Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So you're saying that SS and Medicare should be welfare programs then? In your opinion lower income people should be able to use their congressman to steal from the rich.

So, you think a straight percentage is unfair to the rich?

Folks, I rest my case.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So you're saying that SS and Medicare should be welfare programs then? In your opinion lower income people should be able to use their congressman to steal from the rich.

The government should ensure that everyone should be able to obtain the basic necessities of life. It's the moral obligation of those able to pay to support that principle. So, to that extent, Congressmen should make sure the rich don't shirk their societal obligations.

Otherwise, you wind up in a situation where it's better to be in prison than it is to be poor, since at least then you get "a roof and 3 squares per day."

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'm not advocating 'fleecing the rich'.

But based on comparative advantage, the US will probably fail in most manual labor, basic manufacturing and raw materials jobs...but will overachieve in bleeding edge innovation, content and business consulting expertise. The former will result in tough times for blue collar types...the latter will result in huge pay days for creative business individuals.

The net result is that the US is in all probability headed towards a future of a increasingly vast disparity of wealth.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'm not advocating 'fleecing the rich'.

But based on comparative advantage, the US will probably fail in most manual labor, basic manufacturing and raw materials jobs...but will overachieve in bleeding edge innovation, content and business consulting expertise. The former will result in tough times for blue collar types...the latter will result in huge pay days for creative business individuals.

The net result is that the US is in all probability headed towards a future of a increasingly vast disparity of wealth.

And, instead of doing something about it, we blame the rich for earning that much money. I guess I understand the 'sour grapes' aspect of it...they must have gotten that money from daddy or by doing something illegal or immoral. It couldn't be that they made good decisions about schools, chose fields predicted to be lucrative and worked hard...nah, that can't be it. So, the griping from the average Joe makes sense...what else is he going to say? "I'm not smart enough, I didn't work hard enough, I should spend less time watching WWE and more time reading?" Not gonna hear that come out of many people's mouths.

When the government jumps on the same bandwagon it concerns me in respect to the long term success of the country. Instead of recognizing this issue and trying to get the guy on the end of the bench to play better, we're blaming Jordan for taking too many shots. Now, in basketball there is only one ball, but somehow people in the US are convinced there is only $1 and if a rich guy earns it that means somebody must be homeless. I disagree completely. We shouldn't be competing between the current rich and poor, there is so little we can do to really address that outside of window dressing. We should be focusing on curriculum in schools and what is being taught relative to the future job market. Money should be shifted from shop programs to computer lab programs. College loans should be made more attractive for kids studying fields that will provide them career opportunities and less attractive for loan factories promising 100,000 people a lucrative career in AC repair. It may be a good field, we certainly need people to work in it...but we don't need thousands a year getting their 'degree' unless AC repairmen are dying at an alarming rate.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

We have a very inefficient country in terms of education. Too many people go into debt for a college degree that is nearly useless (someone should have told them there aren't a lot of jobs out there for philosophy majors). Too many others are pushed to go to college when they don't have the academic chops to handle it and would have been better served going to a trade school. College isn't the only answer to making a living; there are plenty of mechanics and plumbers out there who can vouch for this.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

we blame the rich for earning that much money. I guess I understand the 'sour grapes' aspect of it...

Come on. There's a lot more to the argument than this. There may be some envy, but there's also room for disagreement on policy.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So, you think a straight percentage is unfair to the rich?

Folks, I rest my case.

Sure it is if they are paying for far more than they are getting out of the program (which is already happening). If the current percentage is applied to all income then what you have is simply welfare. You are stealing from one person to give to another.

If you go to the grocery store should you pay twice as much for a loaf of bread if you make twice as much as someone else?

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

And, instead of doing something about it, we blame the rich for earning that much money.
...
Instead of recognizing this issue and trying to get the guy on the end of the bench to play better, we're blaming Jordan for taking too many shots. Now, in basketball there is only one ball, but somehow people in the US are convinced there is only $1 and if a rich guy earns it that means somebody must be homeless.

You can expect the rich to pay more as a group without "blaming" them (again, as a group). You can try to treat the symptom even where you don't know or care about the actual cause.

To extend your analogy further, if Jordan wants to take all the shots, fine, but he better make most of them. Chucking up airballs is not a path to victory for the team as a whole. So just be careful when praising him for scoring 30 points that his line wasn't 10-30 shooting, 6-12 from the line, with 3 rebounds, 2 assists and 5 turnovers.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Sure it is if they are paying for far more than they are getting out of the program (which is already happening).

It's not stealing; it's the price of admission to a highly stable society which allows the rich to accumulate their wealth. Sorry, but I'm not going to feel sorry for Joe and Jane Baby Boomer who benefitted from government programs and now don't want to pay for the same programs for future generations. Screw them.*

If the rich have it so bad here, they have the resources to go elsewhere and renounce their U.S. citizenship. Some of them could probably buy themselves a nice sized chunk of Africa and live out their tax-free dreams to their hearts content, I'm sure.

* Why yes, I'm all for generational warfare. It's not a class issue with me. The Baby Boomers are the demographic timebomb that will screw over the next 5 generations of Americans, and they don't give a fark. So I'm all for farking them right back as much as we can.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Listen to this crazy wingnut Republican talk about not raising the debt ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Oh, that was Barack Obama in 2006, voting against raising the limit. My mistake.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Sure it is if they are paying for far more than they are getting out of the program (which is already happening).

That's only one very narrow definition of fairness, though. What you want is user fees -- you are only entitled to take out what you put in. To be coherent that would also mean, for example, that there should be no school costs included in property taxes (if I have no kids, why should I pay? That's a ripoff!), and that fire departments should be subscription (you don't pay, they don't come to your house -- note this causes a real problem if you live next door to a non-subscriber). Social security payments should stop the day you outlive your contribution adjusted for some investment opportunity cost. And screw providing people with health care (I hope the guy who stocks the apples at your store doesn't have a contagious disease, or you might die a highly principled man).

That is not the path we have decided to go down as we decided and continue to decide these things through the political process. If you want to opt out of the contract, well, Somalia beckons. If you want to alter the contract, influence enough like-minded people to win at the ballot box. But don't say the alternative isn't "fair." It's just not your fair.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That's only one very narrow definition of fairness, though. What you want is user fees -- you are only entitled to take out what you put in. To be coherent that would also mean, for example, that there should be no school costs included in property taxes (if I have no kids, why should I pay? That's a ripoff!), and that fire departments should be subscription (you don't pay, they don't come to your house -- note this causes a real problem if you live next door to a non-subscriber). Social security payments should stop the day you outlive your contribution adjusted for some investment opportunity cost. And screw providing people with health care (I hope the guy who stocks the apples at your store doesn't have a contagious disease, or you might die a highly principled man).

That is not the path we have decided to go down as we decided and continue to decide these things through the political process. If you want to opt out of the contract, well, Somalia beckons. If you want to alter the contract, influence enough like-minded people to win at the ballot box. But don't say the alternative isn't "fair." It's just not your fair.

You'll have to explain to me how its "fair" to take property from someone by force purely to give it to someone else.

The program has been set up essentially as a "user fee". Its only different in that the money you contribute isn't directly tied to you (hence how its a ponzi scheme). It certainly hasn't been set up as a complete income transfer. If that were the case it would be in the general budget. So opening up the contribution to all income would be a complete change to the fundamentals of the program.

I'm not for a user fee in the current format. What I'm for is allowing people to opt out at a young age. Its the only way that the program can be sustainable in the long run.

*we can have the property taxes for education discussion some other time, but for now lets leave it at its under local jurisdiction which has a much broader scope of powers than the federal govt (and I do that its unfair)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You'll have to explain to me how its "fair" to take property from someone by force purely to give it to someone else.

You could as easily say that moving from a progressive to a flat tax takes property from the middle class by force purely to give it to the rich. There is no "zero mark," as the current distribution of income and wealth is a product of the current set of rules, and with no rules, there would be nothing but nature red in tooth and claw.

A decent defense, despite a few wince-worthy rhetorical flourishes. The libertarian play pen is just as chimerical, and would be just as hellish, as the worker's paradise.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You can expect the rich to pay more as a group without "blaming" them (again, as a group). You can try to treat the symptom even where you don't know or care about the actual cause.

To extend your analogy further, if Jordan wants to take all the shots, fine, but he better make most of them. Chucking up airballs is not a path to victory for the team as a whole. So just be careful when praising him for scoring 30 points that his line wasn't 10-30 shooting, 6-12 from the line, with 3 rebounds, 2 assists and 5 turnovers.

Right, and when there is only one ball, his ego/mistakes cost the other team members. However, I don't subscribe to a 'one ball' theory on income in the US. Rich people donate plenty of money, they lose plenty in the market, they invest in startups that fall down...they shoot less than 100% from the field. When they do make money I don't see it causing somebody else to finish with no points. Now, if the 12th man wants the team to take money away from Jordan and give it to him because he can't afford all that Jordan can afford, then I say good luck with that. Football does have a salary cap, paying Brady does 'cost' other players...however, if they could play QB as well as him they wouldn't be worrying about what he makes.

There isn't a salary cap for the US

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No but there is a finite amount of money. Despite what some people seem to claim there is not an infinite amount of wealth out there for everyone to get at. While you making a million dollars doesnt prevent me from making a million it most likely does come at the expense of someone else. For you to make money that means someone else has to spend it. If no one is putting money out there, you are not taking any money in. Despite what our government has thought the last 30 years or so you cant just make money out of nothing. Wall Street seems to believe that and look what happened there.

The rich often got wealthy on the backs of the middle class and the poor, and there is nothing wrong with that good for them. But when times are tough and the poor and the middle class have less access to income it would be in the rich's best interest to kick in a little more. It isnt like Americans will be able to save it, they will buy necessities and then buy a bunch of crap they dont need to make themselves feel better....and guess who owns the companies that supply both

Times dictate how things should be...in times of prosperity loosen up the reigns a bit and let the rich make a killing. When things go in the crapper time to tighten things up. Consider it a new tax on all the money they made without the old taxes in the prosperous times I talked about in the previous sentence.

BTW it isnt like if we make it better for the rich they are going to park their money in our economy anyways. Companies will still outsource jobs to save money, people will still invest in markets that are the most profitable and bank where they get the best rates and pay the least taxes. The rich dont care about America, they care about staying rich...and why wouldnt they, I would too and so would you.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Now, if the 12th man wants the team to take money away from Jordan and give it to him because he can't afford all that Jordan can afford, then I say good luck with that....There isn't a salary cap for the US

No but there is a finite amount of money.

You're both wrong. There is a finite amount of goods. Money (fiat currency) in and of itself has no value, its only value is what you can get by exchanging it. So while there's no salary cap, per se, there is a limit to what you can get with your salary, no matter how high it goes.

Also, the 12th man on the Bulls might not get as much as Jordan, but he is still guaranteed at least the league minimum. That's basically what we're talking about here, the league minimum (basic necessities of life/the poverty line). If Jordan has to take less so that the bench warmer gets his minimum due, so be it.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I said it wrong but the point is that there is only so much wealth to go around. Not everyone can be a millionaire and have a million dollars be worth the same amount. The more of it that exists the less value it has. There were plenty of people in Germany in the 20's that had millions of their currency, the problem was that would buy you a loaf of bread. At one time a quarter was a lot, now they are nothing. Despite what some around here say it isnt about pieces of a pie it is about how much pie there is. The more that is available the less you want it.

(btw I am not arguing with you I am on your side)

If wealth isnt finite than why do people compete over it?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So, let me get this straight. I flat out offer to pay the same percentage in taxes across the board at the federal level as the richest Americans and MinnFan has a problem with that? Why? Is that unfrair?

I don't understand.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I guess I have taken some people out of context on here more than once so I can't complain but those were very nice responses that don't appear to apply to what i typed.

As for the rich not caring about America and putting none of their money into the the US. Aside from the hyperbole...who donates the most money to charity in the US? Who builds wings on hospitals, libraries at colleges etc.? Who funds museums, starts hockey teams at Penn State, funds research into curing diseases, funds teaching positions, funds scholarships, sets up charitable grant foundations from the arts to finding alternative energy sources etc? Sure the gov't does a lot of that too but when it comes to private donations, even at state schools, it usually is somebody with some dough. The numbers are hard to find in a quick glance but dating back a few years individual Americans donated over $200 billion dollars a year (excluding religions). Cold heartless ********, all of 'em.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Who said they didnt...that isnt even what I said I said they wont put money into the economy. I never even said they were wrong about not doing it let alone being cold heartless ****. If you dont want people to go off topic on your comments maybe you should try reading what other people type