses (which is sort of a prerequisite for doing things logically) we compensate the losers.
It's a self correcting problem. People will lose and they will stop. People with gambling addictions were going to be a problem anyway, so they can be dealt with separately.
Also, there is only one reason California is tanking; they refuse to pay for the stuff they want. That's what happens when you have ballot initiatives and the like to let "normal folk" make tax decisions.
I'm gonna agree that it's pretty difficult to draw the line between legit and not legit welfare spending, but...
...oy.
As opposed to what happens when the "political elite" make tax decisions? Unbelievable. Do you make these claims in public, or just on internet forums?Quote:
Originally Posted by redb
You forget one important thing - these welfare funds are paid with OTHER PEOPLE'S money. So yes, there IS a problem, and no we SHOULDN'T let them...no more than I get to take your money without your permission based on what I feel I need.
I guess "normal folk" aren't capable of making good decisions about what to do with their own money.
Seems like a couple of weeks ago there was a spokesman from the calif teachers union reporting that the federal grant money would allow business as usual in the schools. "The fact is, this is grant money, it doesn't cost taxpayers anything".
No wonder they haven't a clue out there, if this is what they're taught.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
This is not a universally understood statement, I have a fundimental issue then funds are 'withdrawn' from my paycheck and given to people who are irresponsible. Locally they are arresting store owners who are puchasing 'birdge cards' (public assistance) from people for $.50 on the dollar and defrauding the state.. 3 this week.
Don't worry. We have a fiscal conservative spending $150,000,000 to become governor and fix it.:lmao:
OK. I'm probably going to get in huge trouble for saying this, but I honestly just have to ask:
Could you do better? Because if you could, please do. And if you are making a difference, why bitch and moan about the stuff you CAN'T change?
I'm 23 (yes, TWENTY THREE, born a year before Reagan left office) and I'm fed up with bureaucracy, but I'm just as fed up with people who complain about it and don't do jack shit.
And then I see these same people, on all sides of an issue, turn around and create a new and scary monster out of people whose behavior is NO DIFFERENT THAN THEIR OWN.
I've got a really, really good idea: if you don't want to pay taxes, you have three choices:
1. don't pay them. go to jail.
2. get yourself elected. change the law. Or talk to someone who CAN change the law.
3. leave the country.
Otherwise, quitcherbitchin'!
/rant.
I think that has been proven time and time again.Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisstetka
Get offended, I dont care. You know, there are these people who actually know stuff about taxes and economics, I think they call them experts. Go figure you might let them work this out.
There is a reason that BAR associations and Medical Boards exist and they dont let schmucks serve on them, it's just that with economics people have, for whatever reason, mistakenly held onto the belief they know what they are talking about. I am so very, very thankful that my neighbors dont get to make regulations dealing with say, surgical hygiene or car safety rules. I dont understand the insistence that tax laws be handled by people who cant understand the principal that their own good fortune is derived, at least in part, by the losses of another.
I do not hide that I am a socialist, in normal interactions or on the internet.Quote:
Do you make these claims in public, or just on internet forums?
If it's already in the budget and is being spent on something else, then there is no additional cost incurred.Quote:
Seems like a couple of weeks ago there was a spokesman from the calif teachers union reporting that the federal grant money would allow business as usual in the schools. "The fact is, this is grant money, it doesn't cost taxpayers anything".
No wonder they haven't a clue out there, if this is what they're taught.
Again, Californians have shown, repeatedly, a fundamental misunderstanding of budgetary policy. The teachers union is not filled with trained economists or tax lawyers, it is filled with people whose sole job it is is to protect the liveliehood of its members. That is no more a twisted truth than any other you see in politics.
Ill believe it when I see it. Not just for this one person, but for anyone. The last fiscal conservative weve had in this country was Jimmy Carter.Quote:
fiscal conservative
You know what? F**k California. They're not my problem. It's their own fault everything out there is screwed up. The want to have low taxes, and a lot of government services. At the same time. They want to live on fault lines and bitch when their houses fall in. They want to have a 21st century economy and a 19th school system.
Some people are just messed up in the head, and California has about 60 million of 'em at last count. I'd be happy if the whole thing just fell right into the goddam ocean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redb
That right there is the crux of the problem in a nutshell. I find it refreshing that as a self proclaimed socialist that you drilled right down to the core problem, even if your logic for arriving there is different than mine.
"they refuse to pay for the stuff they want" is exactly why California, the majority of Europe, many other nations, and even the United States are getting into the problems they have. People want anything that is free, and once they're led to believe that it can be provided to them for free by the government, they want it even more. So much so that they begin to believe it is an entitlement. Politicians are to blame for the mess, and the masses are also to blame for believing the politicians. If someone wants something, it is my belief that they should pay for it, say... something like health insurance. It shouldn't be artificially "provided by" anyone else. If someone wants to retire in a given period of time, they should be willing to pay for it, and not sit around waiting for the government to pay them for it. I say, dump all of the socialist entitlement programs, remove all of the nanny state regulatory restrictions that really don't do anything anyway (because government doesn't even bother to enforce or check that they're being fulfilled), and allow the free market system to function as it should by keeping government small. Then we'd see a lot more people 'willing to pay for what they want' with the added benefit of those same people being able to pay for what they want.
I guess I'll also agree with the second part of the observatoins "when you have ballot initiatives and the like to let "normal folk" make tax decisions". Having normal folks make tax decisions is equally as dumb as having tax initiaves to pay for the stuff that the people want. My opinion is that goes right along with my sentament that if you make the people pay for what they want, then you won't need the big government to provide what the people want, i.e. you won't need the big taxes.
I only wish implimenting the solution was as simple as describing it. Unfortunately, with so many people now deriving 'entitlement programs' and lacking the ability to provide for themselves, it will be a difficult road back to fiscal neutrality. I'd much rather take that difficult road than to keep on the road we're on currently.
Well Meso Im happy that you can disagree with me without it being about the evils of socialism and how I want to slippery slope into Nazi Germany.
However, I disagree with your underlying principle which is that it is necessarily the case that the government cannot do anything right by providing for the people. In fact, I think the opposite is more realistic, although neither are particularly reasonable solutions all things considered.
I think where problems arise is that people get the government they deserve and when people want to hide from the ugly, awful truth they get politicians who hide the ugly, awful truth from them.
I think this shows an interesting divide between people of different upbringings. Some people grow up with very little and work hard to get something and they never want to give it up. They dont like their effort going towards others and they call it entitlement. Others grew up with plenty and ironically they tend to be willing to give up more.
I dont believe welfare is a right or even something that is deserved. But at the same time, I dont feel that we have rights to anything material at all so I dont have some of the common hangups that are getting in the way of California executing their vision.
Just because someone doesnt have a right to welfare, doesnt mean we shouldnt fight to provide it for them. That people could go against the idea that every human being should have the best living conditions possible regardless of the conditions of their birth (or even their choices [excluding those that murder, steal, etc]) is incomprehensible to me.
Like I said I think these people should be able to spend their welfare checks at the casino. I dont think that gambling is a sin so while I would suggest that others avoid it (as I do) I wont force that on them. It's a small sacrifice to provide for these people to do something that apparently increases their standard of living, albeit in a way I dont understand.
However, it is clear that the state of California did not intend to allow welfare funds to be used as gambling pocket money and honestly is not the point of this story to provide an excuse for people of a certain political disposition to dump on their self appointed idol of all that is wrong in their eyes?
When my girls were teenagers, they would often come home telling us how their teacher views on the worlds inequalities were being expressed. I would agree that it would be nice if everyone could afford, say a college education, but not everyone could. I would get the "not fair" from them, and "we" should do something. I remember telling the oldest that I had saved X number of dollars toward her school tuition, which at the time would buy a couple of years. If she felt that strongly, then she could give half of that to someone else, and they each could have 1 year, that would be "fair". It's amazing how "fair" becomes moot when it's money out of your own pocket.
Interesting anecdote. However, allow me to illuminate this subject on how easy the solution that even you think would "be nice" is to achieve when people are reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
If you took every exemption out of the federal tax code we could go from having a debt crisis where interest could possibly crush us to completely solvent with an effective tax rate of about 13%.
Yes, 13% of each worker's income would pay for everything we have going on right now. Including social security, medicare and a defense budget that dwarfs nearly every country in the world combined.
If each American was willing to give a scant 2% more on top of that, and legitimately each person was willing to pay a 15% tax rate (although it would be a scheduled, progressive tax and not a flat one so it wouldnt quite work out to be 15% for each person, just 15% on average) then we could move to a tuitionless university system like you see in Sweden and the Netherlands.
Yep, free university. Even for foreigners. Then, everyone really could go to school who had the talent.
The problem is the rich people would have to give up the exemptions they use to get out of paying their fair share. It's funny, those people tend to run companies that contribute lots of money just so that doesnt happen. You know what is being proposed now? A VAT. Another regressive tax that will hit people who spend the majority of their income on buying instead of taxing those with the ability to consume.
Point is, we can have all the stuff we want. We just have to get serious about paying for it.
P.S. I get that tax number from the former head of the budget committee under the first President Bush who came to my university to lecture about solving the national debt issue.
Oh.
Hi there.
Wrong room again...
Sorry.
(I feel like the guy who accidentally wandered into the ladies locker room again).
Hey RedB.
The Euro's have figured out your brand of socialism does not work.
USA is taking the fast track down the wrong path and folks like you think we aren't going fast enough?
Think taking from the producers and giving to the lazy is the ticket to social justice?
OK.
At least I take comfort that you are young.
Time for me to change my tagline again.
Agreed Rebd, I see no promise in throwing names or insults because of different fundamental belief systems. My opinion isn't going to change, and I suspect yours will neither. I'm cool with that. It is interesting that given those fundamental differences, we each see the problem as the same. Where we differ is how to solve the problem. You seem to want to clean up the mess with more of what I suggest created the mess to begin with. Hopefully, somewhere there is a happy medium. Unfortunately for those on my side of the isle, while trying to be equitable by moving more towards the middle, those on the other side seem to want even more and are unwilling to move towards the middle at all. It is that philosophy that I consider "progressive" that takes small steps toward their ultimate goals from those who are reluctantly giving small concessions to try to resolve the issues. Eventually, you wind up with those even more firmly rooted in ultra conservatism that just want to yank back full force all that was conceeded over time in "good faith". It is there that you will find the name calling and other asundry insults (on both sides - because there are those on the ultra socialist side that want to take everything now instead of waiting for the progressive movement to gather ground inch by slow inch).
Now, I feel it is equally important to remind those of the socialist bent that the United States was founded upon a Republic that established "small government" as its basis. To deviate from that would in my opinion be "un-American". Fortunately for those socialists that do want to deviate from the original Republic that is American government, there are places like Sweden and the Netherlands. I hear they provide "free university", even for foreigners.
But do you have to speak the language, or do they supply teachers who would teach us in our own language like we do here?
Mesotech, you are a saint among us commoners.
Fight the good fight.
:D
FWIW I was going to off and go to Stockholm Univeristy for my masters but I got accepted in Boston U and that is my home (like literally, I used to live less than 10 miles from their campus).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesotech
I do want to leave, but mostly to see first hand something else. But I would rather fix here than just leave it to fester you know?
http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/pa...8-22-04-08.gifQuote:
Hey RedB.
The Euro's have figured out your brand of socialism does not work.
Looks bad.
Or maybe it looks bad for the Greeks who lied their way into the Euro on the back of an American company stretching the limits of free trade as much as possible for 150 years.
Ill believe it when I see it. Not just for this one person, but for anyone. The last fiscal conservative weve had in this country was Jimmy Carter.[/QUOTE]
WTF? :confused: Jimmy Carter = :lmao: Me I'll play my guitar and let these idiots fuck them selfs you people are way over thinking life... It's bout love life and family. :sun
I get scared when people talk about America's "founding principles" or "original intent." Of course, many of the "original intentions" were very, very flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesotech
For instance, the Constitution codified slavery, and determined that a slave should only count as 3/5 of a person. This was obviously a bad idea, that history has rejected--after a terrible war--yet it was clearly part of the "original intent."
The distribution of Senators has caused all kinds of problems. Little states, with hardly any people in them, like Montana, get as much power in the Senate as California and New York, which have many times more people. But this notably bad idea, was part of the "original intent," along with all the trouble we've had because of the horrible Electoral College, and the 2/3 Senate majority required for a treaty ratification.
There are many bad ideas enshrined in the "original intent." You can read them in The Constitution.
So, you know, declaring that something-or-other was the "original intent" does not mean it was a great idea, or that it should be free from criticism or revision or repeal.
Hey, the Lottery is nothing more than an extra tax on people who are bad at math.
People on public assistance want to gamble, let them. You do your part by helping them out and giving them a pittance. What they do with it is their own business.
I admit I have things pretty good. I've got the big house in an exclusive area, nice cars, boat. Owned my own plane, and can dine at a nice restaurant any time we don't feel like cooking. A few college degrees...
But guess what? 30 years ago I was living in my truck wondering where the next meal was coming from.
Guess what else? There were times back then when I got assistance from the government. And while I did work hard to get where I am, I am the first person to admit that you need to be every bit as lucky as industrious.
And so, now that I am landed gentry, a pillar of the community and a"successful" professional who started with nothing - before all the holier-than-thou jackasses point to me as an example what our help can do if put to good use - I must confess:
Lot's (most?) of the money I got from the government went to booze, smokes and generally trying to get laid.
The fact of the matter is most people who get welfare aren't there because they are flawed, its just that they weren't as lucky as you were. You aren't any better then them, just more fortunate. And if you honestly believe differently then in my eyes, you are the one who is flawed.
So crap, let them go have a little fun. It sucks being poor. If my tax dollars help somebody have a little enjoyment - then great. They need it more than me.
I'll take a person who shows compassion for his fellow man over all others any day.
[QUOTE=Offshore Angler;56893
I'll take a person who shows compassion for his fellow man over all others any day.[/QUOTE]
Agreed,good word.
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g...msBasement.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by redb
:moonpie
Lawrence: Who says this?Quote:
Originally Posted by phantomman
Ali: Rumor. (Lawrence spits in disgust to the ground)
One of the men: That is not an argument.
The irony in your post is immense; such a childish way to suggest that socialism is naivety you know. On the rare occasion that I come back to this forum and participate in threads like this, it is always and invariably you who acts with the maturity of a 12 year old. I hate to do this, but I am putting you on my ignore list and leaving you there, you contribute nothing to these threads except for veiled insults.
Very charitable of you to call 'em "veiled."
Where is that in the Constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by juniorspecial
It's not.... :eyes
Frederick Douglass, born into slavery in Maryland but escaped and eventually became a prominent spokesman for free blacks in the abolitionist movement, said: "Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or syllable of the Constitution need be altered," he wrote in 1864.
He, for one, believed that the government created by the Constitution "was never, in its essence, anything but an anti-slavery government."
The Constitution doesn't codify slavery. It does, however, include a tacit acknowledgment of slavery in the 3/5ths clause.
Slave owners wanted each of their slaves to be counted as a full person for purposes of determining population (and, in turn, representation in the federal government). A compromise was reached by which each slave would count as 3/5ths of a person, and that is a part of the Constitution. The word "slave" is never used, but the 3/5ths compromise is an acknowledgment that slavery existed and -- I personally think -- gives tacit approval to slavery.
The framers were, like our politicians today, humans with human failings. Nothing a group of humans produces is likely to be perfect, and the Constitution is not perfect. That's why we have amendments and a Supreme Court, to deal with those areas in which the Constitution is unclear, outdated, or (by contemporary standards) wrong.
It is, however, an awesome document on which an awesome country was founded.
(I don't use the word "awesome" unadvisedly here. Look at what this country has accomplished in less than 250 years; look at how far it has come; look at what it has been through and survived. It genuinely is awesome.)
Article IQuote:
Originally Posted by 71818
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons"
"This entity posits its genus as a John Chism but sensors indicate he belongs to the Steve Urkel species......"Quote:
Originally Posted by redb
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g...n/SpockGif.gif
"Fascinating!"
Just because Frederick Douglass said it, doesn't mean it was correct. The fact is, simply abolishing slavery would have left the free slaves with no vote and no citizenship--which would have been, and proved to be, in practice--a horrible idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by NTBluesGuitar
Hey, if you think the original Constitution was so great, would you like to see all the Amendments rescinded? Would you like Senators to be appointed, rather than elected? Would you like slavery to be legal? For black people to live in chains? Would you like there to be no free speech?
The original Constitution was full of flaws. So, I get very suspicious when people talk about wanting to get back to what "our founding fathers" intended. They didn't want women to vote, they didn't want black people to be free, and on and on with their ridiculous and antiquated ideas.
I'm glad this country has changed substantially since its founding. I wish it would change more, and become a fully civilized nation.
I don't gamble, drink or smoke, and they won't give me one of those cards, and we could really use it right now...
I'll remember that next time a Big 3 automaker lays people off.Quote:
Originally Posted by juniorspecial
The Bill of Rights IS part of the original Constitution, and the original Constitution provided for a means to change it. It's a stretch to insinuate all that you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by juniorspecial
The fact is that, although slavery was abolished by constitutional amendment, not one word of the original text was amended or deleted. It was in 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves.
The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.
If the Constitution was written to defend the practice of slavery, why was slavery not specifically codified in it? It is significant to note that the words "slave" and "slavery" were intentionally kept out of the Constitution. James Madison recorded in his notes that the constitutional delegates: "thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
Incidentally, I DO think that Senators should be directly appointed by State Legislators.
The 17th Amendment was brought about by a populist movement supercharged by muckraking articles in the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst. Those articles exposed corporate bribery of state legislators to control senatorial votes. As the direct election of senators by the people was a reaction to the corrupt lobbying of state legislatures in the late-19th-century Americans, it might seem odd to recommend its repeal now - but the 17th amendment has not yet ended the legal but appalling bribery of U.S. senators, has it? It has merely moved it to Washington.
The Constitution gave us a government created by the states, states and the people were superior to the Federal Government.
Why people keep looking to the source of theses problems for the solution is madness.
Your tax dollars at work -
Jul 1, 12:52 PM (ET)
By KELLI KENNEDY
MIAMI (AP) - A federal program designed to help impoverished families heat and cool their homes wasted more than $100 million paying the electric bills of thousands of applicants who were dead, in prison or living in million-dollar mansions, according to a government investigation.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spent $5 billion through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in 2009, doling out money to states with little oversight of the program. Some states don't verify applicants' identifies or income. For example, the program helped pay the electric bill of a woman who lives in a $2 million home in a wealthy Chicago suburb and drives a Mercedes, according to the yet-to-be released report obtained by The Associated Press.
The Government Accountability Office studied the program after a 2007 investigation by Pennsylvania's state auditor found 429 applicants received more than $162,000 using the Social Security numbers of dead people.
The GAO investigated Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Virginia, which represented about one-third of the program's funding in 2009. The agency found improper payments in about 9 percent of households receiving benefits in those states, totaling $116 million.
The report comes after a dramatic increase in the size of the assistance checks as fuel oil costs soared in 2008 and 2009.
"LIHEAP is supposed to be for poor people, not for cheats who pose as something or someone they're not and get their paperwork rubber-stamped by gullible government officials," said U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the ranking GOP member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which requested the investigation.
The program gives low-income residents checks made out to "Your Heating Supplier." The checks are marked with specific instructions to the bank that they are only to be deposited by the supplier.
Although individual states are primarily responsible for preventing the fraud, the study found lax oversight by HHS and little guidance on how to do so. Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia said they had trouble finding records to validate Social Security numbers and verify income.
Several state officials said they typically don't investigate or prosecute fraud in the program because the amount of money paid to each resident is so low.
The investigation found HHS paid thousands of dollars to people who were obviously ineligible for the program.
- HHS paid $3.9 million to 11,000 applicants who used the identities of dead people.
- HHS paid $370,000 to 725 applicants who were in prison.
- HHS paid $671,000 to about 1,100 people who made more than the maximum income to qualify for the program.
Illinois paid $840 toward energy bills for a U.S. Postal Service employee who fraudulently reported zero income even though she earned about $80,000 per year. "Times are tough and I needed the money," she told investigators.
New Jersey paid $3,200 to a nursing home on behalf of eight patients after the home's director applied for assistance. The patients' nursing home care was already paid by Medicaid.
Virginia provided three payments totaling $2,400 to three separate applicants at the same address, according to the report.
GAO employees in a sting operation also applied for benefits in Maryland and West Virginia, using counterfeit documents, fake addresses and fictitious companies. "All fraudulent claims were processed and the energy assistance payments were issued to our bogus landlords and company," according to the report.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she was "very disturbed" by the investigation.
"Public resources are limited, and a dollar spent on ineligible families is one less dollar available for those who genuinely need help," she said in a statement.
HHS now encourages states to require applicants to provide Social Security numbers to verify identities and check them against state databases that would show whether someone is dead, in prison or a nursing home. The agency also required all states to submit a detailed fraud prevention plan along with their funding requests.
A Pennsylvania woman who was an administrator for the program pleaded guilty in February to falsifying documents so she and five family members could receive about $24,000 in assistance, even though they were not eligible.
A New Jersey administrator was indicted in May for writing three applications to the program and then keeping the checks for himself.
The owner of a New Jersey oil company was sentenced to four years in prison last month after he admitted taking nearly $400,000 from the program by offering residents cash for their government-issued checks.
So I stepped away from this for a long while to cool my feet. In the meantime, I've been reading with interest the different opinions of people on this forum, and the differing levels of maturity with which they are offered.
For what it's worth, I think the discussion of the Constitution is fascinating. It was a document written within the context of the times. And within that context, it did an exceedingly good job at planning for the future by allowing for changes via amendments and by PURPOSEFULLY leaving certain sections vague and leaving out some information altogether. We'd be fools to think that it was written by an infallible force, though. And, because of that, lauding the constitution in ANY of its forms as the ultimate direction in which we should head seems as silly as expecting a pilot of a plane to kick on the infallible autopilot just as the left engine fails.
Here's what I was trying to express earlier:
Taxes serve a real purpose in our society. Bureaucracy does, too, unfortunately. As long as our society desires to exist, we need these things. It's like a big game of Jenga in which we've removed too many pieces. We can talk about corruption, waste, and efficiency until we turn blue in the face. We can discuss the size of government, historical precedent, political responsibility, or the elitist nature of politics, but this won't get us any closer to our goal of "fixing" anything. We are at a new place in history today, just as we were yesterday, and the day before, and the day before. You can't put a square peg in a round hole, and as such, the discussion of solutions to old problems in this modern context is simply a waste of time. You can't turn back the clock on decisions that have already been made, and you can't simply wipe the slate clean without some sort of drastic societal shift. What we need is a new perspective, a new national direction, and that's not going to come from politicians, and it's not going to come from the equally idiotic anti- crowd either.
You don't form communities through alienation, you form them through understanding, tolerance, and recognition of need. And in so doing, you create agents of change where none existed before. If anyone is interested, you can email me regarding ideas I am currently enacting in the NYC area to build solidarity in communities requiring (and not being given) the sort of assistance that photoweborama is seeking currently.
OSA: wise words. Never forget where you came from. SUCH a philosophy to live by.
Phantomman: I'm severely, severely disappointed. For a person of your incredible intellect and proficiency, why do you feel the need to hinder legitimate discussion? Sure, condescension coming from a 23 year old will probably get under your skin (it would get under mine, and I'm the 23 year old in question), but I'm just sad to see that level of immaturity in what is usually such a safe and welcoming space.
CzarSketch,
You make a lot of good points.
It seems several of the posters here really do need to "get out of their mother's basement", and find out how the world exists. The idea of more taxes, more government, (and the associated services), have all been tried elsewhere, and the europeans are going broke! Greece and Spain are virtually bankrupt providing services, and early retirement to their people without the income to pay for it.
Once you learn that government economy is no different than the individual, (if you don't have the money, you can't afford it), you see what you have to buy, not what you would like to.
All wealth comes from the ground, and the rest of us trade our labor (services),or goods we took from the ground, to folks who have the goods that we need to live. Of course things get more complicated when we have money as an indicator of wealth, as money is no longer tied to a certain value, and countries can print all they want. This is what happened in Greece, the country does not produce enough wealth (GDP) to pay for its spending, so it's money is worthless. Now other european nations are trying to prop up their economy so their own currency (Euro) is worth something.
We really don't want that to happen here, although the left is trying!
Bill,
That "the left" is trying to bring us to our economic knees is an inaccurate statement and a generalization. It's just as true to say that "the right" is a bunch of gun-toting bigoted crazies. Also entirely untrue.
The examples of Greece and Spain are also not really accurate here--Greece misrepresented its financial status in the same way that AIG did, and suffered the consequences once the financial fabric started to tear at the seams. Spain is following because out of the countries in Europe, it has the most fragile economy.
Government economy is entirely different from that of the individual. Certainly fiscal solvency is key, but a government operates much more like a corporation, with gigantic lines of credit, outstanding debts, IOU systems, and the like.
All wealth does NOT come from the ground. In fact, most wealth is held by the top 1% of citizens in the world, and that wealth is traded and traded and traded--in the financial sector, money itself is what makes money. In this country in particular, there are very few things that back up the wealth held by our richest citizens. That's one of the main reasons we're in this crisis--we allowed companies to pretend they had financial worth that they didn't have.
As for printing money we can't back up, we've been doing that ever since Nixon. Our currency is not backed by precious metals any longer, nor is it tied to anything other than other currencies. That ship has sailed, sir.
And that's sort of what I mean--we are in a situation we have never been in. Round hole. Square peg.
They make great guitars in California... and of course there are those "California Girls" we have all enjoyed ogling over the years, and of course lots of cool things are there... So let it go and vote when you can, talk is cheap actions run deep!
Post o' the week!Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
CS, I wish I was around 20 years from now, and had the chance to get your opinion, once you've paid a lot of bills , and raised a family. You and your kids, and my kids, and grandkids will still be paying off the debts incurred in the last few years. Then you will know what us "experienced" guys are talking about. The rhetoric only works in academia, not in real life. The guys who are teaching, are not the ones that have made it in life.
My old boss used to have a term for many of the professors at our little college, most had no common sense, and went on endlessly about how they felt, and what they were thinking when their car quit. They couldn't tell you if they were uphill, downhill, accelerating or braking when it occured though. When I asked the boss what was happening, he would say "hell he don't know, it's one of those sexual intellectuals, you know, they read all about it".
I'll be 45 this month, and I'm liberal as can be. Will you discard my opinions as coming from youth and inexperience?
Elicross, there is another option, we have been given the means, and ability, but it is up to us to use that knowledge. If you're happy with the burden left to our kids and grandkids, as a means of advancing the agenda of the left, so be it.
You should contact your favorite liberal congressman before this november though, and wish them well in the unemployment line. Most folks have had enough!
Bill, do you see that egg over there? It's a chicken I don't think you've counted yet.
I really like the line " I can see november from my house".
I not only mocks the left's view of their scariest adversary, Sarah, but it is a harbinger of things to come.
Not only is Hockey Mom not our scariest adversary, she's our greatest hope. In the extremely unlikely even that she becomes the GOP nominee for president in 2012, she'll hand President Obama his second term on a silver platter. That's an unhatched egg I *will* count as a chicken.
Hard not to comment on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by elicross
It would sound absurd to say that Obama is Carter times ten.
But I said it in summer of 2007.
"Mark it on the calender".
So please just detail for me how the current administration is doing anything that helps push the engine of industry forward. The tax cuts will expire, it will kill the very engine that is huffing for breath right now.
Growth?
What growth?
Unemployment number drops because people have given up...read...their benefits ran out and they are not counted.
I have never seen those numbers that upside down, and I grew up in the Carter fiasco.
"Great guy, really meant well...etc. Rubbish"
There is no doubt in my mind.
The current administration and the infamous Congress that gained control in 2006.
Repeat after me:
2006.
Say it again...2006.
OK, now that great institution that gained control when the very tail end of the legacy of Reagan died in the halls of Congress in 2006.
Blame Bush and march forward to place the boots on the necks of the producers of the country.
So here we stand.
Blame whoever.
The wrong steps are being taken at very worst time.
They seem to believe wealth comes from the government, or from penalizing the producers.
Only hope there is, is that the Congress will turn over to NOT Republicans, but to Conservatives.
Those that place their belief in the power of the small business owner that ultimately drives everything both upwards, and provides the basic services and jobs we desperately need NOW.
Anything else is just Soviet style redistribution, and in a world based economy...they will continue to drive the jobs elsewhere.
Libs are the worst, but to the uneducated, sound the best.
Whatever their professed best intentions...the opposite happens because they do not believe in the industrious good faith of Men without Government.
And that's all I am saying about that!
:laughing:
No one took control of Congress in 2006.
The Democratic Party won control of Congress in 2006. They took control in January of 2007.
The Bush tax cuts are not expiring for everyone. They're expiring for individuals who make more than $200,000 a year, and for families that make more than $250,000 a year.
If you make more than that, congratulations. And on behalf of those of us who voted for President Obama and the Democrats, you're welcome.
Businesses do not pay taxes, they pass it on to consumers. This is a basic economic principle and despite the simple premise it is actually quite a deep observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cygnus X1
In fact, I'm all for a complete elimination of corporate income taxes. Of course, the people making a lot of money (say, 250gs or more) need to get ready to have a high marginal tax rate for those dollars exceeding 250g. And you'll actually have to pay that 30% on that money (though of course anything you make less than that will be charged at a lower rate so dont go telling me you would drop an income tax bracket that is actually the least intelligent statement anyone could make; you cannot ever make less money by moving up a tax bracket in a scheduled system). Im especially against sales taxes; they are dreadful, regressive things.
If your supposition is that government cannot represent a solution you should bow out of the discussion. You do not contribute anything by saying we can do nothing; so wait patiently and if the other solutions fail then you can say "told you so".
But you'll never get that opportunity. Ask Herbert Hoover how that worked out for him. For that matter, ask Ayn Rand how happy she really was (hint: not at all).
I happen to have a 4 year degree in economics. It's true, my life experiences arent anything like most people's, but I fail to see how what I learned was useless. It certainly applies to my own life. Maybe instead of telling me how I should throw myself into misery, you should take the hand that I so desperately want to extend to you. One that I have the tools, incidentally, to make happen.
I think people allow jealousy and anger to crush the things they know are right. If you want to know the honest truth, I have always had to rely on others to give me moral guidance in these issues. I am as cold and emotionless a person as you will ever find, but I found solace in some unexpected places.
Again I cannot understand the spite towards a spirit of sharing that I see out of some of you. Do you really believe it's impossible? And if it is actually impossible, do you resign yourself to focus inwards and sell everyone else up the creek?
Some of you have far too much faith in humans as decision makers. I need but one piece of evidence to show that regular people are absolutely horrible at being economically intelligent:
people buy lottery tickets at 5 dollars a piece.
next time you have a second, think about the probability of winning the lottery and compare it with how much the jackpot is worth, and you will find out why states make money hand over fist with them.
Taking away from that group in particular shifts economic activity towards the government and away from others downstream that could use the jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by elicross
People think 250K is "rich".
Not at all.
Some are at retirement age and that money will barely hold them over if they live long enough.
The younger ones who spend it are spreading their wealth to the people who provide the items and services.
Not to mention the small business owners in that group.
Well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by redb
I can't change your mind on that point, so I find it impossible to have a conversation.
That doesn't mean you win the argument.
Grouping everyone in that one category is as ignorant a statement as one could make.Quote:
Originally Posted by redb
My distrust for government does not grow about due to bitterness or not wanting to share my wealth.
I would FAR rather pay a guy to cut my grass with the money I have to pay in taxes...to pay that guy unemployment benefits...and so on.
Instead I have to wonder if he's just plain lazy for collecting checks while he gets increasingly frustrated because he can't seem to get any work.
Fact is he is getting enslaved to the redistributionist system.
A drink or two is fine.
Getting drunk is bad.
OSA's Law states that:
"The more inclined somebody is to to lecture me about values and morality the more likely it is that that person is buggering underage boys."
And it's corollary states "The more inclined someone is to lecture me about how little I know about economics the more unlikely it is that that person has made as much money or amassed as much personal wealth as I have."
I am pretty progressive, not because I can latch on to the bumper sticker wisdom of talking points, but because I can think.
The problems with California's economy are a direct result Reaganomincs and the subsequent actions by Clinton which backed up rather than rescinded the Reagan polices.
As a direct result of those policies VC's are no longer interested in new technologies unless they are scaled in China. Want proof ? Look at the unemployment rate in Silicon Valley. About the highest in the country.
California is the bellwether of the US economy. New technology is scaled overseas, so no american jobs are created, the middle class gets squeezed out. The middle class taxes carry the state. So we remove the ability of the middle class to pay the tax burden while at the same time giving unprecedented tax breaks to the richest americans.
Anybody - anybody - ANYBODY who thinks this is sound fiscal policy and wants to explain to me how it is, I'm all ears.
All americans should be watching what is happening in California and getting very, very concerned.
The top earners, high value VC's invest... in offshore scaling which reduces US jobs. Unless you have an Asian scaling plan, nobody will even talk to you.
Which is all bullshit. The company I am helping right now manufactures in the US and ships to customers in China and makes a good profit. It can be done.
Tell you what. You all can keep bellowing slogans at each other. In the mean time, I'll just put my head down and use my time and talent to make America a better place and create good jobs for my countrymen and women - while the righties keep calling me a shitty american.
Businesses do not pay taxes, they pass it on to consumers. This is a basic economic principle and despite the simple premise it is actually quite a deep observation.
I am willing to bet 70% of the voting public does not comprehend this!
I am still waiting for the 'flat tax' that was promised 10 year back.
EVERY ONE pays "X" % - no more social engineering, government incentives, rebates, creits, deductions, loop holes, etc etc.. you make $100 or a million you pay the same rate. It can't be more simple of fair
I'm sure the accountants would be harmed but I think the big picture would be better.
It's time for a 3rd party to enter the elected - maybe a new group of crooks would be less effective at looking out for their own interests
No personal attacks, end my political rant.
+1 OSA.
Yes, Bill, I'm young. I'm also Jewish, white, male, not wealthy, educated, I speak english and spanish, and have a beard. Do you want to make assumptions on the quality of my opinions based on those factors, too? You'd be right in assuming my age affects my judgment, but you'd be wrong to assume it makes my opinion invalid.
Also, quit assuming I'm a democrat. Or a socialist. Or anything other than a fellow citizen who has the same concerns and frustrating experiences as you. The communities that their problems are similar and their salvation lies in collective action are the ones that are able to turn things around. Look at Barbados and their history with the IMF. Or the founding of this country.
Again--and this is a shameless plug--if you'd really like to engage me in a discussion about community development and responsibility, I am part of many different efforts to promote solidarity in communities that need help in NYC. I'd be more than happy to talk to anyone about what seems to work and what doesn't, in reality, in this day and age.
The idea that a flat income tax is a good way to handle our taxes is ridiculous. Somebody making a million dollars a year should pay taxes at a higher percentage rate than someone making fifty thousand.
The idea of a progressive income tax is one of the inviolate principles of a civilized society.
Look around, and look through the history pages as well. There has been no successful stable country that has relied solely on a flat tax system. The reason being, that if one taxes the poor at the very same rate as the rich, the poor--who outnumber the rich--resent it, and it leads to all sorts of social problems. Not the least of which is rioting.
In principle and in the abstract it may look attractive. But, like free love, and some other great notions, it doesn't acknowledge some basic human emotions. And is thus doomed to failure.
Personally, I'd be happy to pay a higher income tax rate in exchange for making a quarter of a million buckazoids a year. I'd cry all the way to the bank -- in my red Corvette -- about how some of my money was going to reduce the deficit, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare of my fellow citizens. Just show me where I sign up!
I can't agree that businesses pay no taxes, but instead pass them on to their customers. That simply doesn't hold water with the company I work for.
Our customers are constantly looking for ways to cut their costs, which means they squeeze us for every bit they can get. We can't pass on the cost of a pencil to a customer without them screaming for a concession the price of a car.
There's only one way I know of for businesses to not pay taxes, and that is for them to not make a profit. They can't make a profit if the customers are tightening the purse strings and competitors are likewise reducing their prices to stay competative. Of course, not making a profit is completely counter productive to being in business, and businessmen will do what they can to make a company profitable. This generally means reducing the companies expenses as much as possible. The greatest expense for any company is salaries, and that's where they start their cuts (because if they were good businessmen to begin with, all other costs of doing business are already trimmed lean). Reducing salaries typically means getting rid of people, you know, the same people whom the socialists are trying to "help". Increasing taxes on businesses in other places besides "income tax" (such as payroll taxes, VAT taxes, use taxes, sales taxes, increased regulatory taxes such as what are promised in the cap and trade scam, and increased government regulatoins in general) all cause a business to reduce the number of employees. Socialists seem to fail to recognize that the government can not function to provide for "those poor souls" if the engine that drives the government (taxes) ceases to run. It is at that point that socialism has historically failed, and will continue to fail, because then the people still demand their entitlement benefits that the government can no longer provide.
There is a reason that a lot of companies shift their operations overseas, and that reason is simple. It is less expensive to operate there than it is here. The only solution to that problem is to make it more cost effective to produce here, meaning less government, taxes, and restrictions. Then companies will be in a position to make money, hire people, and feed the governments tax/spend habit. But then... the entire cycle would begin again....