Going for the Big Enchilada

[boutons_deux]

"If you've been working for any number of years, but especially if you've been working for two or three decades, you've been paying in not only money for current beneficiaries but additional money which was invested in US government bonds to make it possible for Social Security to pay benefits of Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers.

The additional money was required since there will be more seniors relative to the working age population.
This plan appears to foresee the government never paying that back to Social Security.

In other words, your payroll taxes have been socking away additional money to cover the growing senior population.

But this bill says too bad. That money goes for high income tax cuts."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/going-for-the-big-enchilada?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

that money gets spent as fast as it comes in and always has been.

There is no Social Security lockbox.

The government IOU's that the "lockbox" got in exchange for the money the government has already pissed off has ALWAYS depended on the government being able to come up with real "new" cash when the IOU's came due.

[boutons_deux]

GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security

On Thursday, Rep. Sam Johnson, a Republican from Texas and chair of the Ways and Means Committee, introduced legislation (http://samjohnson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398516) to significantly cut Social Security.

The bill introduced by (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6489?r=37) Johnson, who is also the chair of the Social Security subcommittee, slashes benefits, adds means testing, and would raise the retirement age from 67 to 69.

For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SJohnson_20161208.pdf) calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.

Nearly every income bracket would see a reduction, save for the very bottom. People making around $12,280 in 2016 who have worked for 30 years would see an increase of around 20%. But young people making the same amount would be hit hard by the changes. If they had 14 years of work experience by 2016, they would see their benefits cut in half (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SJohnson_20161208.pdf).

The plan would also cut entirely cost of living adjustments (COLA) for retirees earning above $85,000.

If nothing happens, Social Security will start to lose its ability to pay benefits in full in the 2030s. However, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo notes (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/gop-plan-major-social-security-cuts) that by 2090 it will still be paying at 74%.

Democrats, expectedly, are not pleased with Johnson’s plan, preferring strategies like increasing taxes above the Social Security cap—billionaires pay the same amount as someone making less than $118,000—or raising the Social Security tax itself. There has, however, been a bipartisan effort for a payroll tax (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_110315.html) to help keep Social Security funded. For now, Congress will deliberate on Johnson’s proposal in 2017.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-introduces-plan-to-massively-cut-social-security-222200857.html

[rmt]

They should slowly increase the age for SS - we are living longer now. It's the least painful way.

[Wild Cobra]

There is no Social Security lockbox.

Hillary would disagree with you, wouldn't she?

[Wild Cobra]

They should slowly increase the age for SS - we are living longer now. It's the least painful way.
Though I don't like what it means for me personally, I agree with you. But then I'm not a silly libtard expecting cradled to grave coverage by our Nanny state system.

[Wild Cobra]

Haven't read it yet, but here is a snippet from a 30 page document:



The proposal includes fifteen basic provisions with direct effects on the OASDI program. The following list briefly identifies each provision:

1) For retired worker and disabled worker beneficiaries becoming initially eligible in January 2023 or later, phase in a new benefit formula (from 2023 to 2032). Replace the existing two PIA bend points with three new bend points and modified benefit formula factors.

2) Use an annualized “mini-PIA” formula beginning with retired and disabled worker beneficiaries becoming newly eligible in 2023, phased in over 10 years. The mini-PIA calculation would use a single year’s average monthly indexed earnings (mini-AIME) and primary insurance amount (mini-PIA) for each year with taxable earnings.

3) Replace the current-law Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) with a new calculation for most OASI and DI benefits based on covered and non-covered earnings, phased in for beneficiaries becoming newly eligible in 2023 through 2032.

4) After the normal retirement age (NRA) reaches 67 for those attaining age 62 in 2022, increase the NRA by 3 months per year starting for those attaining age 62 in 2023 until it reaches 69 for those attaining age 62 in 2030. Increase the age up to which delayed retirement credits may be earned from 70 to 72 on the same schedule.

5) Beginning with the December 2018 COLA, provide no COLA for those with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above specific thresholds and compute the COLA using the chain-weighted version of the CPI-U (C-CPI-U) for all other beneficiaries.

6) For spouses and children of retired workers and disabled workers becoming newly eligible beginning in 2023 and phased in for 2023 through 2032, limit their auxiliary benefit to the amount based on one-half of the PIA of a hypothetical worker with earnings equal to the national average wage index (AWI) each year up to his or her eligibility year, and who has the same eligibility year as the worker.

7) Beginning in January 2019, require full time school enrollment as a condition of eligibility for child benefits at age 15 up to 18.

8) Provide a new minimum benefit for workers with more than 10 years of covered earnings above a specified level, phased in for retired and disabled worker beneficiaries becoming newly eligible in 2023 through 2032.

9) Beginning in January 2019, eliminate the retirement earnings test for all beneficiaries under NRA.

10) Eliminate federal income taxation of OASDI benefits that is credited to the OASI and DI Trust Funds for 2054 and later, phased in from 2045 to 2053.

11) Provide an option to split the 8-percent delayed retirement credit (DRC) to offer a lump sum benefit at initial entitlement equivalent to 2 of the 8 percent DRC earned, and a 6 percent DRC on subsequent monthly benefits, effective for workers attaining age 62 in 2023 and later.

12) Beginning in January 2023, provide an addition to monthly benefits for all beneficiaries who have been eligible for at least 20 years. The additional amount is calculated based on 5 percent of the PIA for a hypothetical worker with earnings equal to the national average wage index each year.

13) Beginning in January 2023, for new and current disabled widow(er) beneficiaries, change the requirement that disability must occur no later than 7 years after the worker’s death, or after surviving spouse with child-in-care benefits were last payable, to no later than 10 years.

14) Beginning in January 2023, for new and current disabled surviving spouse beneficiaries, eliminate the requirement to be age 50 or older for receipt of benefits.

15) Beginning in January 2023, for new and current beneficiaries, waive the two-year duration of divorce requirement for divorced spouse benefit eligibility in cases where the worker (former spouse) remarries someone other than the claimant before the two-year period has elapsed.


Link from SSA dot gov: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SJohnson_20161208.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

I wish Shazbot and others wouldn't be so lazy. Is it too much to ask, to accompany a thread with good links?

Here is where the progress of the bill will reside:

link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6489/text?r=37



As of 12/10/2016 text has not been received for H.R.6489 - To preserve Social Security for generations to come, reward work, and improve retirement security. \n\n Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

[boutons_deux]

cutting SS reduces US obligation to people who depend on SS, freeing up $Ts of govt obligations for more tax cutting the wealthy/BigCorp.

Another tactic is to give people the option, maybe force them, to put some or all of their SS contributions into Wall St (aka privatization) where $100Bs of can pilfered over the decades. state and union pension funds have figured out hedge funds have been secretly fleecing them and have started pulling the $100Bs out of hedge funds.

Imagine if people had put their 401K funds into SS instead of "failed" 401K

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/20/l-it-the-401k-is-a-failure.html

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2013/04/24/why-401ks-have-failed/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

of course, 401Ks haven't "failed" for 401K fund managers who have fleeced Americans for $100Bs in fees.

With the VRWC/1% whore Repugs, ALWAYS assume incorrigible BAD FAITH and LYING.

[DMC]

Bend over, I'll show you a big enchilada.

[rmt]

Haven't read it yet, but here is a snippet from a 30 page document:



The proposal includes fifteen basic provisions with direct effects on the OASDI program. The following list briefly identifies each provision:

1) For retired worker and disabled worker beneficiaries becoming initially eligible in January 2023 or later, phase in a new benefit formula (from 2023 to 2032). Replace the existing two PIA bend points with three new bend points and modified benefit formula factors.

2) Use an annualized “mini-PIA” formula beginning with retired and disabled worker beneficiaries becoming newly eligible in 2023, phased in over 10 years. The mini-PIA calculation would use a single year’s average monthly indexed earnings (mini-AIME) and primary insurance amount (mini-PIA) for each year with taxable earnings.

3) Replace the current-law Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) with a new calculation for most OASI and DI benefits based on covered and non-covered earnings, phased in for beneficiaries becoming newly eligible in 2023 through 2032.

4) After the normal retirement age (NRA) reaches 67 for those attaining age 62 in 2022, increase the NRA by 3 months per year starting for those attaining age 62 in 2023 until it reaches 69 for those attaining age 62 in 2030. Increase the age up to which delayed retirement credits may be earned from 70 to 72 on the same schedule.

5) Beginning with the December 2018 COLA, provide no COLA for those with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above specific thresholds and compute the COLA using the chain-weighted version of the CPI-U (C-CPI-U) for all other beneficiaries.

6) For spouses and children of retired workers and disabled workers becoming newly eligible beginning in 2023 and phased in for 2023 through 2032, limit their auxiliary benefit to the amount based on one-half of the PIA of a hypothetical worker with earnings equal to the national average wage index (AWI) each year up to his or her eligibility year, and who has the same eligibility year as the worker.

7) Beginning in January 2019, require full time school enrollment as a condition of eligibility for child benefits at age 15 up to 18.

8) Provide a new minimum benefit for workers with more than 10 years of covered earnings above a specified level, phased in for retired and disabled worker beneficiaries becoming newly eligible in 2023 through 2032.

9) Beginning in January 2019, eliminate the retirement earnings test for all beneficiaries under NRA.

10) Eliminate federal income taxation of OASDI benefits that is credited to the OASI and DI Trust Funds for 2054 and later, phased in from 2045 to 2053.

11) Provide an option to split the 8-percent delayed retirement credit (DRC) to offer a lump sum benefit at initial entitlement equivalent to 2 of the 8 percent DRC earned, and a 6 percent DRC on subsequent monthly benefits, effective for workers attaining age 62 in 2023 and later.

12) Beginning in January 2023, provide an addition to monthly benefits for all beneficiaries who have been eligible for at least 20 years. The additional amount is calculated based on 5 percent of the PIA for a hypothetical worker with earnings equal to the national average wage index each year.

13) Beginning in January 2023, for new and current disabled widow(er) beneficiaries, change the requirement that disability must occur no later than 7 years after the worker’s death, or after surviving spouse with child-in-care benefits were last payable, to no later than 10 years.

14) Beginning in January 2023, for new and current disabled surviving spouse beneficiaries, eliminate the requirement to be age 50 or older for receipt of benefits.

15) Beginning in January 2023, for new and current beneficiaries, waive the two-year duration of divorce requirement for divorced spouse benefit eligibility in cases where the worker (former spouse) remarries someone other than the claimant before the two-year period has elapsed.


Link from SSA dot gov: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SJohnson_20161208.pdf

#6 I wonder why they want to de-couple what a spouse gets based on the worker (usually you get 1/2 of what worker gets). Maybe Congress thinks that they're all trophy wives with husbands who earn huge amounts? This will especially hurt a spouse who is divorced after decades of staying at home taking care of kids (and doesn't have his/her own benefit).

#8 I guess they mean LOWER the benefit.

[Axl Rose]

Honestly I have no idea why I am paying into social security when I will never get that money back. Either shore it up or give me a private option. I get that most people aren't responsible enough for a private option so make it a completely inaccessible account until you hit 65. I shouldn't have to pay for government incompetence

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Honestly I have no idea why I am paying into social security when I will never get that money back. Either shore it up or give me a private option. I get that most people aren't responsible enough for a private option so make it a completely inaccessible account until you hit 65. I shouldn't have to pay for government incompetence

Exactly. SS needs to be fully privatized

[boutons_deux]

"I will never get that money back"

You Lie

[CosmicCowboy]

"I will never get that money back"

You Lie

Where is the money going to come from? All the "trust fund" has is a bunch of IOU's. The US will either have to have a shitload of real revenue to pay off all those IOU's or just keep borrowing and increasing the national debt.

[boutons_deux]

Where is the money going to come from?

From the US govt, like always.

You assholes support tax avoidance and evasion by the 1%/BigCorp/BigFinance, wasting $600B on military that can't win shit, while supporting cutting the entire social safety net.

G F Y

[Axl Rose]

"I will never get that money back"

You Lie
Yeah if they fix our shit and the govt remains solvent. But I still don't get the same returns I could get by managing my own.

[boutons_deux]

Yeah if they fix our shit and the govt remains solvent. But I still don't get the same returns I could get by managing my own.

US govt can't go bankrupt, won't default, won't fail to pay SS. Y'all's beloved fantasies and fucked up priorities are beyond insane.

[Axl Rose]

So we can just spend indefinitely and there's nothing to worry about, gotcha. Why not just borrow more money and give it to the poor to even out income inequality? Or plant money trees on federal land

[CosmicCowboy]

US govt can't go bankrupt, won't default, won't fail to pay SS. Y'all's beloved fantasies and fucked up priorities are beyond insane.

No doubt they can print the 'money" to pay the IOU's. The question is, what will the "money" be worth? Funny thing Boo, my shit will be taken care of without SS...will yours?

[Axl Rose]

No doubt they can print the 'money" to pay the IOU's. The question is, what will the "money" be worth? Funny thing Boo, my shit will be taken care of without SS...will yours?
Fuck no that's why he's on here raving like a lunatic. If he put half the effort into something fruitful he'd be set. Let him wallow in his own shit

[boutons_deux]

No doubt they can print the 'money" to pay the IOU's. The question is, what will the "money" be worth? Funny thing Boo, my shit will be taken care of without SS...will yours?


yeah, yeah, we've heard. Your financial dick is bigger than anybody else's. Congrat, now go whine about your taxes and go suck yourself.

[CosmicCowboy]

yeah, yeah, we've heard. Your financial dick is bigger than mine. Congrat, now go whine about your taxes and go suck yourself.

:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry

:lmao

[DMC]

Honestly I have no idea why I am paying into social security when I will never get that money back. Either shore it up or give me a private option. I get that most people aren't responsible enough for a private option so make it a completely inaccessible account until you hit 65. I shouldn't have to pay for government incompetence

I think people should be allowed to fail. Our grandparents are so frugal because they witnessed people who failed and why they failed. People today need to see that you can indeed starve to death, that you can be homeless, that you can be without medical help. It might take some years, but eventually people would learn to take care of themselves or they would die off.

[pgardn]

I think people should be allowed to fail. Our grandparents are so frugal because they witnessed people who failed and why they failed. People today need to see that you can indeed starve to death, that you can be homeless, that you can be without medical help. It might take some years, but eventually people would learn to take care of themselves or they would die off.

Need to get rid of charity soup houses as well. You need to tell these religious Christian nuts to quit feeding and housing these folks. And while you are at it the charity medical clinics wtf... Good thing the Doctors Without Borders go elsewhere.

[DMC]

Need to get rid of charity soup houses as well. You need to tell these religious Christian nuts to quit feeding and housing these folks. And while you are at it the charity medical clinics wtf... Good thing the Doctors Without Borders go elsewhere.

Charity is fine. It's a good morality lesson. Charity is personal choice to help another, it's not forced wealth redistribution. Piss poor attempt at a clever analogy.

[pgardn]

Charity is fine. It's a good morality lesson. Charity is personal choice to help another, it's not forced wealth redistribution. Piss poor attempt at a clever analogy.

Its NOT an analogy.

Its an attempt to help your plan work. These charities will bail the slackers out. Then we can't get rid of them.

[CosmicCowboy]

The modern day Salvation Army is a good example of a charity that helps those that want to help themselves.

That's very different from the nanny state that enables bad behavior.

[DMC]

Its NOT an analogy.

Its an attempt to help your plan work. These charities will bail the slackers out. Then we can't get rid of them.

Try harder.

Charity is part of freedom. Welfare is forced wealth redistribution.

[pgardn]

Try harder.

Charity is part of freedom. Welfare is forced wealth redistribution.

Excellent.
You can type to yourself.
I said nothing about intentions. Try harder reading. Analogy...

Well. I can see you don't see the holes in your plan.

[Th'Pusher]

Try harder.

Charity is part of freedom. Welfare is forced wealth redistribution.

Name a successful society that didn't have forced wealth distribution.

[CosmicCowboy]

Name a successful society that didn't have forced wealth distribution.

I can certainly name a lot of unsuccessful ones that had forced wealth distribution.

In 2016 Venezuela says hi.

[DMC]

Name a successful society that didn't have forced wealth distribution.

define "successful society"

[Th'Pusher]

I can certainly name a lot of unsuccessful ones that had forced wealth distribution.

In 2016 Venezuela says hi.

Well, that's because pretty much all societies have some sort of forced wealth distribution.

[Th'Pusher]

define "successful society"

Throw one out and we can discuss whether or not it's successful.

[DMC]

Excellent.
You can type to yourself.
I said nothing about intentions. Try harder reading. Analogy...

Well. I can see you don't see the holes in your plan.

Because it's my personal responsibility to care for whatever sneaks across the border and the federal government should force me at gunpoint to surrender my goods.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, that's because pretty much all societies have some sort of forced wealth distribution.

Well, I think we can all agree there is a happy medium. Where we tend to disagree is what that line is.

[DMC]

Throw one out and we can discuss whether or not it's successful.

No.

It's your term. Define it or shut up. It's a red herring so don't expect me to spend much time on it if you cannot even define it.

[Th'Pusher]

Well, I think we can all agree there is a happy medium. Where we tend to disagree is what that line is.

That's fair.

[Th'Pusher]

No.

It's your term. Define it or shut up. It's a red herring so don't expect me to spend much time on it if you cannot even define it.

More pedantic games from the tourist.

[pgardn]

Because it's my personal responsibility to care for whatever sneaks across the border and the federal government should force me at gunpoint to surrender my goods.

Okay then...

You have now decided to orbit Mars.

[DMC]

More pedantic games from the tourist.

Semantic, not pedantic.

If you cannot define a term you're asking to use as a measuring stick, then your argument is moot. Anyone can define any society as successful if it meets their personal criteria, yours being that it has a welfare state.

[Th'Pusher]

Semantic, not pedantic.

If you cannot define a term you're asking to use as a measuring stick, then your argument is moot. Anyone can define any society as successful if it meets their personal criteria, yours being that it has a welfare state.

No. pedant. As in a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules.

You missed the point. Name any society that didn't have some sort of wealth distribution.

[Wild Cobra]

#6 I wonder why they want to de-couple what a spouse gets based on the worker (usually you get 1/2 of what worker gets). Maybe Congress thinks that they're all trophy wives with husbands who earn huge amounts? This will especially hurt a spouse who is divorced after decades of staying at home taking care of kids (and doesn't have his/her own benefit).

#8 I guess they mean LOWER the benefit.

I didn't post that to agree or disagree any of it, just to inform everyone what is out there so far on the topic. The link I provided gives more detail on each.

[Wild Cobra]

Honestly I have no idea why I am paying into social security when I will never get that money back. Either shore it up or give me a private option. I get that most people aren't responsible enough for a private option so make it a completely inaccessible account until you hit 65. I shouldn't have to pay for government incompetence

If all my SS insurance payments were put in my 401K instead, I would die a rich man.

[Wild Cobra]

"I will never get that money back"

You Lie

Your situation, whereas living in your aunt's basement, and paying on minimum wage SS insurance, doesn't apply to all of us.

[angrydude]

Name a successful society that didn't have forced wealth distribution.

That's like saying name a successful society that didn't have crime.

[DMC]

No. pedant. As in a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules.

You missed the point. Name any society that didn't have some sort of wealth distribution.

Wealth distribution is one thing. Forced redistribution is quite another.

This is the problem, you're too sloppy with your argument. It's an obvious cause vs correlation fallacy you're attempting to use and unless you can show that wealth redistribution leads to a "successful society" then why discuss it? Name one that didn't have rape or murder.

[Th'Pusher]

Wealth distribution is one thing. Forced redistribution is quite another.

This is the problem, you're too sloppy with your argument. It's an obvious cause vs correlation fallacy you're attempting to use and unless you can show that wealth redistribution leads to a "successful society" then why discuss it? Name one that didn't have rape or murder.

A correlation between income inequality and health and social issues has been established.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level

an attempt to achieve a more equitable society through wealth redistribution seems a apt policy prescription.

[Axl Rose]

A correlation between income inequality and health and social issues has been established.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level

an attempt to achieve a more equitable society through wealth redistribution seems a apt policy prescription.
You know another thing I've noticed correlated with income inequality is work ethic inequality and intelligence inequality

[Wild Cobra]

A correlation between income inequality and health and social issues has been established.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level

an attempt to achieve a more equitable society through wealth redistribution seems a apt policy prescription.

I don't like wealth redistribution. It is one of several factors that reinforces the concept people can be lazy, and not aspire to better themselves.

[DMC]

A correlation between income inequality and health and social issues has been established.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level

an attempt to achieve a more equitable society through wealth redistribution seems a apt policy prescription.

Shocking. You're saying that because people aren't as successful in their hunting, they don't have as many furs or as much meat, Because they didn't till the land they don't have a successful crop and because they settled for stick huts, they don't have secure stone dwellings, and because they don't have things with which to barter, they cannot convince others to come to their rescue.

Sounds like natural order to me.

However your suggestion is to take the furs, the meat, the stone dwellings and bartering materials from the successful hunters and farmers and gatherers, by force, and give them to the unsuccessful people so that they all have the same amount of things.

Of course, the hunter won't be as successful if he has to lose most of his hunt, and the farmer will till less and plant less and reap less if his goods are being taken by force, and the gatherers will only gather enough to avoid forced seizure of their goods. People won't put in more energy than is profitable just for the sake of those who put in none, especially people they have no vested interest in helping, just for the sake of socialism.

You obviously don't know human nature nor the pitfalls of socialism.

[Wild Cobra]

Sounds like natural order to me.


Yep.

Some people can simply afford better care. Only the basics should be an entitlement. Not the costly things. We allow too much entitlement today, and need to scale back 70% or more.

[DMC]

Yep.

Some people can simply afford better care. Only the basics should be an entitlement. Not the costly things. We allow too much entitlement today, and need to scale back 70% or more.

There should be no entitlement other than rights. No one should be forced to provide basic needs for anyone outside of their own family.

[Wild Cobra]

There should be no entitlement other than rights. No one should be forced to provide basic needs for anyone outside of their own family.
I agree with the specifics of what you said. However, taxation is for the betterment of this nation, and that also means the people. I will fight against being too generous with "other peoples money," but remember. I said "basic" entitlements. I see nothing wrong with small generosities.

[DMC]

I agree with the specifics of what you said. However, taxation is for the betterment of this nation, and that also means the people. I will fight against being too generous with "other peoples money," but remember. I said "basic" entitlements. I see nothing wrong with small generosities.

Taxation for what you use is one thing. I use roads, bridges, and the military is a required force to enable us to even exercise freedoms. Taxation to give others "basics" is just a lower level of socialism.

I see nothing wrong with generosity either. Look up the definition of the word. Forced wealth redistribution isn't generosity. Charity is generosity. I am a fan of charity, but not forced wealth redistribution.

[Wild Cobra]

Taxation for what you use is one thing. I use roads, bridges, and the military is a required force to enable us to even exercise freedoms. Taxation to give others "basics" is just a lower level of socialism.

Yes, you are correct. Should there be a pure ideological political affiliation? Is it wrong to take the best attributes from all?



I see nothing wrong with generosity either. Look up the definition of the word. Forced wealth redistribution isn't generosity. Charity is generosity. I am a fan of charity, but not forced wealth redistribution.

I am a great fan of charity as well. The government often gets in the way of that as well.

I am not a fan of our over-bloated government, and want to see a serious overhaul. What's wrong with free immunizations, free basic diagnosis and remedies, and to ease a person's transition through death?

Is that too much of a tax burden?

[Wild Cobra]

Keep in mind. I am an opponent to things like Obamacare. I just want free basic services. If a person breaks their leg, should it be treated no better than 16th century medicine if a person is unemployed?

[DMC]

Keep in mind. I am an opponent to things like Obamacare. I just want free basic services. If a person breaks their leg, should it be treated no better than 16th century medicine if a person is unemployed?

It should be treated. It shouldn't be treated for free. Do you want to give your work away for free because people are unemployed? Otherwise why look for a job if you can survive without one?

[DMC]

Yes, you are correct. Should there be a pure ideological political affiliation? Is it wrong to take the best attributes from all?


I am a great fan of charity as well. The government often gets in the way of that as well.

I am not a fan of our over-bloated government, and want to see a serious overhaul. What's wrong with free immunizations, free basic diagnosis and remedies, and to ease a person's transition through death?

Is that too much of a tax burden?

Immunizations are "free" because of the ramifications of not having them. Its not a charitable gesture. Nothing is free, only free for certain people. Others have to foot the bill. Immunizations are like the military; the alternative is more costly so it's a preventive maintenance cost that I'll gladly pay to avoid that alternative. What is the negative ramification for not paying for someone's braces or sex change?

[spurraider21]

Immunizations are "free" because of the ramifications of not having them. Its not a charitable gesture. Nothing is free, only free for certain people. Others have to foot the bill. Immunizations are like the military; the alternative is more costly so it's a preventive maintenance cost that I'll gladly pay to avoid that alternative. What is the negative ramification for not paying for someone's braces or sex change?they might make you share a bathroom

[Wild Cobra]

What is the negative ramification for not paying for someone's braces or sex change?
I'm not considering that basic care.

Do you?

[Th'Pusher]

However your suggestion is to take the furs, the meat, the stone dwellings and bartering materials from the successful hunters and farmers and gatherers, by force, and give them to the unsuccessful people so that they all have the same amount of things.


Strawman. I'm not arguing for complete equality, but find value in things like a progressive tax system or an estate tax to reduce income inequality as it has been established less inequality leads to a better quality of life for the citizens of a society.

If your preferred system of absolute zero wealth redistribution is such a great idea, name me a single historical example of it being implemented successfully. If it's natural order, all societies should gravitate towards it and history should be littered with examples.

[CosmicCowboy]

Strawman. I'm not arguing for complete equality, but find value in things like a progressive tax system or an estate tax to reduce income inequality as it has been established less inequality leads to a better quality of life for the citizens of a society.

If your preferred system of absolute zero wealth redistribution is such a great idea, name me a single historical example of it being implemented successfully. If it's natural order, all societies should gravitate towards it and history should be littered with examples.

The unabashed envy of wanting estate confiscation on the death of a couple just amazes me. Honest hardworking people work and save all their lives to support themselves through retirement and hopefully leave something for their kids and grandkids. Advocating stealing this from them is just disgusting.

[Th'Pusher]

The unabashed envy of wanting estate confiscation on the death of a couple just amazes me. Honest hardworking people work and save all their lives to support themselves through retirement and hopefully leave something for their kids and grandkids. Advocating stealing this from them is just disgusting.

Don't be so emotional. around .1% of the population pay the estate tax.

[CosmicCowboy]

Don't be so emotional. around .1% of the population pay the estate tax.

So you don't have a problem with the existing estate tax?

[Th'Pusher]

So you don't have a problem with the existing estate tax?

Not particularly. Average estate tax paid is ~17% on assets greater than $5.3M for infividual and $10.6M for a couple. Seems reasonable.

[DMC]

I'm not considering that basic care.

Do you?

That's the point. No two people have the same ideas about "basic care". You say broken leg should get treatment for free if you are unemployed, but if you are underemployed? So you work your ass off but get billed everything you make for a broken leg. You should have quit your job, gotten treated then found another job.

These resolutions encourage gaming of the system. It's happening now and it's happened in the past. So sure, broken leg should be treated, but not for free. A person should receive a bill.

[DMC]

Strawman. I'm not arguing for complete equality, but find value in things like a progressive tax system or an estate tax to reduce income inequality as it has been established less inequality leads to a better quality of life for the citizens of a society.

If your preferred system of absolute zero wealth redistribution is such a great idea, name me a single historical example of it being implemented successfully. If it's natural order, all societies should gravitate towards it and history should be littered with examples.

You have really bad arguments and red herrings and logical fallacies of all sorts. It's so sloppy that it's almost indistinguishable from a poorly crafted troll attempt. On one hand you don't want to define "successful society" yet on the other you want to separate specifics of wealth redistribution but only after your initial offering is deemed too sloppy to make any real point. Now "better quality of life for.." is considered "successful society" even if it's only for those who fell below the average. Somehow the quality of life didn't improve for those expected to sacrifice more so that those who earn less can have a better quality of life. I suppose the society is only those who fall below the average.

Unsurprisingly those who preach that kind of ideology are the those who aren't required to sacrifice if it came to fruition. You'd likely benefit from it.

You're always free to give everything you have to the poor. If you don't, then you really just want "society" to fix it for you, while you act as a remote viewer.

[DMC]

Not particularly. Average estate tax paid is ~17% on assets greater than $5.3M for infividual and $10.6M for a couple. Seems reasonable.
Reasonable based on what, your apartment?

[Th'Pusher]

You have really bad arguments and red herrings and logical fallacies of all sorts. It's so sloppy that it's almost indistinguishable from a poorly crafted troll attempt. On one hand you don't want to define "successful society" yet on the other you want to separate specifics of wealth redistribution but only after your initial offering is deemed too sloppy to make any real point. Now "better quality of life for.." is considered "successful society" even if it's only for those who fell below the average. Somehow the quality of life didn't improve for those expected to sacrifice more so that those who earn less can have a better quality of life. I suppose the society is only those who fall below the average.

You're not saying anything. you haven't made a credible argument for your preferred system of zero wealth redistribution.

[Th'Pusher]

Reasonable based on what, your apartment?

It's current law, and as I mentioned previously, I think it works toward reducing inequality. That's a good thing imo. If you have an issue with the law, state your case, or better yet, call your senators and congressman.

[DMC]

It's current law, and as I mentioned previously, I think it works toward reducing inequality. That's a good thing imo. If you have an issue with the law, state your case, or better yet, call your senators and congressman.

Goddamn you have horrible reasoning skills. Something is reasonable because it's law? So there's no such as an unreasonable law? Maybe because it was approved it became qualified as reasonable?

Forced redistribution of wealth does not reduce inequality because the source of the wealth continues to be the same folks and they will always be more important to the system than the takers. You can always replace takers, there's an endless supply just lining up for free shit. Try replacing the providers. Where's your equality now?

[rmt]

If people believe in wealth re-distribution, please feel free to give away YOUR money. Likewise, if you believe in climate change, why don't you give up YOUR car and ride a bicycle or walk. Just don't force me to give up what is MINE.

[DMC]

You're not saying anything. you haven't made a credible argument for your preferred system of zero wealth redistribution.

I didn't argue against wealth redistribution. I argued against forced wealth redistribution. Capitalism is wealth redistribution, as it pays based on supply/demand. Free market system distributes wealth. You're arguing instead for forced wealth redistribution, taking from someone and giving to someone else, simply because that someone else is less fortunate or simply lazy.

There are plenty examples of failed socialist experiments. Do you own legwork.

[Th'Pusher]

Goddamn you have horrible reasoning skills. Something is reasonable because it's law? So there's no such as an unreasonable law? Maybe because it was approved it became qualified as reasonable?

it's not reasonable because it's law, that was simply a statement of fact. It's reasonable in my opinion because it reduces inequality.

Forced redistribution of wealth does not reduce inequality because the source of the wealth continues to be the same folks and they will always be more important to the system than the takers. You can always replace takers, there's an endless supply just lining up for free shit. Try replacing the providers. Where's your equality now?[/QUOTE]

This is an opinion. Back it up.

[DMC]

besides, equitable income distribution is different than forced redistribution of wealth. The goal of a society isn't set in stone. The goal of the individual affects the goal of societies, and to many individuals, becoming financially independent means little if they live in a society where a disproportionate number of people don't have basic needs met even if they work for a living. It's like being retired in Somalia. You want a vibrant society but that doesn't need to be crafted by forced redistribution of wealth. Instead it needs to be based on free market economics. If all that is taken care of, the small portion of unfortunate folks (and there will be some in any system) will be fine as long as "fine" doesn't mean the same quality of life as the fortunate. Else there's no real measuring stick for success. Everyone gets the same thing.

[boutons_deux]

"forced"? :lol

tax law is tax law.

forced? :lol

$10M tax free for a couple, then the rest is taxable income, NOT "FORCIBLY" CONFISCATED. :lol

[DMC]

it's not reasonable because it's law, that was simply a statement of fact. It's reasonable in my opinion because it reduces inequality.

Forced redistribution of wealth does not reduce inequality because the source of the wealth continues to be the same folks and they will always be more important to the system than the takers. You can always replace takers, there's an endless supply just lining up for free shit. Try replacing the providers. Where's your equality now?


This is an opinion. Back it up.
If I snatch your wallet and give it to a homeless person, that reduces inequality. Is that reasonable?

Your first answer to "why is it reasonable" was that it is the law. If that's not an answer then it's just wasted yapping. We know its the law.

I don't need to back it up because it's not an opinion. How many welfare recipients from 20 years ago are now running large corporations and paying disproportionate amounts of taxes? I don't need to prove a crippled can't carry me for the next 10 miles if I carry them for the 1st.

[Th'Pusher]

besides, equitable income distribution is different than forced redistribution of wealth. The goal of a society isn't set in stone. The goal of the individual affects the goal of societies, and to many individuals, becoming financially independent means little if they live in a society where a disproportionate number of people don't have basic needs met even if they work for a living. It's like being retired in Somalia. You want a vibrant society but that doesn't need to be crafted by forced redistribution of wealth. Instead it needs to be based on free market economics. If all that is taken care of, the small portion of unfortunate folks (and there will be some in any system) will be fine as long as "fine" doesn't mean the same quality of life as the fortunate. Else there's no real measuring stick for success. Everyone gets the same thing.

Name me a single society that has not employed some form of forced redistribution of wealth?

[Th'Pusher]

If I snatch your wallet and give it to a homeless person, that reduces inequality. Is that reasonable?

straw man. I'm arguing for limited wealth transfer through tax policy.


I don't need to back it up because it's not an opinion. How many welfare recipients from 20 years ago are now running large corporations and paying disproportionate amounts of taxes?

i don't know the answer to that, and neither do you, which is why your opinions need to be backed up.

[Axl Rose]

Name me a single society that has not employed some form of forced redistribution of wealth?
Name one single society that has redistributed that wealth to foreign nationals, and allows many welfare recipients to collect and not produce? We have generations of career welfare recipients living in our inner cities

[Th'Pusher]

Name one single society that has redistributed that wealth to foreign nationals, and allows many welfare recipients to collect and not produce? We have generations of career welfare recipients living in our inner cities

Most Western European countries do this to some extent.

[DMC]

straw man. I'm arguing for limited wealth transfer through tax policy.


I'm using your criteria for "reasonable". So now you've added "limited wealth transfer through policy". All that's missing from my example is policy, since your wallet is limited.



i don't know the answer to that, and neither do you, which is why your opinions need to be backed up.

You made an assertion without evidence. I don't need evidence to disagree with it.

[DMC]

Most Western European countries do this to some extent.

Just another non-specific claim using general terms like "most" and "some extent".

You really are just winging it, aren't you.

[DMC]

Reasonable based on what, your apartment?


It's current law, and as I mentioned previously, I think it works toward reducing inequality. That's a good thing imo. If you have an issue with the law, state your case, or better yet, call your senators and congressman.


it's not reasonable because it's law, that was simply a statement of fact. It's reasonable in my opinion because it reduces inequality.



You don't know whether to shit or go blind.

[Th'Pusher]

Just another non-specific claim using general terms like "most" and "some extent".

You really are just winging it, aren't you.

:lol you're the one who is arguing for zero forced wealth redistribution, even though you can't provide a singe society in the history of civilization that has ever implemented such a policy successfully.

I'm arguing for limited forced wealth redistribution through tax policy in an effort to reduce inequality. There is plenty of data to back up my position.

You appear to be the one who's winging it.

[baseline bum]

Name one single society that has redistributed that wealth to foreign nationals, and allows many welfare recipients to collect and not produce? We have generations of career welfare recipients living in our inner cities

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and wetbacks are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).

[Th'Pusher]

You don't know whether to shit or go blind.

Nothing you quoted cotridicts the fact that I think the current law regarding estate tax is reasonable because it works to reduce inequality.

[CosmicCowboy]

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and wetbacks are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).

Most of the employers victimizing the Mexican illegals are Mexicans themselves.

[boutons_deux]

Most of the employers victimizing the Mexican illegals are Mexicans themselves.

So American citizens underpaying, stealing illegals' wages, raping illegals, etc is not a problem. Glad to know. thanks

[Axl Rose]

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and wetbacks are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).
I agree arrest the unpatriotic sons of bitches, we need everify and strict penalties

[Axl Rose]

Most Western European countries do this to some extent.
Yeah and Europe is in the shitter. Once great nations are suffering stagnant growth and massive youth unemployment. I'm seeing articles in mainstream outlets these days talking about coming civil unrest/war. Europe is a great example of why it's a bad idea

[HI-FI]

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and wetbacks are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).
Agree. It helps to have wing stop plus Timmy anchoring the d. Also, I don't have a problem with seasonal workers, I just think the current policy is insanity unless you're a globalist elite. GOP is purposefully out of touch with their base, they're happier playing good cop/bad cop with the Dems imo.

[CosmicCowboy]

So American citizens underpaying, stealing illegals' wages, raping illegals, etc is not a problem. Glad to know. thanks

I didn't say that you stupid fuck. I said the worst abusers of illegal mexicans are legal mexicans.

[z0sa]

If people believe in wealth re-distribution, please feel free to give away YOUR money. Likewise, if you believe in climate change, why don't you give up YOUR car and ride a bicycle or walk. Just don't force me to give up what is MINE.

:lmao "believe" in climate change

[boutons_deux]

I didn't say that you stupid fuck. I said the worst abusers of illegal mexicans are legal mexicans.

... minimizing the white guys who abuse illegals. I bet a majority of the Mexicans who abuse illegals are employed by or contract to your white buddies.

[Wild Cobra]

... minimizing the white guys who abuse illegals. I bet a majority of the Mexicans who abuse illegals are employed by or contract to your white buddies.
That's why I say jail anyone who gives an illegal a job.

[spurraider21]

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and wetbacks are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).if that was the case, Trump's "because you'd be in jail" quip would apply to himself :lol

[spurraider21]

:lmao "believe" in climate changewe have to get used to this shit with the donald in office. :lmao if tillerson is involved in policy

[DMC]

Nothing you quoted cotridicts the fact that I think the current law regarding estate tax is reasonable because it works to reduce inequality.

You're saying a random number is reasonable because it does the same thing a number 2x the size would do, or half the size would do. Both would reduce inequality in wealth (not inequality though, geez you have a hard time with specifics).

[DMC]

That's why I say jail anyone who gives an illegal a job.

That's a bad idea. Fine them sure, but jail isn't free to the American taxpayer. Fines put money into the system, incarceration removes money. Fine businesses that knowingly hire people who don't have proper documentation (illegal would be hard to discern, all you'd know is you didn't require proper documentation). Make the system pay for itself. We have enough people in jail for non violent crimes.

[DMC]

:lol you're the one who is arguing for zero forced wealth redistribution, even though you can't provide a singe society in the history of civilization that has ever implemented such a policy successfully.

I'm arguing for limited forced wealth redistribution through tax policy in an effort to reduce inequality. There is plenty of data to back up my position.

You appear to be the one who's winging it.
Do you give your money to the poor? You can involve yourself in wealth redistribution all you like.

What you're arguing for already exists. How's that inequality thing going? The poorest communities that rely the heaviest on welfare programs are the ones who cry hardest about being disenfranchised. We're talking about career welfare recipients who make a life of it and teach it to their offspring. Where's the equality in that?

It's really easy to use general terms like inequality and "limited" if you don't have to think about the actual numbers or reasons or current provisions. You just cry "inequality" and expect that is going to somehow mean something.

[rmt]

we have to get used to this shit with the donald in office. :lmao if tillerson is involved in policy

The point is: put YOUR money/car where your mouth is. Don't force me to give up MINE - let them go work for their own. It irritates me no end when I hear the term "jobs that Americans won't do." And why in the world would they want to do them, when they can sit at home and collect food stamps, subsidized housing, free cell phone, etc on OUR dime.

[boutons_deux]

The point is: put YOUR money/car where your mouth is. Don't force me to give up MINE - let them go work for their own. It irritates me no end when I hear the term "jobs that Americans won't do." And why in the world would they want to do them, when they can sit at home and collect food stamps, subsidized housing, free cell phone, etc on OUR dime.

amazing LIES from you people, just amazing, but expected.

the free phone started with St Ronnie The Diseased, not Obama.

"On average, SNAP households currently receive about $255 a month. The average SNAP benefit per person is about $126 per month, which works out to about $1.40per person per meal. "

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+food+stamp+benefit&rlz=1C1LENP_enUS567US570&oq=average+food+sta&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.8025j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The majority of people on public assistance have jobs paying poverty wages from millionaires and billionaires, and the majority of them are white.

Vouchers for homeschoolers means taxpayers are subsidizing homeschoolers NOT to work and to indoctrinate their kids with bullshit.

[rmt]

amazing LIES from you people, just amazing, but expected.

the free phone started with St Ronnie The Diseased, not Obama.

"On average, SNAP households currently receive about $255 a month. The average SNAP benefit per person is about $126 per month, which works out to about $1.40per person per meal. "

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+food+stamp+benefit&rlz=1C1LENP_enUS567US570&oq=average+food+sta&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.8025j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The majority of people on public assistance have jobs paying poverty wages from millionaires and billionaires, and the majority of them are white.

Vouchers for homeschoolers means taxpayers are subsidizing homeschoolers NOT to work and to indoctrinate their kids with bullshit.



I don't care who instituted what. Welfare should not be something that goes on and on - sometimes for generations. You won't see any post of mine advocating for vouchers for homeschoolers - even if homeschoolers pay property tax/rent same as public school students. The money SHOULD follow the student - but that would crash your beloved public school system. I advocate choice of public schooling but you'd rather back the teachers' unions than our kids.

[spurraider21]

The point is: put YOUR money/car where your mouth is. Don't force me to give up MINE - let them go work for their own. It irritates me no end when I hear the term "jobs that Americans won't do." And why in the world would they want to do them, when they can sit at home and collect food stamps, subsidized housing, free cell phone, etc on OUR dime.nobody told you to give up your car

and im not talking about welfare or unemployment. i'm talking about putting scientific progress ahead of corporate interests, something unlikely to happen in the next 4 years

[rmt]

nobody told you to give up your car

and im not talking about welfare or unemployment. i'm talking about putting scientific progress ahead of corporate interests, something unlikely to happen in the next 4 years

The MINE refers to my money (forced wealth re-distribution discussion). The car is in reference to climate changer - if you're all so concerned about it, why aren't there many more people riding bikes and walking (which would help with our obesity problem and probably save us a ton). Yes, I know you're talking about "science" - I'm still on the forced wealth re-distribution (that includes Obamacare). And emissions regulations cost us all.

[boutons_deux]

"why aren't there many more people riding bikes and walking"

... because in most cities, esp in the sunbelt, infrastructure, distances have been provided for, preferred cars, not walking, biking.

bitching about health insurance, but not bitching about mandatory automobile insurance.

[pgardn]

The MINE refers to my money (forced wealth re-distribution discussion). The car is in reference to climate changer - if you're all so concerned about it, why aren't there many more people riding bikes and walking (which would help with our obesity problem and probably save us a ton). Yes, I know you're talking about "science" - I'm still on the forced wealth re-distribution (that includes Obamacare). And emissions regulations cost us all.

Me, myself and I...

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what...

This cuts both ways. In large societies we must agree to work together in some ways. I personally am against the redistribution of wealth via government. However, if there is something the government has done to allow wealth to be distributed unequally in the first place... It seems we have a problem that is creating more of a division of wealth. This, IMO, is part of what got Trump elected. He is displaying this via his Boeing press, etc...

The problem is conservatives don't often see what they themselves are using to gain wealth. Often it is the government. So on your way to the top, stay off my federally funded road with your car while going to work. Hike there. Conservatives don't understand that they are using PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE to gain wealth. So when that big oil truck goes down my city road and tears it up... and then YOU give said oil company all kinds of breaks to keep it functional...

And when that large company comes in promising jobs and the city decides they don't have to pay properly taxes like ME, MYSELF, AND I

Give it a thought. Just for a second think about how you use the public domain to make money. Then go to frkin India and never get to work because there are no traffic lights synchronized off of MY money.

[Th'Pusher]

You're saying a random number is reasonable because it does the same thing a number 2x the size would do, or half the size would do. Both would reduce inequality in wealth (not inequality though, geez you have a hard time with specifics).

Seventeen is not a random number and it's very specific. Of the people who pay the estate tax it's the average percentage paid.

[Th'Pusher]

Do you give your money to the poor? You can involve yourself in wealth redistribution all you like.

What you're arguing for already exists. How's that inequality thing going? The poorest communities that rely the heaviest on welfare programs are the ones who cry hardest about being disenfranchised. We're talking about career welfare recipients who make a life of it and teach it to their offspring. Where's the equality in that?

It's really easy to use general terms like inequality and "limited" if you don't have to think about the actual numbers or reasons or current provisions. You just cry "inequality" and expect that is going to somehow mean something.

It's also quite easy to speak absolutely, as you have, when there is no data to back up your position.

The reality is that your proposition is not serious and is completely untenable, which is why you cannot provide a single historical example of it being implemented.

The edgy libertarian shtick where you pretend like letting poor people die is reasonable policy has been played out on this forum multiple times.

[Th'Pusher]

The MINE refers to my money (forced wealth re-distribution discussion). The car is in reference to climate changer - if you're all so concerned about it, why aren't there many more people riding bikes and walking (which would help with our obesity problem and probably save us a ton). Yes, I know you're talking about "science" - I'm still on the forced wealth re-distribution (that includes Obamacare). And emissions regulations cost us all.

What percentage of your income did you give to charity last year?

[rmt]

What percentage of your income did you give to charity last year?

I tithe - so 10% of gross, and I get to CHOOSE where that freely given money goes. It isn't taken from me and used to perpetuate generational welfare, fund Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, etc.

[Th'Pusher]

I tithe - so 10% of gross, and I get to CHOOSE where that freely given money goes. It isn't taken from me and used to perpetuate generational welfare, fund Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, etc.

So it was given to your church? How much of it went to the Church's operating expenses? How much of it was directed to helping the poor since it seems you'd prefer this be a completely voluntary process.

[rmt]

Me, myself and I...

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what...

This cuts both ways. In large societies we must agree to work together in some ways. I personally am against the redistribution of wealth via government. However, if there is something the government has done to allow wealth to be distributed unequally in the first place... It seems we have a problem that is creating more of a division of wealth. This, IMO, is part of what got Trump elected. He is displaying this via his Boeing press, etc...

The problem is conservatives don't often see what they themselves are using to gain wealth. Often it is the government. So on your way to the top, stay off my federally funded road with your car while going to work. Hike there. Conservatives don't understand that they are using PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE to gain wealth. So when that big oil truck goes down my city road and tears it up... and then YOU give said oil company all kinds of breaks to keep it functional...

And when that large company comes in promising jobs and the city decides they don't have to pay properly taxes like ME, MYSELF, AND I

Give it a thought. Just for a second think about how you use the public domain to make money. Then go to frkin India and never get to work because there are no traffic lights synchronized off of MY money.

LOL at thinking anyone could possibly guilt me into thinking I don't contribute "my fair share," that I haven't contributed plenty to support that PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, that I don't pay plenty of property taxes on my home and rental to support PUBLIC EDUCATION. You talk as if conservatives don't also pay taxes. What I object to is the waste, irresponsibility, and sheer arrogance of government in thinking that they know best - that young people will willingly pay through the nose to support Obamacare (for the good of society), that people won't act in their self-interest and "game" the system by enrolling, getting treatment and dropping, that people won't deliberately cut back on hours to maintain their welfare, etc.

[spurraider21]

The MINE refers to my money (forced wealth re-distribution discussion). The car is in reference to climate changer - if you're all so concerned about it, why aren't there many more people riding bikes and walking (which would help with our obesity problem and probably save us a ton). Yes, I know you're talking about "science" - I'm still on the forced wealth re-distribution (that includes Obamacare). And emissions regulations cost us all.
Uninterrupted carbon emissions will also cost us all, including future generations. It's easy to brush it off when you haven't personally experienced effects yet. I liken it to people deciding not to floss their teeth because they haven't had dental issues yet. Except in this scenario, us not flossing our teeth because we're unwilling to make the effort will cause later generations to suffer the consequences. The only excuse is the false hope that by then we'll invent a way to quickly fix all the climate issues, despite the fact that it not only isn't feasible but that we continue to cut funding to research in these fields when we elect climate change skeptics

[Wild Cobra]

That's a bad idea. Fine them sure, but jail isn't free to the American taxpayer. Fines put money into the system, incarceration removes money. Fine businesses that knowingly hire people who don't have proper documentation (illegal would be hard to discern, all you'd know is you didn't require proper documentation). Make the system pay for itself. We have enough people in jail for non violent crimes.

I can agree with that. Just make sure the fine is large enough to hurt them. Maybe $20,000 per illegal.

[DMC]

It's also quite easy to speak absolutely, as you have, when there is no data to back up your position.

The reality is that your proposition is not serious and is completely untenable, which is why you cannot provide a single historical example of it being implemented.

The edgy libertarian shtick where you pretend like letting poor people die is reasonable policy has been played out on this forum multiple times.

Don't falsely equivocate poor with lazy. Poor people won't starve. Lazy people will, for a while.

What society do you want to emulate?

[DMC]

Uninterrupted carbon emissions will also cost us all, including future generations. It's easy to brush it off when you haven't personally experienced effects yet. I liken it to people deciding not to floss their teeth because they haven't had dental issues yet. Except in this scenario, us not flossing our teeth because we're unwilling to make the effort will cause later generations to suffer the consequences. The only excuse is the false hope that by then we'll invent a way to quickly fix all the climate issues, despite the fact that it not only isn't feasible but that we continue to cut funding to research in these fields when we elect climate change skeptics



Its just feel good shit. The bulk of the rotw isn't doing anything about it. We should go bankrupt to feel good?

[Wild Cobra]

Don't falsely equivocate poor with lazy. Poor people won't starve. Lazy people will, for a while.

What society do you want to emulate?

So true.

If we were to stop subsidizing people, it would be allowing nature to take course.

I'm not in favor of making sudden changes, but maybe reduce subsidizes by 10% per year until they are to zero. Those who deserve to maintain a particular standard of living, will.

[spurraider21]

Its just feel good shit. The bulk of the rotw isn't doing anything about it. We should go bankrupt to feel good?oh ok fuck it then. its easy for old fucks to have that mentality since they're not going to be dealing with this shit

[DMC]

oh ok fuck it then. its easy for old fucks to have that mentality since they're not going to be dealing with this shit

You had it handed to you. Do something to earn it.

Futile endeavors need to end after college.

[Winehole23]

For homo economicus, sure.

Clearly our mission as human beings and free citizens is to reproduce the existing social order. If one's chosen vocation is not adequately remunerative to retire one's debt, one is a failure and socially worthless ipso facto.

[CosmicCowboy]

For homo economicus, sure.

Clearly our mission as human beings and free citizens is to reproduce the existing social order. If one's chosen vocation is not adequately remunerative to retire one's debt, one is a failure and socially worthless ipso facto.

The game is matching ones debt to ones income.

You ever play poker with friends?

I do. I lose as many times as I win. But it wouldn't have any meaning if we all split the pot back at the end of the night. Why play?

[Winehole23]

God forbid the imprudence of the financial sector should ever lead to relief of an intensely indebted society. The banks would have to pay for their bad decisions instead of us.

Management's most effective means of social control -- hopelessly indebted workers -- would also be removed. As might the financial sector's stranglehold on government.

[boutons_deux]

"if we all split the pot"

yes, yes, that's exactly what is proposed for American society. excellent point

[Winehole23]

The game is matching ones debt to ones income.

You ever play poker with friends?

I do. I lose as many times as I win. But it wouldn't have any meaning if we all split the pot back at the end of the night. Why play?If life in a free society is no more or less than a poker game sure. No common good, no country, just private interest,

Why have a republic at all or even a government in that case?

[CosmicCowboy]

"if we all split the pot"

yes, yes, that's exactly what is proposed for American society. excellent point

Says the guy that went all in on a pair of 2's.

[boutons_deux]

Says the guy that went all in on a pair of 2's.

... and you folded like your limp dick

[CosmicCowboy]

If life in a free society is no more or less than a poker game sure. No common good, no country, just private interest,

Why have a republic at all or even a government in that case?

Oh, I'm not saying you shouldn't tip the dealer. Life IS a game. I'm was one of the worst abuser of credit and credit cards in my younger days and had one hell of a good time. I always spent more than I made which gave me incentive to work harder, make more, and spend more. I had a freaking blast. Trust me, you can have a hell of a lot more fun with money in your 30's than you can have in your 60's.

[CosmicCowboy]

... and you folded like your limp dick

Hows like in your mommas single wide Burqa-Boo?

[pgardn]

LOL at thinking anyone could possibly guilt me into thinking I don't contribute "my fair share," that I haven't contributed plenty to support that PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, that I don't pay plenty of property taxes on my home and rental to support PUBLIC EDUCATION. You talk as if conservatives don't also pay taxes. What I object to is the waste, irresponsibility, and sheer arrogance of government in thinking that they know best - that young people will willingly pay through the nose to support Obamacare (for the good of society), that people won't act in their self-interest and "game" the system by enrolling, getting treatment and dropping, that people won't deliberately cut back on hours to maintain their welfare, etc.

You have no idea what your fair share REALLY IS.

So you maintain that you and others get taken for more than you give. I see nothing about the massive amount of money industry makes off of your And my money. But you deem the poor the real leeches. Part of what got Trump elected is wealth disparity. You choose to concentrate on ONE section of "the takers". Many poor don't even use the roads for their non existent private vehicles, but you do and feel fine because you not only pay taxes like many do, but end up owing more. Have you ever thought you actually might be a taker. Just because you and I work hard does not mean we don't take from our government. Just because we pay taxes above what is the minimal requirement does not automatically mean we are not takers.

I know I am a taker. I use what is present in this country, built and provided through taxes, to make money. It's not always directly, but I am not blind enough to see this country benefits and that it pays for science and industry related to such. I probably give a lot back as well but I know I use the tax payed infrastructure everyday to make money. And it's not just roads. It's funding to Universities and Companies with close association in research with those Universities. It's the societal infrastructure that allows me to get to work safely. I don't get stopped at check points and payoff guerilla groups.

There are very wealthy AND very poor who are takers. You choose to concentrate on one group. People need to visit other countries to see how bad it can be.

Rant over.

[Winehole23]

Why tip the dealer?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why tip the dealer?

The ones that work will make their own good life.

[Winehole23]

Heatlhcare, education and banking shouldn't be for profit business but public utilities. The profit made isn't productivity but rent that acts as a drag on gross production.

[Winehole23]

I was talking about the metaphor. Who or what, is the dealer?

[Winehole23]

Are there social and political costs that we pay for not tipping the dealer?

[CosmicCowboy]

Heatlhcare, education and banking shouldn't be for profit business but public utilities. The profit made isn't productivity but rent that acts as a drag on gross production.

Health care and education are already public utilities. Whether they are managed by public/private is subject to cost/benefit analysis. I'm OK if public wins that one but it's not decided yet.

Banking is purely a risk/reward scenario. If I loan money to X will X repay the loan with a reasonable risk/reward return so i can continue to loan money to Y and Z?

Public is uniquely unqualified to make that judgement as political influence trumps logical risk/reward judgement. Always has and always will.

[Winehole23]

Ever increasing debt leads to debt peonage. For entire countries, even. When the system of payment broke in 2008 we healed the improvident banking sector instead of a suffering society.

So it can do more of the same.

[Winehole23]

Debt is social and political control. If the republic doesn't kick it in the nuts when it goes off the rails so much the worse for the republic and the citizens.

[Winehole23]

Sickness isn't a choice. Education and banking are social necessities and redound to the public good.

What we pay for them is absurd -- not technically necessary.

[Winehole23]

but, as you say, political determination is more powerful than cost/benefit analysis. I suppose that's as it should be, but don't pretend it's well-arranged.

[Winehole23]

the public goods referred to as the FIRE sector own society.

arguably, it owns politics too, with dire implications for democracy and human freedom.

[CosmicCowboy]

Dude, I'm just drinking a nice red blend tonight. I want some of what you are having. you are on fire! :lol

[Winehole23]

Marie Duffau Bas-Armangac

https://bibberandbell.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Bas-Armagnac-Napoleon-Marie-Duffau-400x400.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

sadly I'm dangerous with brandy. I'm more of a drinker than a sipper.

[Winehole23]

I know it's just emotive prose with no binding legal effect, but one shouldn't underestimate the sentimental attachment people have to the preamble of the US Constitution.

If we fail to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, people get pissed off, and the ruling order will be perceived as lacking legitimacy.

[Winehole23]

sadly I'm dangerous with brandy. I'm more of a drinker than a sipper.oh me too. I tend to drink all liquids at the same rate.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know it's just emotive prose with no binding legal effect, but one shouldn't underestimate the sentimental attachment people have to the preamble of the US Constitution.

If we fail to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, people get pissed off, and the ruling order will be perceived as lacking legitimacy.

The interpretation of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare hopefully will be an argument our grandchildren will still be having.

[Winehole23]

Dude, I'm just drinking a nice red blend tonight.What please?

Purely professional curiosity, of course...

[Winehole23]

The interpretation of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare hopefully will be an argument our grandchildren will still be having.I hope so too. Ideas matter.

[CosmicCowboy]

What please?

Purely professional curiosity, of course...

It's actually a reasonably priced decent table wine. 2014 Apothic Red Winemakers Blend. I like the tannin level and the mouth feel/after and it's relatively cheap....about $8. HEB has it on the bottom shelf LOL.I have some great wines in the fridge but it's a decent maintenance compromise.

[Winehole23]

as a rule of thumb, it's a mistake to think one gets more pleasure from a bottle of wine by paying more for it...but it is possible.

[CosmicCowboy]

as a rule of thumb, it's a mistake to think one gets more pleasure from a bottle of wine by paying more for it...but it is possible.

True...I generally stop at the $60 bottle range and have 15 or so in the fridge for special occasions aging...they are most definitely better but relatively speaking they aren't 3X better than a good $20 bottle.

no matter how much I ever make I can't see paying $250 for a bottle of wine...

[Winehole23]

Back on topic, Chomsky wasn't far off when he said what we've got now is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

the financial panic of 2008 crystallized it: the losses of the financial sector were socialized.

we get fiscal austerity, the financial sector continues to get cheap money, tax cuts, deregulation and an implicit government backstop.

[Thread]

^The hole

[Wild Cobra]

oh me too. I tend to drink all liquids at the same rate.
Here's my favorite. I drink it neat:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/20160122_105713_zpsgjmzs5yk.jpg

[Winehole23]

^^^good taste in booze

[Th'Pusher]

139.8 proof? It's like Everclear :lol

[Winehole23]

ever tried it?

[Winehole23]

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/03/08/National-Economy/Images/Wall_Street_Dow_Record.JPEG-0f189-1575.jpg Sorry, plebe. No raise for you. (Richard Drew/AP)



Increasing income inequality is usually cast as the inevitable result of vast, impersonal forces like globalization and automation. But it's not, at least not entirely.


Now, I'm not just talking about how much inequality there is after Uncle Sam has taxed the rich and spent on the poor. It's pretty obvious that that can turn the haves into the have-a-little-lesses and the have-nots into the have-somethings. No, I'm talking about how much inequality there is before the government gets involved with taxes and transfers. Even that, as economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman (http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/economic-growth-in-the-united-states-a-tale-of-two-countries/) show, has changed a lot more in some countries than others. Which is to say that while trade and technology have helped high-earners everywhere, other things have limited just how much it has — or not.


Just look at the difference between France and the United States. Since 1980, when inequality really started to take off, the bottom 50 percent in France have seen their pre-tax-and-transfer incomes go up by about 32 percent after accounting for inflation. The bottom 50 percent in the U.S., meanwhile, haven't seen theirs change at all. It's been a lost three and a half decades. Which is even worse than it sounds once you realize that Americans have been working longer just to fall behind. The French, after all, take Augusts off.



https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/12/playfair-11.pnghttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/12/capitalism-is-working-better-in-france-than-the-u-s/?utm_term=.25b58dd21839

[Wild Cobra]

139.8 proof? It's like Everclear :lol

No, Everclear burns when going down. That 12 yr barrel proof is surprisingly smooth for it's proof. Great sipping bourbon.

[boutons_deux]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/12/capitalism-is-working-better-in-france-than-the-u-s/?utm_term=.25b58dd21839

"Capitalism is working better in France than the U.S."

... headline fucks up the whole article.

It's not the capitalism is working better in France, or any other social democracy, than in Ayn Rand's USA. Capitalistic materialism doesn't exist in a vacuum as the only dominant value.

It's that the social democratic societies are better organized to take care of all the members of society, rather than the USA social disaster of oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatocracy where the society is rigged to oppress and fleece the bottom 95%.

[Winehole23]

what are you talking about? We're a social democracy -- skewed to coddle the top of the scale.

[boutons_deux]

what are you talking about? We're a social democracy -- skewed to coddle the top of the scale.

no universal health care, unions busted, almost no employee protections, no family leave, no maternity leave, duopoly/monopoly regs not enforced, almost no consumer protections (that's decreasing), no free college education, 2 weeks vacation on average, no govt childcare, World Champion inequality, economic/social mobility stunted, shitty social safety net to be tattered even more in the next year or two. It all amounts to a shitty quality of life for a couple 100M people who living in economic precarity

America is not organized for the all of society, only for those at the top. "social"? G M A F B

[Winehole23]

leaving aside middle class entitlements like social security and Medicaid, you're right. we're in partial agreement, oddly.

[boutons_deux]

leaving aside middle class entitlements like social security and Medicaid, you're right. we're in partial agreement, oddly.


SS is not an entitlement. It's a mandatory retirement savings program.

Medicaid is not available to the "middle class". Medicaid is one of the few humanitarian govt programs for America's own people.

Progressive, humanitarian America decided, in the 1960s, that even Americans are "entitled" to some modicum of health care (and that was before BigHealth started fleecing America), and Medicaid about to be reduced if not destroyed by the sociopathic Repugs so savings can be "spent" on tax breaks for BigCorp/1%.

[Winehole23]

all reasonable points, except for the destruction of Medicaid. the political pain would be too great even for sociopathic Republicans.

ditto with SS: older folks vote.

even though it just got theoretically easier for the GOP to trash the safety net, in practice it'll be just as hard as ever.

[CosmicCowboy]

SS is not an entitlement. It's a mandatory retirement savings program.

:lmao

It's a mandatory tax.

We pay in, the government immediately spends the money with the promise that when we retire, they will tax somebody else to pay for our retirement stipend.

"savings program" :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao