Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 125 of 125
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: The US republicans made/created America's national debt, and then they lie, and say the democrats did it.

  1. #101  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The rich used the "supply side"/ "trickle down" tax cuts to build factories in China.

    True to a large degree because of the unfavorable tax structure, burdensome deeply layered regulations, and expensive work force of operating in the US.


    Do you really think those regulations are there to make life difficult for the rich? They're there to create a protectionist buffer around the largest corporations. Small businesses can't break into the market as easily because they'd have to open up with a product equal to another that took decades of R&D to create, or they'll fail to meet regulations.

    It's about climbing a hill and then blocking the way so that nobody else can climb it. They just have to be superman and leap strait to the top of that hill in a single bound.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    On SS, none address my key points. It's not in the Constitution, isn't a separate trust (It frequently exchanges money with the general fund), is very low-yielding and extremely regressive tax systems--I never said it's going bankrupt. I care deeply for the Constitution, if I'm going to be forced to pay 6.3% I'd like some respectable return and none of us like regressive tax systems.

    There's no such thing as a zero-risk investment that yields "respectable" returns. If you get such a return, then the reason is almost always going to be because you payed a price in risk to get that return.

    I'd feel pity for a person who put their 401k in a suit of mutual funds that decided to buy toxic debt like those mortgage bundles. You can't expect everyone to be a financial expert and know where they should or should not put their money. Some people are just hard workers who contribute in other ways. They don't deserve to be swindled into desperation simply because they lacked one particular talent or skill that maybe you posses. You have to have the humility to accept that you probably lack something too, and the finger you point outward could point again in your direction someday.


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Do you really think those regulations are there to make life difficult for the rich?
    That's a false argument. Roughly 50% of Americans are investors, anything that drags down corporate profits effect half the American population. While it doesn't' make me happy when something I'm investing in builds overseas, the reality is I know the it's a matter of supporting that decision by continuing to invest there, or take it in the shorts. The burden of redundant regulations, taxes are a burden on half of us directly and all of us indirectly.

    I'd feel pity for a person who put their 401k in a suit of mutual funds that decided to buy toxic debt like those mortgage bundles.
    Why? I don't. I actually think people should be responsible for themselves. And honestly it would be pretty easy to limit the types of market investments if the system were privatized--you could even limit it to common market and bond index funds. The time spans are so long, they can weather pretty much any economic downturns and still come out far ahead of SS unless you happen to be an upper middle class white women who'll likely draw SS until their 90s. I'm not suggesting the system be unregulated...I am suggesting we have more options than a mandatory tax, sadly regressive, low-yield Ponzi scheme we have now.

    Philosophically our nation is upside down. When times are hard the order of wells to get help from should be family, private and charitable organizations, community, state and as a last measure the federal government. That is the core philosophy that made the US the greatest economic and freedom bearing nation in the world.

    --
    As a separate issue, the first night of the Dem convention went pretty well (though the Kennedy tribute was unnecessary) --the Governor of MA rocks. Sadly I'm torn between the Dems on social issue and the Tea Party on budget ones--there's no room for moderate republicans in either party right now.

    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; September 5th, 2012 at 02:20 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    [QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;349913]


    I'd feel pity for a person who put their 401k in a suit of mutual funds that decided to buy toxic debt like those mortgage bundles.
    Why? I don't. I actually think people should be responsible for themselves.


    Do you understand the concept of "specialization"? In an ideal industrial society not everyone needs to be good at everything. Indeed it is best if most people are not. It works the best if most people are highly specialized at just one task at which they excel and have a minimum of knowledge about everything else. It's not bad if they know other stuff, but only so long as it takes no time away from their primary task.

    What you're proposing is for every last citizen in the country to be so knowledgeable about investment that they can't be swindled by people who are specialized in just that one area. That's like expecting every last person to be so familiar with auto-mechanics that they never get a bad deal at the mechanic shop. Only worse, because you want them to have to lose their whole retirement if they fail.


    Philosophically our nation is upside down. When times are hard the order of wells to get help from should be family, private and charitable organizations, community, state and as a last measure the federal government. That is the core philosophy that made the US the greatest economic and freedom bearing nation in the world.



    We could argue a long time about what "made" the USA the greatest economic and freedom bearing nation in the world. Personally I'd go with the "Lousiana Purchase" as my answer.

    And I've already explained why state/local systems don't work. They just become magnets. I remember visiting Salt Lake City in the early 90's after an initiative had been made to build really good homeless shelters there. The place was filled to the brim with homeless people. They shipped in from all over the country and flooded that service into excess.

    A federal program has the advantage that it is able to avoid targeted migration. It also has the advantage that orphans don't get the short end of the stick.

    Last edited by kojax; September 5th, 2012 at 06:45 AM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I suppose one option that would make us both happy would be if social security were a choice, or the government would guarantee certain 401k options in the same way as how it guarantees bank accounts.

    At the same time, I wouldn't know what to do with elderly people who opted out of it. Basic sympathy makes it pretty difficult to just watch someone who's made mistakes pay the penalty by living out their twilight years in desperation or on the streets. I'm sure many people suffered that fate in the early stages of the USA. History tends to forget those who made less noticeable contributions to it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    At the same time, I wouldn't know what to do with elderly people who opted out of it. Basic sympathy makes it pretty difficult to just watch someone who's made mistakes pay the penalty by living out their twilight years in desperation or on the streets. I'm sure many people suffered that fate in the early stages of the USA. History tends to forget those who made less noticeable contributions to it.

    Most of those who opted out, even if they invested conservatively in the general market, would be far better off---that's my point. Over four decades the market has never fallen in America's history--for those my age even a record of bad investments, buying at high points and selling at low points still comes out ahead of SS--trust me I'm not an investment wizard--far from it. While the idea of desperate elderly makes me shun as well, it doen't acknowledge that the elderly are actually the wealthiest demographic group in the US. The desperate elderly, is somewhat an argument in extreme that applies the only a tiny number of people--people who could be helped by the order of organizations and government I listed in the prior post.

    Just for clarity of my position, I'm much more against SS than I am against Obama/Romney care--getting older doesn't come as a surprise and suddenly strike us down, like unforeseen medical problems can.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    To hell with compassion
    to hell with ss--forget that many of us have been paying into the fund for most of our lives, and feel entitled to them holding up their end of the bargain.
    and giving some of that money back
    are you your brother's keeper
    if the old and the poor are too damned old or weak to support themselves after the corporate pigs and raiders have hogged billions of our money, then just force them to work out in the fields until they die, then just plow them under and use 'em as fertilizer
    or send 'em out to a rendering plant, make some soilent green and feed the pigs

    after all, are we not really here to serve the corporate pigs and upper classes
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    As usual, I do rather enjoy the way you put things, I think you made your point very well with that, lol.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Nothing is less compassionate than forcing people to give up their hard earned money, putting it into a fund with gaurenteed low or no return (unless they wealthy white and don't need it anyhow) investments that they can't leave for their children.

    People makes lots of emotional arguments as well. No one's suggesting the money already put in would be lost--first of all that money is ALREADY LOST, that's why it's one of the largest chunks of the deficit--a debt to be payed by our grandchildren in one of the most backwards social contracts imaginable (moral societies try to lessen the burden on their descendants--not increase their burdens); also every suggested transition has been over long periods, 20 or more years. People argue about particular risky investments, when nothing suggest these couldn't' be limited or even eliminated as options close to retirement age. (I've done this to my own investments over the years and every major mutual fund company has reams and reams of advise as well as tailor made funds which make it trivially simple). Lastly, people talk about the market drops a few years back in some imaginary doomsday scenario that completely ignores that's it's already recovered and than some--over a 40 year period it wouldn't have amounted to any significant effect, nor hurt people near retirement. The harsh reality is if the private investments do so bad that people can't get good returns over 40 years of savings--then by than the nation as a whole will have done horribly and deficits will be so bad it will force massive austerity programs or extremely high tax rates--either way creating the types of civil disruption we are seeing in Southern EU. I'm amazed sometimes how little confidence people have in their own nation--that and rather disgusted by it.

    Not sure why the inherent regressive nature of the program gets so little attention.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; September 5th, 2012 at 02:43 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    At the same time, I wouldn't know what to do with elderly people who opted out of it. Basic sympathy makes it pretty difficult to just watch someone who's made mistakes pay the penalty by living out their twilight years in desperation or on the streets. I'm sure many people suffered that fate in the early stages of the USA. History tends to forget those who made less noticeable contributions to it.

    Most of those who opted out, even if they invested conservatively in the general market, would be far better off---that's my point. Over four decades the market has never fallen in America's history--for those my age even a record of bad investments, buying at high points and selling at low points still comes out ahead of SS--trust me I'm not an investment wizard--far from it. While the idea of desperate elderly makes me shun as well, it doen't acknowledge that the elderly are actually the wealthiest demographic group in the US. The desperate elderly, is somewhat an argument in extreme that applies the only a tiny number of people--people who could be helped by the order of organizations and government I listed in the prior post.

    You're still looking at this too ideal-ly. What happens to the old guy who meets a young, idealistic entrepreneur with a horrible idea, and sinks his savings into the firm as it chokes to death under its own folly? Maybe that kid is his son or grandson.

    What if he hears about a really great mutual fund that's giving out 15% annual returns - but it turns out to be a Ponzi scheme? Or it was technically "legitimate" but had invested to the hilt in savings and loan funds before the crisis, and declares bankruptcy?

    I'm sure as a soldier you've faced situations many times where you had to take your life in your own hands, and could live or die by a single bad decision. And I can see how that would taint your sense of sympathy. But that still begs the question: what do we do with this guy after he's made his bid and failed? Do we just shoot him in the head and put him out of his misery, or let the streets kill him?

    And of course that's where the analogy breaks down. Suppose a soldier is maimed so he can't work, but isn't killed. Whether it's bad luck or incompetence, we don't just leave him out to the elements, not quite anyway. We give him some kind of money to support himself. Old age is a maiming we see coming a long ways off, and try to plan for, but we may fail. That too could either be bad luck or incompetence.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Without the EPA there would be no one to stop pollution.







    You are saying abolishing the EPA its the best thing for America.
    Then you said groups like the Washington State Department of Ecology, can handle the job of the EPA.

    But Washington state is a state, that is 100% run/controlled by democrats/socialists.
    You have listed evidence that Washington State (may) be ok without the EPA.

    Can you list evidence that all 50 states will be ok without the EPA?


    So far you (may) have shown that states, that are 100% controlled by democrats/socialists, (may) be ok without the EPA.

    Can you list any evidence that the other 49 states would be ok?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Nothing is less compassionate than forcing people to give up their hard earned money, putting it into a fund with gaurenteed low or no return (unless they wealthy white and don't need it anyhow) investments that they can't leave for their children.

    People makes lots of emotional arguments as well. No one's suggesting the money already put in would be lost--first of all that money is ALREADY LOST, that's why it's one of the largest chunks of the deficit--a debt to be payed by our grandchildren in one of the most backwards social contracts imaginable (moral societies try to lessen the burden on their descendants--not increase their burdens); also every suggested transition has been over long periods, 20 or more years. People argue about particular risky investments, when nothing suggest these couldn't' be limited or even eliminated as options close to retirement age. (I've done this to my own investments over the years and every major mutual fund company has reams and reams of advise as well as tailor made funds which make it trivially simple). Lastly, people talk about the market drops a few years back in some imaginary doomsday scenario that completely ignores that's it's already recovered and than some--over a 40 year period it wouldn't have amounted to any significant effect, nor hurt people near retirement. The harsh reality is if the private investments do so bad that people can't get good returns over 40 years of savings--then by than the nation as a whole will have done horribly and deficits will be so bad it will force massive austerity programs or extremely high tax rates--either way creating the types of civil disruption we are seeing in Southern EU. I'm amazed sometimes how little confidence people have in their own nation--that and rather disgusted by it.

    Not sure why the inherent regressive nature of the program gets so little attention.




    I looked at the tax systems of Switzerland and Washington State.
    And even though they are democrats/socialists, they have many of the tax ideas that you want.


    Washington (state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Maybe your sometimes with the left, and don't even know it?
    Last edited by chad; September 5th, 2012 at 10:36 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    No one's suggesting the money already put in would be lost--first of all that money is ALREADY LOST, .
    actually, the money ain't yet lost, the SS trust fund has loaned the US government the excess from income to expenditures at interest which is always more than the rate of inflation, (currently 4.4% while my savings account returns 1.4%) and that fund is now 2.7 trillion dollars.

    If your government wants to borrow money to feed it's military industrial machine, then it has had an easy place to borrow. But sooner or later, the piper must be paid--------with the income and the trust fund, the SS fund should be solvent for another 25-30 years

    So SS ain't a big part of the deficit, it helps keep the deficit in house, and is indeed an extra source of money for the federal government.
    safety costs(eg: the higher the bond ratings, the lower the return), the return may be less than that from wallstreet, but it is guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. Were you just a soldier, or do you take your government's obligations seriously?
    Do you feel entitled to your pension?

    If I loan you a dollar, and you promise to pay it back plus interest when I retire, then I am entitled to that return.
    So when politicians talk about messing with entitlement programs, I wonder just how crooked some bastards can actually be?

    ....................
    Would I have chosen to pay into the fund if given a free choice? Probably not. But then again, I didn't choose to be drafted into the army.
    And, then again my personality alway led me to answer yo or here when someone said they were looking for a volunteer......
    When the government makes a decision, I tend to go along with it even if and as I speak out against it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Lynx
    We simply cannot afford to have such a costly military.
    Perhaps, we need to take a step back and let others come up to the plate.
    Or find another source of funding?
    By what measure. It's not the most expensive part of our total budget, but IS Constitutionally mandated, while our vast and growing social programs (Social security, Medicare& Medicade) are not--That makes it really easy to prioritize things.

    I do agree we could probably reduce, perhaps by as much as half, the military budget, I wanted to caution though that the need to take up much of the slack to make up for reduced force projection capabilities can't be done in 4 or even 8 years--such a move would take a decade or more--longer than our political cycles. Such an effort would likely be stalled as well by the harsh reality that many of the nation's we'd want to build up to protect their regions have gone for generations comfortable with US protection, largely blind to the threats and reluctant to increase their own budgets even if for their own good.


    I am sorry for posting to you so many times. I just wanted to say that I actually agree, with many of the things you say and want.

    I also like the idea of states having individual powers and responsibilities for many reasons. It allows many different laws/ideas to be implemented, and then the other states can choose which is the best option. And a state can take responsibility from the federal government, to do a better job or save money. ex.ex. I very strongly believe and desire for states to have strong rights and power.

    I must also concede that many of your tax ideas, are the same ideas that many of the worlds best performing countries use, and I was so shocked when I learned that socialists countries use your ideas (along with a philosophy of caring.)


    I think maybe with Social Security you fail to realize that everyone is not like you. Perhaps (you) could live without the Social Security system, but the average American can not.

    A very high percentage of the seniors I know need their Social Security checks. And I do not believe the average American should gamble with their retirement funds. I have seen the stock market crash, and I saw a middle class person loose $90,000, and a upper middle class person loose $400,000. It seems that if Social Security was privatized during that crash, seniors would have lost a lot of their retirement money.



    You speak of the US constitution not calling for Social Security, but I think your wrong.

    "we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america."


    establish justice- to make things right (and that's taking care of seniors.)
    insure domestic tranquility- to make sure every house is happy.
    promote the general welfare- promote all Americans doing well.


    I do not think these words, call for our federal government to let people die from no health insurance, nor do they call for our federal government to let little children go hungry, nor do they call for the federal government to allow seniors to live in poverty.


    Have a nice day/night,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Nothing is less compassionate than forcing people to give up their hard earned money, putting it into a fund with gaurenteed low or no return (unless they wealthy white and don't need it anyhow) investments that they can't leave for their children.
    That would be a good reason not to require soldiers to pay into it, since they stand a high chance of dying early in life. Most of the rest of us aren't likely to suffer that fate.

    But I thought they already didn't pay into it. (Pretty sure most government employees don't pay into it.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    No one's suggesting the money already put in would be lost--first of all that money is ALREADY LOST, .
    actually, the money ain't yet lost, the SS trust fund has loaned the US government the excess from income to expenditures at interest which is always more than the rate of inflation, (currently 4.4% while my savings account returns 1.4%) and that fund is now 2.7 trillion dollars.
    It currently takes in more than it spends but it's part of the deficit because it's "obligations" based on projected future contributions against supporting the baby boomers put it well into the red.


    If I loan you a dollar, and you promise to pay it back plus interest when I retire, then I am entitled to that return.
    So when politicians talk about messing with entitlement programs, I wonder just how crooked some bastards can actually be?

    ....................
    Would I have chosen to pay into the fund if given a free choice? Probably not. But then again, I didn't choose to be drafted into the army.
    And, then again my personality alway led me to answer yo or here when someone said they were looking for a volunteer......
    When the government makes a decision, I tend to go along with it even if and as I speak out against it.
    There is no such actual promise--for social security, or government employment pensions (the courts have ruled on them several times)--they are simply assumed from decades of how it's been.

    --
    promote the general welfare- promote all Americans doing well.

    I addressed this earlier in the thread--there's a list of the types of things the fed government should be doing--none of which involve giving money directly to individuals.


    But I thought they already didn't pay into it. (Pretty sure most government employees don't pay into it.)

    ALL government employees pay into Social Security, including military, congress and the president. When I first started as a meteorologist in the early 80s there was a civil retirement system that got switched over about 1985 or so.

    And I guess the question that always comes up but seldom gets answered, is where are the liberals views about the roles of State governments. The US Constitution is mostly about limiting power and allowing the states and individuals to run their own matters--it seems we're quite far from that vision, and as a result, squandering enormous $ in wasteful spending by allowing (or even demanding) those most removed from the problems (the federal level) to attempt to "fix," local and individual problems. The States have more ability to analyze and come up with viable and efficient solutions than they ever have, yet we continue to obstruct them with federal rules and regulations that are all-to-often inefficient one size fits all soluations such as Federal education requirements which severely restrict State flexibility to try and innovate their own effective public schools--essentially forcing on them a standard model which continues to fail our younger generation.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; September 6th, 2012 at 01:08 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I think maybe with Social Security you fail to realize that everyone is not like you. Perhaps (you) could live without the Social Security system, but the average American can not.

    A very high percentage of the seniors I know need their Social Security checks. And I do not believe the average American should gamble with their retirement funds. I have seen the stock market crash, and I saw a middle class person loose $90,000, and a upper middle class person loose $400,000. It seems that if Social Security was privatized during that crash, seniors would have lost a lot of their retirement money.
    Do you think social security is safer than the stock market? I hate to break it to you, Chad, but the government is busted, flat broke and even in perilous debt. Eventually when the house of cards comes down, somebody who is relying on the government for their social security is going to be very disappointed to find the money is just not there.


    You speak of the US constitution not calling for Social Security, but I think your wrong.

    "we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america."
    This is the preamble to the Constitution, not the Constitution.
    I do not think these words, call for our federal government to let people die from no health insurance, nor do they call for our federal government to let little children go hungry, nor do they call for the federal government to allow seniors to live in poverty.

    Chad.
    Nothing in the constitution says that people should die or go hungry. If you are charitable, you can help to prevent these things yourself. Must everything that happens be done by the federal government?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    No one's suggesting the money already put in would be lost--first of all that money is ALREADY LOST, .
    actually, the money ain't yet lost, the SS trust fund has loaned the US government the excess from income to expenditures at interest which is always more than the rate of inflation, (currently 4.4% while my savings account returns 1.4%) and that fund is now 2.7 trillion dollars.
    It currently takes in more than it spends but it's part of the deficit because it's "obligations" based on projected future contributions against supporting the baby boomers put it well into the red.


    If I loan you a dollar, and you promise to pay it back plus interest when I retire, then I am entitled to that return.
    So when politicians talk about messing with entitlement programs, I wonder just how crooked some bastards can actually be?

    ....................
    Would I have chosen to pay into the fund if given a free choice? Probably not. But then again, I didn't choose to be drafted into the army.
    And, then again my personality alway led me to answer yo or here when someone said they were looking for a volunteer......
    When the government makes a decision, I tend to go along with it even if and as I speak out against it.
    There is no such actual promise--for social security, or government employment pensions (the courts have ruled on them several times)--they are simply assumed from decades of how it's been.

    --
    promote the general welfare- promote all Americans doing well.

    I addressed this earlier in the thread--there's a list of the types of things the fed government should be doing--none of which involve giving money directly to individuals.


    But I thought they already didn't pay into it. (Pretty sure most government employees don't pay into it.)

    ALL government employees pay into Social Security, including military, congress and the president. When I first started as a meteorologist in the early 80s there was a civil retirement system that got switched over about 1985 or so.



    From a scientific standpoint, it is interesting how the republican brain changes the US constitution, in order to make the constitution serve Americas rich and large corporations.


    Like the republican brain believes "the federal government can only give money to the rich, and never give money to regular Americans."

    example,
    Its ok that "supply side" federal laws are passed to give the rich money.
    Its ok that large corporations like GE pay 0% in federal taxes, (and then they get $3 billion dollar federal welfare checks.)

    Republicans believe passing "supply side" federal laws to give the rich money is good. But when the federal government gives money to Americans that are held down by racism, poverty, and lack of jobs, the republicans say this is wrong.

    The republicans believe you can give the rich "supply side" federal money, thats what you believe the constitution states.
    But republicans say its wrong to give regular American seniors federal money, unless they qualify for federal supply side money give aways.




    And the constitution states "only congress has the power to make laws."
    But the republican brain change this to "but the rich can also make Americas laws."

    Americas laws are no longer written by congress, they are now written by lawyers for large corporations like GE.
    But republicans believe its ok that large corporations lawyers write all of Americas laws instead of congress, because these lawyers that write all of Americas laws are working for the rich.

    But if the lawyers of school teachers or police officers were writing federal US laws, the republicans would go on the war path.



    I would re-post the preamble of the US constitution, to explain how our founding fathers wanted all Americans to be happy and secure. But whats the point, the republican brain will twist and alter those words.


    Will you complain about "supply side laws" that give federal money to the rich, so they can buy airplanes and big houses?
    Will you complain about corporations like GE paying 0% in federal taxes, and then getting $3 billion dollar federal welfare checks?
    Will you complain about rich Americans lawyers writing all of Americas federal laws?


    No, you will fight to divert American seniors retirement money through Wall street, so the Wall street billionaires can take $750 billion dollars of the seniors money in fees.


    As always have a nice day/night,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; September 6th, 2012 at 02:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    From a scientific standpoint, it is interesting how the republican brain changes the US constitution, in order to make the constitution serve Americas rich and large corporations.


    Like the republican brain believes "the federal government can only give money to the rich, and never give money to regular Americans."

    example,
    Its ok that "supply side" laws are passed to give the rich money.
    Which laws are you referring to and how do the "give" the rich money?
    Its ok that large corporations like GE pay 0% in taxes, (and then get $3 billion dollar welfare checks.)
    That never happened.
    Republicans believe passing "supply side" laws to give the rich money is good. But when the government gives money to Americans that are held down by racism, poverty, and lack of jobs, the republicans say this is wrong.
    Half the people in the country don't pay any federal income taxes. They are being supported by the rich.
    And the constitution states "only congress has the power to make laws."
    But the republican brain change this to "but the rich can also make Americas laws."
    Congress does make laws. There is nothing wrong with getting expert advice. Democrats let the unions write laws too. Also their favorite corporations that give them kickbacks, like Solyndra.

    I would re-post the preamble of the US constitution, to explain how our founding fathers wanted all Americans to be happy and secure. But whats the point, the republican brain will twist and alter those words.
    Chad, do you think the constitution limits what laws Congress can pass? Or could they pass any law that they think promotes the general welfare?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=Harold14370;350164][QUOTE=chad;350155]


    The following 3 minute youtube link shows Warren Buffet and Bill Gates together on stage. They both explain how they have a 15%-17% federal tax rate, and they also explain how they could both pay 0% in federal taxes if they wanted to.

    Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy - YouTube


    If billionaires pay a 0%-17% federal tax rate, and Americans who make $75,000 to $100,000 a year, pay a 30%+ federal tax rate, why are you so obsessed with this idea that the rich support all of us?

    With all due respect you are a victim of a corporate propaganda scheme called "only the rich pay taxes."
    Instead of you desiring for the rich to pay their fair share, you are glamorizing the rich for supporting all of America.

    If Americans who make $100,000 a year are being punished with tax rates 2x-100x higher than the rich pay, why are you glamorizing the rich saying "the rich support all of us"?

    You should be saying the rich should pay their fair share, and Americans who make $100,000 should stop being punished (and forced to support all of us.)


    But in typical republican fashion, you dont care about regular Americans being punished with the highest tax rates, you instead glamorize the rich and say "the rich take care of all of us."

    Why dont you desire for the rich to pay their fair share?
    Why are you glamorizing the rich for "supporting all of us", while its the Americans who make around $90,000 a year that are being punished, and forced to support all of us, with their tax rates that are 2x to 100x higher than the rich?



    I know several people who make around $90,000 a year, and these punishing tax rates are hurting them emotionally. These people are forced to send around $35,000 to the IRS in federal taxes, this really holds back their standard of living.

    But I know you could care less about Americans making $90,000 a year being forced to pay 30%+ in federal taxes, while the rich enjoy 0%-17% tax rates, you are more concerned with glamorizing the rich, by telling me the rich support all of us.

    Its typical republican values, to not give a damn about regular Americans being punished with 30%+ high tax rates, while the rich only pay 0%-17% in taxes.
    You will forget about the rich not paying their fair share, then say to hell with regular Americans being punished with higher tax rates than the rich, and then you will glamorize the rich and say "the rich take care of all of us."


    Please tell me how the rich are supporting all of us.
    Tell me how the rich support all of us.


    I will respond to the rest of your post later.
    It was nice crossing paths with you Harold, though I wish it were in more friendly terms.

    Have a nice day,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; September 6th, 2012 at 05:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Can you list any evidence that the other 49 states would be ok?
    I don't care to try. If the citizens of a state want to mess up their state, it's their choice. Until it leaks into another state or across in international border, it's not a federal issue.

    As a personal illustration of federal overreach, I'm about to purchase a old home on a river. The former owner made several attempts to build a single boat dock on the river and was twice formerly told to stop because it violated federal wetlands laws and that part of the river fell under the US geological service and corp of engineers. Now in practical terms what's been the federal involvement on that part of the river one might ask? There are no federal navigation maps nor navigation aids on that part of the river. There have been no commercial activities on that part of the river since the logging industry stopped floating logs down it some 40 years ago (they use trucks now), FEMA-which forces people to pay up to $3000/year to insure a standard single family home has the entire property categorized in the flood zone, but has NEVER done a detailed hydrology study on that part. Challenges to their map will likely fail because federal agency has no base-flood elevation. Nor does the government have sufficiently detailed topo maps to include the knoll that's 20 feet above the river where the house and a pole barn have been standing without any flooding since 1929. In essence, the community could be paying $ tens of millions in extra insurance it might not need--because the feds made sweeping one-size fit all rules without application of available science, without knowing the river, probably never have seen the river, not knowing the history of the river, and not knowing anyone which means they probably don't care to update the vintage 1970s map likely drawn by a bureaucratic with a crayon to figure out what's really needed. If you don't think that drags down an already depressed economy, than I have a bridge to sell you.

    Federal solutions to local problems are, by definition, the most removed from knowledge about the problems, the least likely to come up with innovative or effective ways to fix problems, and the least accountable for additional problems the "solutions" create. Go to any town meeting in America and I'd be surprised if you don't here at least several similar examples. Many communities are so bogged down in legal federal red tape they can't even get things the federal experts agree is the best solution--because it doesn't fit some darn one-size fits all standard. Another example on that same property I'm about to buy. On the same property sometime about 1930, a dike was built alongside the river so the original owners could convert about 6 acre of tidal marsh into pasture land for a herd of cattle. The current owners asked about removing the dike and restoring the land to something like it's original condition. This should have been dead simple, the country environmental office loves the idea--it restores wetlands, it will do a bit to ease downstream flooding. Getting it approved will take years and thousands of dollars doing surveys for a dike the feds don't have on their maps, making environmental studies and reports, plus the permits process....the owners gave up. Federal regulations getting in the way of federal objectives. I could share twenty similar stories as could anyone who's lived in a small town, or delt with the feds more than few years.

    Maybe your sometimes with the left, and don't even know it?

    I am a moderate republican--I completely agree with the "left" on many issues, many environmental when they are science (instead of alarm emotional) based arguments, and on most of the social issues.

    why are you so obsessed with this idea that the rich support all of us?

    Because the numbers say so. They've already been covered in this thread. But we can put it up again, the top 1% footing a 3rd of the revenue, the top 10% paying 70% of the revenue, while the lower 50% only put in 2.25%

    National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?
    Anyone who thinks that's unfair to the poor and middle class needs to review the Arkansas Arithmetic curriculum. 0-) (Bill is still a charmer...even when he's playing the serpent).
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; September 6th, 2012 at 05:28 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    The following 3 minute youtube link shows Warren Buffet and Bill Gates together on stage. They both explain how they have a 15%-17% federal tax rate, and they also explain how they could both pay 0% in federal taxes if they wanted to.

    Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy - YouTube
    Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are free to pay more taxes if they want. That is none of my business.
    If billionaires pay a 0%-17% federal tax rate, and Americans who make $75,000 to $100,000 a year, pay a 30%+ federal tax rate, why are you so obsessed with this idea that the rich support all of us?
    Not obsessed, just reporting the facts. Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine
    The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I think maybe with Social Security you fail to realize that everyone is not like you. Perhaps (you) could live without the Social Security system, but the average American can not.

    A very high percentage of the seniors I know need their Social Security checks. And I do not believe the average American should gamble with their retirement funds. I have seen the stock market crash, and I saw a middle class person loose $90,000, and a upper middle class person loose $400,000. It seems that if Social Security was privatized during that crash, seniors would have lost a lot of their retirement money.
    Do you think social security is safer than the stock market? I hate to break it to you, Chad, but the government is busted, flat broke and even in perilous debt. Eventually when the house of cards comes down, somebody who is relying on the government for their social security is going to be very disappointed to find the money is just not there.


    You speak of the US constitution not calling for Social Security, but I think your wrong.

    "we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america."
    This is the preamble to the Constitution, not the Constitution.
    I do not think these words, call for our federal government to let people die from no health insurance, nor do they call for our federal government to let little children go hungry, nor do they call for the federal government to allow seniors to live in poverty.

    Chad.
    Nothing in the constitution says that people should die or go hungry. If you are charitable, you can help to prevent these things yourself. Must everything that happens be done by the federal government?

    Sorry to break it to you Harold, but our government is busted because your political party did the con job supply side formula, and created huge deficits. Then your political party started the insane Iraq war and spent $1 trillion+ dollars for nothing. ex.ex.

    If your party was never elected our national debt would be around 50% to GDP, and everything would be ok.



    preamble- introduction stating its reason and purpose.
    But whats the point you republicans bend and twist the constitution, to suite the needs of billionaires like the Koch brothers who dictate what your party believes and wants.
    Last edited by chad; September 6th, 2012 at 08:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    The following 3 minute youtube link shows Warren Buffet and Bill Gates together on stage. They both explain how they have a 15%-17% federal tax rate, and they also explain how they could both pay 0% in federal taxes if they wanted to.

    Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy - YouTube
    Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are free to pay more taxes if they want. That is none of my business.
    If billionaires pay a 0%-17% federal tax rate, and Americans who make $75,000 to $100,000 a year, pay a 30%+ federal tax rate, why are you so obsessed with this idea that the rich support all of us?
    Not obsessed, just reporting the facts. Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine
    The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul*dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.


    Harold the billionaires that you say are paying all the taxes, have a 0%-17% tax rate.

    These billionaires have a 0%-17% tax rate.
    And Americans who make $100,000 a year have a 30%+ tax rate.

    Who has the tax burden?
    Who has the heavy load?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Harold the billionaires that you say are paying all the taxes, have a 0%-17% tax rate.

    These billionaires have a 0%-17% tax rate.
    And Americans who make $100,000 a year have a 30%+ tax rate.

    Who has the tax burden?
    Who has the heavy load?
    The billionaire pays more taxes. Chad, we are not going to resolve this in this thread. We just look at things in a different way. You think everybody should have the same amount of money, and to you that is fair. I think people should be free to make as much as they want, without someone else coveting what they have. You have a socialist viewpoint, I don't. You will not convince me, and I will probably not convince you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Harold the billionaires that you say are paying all the taxes, have a 0%-17% tax rate.

    These billionaires have a 0%-17% tax rate.
    And Americans who make $100,000 a year have a 30%+ tax rate.

    Who has the tax burden?
    Who has the heavy load?
    The billionaire pays more taxes. Chad, we are not going to resolve this in this thread. We just look at things in a different way. You think everybody should have the same amount of money, and to you that is fair. I think people should be free to make as much as they want, without someone else coveting what they have. You have a socialist viewpoint, I don't. You will not convince me, and I will probably not convince you.

    No Harold I do not think everyone should have the same amount of money. People should be compensated for work and services provided, and certain people deserve more compensation than others.

    But I do believe people should have the same tax rate, and you seem to believe billionaires should have the lowest tax rates.

    I like you Harold, but your political beliefs amaze me (but not in a good way.)


    But still in this forum of science, I believe you are as good of a Administrator/Moderator as anyone could be. I also feel the same way about Lynx_Fox.

    Thank you for allowing me to express my views, and have a good day/night,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. National debt and GDP
    By Stanley514 in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 12th, 2012, 01:42 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 16th, 2011, 12:20 PM
  3. Republicans are Ignorant
    By gottspieler in forum Politics
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: May 24th, 2011, 01:40 AM
  4. British Only---Vote Liberal Democrats
    By Quantime in forum Politics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 19th, 2008, 04:31 PM
  5. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    By Time Master in forum In the News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 28th, 2006, 11:31 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •