|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
TheCatt 
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Apr. 06 2016,13:10 |
|
    |
Wow, 9% income tax! Fuck that noise.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Alhazad
Custom titles are for closers.
Group: "Members"
Posts: 959
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 07 2016,03:46 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Apr. 06 2016,13:07)
QUOTE According to Bernie Sanders and other jackasses on the left, this guy already isn't paying his fair share. Yeah, he pays so little that the state is facing a financial crisis because he's moving.
Quick, what's 9% of a billion?
Oh shit, it's ninety million dollars.
QUOTE Weird. Why would he leave a place that's so anxious to take his money away from him and give it to other people?
David Tepper's not the type to shy away from giving to the less fortunate.
--------------
We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 07 2016,06:44 |
|
|
(Alhazad @ Apr. 07 2016,06:46)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Apr. 06 2016,13:07)
QUOTE According to Bernie Sanders and other jackasses on the left, this guy already isn't paying his fair share. Yeah, he pays so little that the state is facing a financial crisis because he's moving. Quick, what's 9% of a billion? Oh shit, it's ninety million dollars. QUOTE Weird. Why would he leave a place that's so anxious to take his money away from him and give it to other people? David Tepper's not the type to shy away from giving to the less fortunate.
Yeah, let's just ignore this:
QUOTE New Jersey relies on personal income taxes for about 40 percent of its revenue, and less than 1 percent of taxpayers contribute about a third of those collections, according to the legislative services office.
But you're right. David Tenner should be responsible for paying for New Jersey's budget and all the folks that rely on it.
Let's not demand that the government run more efficiently. Let's not demand that instead of paying people to not work, we instead pay them to work. Let's just complain that the rich don't pay enough. Let's just keep throwing money at a bigger problem because, and this is key, that money will never run out.
So what percentage would you like David Tenner to pay? What do you think is fair? I honestly don't really care about the percentage, but I'm wondering where you'll draw the line and say that here's where it's not on the rich anymore.
Because the real problem isn't this trend, it's that evil rich people aren't paying enough in taxes.
And I like the fact that Tepper gives a ton back. That's how it should work...
However, having it forcibly taken away and not given to charities of his choosing is an entirely different animal.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Alhazad
Custom titles are for closers.
Group: "Members"
Posts: 959
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 07 2016,09:23 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Apr. 07 2016,06:44)
QUOTE Let's not demand that the government run more efficiently. Let's not demand that instead of paying people to not work, we instead pay them to work.
I'm not sure where you found that argument in my post, but if I said it, then I guess I stand by it. And a free corndog for everyone.
If we're making up arguments for one another, why are you in support of state subsidies to encourage the wealthy to move to the nastiest, hot-diarrhea-flavored, walking-death state in the Union?
QUOTE So what percentage would you like David Tenner to pay? What do you think is fair? I honestly don't really care about the percentage, but I'm wondering where you'll draw the line and say that here's where it's not on the rich anymore.
Start with the sum of money we need to get shit done in a year, and then multiply it by his percentage of the total yearly income.
QUOTE And I like the fact that Tepper gives a ton back. That's how it should work...
However, having it forcibly taken away and not given to charities of his choosing is an entirely different animal.
Except you can't start from a human resting state of 'near-sighted and self-interested' and then 'should' your way to justice and equal opportunities for all with all the ethics that have ever existed, so you need the laws. The fact that Tepper gives to charity should earn him a big fat tax deduction on that money and the recognition that he is a good person -- which it does -- but the use of force exists because it takes more to keep this country from becoming an African shithole than our few good people are able to give. We need the evil money, and the neutral money, and the 'not-sure-yet' money that might go to charity, maybe, at some indefinite time in the future.
--------------
We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 07 2016,09:37 |
|
|
Yeah he only pays 9% and yeah that might end up being $90 million in taxes, but what none of you understand is that he didn't build that. Â He might as well have just taken his income right from government coffers, since it all came from the slave wages of the middle class poors. Â He owes a lot more, and he should be tried for treason in NJ if he leaves.
Edited by GORDON on Apr. 07 2016,09:37
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 07 2016,12:01 |
|
|
QUOTE I'm not sure where you found that argument in my post, but if I said it, then I guess I stand by it. And a free corndog for everyone.
If we're making up arguments for one another, why are you in support of state subsidies to encourage the wealthy to move to the nastiest, hot-diarrhea-flavored, walking-death state in the Union?
I'm sorry, that's my bad. I can't read. Show me again where in either of your posts you're concerned with anything other than just taking an arbitrary sum of money from someone just because they have more than you?
QUOTE Start with the sum of money we need to get shit done in a year, and then multiply it by his percentage of the total yearly income.
So arbitrary... At this point in time, I'm more concern with where the money is going. Who cares that the system is completely corrupt! Who cares that generations of families are living off the government tit, not contributing to society in any way, and are essentially voting slaves. Nope, the only thing that's important is he pay his fair share, which is decided by whatever candidate/party is promising people the most freebies.
You know how you fix out of control spending? More money!
And understand, I'm not against the rich paying more than people with less, they should. I do NOT disagree with you there. However, I don't buy the Robin Hood bullshit that assholes like Sanders are selling. And I also don't think this guy should be outed as some villain just because he's moving to a state that makes more sense for his financial health.
The system is a broken dumpster fire of a mess. From the completely unelectable jackasses running for president to the elitist parties they represent to bloated federal agencies that shouldn't even exist to all the corrupt local officials (my town is full of them) and on and on, constantly raising the tax burden on the rich isn't going to fix shit. You're taking money away from the folks who create the jobs. And don't give me the "old money" argument, there's more new money than old money.
And what's all that new revenue doing except acting as a bandaid? At what point does it become more important to deal with that issue now? That issue being all the people on government assistance and the number growing. The issue being a government that represents its people less and less. You might not have children, but I do and it'd be nice if they grew up in a world where they weren't arbitrarily punished for hard work and being successful. Painted as a villain by a snake oil salesmen trying to con rubes into buying his "cure all" remedy.
And AGAIN, I'm not against rich folks paying their fair share. I'm not against them paying more than people with less because AGAIN they should. Our country needs cash to operate and they can't have a bake sale.
What I'm against is socialism. I'm against redistribution of wealth using arbitrary numbers. I'm against 49% (and climbing) of our nation depending on government handouts, especially when most of them don't put into the account they're pulling from. I'm against us sitting back as two corrupt political parties constantly churn out corrupt politicians bought and paid for by the ultra rich and lobbyists. I'm against guys like Bernie Sanders taking money from the ultra rich and lobbyists and then pretending like he's going to stop that sort of thing. (That's the one thing that asshole megalomaniac Trump has done right. He's not taking money from other people and make no mistake, that's one of the reasons the established politicians hate his guts.) I'm against people painted as villains and lazy and "he didn't build that", and all the other bullshit just because they have more money. I don't see how that's much different than judging someone based on the color of their skin. I mean, it's both bigotry.
(I realize I'm coming down hard on Sanders here because this is more his platform than anyone else's, but I despise him equally as much as I despise the rest of the turds like Hillary and Trump.)
And I'm not trying to paint those with less or those getting government handouts as the evil folks either. I don't think there are "evil" people in this equation. I think government assistance can be an amazingly good thing (and maybe that makes me a bad capitalist), but I don't believe it is in its current form. We, as a society, should help those folks who fall and need help getting up. However, it should not exist as a lifestyle. There should not be cities or states facing financial crisis because not enough people are paying rather than taking.
QUOTE Except you can't start from a human resting state of 'near-sighted and self-interested' and then 'should' your way to justice and equal opportunities for all with all the ethics that have ever existed, so you need the laws. The fact that Tepper gives to charity should earn him a big fat tax deduction on that money and the recognition that he is a good person -- which it does -- but the use of force exists because it takes more to keep this country from becoming an African shithole than our few good people are able to give. We need the evil money, and the neutral money, and the 'not-sure-yet' money that might go to charity, maybe, at some indefinite time in the future.
Here are some numbers that might restore a bit of your faith in your fellow Americans.
$358.38 billion and that's a new record. All without the threat of jail or audits. (I'm proud to say my number is 4 digits large and I'm the only earner in a 5 person household that doesn't survive on government handouts. Apparently, I should be ashamed and pay more taxes!)
If we got rid of taxes overnight, do you think that number would go down or up? If we simply dropped taxes, how do you think it'd affect that number? If we reduced the number of people living off the government (tax money), do you think that number would go up or down?
Based on what you wrote, there seems to be a bigotry against the rich. I mean you specifically say "the few good people". You right that rich people aren't rich because they give all their money away. Even those two "morally superior" rich pricks Gates and Buffet while pledging to give a huge bulk of their money away ensured that won't happen until they're dead. I mean, if you're rich, you don't want to become poor, right?
I'll even grant you that you're right about old money. That's why old money takes forever to go away. You have to pry it from them. However, all that new money is constantly moving. Those people aren't as tight as you paint them to be, give them a chance.
Now that my long winded rambling is over, I don't think we're apart on the ultimate goals here, but getting there is what's being debated.
QUOTE Yeah he only pays 9% and yeah that might end up being $90 million in taxes, but what none of you understand is that he didn't build that. He might as well have just taken his income right from government coffers, since it all came from the slave wages of the middle class poors. He owes a lot more, and he should be tried for treason in NJ if he leaves.
Word.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 07 2016,12:22 |
|
|
QUOTE That's the one thing that asshole megalomaniac Trump has done right. He's not taking money from other people...
Really?
QUOTE Donald J. Trump has made his disdain for “super PACs” a central part of his stump speech. He criticizes candidates who get support from these outside groups, and his campaign sent a cease-and-desist letter to one super PAC that used his campaign slogan, and whose strategist had ties to his campaign manager.
But Mr. Trump’s campaign has been less vocal about the Great America PAC, which was formed months ago under a different name
...
But the Great American PAC, which Mr. Beach is working for, received no such letter, according to the group’s lawyer, Dan Backer. A top ally of Mr. Paul, Jesse Benton, recently joined the super PAC.
QUOTE We, as a society, should help those folks who fall and need help getting up. However, it should not exist as a lifestyle.
...
There should not be cities or states facing financial crisis because not enough people are paying rather than taking.
Those two things sort of run at cross purposes. Â This country and its gov't have taken the entitlement position rather than the "we will let you fail with zero help" one, and have done so for the past 80 years.
QUOTE $358.38 billion and that's a new record.
You act like that's out of the goodness of their hearts 100%. Â They have incentive to donate because this country is fucking stupid enough to put a tax on income. Â Why you would penalize someone for generating revenue is beyond me, unless they're just locking it all up in a Scrooge McDuck-style money vault, real or virtual.
Edited by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2016,12:24
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Alhazad
Custom titles are for closers.
Group: "Members"
Posts: 959
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 07 2016,15:12 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Apr. 07 2016,12:01)
QUOTE I'm sorry, that's my bad. I can't read. Show me again where in either of your posts you're concerned with anything other than just taking an arbitrary sum of money from someone just because they have more than you?
So arbitrary... At this point in time, I'm more concern with where the money is going. Who cares that the system is completely corrupt! Who cares that generations of families are living off the government tit, not contributing to society in any way, and are essentially voting slaves. Nope, the only thing that's important is he pay his fair share, which is decided by whatever candidate/party is promising people the most freebies.
Call me arbitrary as much as you like after stratifying income a better way than by percentage of national income. You keep throwing around 'the rich' like the term has some widely-accepted definition I'm missing, so I'm curious to hear it. I'm with you on cutting the knuckle-headed costs to stretch out what we do collect, though -- start with the trillion-dollar military boondoggles.
Evil, stupid self-interest exists among the poor, too. If a government tit is what it takes to raise them from actively damaging the country to merely 'not contributing' while we skim off the ones who can be saved, I'm comparatively ok with that. I understand if you have an intellectual hurdle with rewarding someone for nothing... I do too, but I've made my peace because the alternative is ghastly.
QUOTE And understand, I'm not against the rich paying more than people with less, they should. I do NOT disagree with you there. However, I don't buy the Robin Hood bullshit that assholes like Sanders are selling. And I also don't think this guy should be outed as some villain just because he's moving to a state that makes more sense for his financial health.
Financial health for billionaires is a poor rallying cry. What's the practical difference between 400 million in yearly personal income versus 360 million, not just to you and me, but to the billionaire? In Tepper's case, it might work out ok because he seems to really believe in charity and plans to donate the money... maybe... eventually. Probably to a private college, because what the world needs is more selective education.
QUOTE You might not have children, but I do and it'd be nice if they grew up in a world where they weren't arbitrarily punished for hard work and being successful.
There's our favorite word again. Yes, a stratified tax burden that considers how much each can comfortably bear is exceedingly arbitrary -- far moreso than the criteria the poorly-educated and hungry would use when deciding whom to rob because they think the system failed them.
QUOTE I'm against guys like Bernie Sanders taking money from the ultra rich and lobbyists and then pretending like he's going to stop that sort of thing.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but do you have a citation for your assertion that he took this sort of money?
QUOTE I think government assistance can be an amazingly good thing (and maybe that makes me a bad capitalist), but I don't believe it is in its current form. We, as a society, should help those folks who fall and need help getting up. However, it should not exist as a lifestyle. There should not be cities or states facing financial crisis because not enough people are paying rather than taking.
Since we don't want to be arbitrary, where are your cut-offs? If children are born into hopelessness because their mothers fell and couldn't get up and passed that despair on, are they just shit out of luck because we can't condone being on the government tit for more than X number of years? If it has to exist in its current form to exist at all, then I'll take it as-is -- and that's even precluding the possibility of improving it through better public education. 'A little good' isn't 'amazingly good', but it's better than bad.
QUOTE If we got rid of taxes overnight, do you think that number would go down or up? If we simply dropped taxes, how do you think it'd affect that number? If we reduced the number of people living off the government (tax money), do you think that number would go up or down?
What if you reworded your questions to be about number of people materially helped instead of dollar figures on a paper? Democratic government is necessarily going to help as many as it can, and it's a far better apparatus for assessing utilitarian ends than the individual or the corporation even if the undeserving can vote themselves free beer and corn chips.
--------------
We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 08 2016,12:09 |
|
|
Sorry for the delay. I've been waiting to find time to respond, and honestly, sometimes these discussions are exhausting to think about. You're not changing my mind, I'm not changing yours, so it's a lot of chatter back and forth, and since I'm the chatty sort... exhausting. So it's not something I look forward to coming to address even though I enjoy the debate.
QUOTE Really?
To be fair, that's different than taking money. If he ever takes money, his only redeeming value will be that he drives you nuts.
QUOTE Those two things sort of run at cross purposes.
I get your point, but they really don't. There's a huge different between a cane and a Rascal.
QUOTE You act like that's out of the goodness of their hearts 100%.
I'm glad you qualified that remark. For some it is. For some it isn't, and you're right, it's about tax deductions. Either way, the underprivileged and/or needy are getting money from sources other than Uncle Sam.
QUOTE They have incentive to donate because this country is fucking stupid enough to put a tax on income. Why you would penalize someone for generating revenue is beyond me, unless they're just locking it all up in a Scrooge McDuck-style money vault, real or virtual.
Right!
QUOTE Call me arbitrary as much as you like after stratifying income a better way than by percentage of national income.
It's not you I'm calling arbitrary. It's the numbers being used. Even going by a percentage of national income in association with whatever budget is determined, it's still arbitrary because that budget is arbitrary. Sure there are things that are "needs" like schools, roads, hospitals, etc. but there's a LOT that would fall under "wants". That's where things get hazy. (This is where things like entitlement programs and max budgets for the military fall.)
QUOTE start with the trillion-dollar military boondoggles
As a veteran, I would immediately point out that you and I can have this conversation because of that military and its boondoggles. However, I also agree with you to a point. Things like the F22 are a waste of money, not just because the plane is a disaster, but also because it's not really needed in today's conflicts. I don't think Congress should be deciding what our troops need, but I also don't think the Pentagon should write blank checks either.
Plus, the military was only 16% of the federal budget last year. Entitlements were 60%. You're saying we should shrink the smaller number and increase the bigger one.
QUOTE Evil, stupid self-interest exists among the poor, too.
Couldn't agree more. The size of your bank account has no bearing on who you are as a person.
QUOTE If a government tit is what it takes to raise them from actively damaging the country to merely 'not contributing' while we skim off the ones who can be saved, I'm comparatively ok with that. I understand if you have an intellectual hurdle with rewarding someone for nothing... I do too, but I've made my peace because the alternative is ghastly.
Like I said, same goals, different methods.
I don't think the alternative is ghastly. I think it gets painted as ghastly so we're afraid to go there. It's propaganda. I don't know if we can point to a "cause" anymore without seeing people screaming about the sky falling.
The other folks around here (I don't want to put words in mouths) will tell you that we, as a society, could force people to donate without laws by simply not supporting their fortune/businesses. "That's how a capitalist system should work, and we're not currently living in one despite claims that we are, and yada yada yada."
Please understand, I'm not saying people shouldn't pay their fair share. I'm simply debating 1) What that fair share is, and 2) Does it make sense to simply continue to throw more and more money at a broken system instead of fixing the system?
QUOTE Financial health for billionaires is a poor rallying cry. What's the practical difference between 400 million in yearly personal income versus 360 million, not just to you and me, but to the billionaire?
If you're talking about old money that's just sitting in a bank, you're right.
If you're talking about new money, you're wrong because a $40 million loss is bad. That's going to make rich people tighten their purses. They're going to cut costs.
My company is a good example of this in action. Our Q1 earnings were 50% of projected. I can't give you the exact numbers just in case someone is watching, but we're talking millions of dollars. We've hit a bad spell because the market completely dropped out on one of our products. On top of that, we just spent 10s of millions building a new plant. So our board is looking at cutting costs all over the place.
Crisis right?
Well, not really. Not only would this 50% downward swing have been a record year 10 years ago, but that 50% of projected budget is still earnings. We're making money and lots of it, but the drop from where we "should" be is causing belt tightening. We're not as anxious to spend money.
If you take money from someone, even a billionaire, they're going to shy away from giving or spending more. From us normal folks, that means national sales numbers drop. When it happens to billionaires or corporations, it means layoffs and opportunities that get ignored.
Rich people don't get and stay rich by pissing their money away.
And again, it's a really slippery slope. Because tax rates aren't decreasing. Today Sanders wants to increase the taxes on the rich, but we both know that won't be the end of it. And this is really my point, when is it time to stop taking and start looking at where we're putting this money?
I assume you have a personal budget? Do you just spend money whenever and whereever you want, even if there's no return and just continue to do so without worry about any consequences? The government does, and that is a insanely important distinction that people leave out when discussing spending other people's money.
QUOTE There's our favorite word again. Yes, a stratified tax burden that considers how much each can comfortably bear is exceedingly arbitrary -- far moreso than the criteria the poorly-educated and hungry would use when deciding whom to rob because they think the system failed them.
You can try to mock the word, but my usage of it is no less legit than you deciding it's fair to take as much of someone else's money as you determine "fair" and giving it to someone else.
And please stop painting everyone as needy and poor due to no fault of their own. Are there people in that situation? OF COURSE! That's who we should be helping. But are we helping them by giving them blank free money with no conditions? Plus, you both know there's also a lot of people who aren't poor or needy just by circumstance and they continue to bleed the system. Is it really wrong for people to want something to be done about that? Really?
Is it really ok to continue to take more and more of other people's money and not worry about the system you're putting the money into? I guess it won't completely break down while we're alive, so fuck it! Not our problem!
QUOTE I'm not saying it didn't happen, but do you have a citation for your assertion that he took this sort of money?
First link that came up when I googled:
Donor list for Sanders.
QUOTE Since we don't want to be arbitrary, where are your cut-offs?
I'd say somewhere before your cutoff of when to stop taking their money, and I assume that's when it's all gone.
QUOTE If children are born into hopelessness because their mothers fell and couldn't get up and passed that despair on, are they just shit out of luck because we can't condone being on the government tit for more than X number of years?
Yes.
Now notice your first instinct is to use "children" as your example? It's done that way to evoke an emotion. To make someone seem like a monster if they oppose you. It's the exact same reason why when Trayvon Martin or Mike Brown have their pictures in the paper, it's shots of them smiling and younger instead of recent pictures that more reflect who they actually are. Like the picture of Trayvon with the gun and drugs or the video of Mike Brown beating the shit out of the old man or strong arm robbing the convenience store. Why use the propaganda pictures? Because there's an agenda that's being pushed and it's harder to argue against kids that look innocent and sweet than violent criminals.
Sorry, I went off on a tangent there. Back to your point, you simply CANNOT save everyone. It can't be done. That's nature. Charles Darwin would say it's natural selection.
Now children, should absolutely have programs in place to help them when parents fail. So you can remove their little faces from your poster. 
However, we shouldn't be paying for adults to live on welfare their entire lives and we are. That's a fucking problem. There's no incentive for them to get jobs. To train. To give back to society. To be anything other than a drain on those people who actually work in and care about their community.
I knew a guy who used to apply for jobs at the beginning of every fall, work all winter, then get fired every time late spring rolled around. Why? So he could get unemployment and his summers off. Tax payer funded summer vacations every year! I know countless manual laborers who game the system so they receive federal funds while they're not working "officially". Ditto for union folks. Why do you think so many manual labor jobs can be found that pay under the table? Go in the want ads and hunt for contractors. You'll find a lot of folks working full time contracting, yet are considered "unemployed" so they get government checks.
You say you want to help those children and those folks who have fallen down, right? Imagine how much more money and focus we could focus on them if the system was working as intended. Instead of using buckshot to spray down everything in an area, we could use slugs and act problems surgically.
QUOTE If it has to exist in its current form to exist at all, then I'll take it as-is -- and that's even precluding the possibility of improving it through better public education. 'A little good' isn't 'amazingly good', but it's better than bad.
Again, I have to point out that we're not opposed. We're debating back and forth, but at the end of the day our goals aren't really different. You want tax money to help folks in need so it does some good for them, and thus, our society. I agree, but I'm saying the system is so broken at this point that we need to stop asking for more money out of those who already pay the most and create all the jobs, and start examining those folks actually spending the money (politicians) and finding out why so much of it is being misspent.
QUOTE What if you reworded your questions to be about number of people materially helped instead of dollar figures on a paper?
Yeah, the Red Cross does the same thing during the blood drive I organize here at work every year. "Every donation saves up to 3 lives."
Trying to make this is about lives versus dollar figures is a fine tactic. It attempts to put a face on what I'm opposing and makes me look like a materialistic, greedy monster. Fair enough.
However, it's a short term view of the issue. You've stopped the smoke pouring into the room, but you're still in a building that's on fire. Socialism doesn't exactly have a winning record around the globe.
You do understand that money is a finite resource, yes? So since welfare and entitlements have become a part of our country, the number of people depending on them has grown. It hasn't shrunk, the number has just grown. If we continue throwing money at the problem rather than fixing the system, do you really think that number is going to magically reverse course and start shrinking? Eventually, the money will run out. Then what? This year a hundred kids might starve to death in the U.S., and not because there aren't programs available, but because they're neglected. However, if we continue down this entitlement path and taxing the rich, we will eventually see a day when millions of children starve to death because there's nobody left to pay for entitlements.
Is that ok just because we might not live long enough to see it?
QUOTE Democratic government is necessarily going to help as many as it can, and it's a far better apparatus for assessing utilitarian ends than the individual or the corporation even if the undeserving can vote themselves free beer and corn chips.
Our country has already danced with socialism, and it didn't work out very well.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Also, just FYI, we don't live in a democracy. The U.S. is a republic. It's also run by corrupt assholes who have turned everything they touched to shit. (Seriously, name a government run program that isn't bloated and broken.) You really think they'll do better with an even larger budget that hurts the very folks who create jobs?
Ask Venezuala how socialism is working for them. Hooray for mass starvation.
I seriously can't do small to the point posts. I apologize. I'm no TPR when it comes to that. When I rant, I tend to rant... This whole thing is why, like Catt, I hate Sanders more than Trump (not that I'm voting for either one or Clinton). I'd rather have the guy with no plan then the guy who's villainizing the job creators and whose plan has failed every where else it's been attempted.
Can I sum up and hopefully we can just focus on this and not continue to pass walls of text back and forth?
Can we agree?
-You want people to receive assistance and so do I.
-You want people to pay their fair share to keep the trains running and so do I.
-We both agree the current system isn't working as it should or could.
Where we disagree is in one point only (I think):
-You want the rich to pay even more right now.
-I want the system audited and corrected before we keep throwing money into a bottomless pit.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Alhazad
Custom titles are for closers.
Group: "Members"
Posts: 959
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 10 2016,07:42 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Apr. 08 2016,12:09)
QUOTE You're not changing my mind, I'm not changing yours, so it's a lot of chatter back and forth
You sell yourself short.
QUOTE QUOTE They have incentive to donate because this country is fucking stupid enough to put a tax on income. Â Why you would penalize someone for generating revenue is beyond me, unless they're just locking it all up in a Scrooge McDuck-style money vault, real or virtual. Right!
I'll raise the tentative argument that it is going into a money vault... sort of. Doesn't $100m into the hand of a billionaire who has everything he needs create far less useful economic movement than $100m into the hands of the very poor, who will spend it on staples and cheap luxuries pretty much immediately? Even if the billionaire spends it all, he's mathematically going to hit far fewer market sectors because he's only one household.
QUOTE Plus, the military was only 16% of the federal budget last year. Entitlements were 60%. You're saying we should shrink the smaller number and increase the bigger one.
I'm saying start with it. Every way you feel about the federal welfare apparatus as a whole, I feel about the military. It's amazing for job training and giving opportunity regardless of caste and shaping people into something respectable (c.f.: you guys), but there's just so much pork and temptation to use it for stupid hobby wars that kill people.
QUOTE Does it make sense to simply continue to throw more and more money at a broken system instead of fixing the system?
No, and that's not the argument I'm making.
QUOTE You can try to mock the word, but my usage of it is no less legit than you deciding it's fair to take as much of someone else's money as you determine "fair" and giving it to someone else.
I have not used the word 'fair' in this thread even once until now. My argument has been that it's better for everyone if the poor don't riot, politically or physically, because we slashed their benefits. Is it unfair? Absolutely. Short-sighted? I guess, but I'm pretty sure we're a nation in triage when it comes to our huge, country-within-a-country ghettos.
QUOTE Plus, you both know there's also a lot of people who aren't poor or needy just by circumstance and they continue to bleed the system. Is it really wrong for people to want something to be done about that? Really?
No, I know that there are 'some'. I think the 'lot of people' part is propaganda.
QUOTE
There are some corps in his whole career, but top 20 donors in the 2011-2016 frame where he argued against taking corp money to campaign for prez aren't -- they're all union PACs. While unions are greedy, I don't have as much problem with them as with Ms. Clinton taking money from fucking Saudi Arabia. And since his socialism will fall apart or be rendered workable in Congress, I still feel comfortable supporting him for his campaign finance reform plank plus the few others where he makes sense (e.g. decriminalization of drugs).
QUOTE Now notice your first instinct is to use "children" as your example? It's done that way to evoke an emotion.
When I was writing the post, I was thinking about how our childhoods shape who we are, hence the mention of 'despair' -- having a poor mum with no hope and boundless cynicism to impart is going to create an angry, sullen adult far more often than not. I apologize if it seemed like an attempt to manipulate.
QUOTE I knew a guy
Let me stop you there.
QUOTE -I want the system audited and corrected before we keep throwing money into a bottomless pit.
Change 'before' to 'while' and you'll have resolved our point of contention.
--------------
We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 10 2016,10:45 |
|
|
QUOTE I'll raise the tentative argument that it is going into a money vault... sort of. Doesn't $100m into the hand of a billionaire who has everything he needs create far less useful economic movement than $100m into the hands of the very poor, who will spend it on staples and cheap luxuries pretty much immediately? Even if the billionaire spends it all, he's mathematically going to hit far fewer market sectors because he's only one household.
Uh, no. Â Not at all. Â I'll grant you that every rich mofo somewhere has a rainy day fund they're socking away for retirement, when shit goes south, they kill a dude and need to make a getaway, ad nauseum. Â However, I'll put forth this hypothetical argument:
Let's say we can take $100M and:
1) give it to Warren Buffet OR
2) drop it in the middle of Detroit (literally) OR
3) give it to the federal or Detroit city gov't, let the corruption fairy take her cut, then let them handle it OR
4) give it directly to some reputable charities, then let them handle it
Hell, let's even say you can divvy the cash and it's not a 0/1 proposition. Â Where do they rank in terms of likely positive social impact? Â The bookends look infinitely preferable to the middle two.
1) Warren or a charity might give it away, use it to fund a food/clothing drive, start some scholarships, etc. Â
2) Warren has the additional option of investing it in some small biz owner who can then employ hundreds or thousands of others.
3) The bookends are people I'm confident can manage money (I'd bet the vast majority of the cash goes to proper use). Â The middle two aren't (I'd bet 10% tops gets to anyone that needs it).
QUOTE Every way you feel about the federal welfare apparatus as a whole, I feel about the military. It's amazing for job training and giving opportunity regardless of caste and shaping people into something respectable (c.f.: you guys), but there's just so much pork and temptation to use it for stupid hobby wars that kill people.
Because of a ridiculous lack of oversight and checks or balances. Â The main difference being the military shouldn't be looking to drive their soldiers out of the system -- they want you for the long haul. Â The goal of welfare system should be to get you off of welfare if at all possible.
QUOTE And since his socialism will fall apart or be rendered workable in Congress, I still feel comfortable supporting him for his campaign finance reform plank plus the few others where he makes sense (e.g. decriminalization of drugs).
One day, I might have to consider why I'd take Bernie over Mrs. Bill. Â I've not put deep thought into it; it's more instinct. Â But it's something along these lines.
Edited by Malcolm on Apr. 10 2016,11:06
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Alhazad
Custom titles are for closers.
Group: "Members"
Posts: 959
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 10 2016,11:32 |
|
|
(Malcolm @ Apr. 10 2016,10:45)
QUOTE Let's say we can take $100M and:
1) give it to Warren Buffet OR
2) drop it in the middle of Detroit OR
3) give it to the gov't, let the corruption fairy take her cut, then let them handle it OR
4) give it directly to some charities, then let them handle it
Where do they rank in terms of likely positive social impact? Â The bookends look infinitely preferable to the middle two.
They look that way because you've stipulated that it's Warren Buffet. If you handed the money to Les Moonves, you'd never see twenty-five cents of it again. So how do we stipulate exactly that in real life? By bringing in the government.
And if the government is, in effect, just a badly-managed compulsory charity, then what 'corruption' means is that some extra money was turned off the highway before reaching the target -- ethics aside, that could still be better for the economy than if none of it ever started moving.
QUOTE The main difference being the military shouldn't be looking to drive their soldiers out of the system -- they want you for the long haul.
I strongly disagree. A large professional army increases the temptation to use the professional army, as well as creates yet another separate, insular caste. Except for a few branches of the most talented career soldiers needed to handle the specialist stuff and teach, it would be better to offer enlistees technical jobs training, civics education, and exposure to people of other backgrounds and then release them back into the public workforce when their contract expires. It would pay out far more in positive externalities.
--------------
We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 11 2016,10:42 |
|
|
QUOTE They look that way because you've stipulated that it's Warren Buffet. If you handed the money to Les Moonves, you'd never see twenty-five cents of it again.
Les is a TV exec by trade with a flimsy biz resume.
QUOTE So how do we stipulate exactly that in real life? By bringing in the government.
Because they're the fuckers we pay money to, which is in turn because they will drive tanks up to your house and throw your ass in jail if you don't pay. Â If they'd show as much fervor when enforcing other laws, then maybe this shit wouldn't be a problem to begin with. Unfortunately, they're often insulated from the idiocy of their own decisions and tend to be short-sighted financial know-nothings whose only goal in life is to get reelected.
QUOTE And if the government is, in effect, just a badly-managed compulsory charity, then what 'corruption' means is that some extra money was turned off the highway before reaching the target -- ethics aside, that could still be better for the economy than if none of it ever started moving.
Yeah, nothing like feeding the pigs at the trough so the crumbs and leftovers go to the starving. Â You're capping the efficiency of every single dollar you piss away and praying that you pump enough water through a leaky-ass hose to put the fire out.
QUOTE A large professional army increases the temptation to use the professional army
I got no problem with temptation, and I want the ability to call up a decent sized professional army. Â I don't want 100% capacity unless I'm being invaded or attacked. Â I sure as shit don't want to set up a military base in every fucking country we ever set foot in, then leave them open until the end of time.
Edited by Malcolm on Apr. 11 2016,10:43
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Alhazad
Custom titles are for closers.
Group: "Members"
Posts: 959
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 11 2016,20:09 |
|
|
(Malcolm @ Apr. 11 2016,10:42)
QUOTE Les is a TV exec by trade with a flimsy biz resume.
How he got the money is irrelevant. If, when we're talking about 'giving' money to the rich, what we're really saying is we let them keep what they make, then what matters is that he's rich and a piece of shit. If we want more of his money circulating instead of disappearing into a gilded sock drawer, then your option 1 is a bad road.
QUOTE You're capping the efficiency of every single dollar you piss away and praying that you pump enough water through a leaky-ass hose to put the fire out.
Who do you think is doing the graft... all the billionaires working desk jobs at HUD? They're middle-class taxpayers who are going to spend it on middle-class goods. Still closer to our hypothetical goal.
--------------
We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 11 2016,20:30 |
|
|
QUOTE If we want more of his money circulating instead of disappearing into a gilded sock drawer, then your option 1 is a bad road.
He's a moron that tends to spend lots. Â I want his Great Gatsby style of conspicuous consumption. Â
QUOTE If, when we're talking about 'giving' money to the rich...
We were talking about handing it off to a competent financial manager with a history of running massive funds and beating market averages (damned if I can't find any that aren't rich) but ok...
QUOTE If we want more of his money circulating instead of disappearing into a gilded sock drawer...
I'm betting that motherfucker lives in some obscenely lavish neighbourhood and spends a fuckton of money.
QUOTE Still closer to our hypothetical goal.
My goal is not pissing away money and rewarding work. Â Shit's expensive, especially in the form of government we've got: incompetency. Â Somewhere, I bet I can find a rich dude who got that way because he knows what the fuck to do with his dollars. Â Can I find someone of lesser income who'll do it just as well? Â Hell, sure. Â But then I'm banking on landing a financial savant driving a Corolla. Â Do I think the gov't, at any level, as individuals or a group, offers me better odds? Â Maybe better than the Corolla guy. But come the fuck on, they're the picture of not getting shit done.
QUOTE They're middle-class taxpayers who are going to spend it on middle-class goods. Still closer to our hypothetical goal.
So when a millionaire buys a yacht that cash gets sucked into a vacuum never to be seen again?
Edited by Malcolm on Apr. 11 2016,20:32
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Alhazad
Custom titles are for closers.
Group: "Members"
Posts: 959
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 11 2016,20:53 |
|
|
(Malcolm @ Apr. 11 2016,20:30)
QUOTE We were talking about handing it off to a competent financial manager with a history of running massive funds and beating market averages (damned if I can't find any that aren't rich) but ok...
And... how do you get the money from the shitty rich and give it to the good rich? (hint: government)
QUOTE So when a millionaire buys a yacht that cash gets sucked into a vacuum never to be seen again?
Assuming that he buys U.S. and not from the huge overseas chunk of that market? More of a time-warp than a vacuum -- wouldn't the money take much longer to trickle outward compared to middle-class people buying an equal value of Ford F-150s, Merona slacks, and Baskin Robbins?
--------------
We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
