Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

A Free And Independent Scotland.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:29 pm

Excellent point, Hana.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby DaCrum » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:59 pm

Hana wrote:
DaCrum wrote: "small government"


Want to muscle in one teeny, tiny point here. "Small government" does not mean small government. It means small Federal government.

Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But that's the thing. The people I see pushing the idea of "small government" aren't saying at all reducing the Federal government; they're saying reducing the government. Overwatch, service, anything that they think can be cut they'll try.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:04 pm

Eh. Never noticed much about State governments, really. They're basically just the same thing, only specific to the state.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby EagleMan » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:08 pm

People love the idea of cutting the government in the abstract.

Once you get to specifics though, people tend to favor keeping whatever program/benefit you're talking about.

So really, it's like you say you hate being fat, but you love cupcakes, cookies and candy, so you don't want to swear off of them.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13875
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Hana » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:11 pm

DaCrum wrote:But that's the thing. The people I see pushing the idea of "small government" aren't saying at all reducing the Federal government; they're saying reducing the government. Overwatch, service, anything that they think can be cut they'll try.


And this boils down to the simple reply of: people are idiots. A frightening number of citizens of the US have NO EFFING CLUE how the government works in the first place. Supidity rages, even on network news channels (which is why I only watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report for my news anymore).

The Fed could reduce much of the debt by phasing out the social programs such as medicaid and SSI and letting the STATES handle those. Privatize the space programs and other "extraneous" programs and let the Federal budget be only military and government costs (speaking of which, those could be cut down by reducing some of the government salaries, such as Senatorial salaries. Why the hell do they need $174,000 a year when my family of 3 can subsist on $17,000 gross a year? Bullshit.). Let the states handle their shit, man. That's what this country was supposed to be.
Image
Official Forum Mom
Wayward
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 10670
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:00 am
Location: Chairman's office
Gender: Female

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:52 pm

Eh, I'm iffy on that. Frankly, the states will just do whatever they want with it. All the time they manipulate their programs in favor of the states ruling party. Helll, some states would probably be lucky to get social services if the Tea Party had their way.

We can only privatize the space industry so much. Pretty much everyone agrees deep space exploration will continue to rely on the Government to, well, happen.

We all know politicians get too much money. Everyone does, but it's a tad hard to change. Besides, how could they possibly need so much from us with how much they get from bribes lobbying campaign donations.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Whatis6times9 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:58 pm

I think the low orbit operations especially developing the shuttle replacement could be done by private industry, I think deep space exploration needs to be run by the federal government and in particular needs to be multinational and stop the individual national competition.
Image
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8976
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:10 pm

Yeah, that's what everyone says.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:39 pm

Hana wrote:The Fed could reduce much of the debt by phasing out the social programs such as medicaid and SSI and letting the STATES handle those. Privatize the space programs and other "extraneous" programs and let the Federal budget be only military and government costs.
Bitchin'! That actually doesn't sound half bad.

Hana wrote:(speaking of which, those could be cut down by reducing some of the government salaries, such as Senatorial salaries. Why the hell do they need $174,000 a year when my family of 3 can subsist on $17,000 gross a year? Bullshit.)
Yeah, I know, right? They keep telling rich people to pay their fair share, and then they go ahead and raise their own salaries. Can you say "pretentious?"

Hana wrote:Let the states handle their shit, man. That's what this country was supposed to be.
Hell yes.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Icha » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:35 pm

I'm ill equipped for debates such as these, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. Teacher's unions aren't the problem, some of the worst educated states have the weakest teachers unions, as someone who lived in marlboro and has seen manhattan, NJ and NY aren't that bad despite all the jokes, (just stay the fuck away from camden and whatnot), and didn't the articles of confederation prove that stronger centralized government was better?

Besides, all the cool stuff happens in NY, anyway.
One time when I was high, I thought I was in an ambulance dying. Turns out I was just eating sherbert.
-stufflikehearts-
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:26 pm
Location: ???
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby DaCrum » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:41 am

When it comes to the Articles, what it showed is that you need to have a balance between strong central government, and federalism. It had an overtly weak central government, and that made it impossible for the rather small US to operate as a country at all. Central government has its needs.

Way I see it is this...

Federal deals with school funding (based off population by state), school policy by state.
Military be cut so that our expenditures are 20-30% of the total world military budget(currently we're at 42.8%)
Welfare needs to be revamped and relooked at
Taxes need to be rebalanced in favor of the middle and lower classes
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby EagleMan » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:37 am

"They keep telling rich people to pay their fair share"
What?
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13875
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby DaCrum » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:38 am

Rich people do need to pay their fair share. They pay the lowest taxes in the entirety of the US.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby EagleMan » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:42 am

He's saying it like that's actually what's coming from Congress though.

You can debate economic theory all you want, but that's simply not the tone of Congress, or even the Senate.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13875
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Hana » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:48 am

DaCrum wrote:Rich people do need to pay their fair share. They pay the lowest taxes in the entirety of the US.


http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp





On a note related to absurdly high salaries....NFL.




Really? Seriously?

Just give them free healthcare for life and cap their salaries at a quarter-mil a year TOPS. Use the rest of that money to donate to charities or something. Ugh.
Image
Official Forum Mom
Wayward
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 10670
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:00 am
Location: Chairman's office
Gender: Female

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby DaCrum » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:51 am

That parable's wrong, just for the sake that it simplifies it to such stupid levels.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Hana » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:03 am

Well, I pay NO taxes. I, in fact, get money from the Feds.

Actually, I do pay taxes when I work, just to make sure that I will have no tax burden. I've never owed money, and since I had my daughter, I have received WAY more than I ever paid in. Like...Paid in $300, got back $5000 kind of no taxes.

I do think that their taxation rate should be a little higher, perhaps...but I'm also a commie bastard that thinks we should have a flat percentage tax rate and less Federal moneysucking programs.
Image
Official Forum Mom
Wayward
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 10670
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:00 am
Location: Chairman's office
Gender: Female

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby EagleMan » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:13 am

That acts like they all eat the same amount, and as a result implicitly equates them to having the same standard of living, which is not the case.

The total amount they pay may be a lot but that has nothing to do with their rates. A small percentage of a big number can result in a number much bigger than that of a higher percentage of a smaller number, provided the big number is large enough, which it certainly given the soaring income inequality over the past three decades.

But sure, you've received more than you've put in. Currently, that is. Would you not say that government assistance has helped you to stay afloat, and that you may possibly be able to build a better, brighter future for yourself as a result? If one day you start to make a lot of money, and as a result, end up paying more to the government than you get from it, then these "subsidies" by the government are actually an investment that has paid off in spades for the government, and consequently, the taxpayers.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13875
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Hana » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:25 am

I already give time, money, and objects to charity in equal or larger amounts/worth than the government has given to me.

I do appreciate the current availability of assistance programs. They're not horrific, evil things. However, in their current forms, I feel that they have crippled this country.

I was just trying to illustrate a point. That point being that rich people do not pay the "lowest" amount of taxes. Facts are facts, even if they're not pleasing.
Image
Official Forum Mom
Wayward
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 10670
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:00 am
Location: Chairman's office
Gender: Female

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby DaCrum » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:27 am

Okay fine. They pay the lowest percentage of their income either way. That man may be paying $59, but he has around $59,000 in current gross wealth, while the others would have significantly less.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Hana » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:30 am

Still untrue.

My tax burden is $0. 0 times anything is always 0. Ignoring that anyone ever gets any extra money back from tax returns, 0% is lower than 0.01%.
Image
Official Forum Mom
Wayward
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 10670
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:00 am
Location: Chairman's office
Gender: Female

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby EagleMan » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:32 am

How would you say that they have crippled the country? I could understand some reforms being necessary but to say it is crippling the country is pretty extreme and I wonder what would provoke you to use such terminology.

Hana, that doesn't mean that they don't pay lower effective tax rates than a lot of people. DC is right for a sizable portion of the population, though it's his fault for making such sweeping statements, which is also why I am interested in your use of the word "crippling".
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13875
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Hana » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:38 am

Example:

Social Security + Baby Boomer Generation Retiring = ZOMG!DEEEEEEEEEEEBT!

The number of retirees drawing (or about to draw) on Social Security retirement benefits (and Medicare benefits) is going to (if it hasn't already) way eclipse the number of individuals working and paying into SSI. There's not enough money to go around, and Big Brother Federal Gov't has made promises to the Baby Boomers (and everyone else who is living longer and drawing more off of SSI than was originally anticipated) that are no longer [going to be] fulfilled by the workforce, so it has to borrows money to pay what it owes its citizens.

Maybe this wouldn't be such a big problem in and of itself, but we also have a metric TON of other government assistance programs that use Federal moneys. Too many holes and not enough cash to plug them with. 'Tis a problem with no nice solution.

(Be forgiving if I make no sense. It's way past bedtime)
Image
Official Forum Mom
Wayward
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 10670
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:00 am
Location: Chairman's office
Gender: Female

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby EagleMan » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:48 am

That aspect of Social Security was to be completely expected though.

While living longer is a disturbance that may not have been originally expected, it is one that will also pay off later. Logically, it would follow that if a boom of young people were paying into Social Security, it would have a surplus, as it once did. That wave would inevitably age however, at which point the program would have a deficit. Naturally it follows that that wave must eventually die, at which point the program will begin to stabilize again. One issue though is that the government dived into the program's funds during surpluses when they shouldn't have. The baby boomers aren't going to be drawing on Social Security forever. The whole thing was a completely cyclical process that resolves itself. It is only a problem because politicians were greedy and used it for other things. The program itself is sound when viewed in the long run, because on the face of it, it is not government spending. It is money people have paid into the system receiving that money back at a point in the future when they may no longer be able to work. In effect, it is a government mandated retirement nest, because most people neglect to adequately create a retirement fund when left to their own devices, so this provides, at the least, a very basic level of safety.

The only things that need to be addressed about the Social Security system is raising the age of qualification continuously as people live longer, healthier years, and making sure the government doesn't raid the fund for other purposes, so that the inevitable surpluses can be made to cover the inevitable deficits. So it isn't actually the program's fault that Social Security is part of the exorbitant debt the country has.

Greedy politicians and bureaucrats looked at the surpluses and thought it was just free money, when really, this is exactly the time that money should've been saved for, as was its intent.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13875
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion 18 (8/6-8/13): US credit rating downgraded

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:56 am

It's so late and i giggled while thinking of a bunch of people despairing and yelling "these old people just wont die what the fuck" bahahaha
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

PreviousNext

Return to Central Compton Botanical Gardens

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], MERASMUS! and 10 guests