AVG-JOE's Thread on Politics - Check your insult arsenal at the door before entering.

[Old Rocks]

But we can borrow it for multi-billion jet fighters that don't work?

In the past when I have found that my job was lagging in pay to what was needed, I either took a new job, or found a way to increase my hours in order to make the money that I needed. Today, we have a tax system that takes a larger percentage from the working man than those with vast fortunes. When you increase the taxes on the working stiff, you are reducing the amount that a great many people can spend on homes, food, and other basics, and are slowing the economy. When you increase taxes on the very wealthy by the amount that Clinton did, you have little effect, because there are few wealthy, and if there is any decrease in spending from them, it is on luxury items that have almost no impact on the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see. Then, since in 1800, we had no FAA, we don't need anybody making sure the planes are flying safely? And there was not Interstate highway system then, either. So let's just let that decay? It ain't 1800 anymore. Things have changed a bit in the last two hundred years.

You think only the FAA is capable of making planes fly safely?

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. Then, since in 1800, we had no FAA, we don't need anybody making sure the planes are flying safely? And there was not Interstate highway system then, either. So let's just let that decay? It ain't 1800 anymore. Things have changed a bit in the last two hundred years.

Platitudinous non sequitur.


What does the date in time have to do with anything?

A very great deal. We are hardly the same nation or society that we were in 1800, 1850, or 1900, for that matter. Our individual needs, and those of society are very differant.

 

[The Rabbi]

If we really want to reform the system we will go back to the COnstitution as it was in 1800. Yeah, all of it.

As for reality: yes taxes need to be fair and simple. Multiple tax brackets is not fair and simple. Mortgage deductions are not fair and simple. Charitable deductions are not fair and simple. Get rid of all of it. One tax rate for everyone regardless of how much you made or how you made it.
Spending needs to be capped at some percentage of GDP. About a gazillion gov't programs, many overlapping, most ineffective, need to be deep sixed.

so you can have slaves again?

Sure.
I don't know where you're going to get slaves from though.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. Then, since in 1800, we had no FAA, we don't need anybody making sure the planes are flying safely? And there was not Interstate highway system then, either. So let's just let that decay? It ain't 1800 anymore. Things have changed a bit in the last two hundred years.

You think only the FAA is capable of making planes fly safely?

Every time there has not been a regulating system from the government for industries, there have been major problems and deaths in those industries. Coal mines, timber industry, and steel mills come to mind.

Industry has never been able to be self regulating when it comes to the safety of the workers or consumers. Asbestos.

 

[SniperFire]

But we can borrow it for multi-billion jet fighters that don't work?

The problem, of course, is that the Federal government has lost its relative ability to cover such expenses on its mandated task of common defense because the majority of spending is now social spending -which it of course was NEVER intended or designed to do.

Social spending is the out of control spending category, regardless of obfuscation elsewise.

In fact, spending on defense is at or near all time historic lows as a percentage of our GDP:

Any reasonable person, including those with low IQs, should be able to look at simple charts and statistics and understand that social spending is the runaway budget busting element of spending which must be whacked if we are to remain solvent.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see. Then, since in 1800, we had no FAA, we don't need anybody making sure the planes are flying safely? And there was not Interstate highway system then, either. So let's just let that decay? It ain't 1800 anymore. Things have changed a bit in the last two hundred years.

You think only the FAA is capable of making planes fly safely?

Every time there has not been a regulating system from the government for industries, there have been major problems and deaths in those industries. Coal mines, timber industry, and steel mills come to mind.

Industry has never been able to be self regulating when it comes to the safety of the workers or consumers. Asbestos.

All the industries you name were prominent in the 19th century. Life has changed a lot since then.
What agency regulates skateboards?
I'm worried about the opposite: regulators killing industries because one time maybe there was some ill effect.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? I have worked in both the timber industry and steel mills. Currently work in a steel mill. I have watched both industries become safer as rules were enforced concerning worker safety.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If I am running a business or my household, or anything else that deals with cash flow, I must properly manage that cash flow - regardless of what I would like that cash flow to be some day - else my operation goes broke.


It is simply common sense.

Cash flow has two components, income and outgo.

Correct. And since you don't have the money, you can't just borrow it to buy that new car because you can't pay the bill.

Like I said, common sense.

In the 70's and 80's Americans wages stayed stagnated but since Americans could no longer afford to live comfortably like their parents this strange new thing happened called "credit cards". So that you can live beyond your means since your means have been in a free fall.

Now the average american has more debt than income. Yea Credit!

 

[The Rabbi]

Really? I have worked in both the timber industry and steel mills. Currently work in a steel mill. I have watched both industries become safer as rules were enforced concerning worker safety.

You've watched both industries languish under burdensome regs as well.
An employee in those industries is a valuable commodity. Companies take extreme care for their safety. I'd trust the company to know what is actually a safety measure over the gov't, that has no idea what goes on in plants.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cash flow has two components, income and outgo.

Correct. And since you don't have the money, you can't just borrow it to buy that new car because you can't pay the bill.

Like I said, common sense.

In the 70's and 80's Americans wages stayed stagnated but since Americans could no longer afford to live comfortably like their parents this strange new thing happened called "credit cards". So that you can live beyond your means since your means have been in a free fall.

Now the average american has more debt than income. Yea Credit!

Average credit card debt is about $3500 per household. I'd hardly call that living beyond your means.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Correct. And since you don't have the money, you can't just borrow it to buy that new car because you can't pay the bill.

Like I said, common sense.

In the 70's and 80's Americans wages stayed stagnated but since Americans could no longer afford to live comfortably like their parents this strange new thing happened called "credit cards". So that you can live beyond your means since your means have been in a free fall.

Now the average american has more debt than income. Yea Credit!

Average credit card debt is about $3500 per household. I'd hardly call that living beyond your means.

What you call it isnt a topic of discussion. Americans when they cant afford something go the plastic.

 

[The Rabbi]

In the 70's and 80's Americans wages stayed stagnated but since Americans could no longer afford to live comfortably like their parents this strange new thing happened called "credit cards". So that you can live beyond your means since your means have been in a free fall.

Now the average american has more debt than income. Yea Credit!

Average credit card debt is about $3500 per household. I'd hardly call that living beyond your means.

What you call it isnt a topic of discussion. Americans when they cant afford something go the plastic.

You raised the issue calling it "living beyond your means." I only point out the actual amount of CC debt is pretty small. Yes, some people go overboard. My wife works for a bankruptcy trustee so she sees the worst abuses. But those are a pretty small number overall.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Step 1 in any lasting stability in our economy is fair and simple taxes. Addressing government spending before we settle on a fair way to collect government revenues is a waste of time and resources.

Step 1.1 is transparency in politics - it's time that responsibility for ALL political advertising be assumed by a living human or board of living humans as it is aired. There's nothing wrong with unlimited spending in politics, as long as all ads are signed by their promoters.

Discuss.

Or post a new political topic.​

Just remember not to call another member an idiot or a liar simply because they disagree with you.​

1. We have a tax code in place. If we wait till it is deemed fair before we address spending what's the point since we will never agree on "fair"

2. Agreed

 

[Wiseacre]

Correct. And since you don't have the money, you can't just borrow it to buy that new car because you can't pay the bill.

Like I said, common sense.

In the 70's and 80's Americans wages stayed stagnated but since Americans could no longer afford to live comfortably like their parents this strange new thing happened called "credit cards". So that you can live beyond your means since your means have been in a free fall.

Now the average american has more debt than income. Yea Credit!

Average credit card debt is about $3500 per household. I'd hardly call that living beyond your means.

I would. What interest rate is being paid on that average credit card debt? How much is that debt increasing every month? Living beyond your means is when you spend more than you take in; the occasional splurge is okay if you can pay it back fairly quickly, but if you're making permanent monthly interest payments then you ain't living within your means.

 

[konradv]

Step 1 in any lasting stability in our economy is fair and simple taxes. Addressing government spending before we settle on a fair way to collect government revenues is a waste of time and resources.

Step 1.1 is transparency in politics - it's time that responsibility for ALL political advertising be assumed by a living human or board of living humans as it is aired. There's nothing wrong with unlimited spending in politics, as long as all ads are signed by their promoters.

Discuss.

Or post a new political topic.​

Just remember not to call another member an idiot or a liar simply because they disagree with you.​

Uh oh, could be a short thread!

Step 1- I agree, tax reform is overdue. We can't decide what we can spend until we know what we're getting.

Step 1.1- Disagree. I'd like to see public financing of elections. The signing of ads presumes people are going to pay attention. I'd prefer a system in which politicians would have fewer expensive promises to keep in order to get campaign contributions.

How is it possible for a free people to be restricted in how much they can spend on politics? The only answer is for those spending the money to be accountable by name, and not allowed to hide behind corporate paper. Restricting the resources one can spend on speech is tantamount to restricting speech outright.

It's possible by enacting a Constitutional amendment establishing a public financing system. Nobody's free speech would be abridged. The candidates would get the money they need to get their message out. It's just that promises would have to be made in public, not in backrooms. It's the present system that restricts freedom. If you don't have the bucks, you don't have access.

 

[Wiseacre]

About that transparency issue in political advertising; there are people and businesses that have been targeted by opposition groups for supporting a candidate or party, to the point where they withdrew their support. Why should a business or person not have the right to free speech with privacy, same as your right to vote in private?

 

[konradv]

About that transparency issue in political advertising; there are people and businesses that have been targeted by opposition groups for supporting a candidate or party, to the point where they withdrew their support. Why should a business or person not have the right to free speech with privacy, same as your right to vote in private?

Why should they be able to tempt politicians in private? They're only human! Take the temptation away and support public financing. It'll cost us less in the long run.

 

[Wiseacre]

About that transparency issue in political advertising; there are people and businesses that have been targeted by opposition groups for supporting a candidate or party, to the point where they withdrew their support. Why should a business or person not have the right to free speech with privacy, same as your right to vote in private?

Why should they be able to tempt politicians in private? They're only human! Take the temptation away and support public financing. It'll cost us less in the long run.

Not seeing the solution here as working. What're you saying, a PAC or supper PAC could no longer fund and run political ads? Freedom of speech dude, doesn't sound constitutional to me.

They're going to tempt the pols in private anyway, and besides, I have a problem with using my tax dollars on political ads.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No tax reform will ever again pass Washington that does not shift the tax burden sharply downward while the middle and working class increasingly look for representation that just isn't there anymore.

Occupied, when businesses get taxed, who do you think pays it?