Incomes up and Poverty Down in 2019

[forkup]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Higher education is an investment just like the stock market or real estate. People who get a higher education on average will earn more money and be out of work less often than others who are not college educated.

Investments should not be funded by the taxpayers. I can't see spending my working life paying taxes so that somebody can go to school to be a lawyer, and then after they become a lawyer and I need their help, charge me 200 bucks an hour for that help.

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

Not really because everybody benefits equally from those things. A strong military is needed for a world power. It protects our freedoms as well as yours. A fire department usually includes paramedics in case of a medical emergency, and of course a major fire we individuals would not be capable of battling. If one doesn't drive or use the roads we have, their supplies, mail and buses or cabs use those roads to transport them where they need to go.

Advanced education only benefits individuals, not everybody. I don't care if you get a job emptying garbage or become an accountant. It's not an advantage or disadvantage either way for me. However you will make a better living, have a less physical job by becoming an accountant, so only you benefit.

Not everybody benefits equally on roads. Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war. Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department. Some people never experience a fire or are in need of a paramedic. An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama. You accept that having those things are necessary for the benefit of society as a whole or an insurance policy if necessary. But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit.

"Not everybody benefits equally on roads."

Equally? An immaterial concept as applied.


"Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war"

They absolutely do, Militaries are not simply for fighting. They are just as valuable when serving as a deterrent to the fighting, in fact I would say more.

"Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department"

This obsession with equality as you define it renders your arguments useless as well as biased. Again in this case it is immaterial. In fact since the discussion later on evolves to Insurance every one of these services/entities/objects are just that, forms of insurance (as you said) provided by not the Gov, but by the people who pay the taxes. Governments do not make money, they take it.

"An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama"

Again, immaterial. People in their respective states pay for those interstates and when the Feds get involved they do so in every state.

"But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit."

Everybody does have that chance most simply choose not to.

forkup DustyInfinity

Well done, both of you. Best' most civil discussion here I've seen.

I think you kind of missed the point I was making. Ray objects to paying taxes in order to make education affordable for anybody. My point is that there are plenty of examples of paying taxes for certain services that don't necessarily benefit everybody on an equal bases. Something I don't think you disagree with reading through your post.

Government should never confiscate money at the point of a gun and redistribute it. There's a term for that. Armed robbery

Taxation isn't confiscating money at the point of a gun. What it is is citizen's taking out a contract with the government to give them money in order for them to pay for services.

 

[forkup]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Higher education is an investment just like the stock market or real estate. People who get a higher education on average will earn more money and be out of work less often than others who are not college educated.

Investments should not be funded by the taxpayers. I can't see spending my working life paying taxes so that somebody can go to school to be a lawyer, and then after they become a lawyer and I need their help, charge me 200 bucks an hour for that help.

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

Not really because everybody benefits equally from those things. A strong military is needed for a world power. It protects our freedoms as well as yours. A fire department usually includes paramedics in case of a medical emergency, and of course a major fire we individuals would not be capable of battling. If one doesn't drive or use the roads we have, their supplies, mail and buses or cabs use those roads to transport them where they need to go.

Advanced education only benefits individuals, not everybody. I don't care if you get a job emptying garbage or become an accountant. It's not an advantage or disadvantage either way for me. However you will make a better living, have a less physical job by becoming an accountant, so only you benefit.

Not everybody benefits equally on roads. Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war. Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department. Some people never experience a fire or are in need of a paramedic. An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama. You accept that having those things are necessary for the benefit of society as a whole or an insurance policy if necessary. But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit.

"Not everybody benefits equally on roads."

Equally? An immaterial concept as applied.


"Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war"

They absolutely do, Militaries are not simply for fighting. They are just as valuable when serving as a deterrent to the fighting, in fact I would say more.

"Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department"

This obsession with equality as you define it renders your arguments useless as well as biased. Again in this case it is immaterial. In fact since the discussion later on evolves to Insurance every one of these services/entities/objects are just that, forms of insurance (as you said) provided by not the Gov, but by the people who pay the taxes. Governments do not make money, they take it.

"An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama"

Again, immaterial. People in their respective states pay for those interstates and when the Feds get involved they do so in every state.

"But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit."

Everybody does have that chance most simply choose not to.

forkup DustyInfinity

Well done, both of you. Best' most civil discussion here I've seen.

I think you kind of missed the point I was making. Ray objects to paying taxes in order to make education affordable for anybody. My point is that there are plenty of examples of paying taxes for certain services that don't necessarily benefit everybody on an equal bases, or even at all. Something I don't think you disagree with reading through your post.

I never said everybody had to benefit. But at least if most do I am less objectionable. College is a small percentage of our society, therefore you are taxing everybody to take care of them, when they are at the age they should be taking care of themselves.

More than that, we are a country of 25 trillion in debt. If your household was in serious and dangerous debt, you would cut every unnecessary spending you possibly could. That's what I feel government should do, not spend even more.

If you can't pay for college, stay at home, work for a few years saving as much as you can, then go to college and work when you're not in school. That's the way people have done it for generations.

35 percent is not a small percentage. And that's 35 percent while it requires significant sums of money to aquire a college degree. Americans with a college degree 1940-2018, by gender | Statista

That's significantly more people than will benefit from certain items in the tax cuts and job act of 2017. Significantly more that benefit from subsidies for everything from farmers to big oil.

Also interesting is that you only seem to recognize the need for cutting spending as a means to balance a budget but not the need for increasing revenue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Higher education is an investment just like the stock market or real estate. People who get a higher education on average will earn more money and be out of work less often than others who are not college educated.

Investments should not be funded by the taxpayers. I can't see spending my working life paying taxes so that somebody can go to school to be a lawyer, and then after they become a lawyer and I need their help, charge me 200 bucks an hour for that help.

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

Not really because everybody benefits equally from those things. A strong military is needed for a world power. It protects our freedoms as well as yours. A fire department usually includes paramedics in case of a medical emergency, and of course a major fire we individuals would not be capable of battling. If one doesn't drive or use the roads we have, their supplies, mail and buses or cabs use those roads to transport them where they need to go.

Advanced education only benefits individuals, not everybody. I don't care if you get a job emptying garbage or become an accountant. It's not an advantage or disadvantage either way for me. However you will make a better living, have a less physical job by becoming an accountant, so only you benefit.

Not everybody benefits equally on roads. Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war. Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department. Some people never experience a fire or are in need of a paramedic. An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama. You accept that having those things are necessary for the benefit of society as a whole or an insurance policy if necessary. But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit.

"Not everybody benefits equally on roads."

Equally? An immaterial concept as applied.


"Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war"

They absolutely do, Militaries are not simply for fighting. They are just as valuable when serving as a deterrent to the fighting, in fact I would say more.

"Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department"

This obsession with equality as you define it renders your arguments useless as well as biased. Again in this case it is immaterial. In fact since the discussion later on evolves to Insurance every one of these services/entities/objects are just that, forms of insurance (as you said) provided by not the Gov, but by the people who pay the taxes. Governments do not make money, they take it.

"An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama"

Again, immaterial. People in their respective states pay for those interstates and when the Feds get involved they do so in every state.

"But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit."

Everybody does have that chance most simply choose not to.

forkup DustyInfinity

Well done, both of you. Best' most civil discussion here I've seen.

I think you kind of missed the point I was making. Ray objects to paying taxes in order to make education affordable for anybody. My point is that there are plenty of examples of paying taxes for certain services that don't necessarily benefit everybody on an equal bases, or even at all. Something I don't think you disagree with reading through your post.

I never said everybody had to benefit. But at least if most do I am less objectionable. College is a small percentage of our society, therefore you are taxing everybody to take care of them, when they are at the age they should be taking care of themselves.

More than that, we are a country of 25 trillion in debt. If your household was in serious and dangerous debt, you would cut every unnecessary spending you possibly could. That's what I feel government should do, not spend even more.

If you can't pay for college, stay at home, work for a few years saving as much as you can, then go to college and work when you're not in school. That's the way people have done it for generations.

35 percent is not a small percentage. And that's 35 percent while it requires significant sums of money to aquire a college degree. Americans with a college degree 1940-2018, by gender | Statista

That's significantly more people than will benefit from certain items in the tax cuts and job act of 2017. Significantly more that benefit from subsidies for everything from farmers to big oil.

Also interesting is that you only seem to recognize the need for cutting spending as a means to balance a budget but not the need for increasing revenue.

What your site says is how many people have a college degree, not percentage of our population in college at the present time. While I cannot find any source for that, I did find that the number of Americans graduating high school in 2020 is 3.7 million kids. Of course, a good number of them will not go to college.

In any case, I'm not against raising more revenue. I'm against one small portion of our society being held liable for this spending. Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all; other taxes, yes we do, but income tax is what funds our federal government and spending.

My idea is to have everybody pay into our income tax system via a consumption tax. Say 10 cents on the dollar. When the Democrats propose more spending on government goodies we really don't need, increase the consumption tax more to cover the costs. Free college? It goes from 10 cents on the dollar to 12 cents on the dollar. You'd see support for things like free college go right down the drain very quickly.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

 

[kaz]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Higher education is an investment just like the stock market or real estate. People who get a higher education on average will earn more money and be out of work less often than others who are not college educated.

Investments should not be funded by the taxpayers. I can't see spending my working life paying taxes so that somebody can go to school to be a lawyer, and then after they become a lawyer and I need their help, charge me 200 bucks an hour for that help.

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

Not really because everybody benefits equally from those things. A strong military is needed for a world power. It protects our freedoms as well as yours. A fire department usually includes paramedics in case of a medical emergency, and of course a major fire we individuals would not be capable of battling. If one doesn't drive or use the roads we have, their supplies, mail and buses or cabs use those roads to transport them where they need to go.

Advanced education only benefits individuals, not everybody. I don't care if you get a job emptying garbage or become an accountant. It's not an advantage or disadvantage either way for me. However you will make a better living, have a less physical job by becoming an accountant, so only you benefit.

Not everybody benefits equally on roads. Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war. Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department. Some people never experience a fire or are in need of a paramedic. An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama. You accept that having those things are necessary for the benefit of society as a whole or an insurance policy if necessary. But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit.

"Not everybody benefits equally on roads."

Equally? An immaterial concept as applied.


"Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war"

They absolutely do, Militaries are not simply for fighting. They are just as valuable when serving as a deterrent to the fighting, in fact I would say more.

"Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department"

This obsession with equality as you define it renders your arguments useless as well as biased. Again in this case it is immaterial. In fact since the discussion later on evolves to Insurance every one of these services/entities/objects are just that, forms of insurance (as you said) provided by not the Gov, but by the people who pay the taxes. Governments do not make money, they take it.

"An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama"

Again, immaterial. People in their respective states pay for those interstates and when the Feds get involved they do so in every state.

"But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit."

Everybody does have that chance most simply choose not to.

forkup DustyInfinity

Well done, both of you. Best' most civil discussion here I've seen.

I think you kind of missed the point I was making. Ray objects to paying taxes in order to make education affordable for anybody. My point is that there are plenty of examples of paying taxes for certain services that don't necessarily benefit everybody on an equal bases. Something I don't think you disagree with reading through your post.

Government should never confiscate money at the point of a gun and redistribute it. There's a term for that. Armed robbery

Taxation isn't confiscating money at the point of a gun. What it is is citizen's taking out a contract with the government to give them money in order for them to pay for services.

Taxation to fund the government operations is not confiscation at the point of a gun. However, taking money from one citizen to give it to another is clearly taking money at the point of a gun to commit armed robbery.

It's government's job to provide basic safety and security. It is not government's job to decide that one person has too much and take it by force to give to someone else. Government should treat all citizens the same. Robbing us to redistribute money to other citizens is not treating us the same

 

[Markle]

Also interesting is that you only seem to recognize the need for cutting spending as a means to balance a budget but not the need for increasing revenue.

Specifically what happens when the government receives more in taxes?

 

[JoeB131]

Not true. Please see the 1921 depression.

That you have to go back 100 years to find something that anyone barely remembers is telling.

There was massive government spending to get out of that one, too.

 

[JoeB131]

It's clear you have no understanding. What is infrastructure? It's construction. What is new housing? It's construction.

No, infrastructure is roads, dams, schools, etc. that benefit the whole of the community. I mean, I get this, you live in Cleveland, which looks like the aftermath of a Zombie Movie...

No, I did everything I could to keep my job. I was forced out. It wasn't an option.

Except learn the skills to get another job...

I never said that better technology is a better standard of living. What I said is that this is where much of our disposable income goes to. Disposable income is what's left over after all the necessities are paid like housing, food, utilities and so on.

Except Americans are a lot poorer than they were back in the 1960's. The Republican idea of "equality" is to make the white working class just as miserable as minorities, and have them thank you for it.

 

[JoeB131]

Taxation to fund the government operations is not confiscation at the point of a gun. However, taking money from one citizen to give it to another is clearly taking money at the point of a gun to commit armed robbery.

Quite the contrary, I would much rather have my money taken to help someone who is starving in this country than to buy an expensive Stealth Fighter that can't fly when it's raining out.

I think it's a matter of priorities. Yours kind of suck.

It's government's job to provide basic safety and security. It is not government's job to decide that one person has too much and take it by force to give to someone else. Government should treat all citizens the same. Robbing us to redistribute money to other citizens is not treating us the same

Again, when your side says to get rid of WHITE PEOPLE WELFARE like Social Security, Disability, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, and unemployment insurance, THEN I will take you seriously about wanting to yank a food stamp out of the mouth of a poor kid.

Please. Please run on that. Please run on ending Social Security. Make that your fucking platform, you pussy.

 

[kaz]

Taxation to fund the government operations is not confiscation at the point of a gun. However, taking money from one citizen to give it to another is clearly taking money at the point of a gun to commit armed robbery.

Quite the contrary, I would much rather have my money taken to help someone who is starving in this country than to buy an expensive Stealth Fighter that can't fly when it's raining out.

I think it's a matter of priorities. Yours kind of suck.

It's government's job to provide basic safety and security. It is not government's job to decide that one person has too much and take it by force to give to someone else. Government should treat all citizens the same. Robbing us to redistribute money to other citizens is not treating us the same

Again, when your side says to get rid of WHITE PEOPLE WELFARE like Social Security, Disability, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, and unemployment insurance, THEN I will take you seriously about wanting to yank a food stamp out of the mouth of a poor kid.

Please. Please run on that. Please run on ending Social Security. Make that your fucking platform, you pussy.

So Joe's descending into racist rhetoric again. I'll pass on this one

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, infrastructure is roads, dams, schools, etc. that benefit the whole of the community. I mean, I get this, you live in Cleveland, which looks like the aftermath of a Zombie Movie...

So how does it benefitting the community help out with the economy? That's what we are talking about here. Roads, schools, dams are all construction projects just like housing. Trust me, I'm from a construction family. I grew up working construction. I know what I'm talking about.

Except learn the skills to get another job...

Not at 60 years old in the middle of a pandemic with 8% unemployment and me being at high risk of death if I catch this thing. No, there is not much else I can do but retire.

Except Americans are a lot poorer than they were back in the 1960's. The Republican idea of "equality" is to make the white working class just as miserable as minorities, and have them thank you for it.

No Joe, that's the Democrat idea. The Republicans want to see people from the bottom move up. The Democrats want to see people from the top move down. The Republicans don't decide on wages or lifestyle. Those individual decisions. The idea that everybody live the same and nobody has more than the next person is a liberal concept, not conservative.

The problem is liberal ideas don't work and never have. Their solutions are failures, but they keep brainwashing you that they are succeeding.

The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost...

www.heritage.org

 

[JoeB131]

So Joe's descending into racist rhetoric again. I'll pass on this one

Duly noted you couldn't answer the point that most "Welfare" goes to middle class white people.

I know you guys want to avoid that subject... not that I blame you.

 

[JoeB131]

So how does it benefitting the community help out with the economy? That's what we are talking about here. Roads, schools, dams are all construction projects just like housing. Trust me, I'm from a construction family. I grew up working construction. I know what I'm talking about.

Wow, are you like retarded, or have you lives in the Zombie Apocolyse so long you don't get these things.

A road makes it possible to get goods and consumers to market.. It benefits the whole community and the economy. This isn't complicated, buddy.

Not at 60 years old in the middle of a pandemic with 8% unemployment and me being at high risk of death if I catch this thing. No, there is not much else I can do but retire.

You'll always have an excuse, Welfare Ray. I'm fine with that... your HUD Neighbors had nothing but excuses, too, and some of theirs were legitimate.

No Joe, that's the Democrat idea. The Republicans want to see people from the bottom move up.

Really, so they did this by destroying unions, workers rights, supporting Free Trade (until Trump, anyway, pretends he doesn't) etc.

There has been a fifty year war on the working class, and Republicans have waged it...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow, are you like retarded, or have you lives in the Zombie Apocolyse so long you don't get these things.

A road makes it possible to get goods and consumers to market.. It benefits the whole community and the economy. This isn't complicated, buddy.

Are you living in the 1940's or something? Our roads take you anywhere you want to go. Yes, improvements to roads and bridges are a good thing, but they won't stimulate the economy anymore than the private sector building things. It's all construction.

You'll always have an excuse, Welfare Ray. I'm fine with that... your HUD Neighbors had nothing but excuses, too, and some of theirs were legitimate.

There is nothing legitimate about a person who is physically and mentally capable of working that are not working. I'm not in that category. Some people just won't do anything for themselves, just like you won't get treatment for your severe OCD problem.

Really, so they did this by destroying unions, workers rights, supporting Free Trade (until Trump, anyway, pretends he doesn't) etc.

There has been a fifty year war on the working class, and Republicans have waged it...

How did the Republicans destroy unions? Republicans had nothing to do with them. What workers right are you talking about? Free trade was signed by President Clinton.

 

[kaz]

So Joe's descending into racist rhetoric again. I'll pass on this one

Duly noted you couldn't answer the point that most "Welfare" goes to middle class white people.

I know you guys want to avoid that subject... not that I blame you.

Joe: "most 'Welfare' goes to middle class white people"

Other than your overt racism, I have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So Joe's descending into racist rhetoric again. I'll pass on this one

Duly noted you couldn't answer the point that most "Welfare" goes to middle class white people.

I know you guys want to avoid that subject... not that I blame you.

Joe: "most 'Welfare' goes to middle class white people"

Other than your overt racism, I have no idea what you are talking about

Joe doesn't consider welfare welfare. He calls welfare anything the government provides to people like disability, social security, Medicare, things people were forced to pay into their entire lives. He thinks that people who never paid a dime into our income tax system and get food stamps, Medicaid, HUD, daycare vouchers are the same as programs that working Americans funded themselves.

The fact is whites are a majority in our country, therefore numbers can only show that more white people collect government benefits than minorities.

 

[kaz]

So Joe's descending into racist rhetoric again. I'll pass on this one

Duly noted you couldn't answer the point that most "Welfare" goes to middle class white people.

I know you guys want to avoid that subject... not that I blame you.

Joe: "most 'Welfare' goes to middle class white people"

Other than your overt racism, I have no idea what you are talking about

Joe doesn't consider welfare welfare. He calls welfare anything the government provides to people like disability, social security, Medicare, things people were forced to pay into their entire lives. He thinks that people who never paid a dime into our income tax system and get food stamps, Medicaid, HUD, daycare vouchers are the same as programs that working Americans funded themselves.

The fact is whites are a majority in our country, therefore numbers can only show that more white people collect government benefits than minorities.

I realize that Joe likes to play the game of per capita when it suits him and nominal percents when it suits him, I totally agree.

But he said "middle class" whites. Other than his KKK meetings, where does he get that one?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So Joe's descending into racist rhetoric again. I'll pass on this one

Duly noted you couldn't answer the point that most "Welfare" goes to middle class white people.

I know you guys want to avoid that subject... not that I blame you.

Joe: "most 'Welfare' goes to middle class white people"

Other than your overt racism, I have no idea what you are talking about

Joe doesn't consider welfare welfare. He calls welfare anything the government provides to people like disability, social security, Medicare, things people were forced to pay into their entire lives. He thinks that people who never paid a dime into our income tax system and get food stamps, Medicaid, HUD, daycare vouchers are the same as programs that working Americans funded themselves.

The fact is whites are a majority in our country, therefore numbers can only show that more white people collect government benefits than minorities.

I realize that Joe likes to play the game of per capita when it suits him and nominal percents when it suits him, I totally agree.

But he said "middle class" whites. Other than his KKK meetings, where does he get that one?

Not sure, but I'd tend to believe that most workers are middle-class. There are probably a lot of wealthy people who maxed out SS nearly every year of their life and didn't collect a dime because it was a pittance to them, or they had a philanthropic view of the program and figured others could use the money better than them, and it would make the program last longer.

 

[JoeB131]

Are you living in the 1940's or something? Our roads take you anywhere you want to go. Yes, improvements to roads and bridges are a good thing, but they won't stimulate the economy anymore than the private sector building things. It's all construction.

Percentage of US highways in poor condition up 25%: study

The percentage of U.S. highways in poor condition rose 25 percent between 2008 and 2017, according to a new study of federal highway data.The study by AutoInsurance.org, an industry-linked publicat…

thehill.com

The percentage of U.S. highways in poor condition rose 25 percent between 2008 and 2017, according to a new study of federal highway data.

The study by AutoInsurance.org, an industry-linked publication, found that about 10 percent of all U.S. highways were in poor shape based on a score of the road's roughness. Another 31 percent were deemed acceptable, and 59 percent in good shape.

There is nothing legitimate about a person who is physically and mentally capable of working that are not working. I'm not in that category. Some people just won't do anything for themselves, just like you won't get treatment for your severe OCD problem.

Again, it would be awesome if you could get your story straight.

1) Ray is perfectly capable of working, but those damned government bureaucrats won't let him.
2) Poor Ray is so sickly, he's practically on death's door.

Point is, you could work, you just don't want to. That's welfare, buddy.

How did the Republicans destroy unions? Republicans had nothing to do with them.

Republicans have been making war on Unions for 40 years, from Reagan firing the PATCO workers in 1981 to Rauner winning the Janus decision...

As go unions, so went the middle class, but stupid people like you keep blaming the darkies.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe: "most 'Welfare' goes to middle class white people"

Other than your overt racism, I have no idea what you are talking about

Did I need to use smaller words?

White People Welfare - Social Security, Medicare, Veteran's Benefits, Unemployment INsurance. Money taken from ONE Group and given to another. Of course, you might have heard it under their other name, "Entitlements".

Joe doesn't consider welfare welfare. He calls welfare anything the government provides to people like disability, social security, Medicare, things people were forced to pay into their entire lives. He thinks that people who never paid a dime into our income tax system and get food stamps, Medicaid, HUD, daycare vouchers are the same as programs that working Americans funded themselves.

Except that you aren't really funding these things yourself. Social Security has been a Ponzi Scheme from Day one. If you live to be 70, you'll have gotten everything you ever paid into SS back. If you have one serious illness, you'll get back everything you ever paid into Medicare. If you are unemployed, you'll get back everything your BOSS paid into it back in about three weeks.

To continue my discussion with Kaz on Veteran's benefits, a private who only served two years is going to get the same benefits as a Sergeant Major who served 30. (Retirement is a different animal.)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except that you aren't really funding these things yourself. Social Security has been a Ponzi Scheme from Day one. If you live to be 70, you'll have gotten everything you ever paid into SS back. If you have one serious illness, you'll get back everything you ever paid into Medicare. If you are unemployed, you'll get back everything your BOSS paid into it back in about three weeks.

To continue my discussion with Kaz on Veteran's benefits, a private who only served two years is going to get the same benefits as a Sergeant Major who served 30. (Retirement is a different animal.)

The military gets whatever we can give them with our blessing. It's not even near welfare because they earned it by serving. My father didn't fight in Korea for over a year to make the two bucks a day the military paid him at the time. Now he takes advantage of VA benefits for the things Medicare falls short on. The war changed his life forever and that's the least we could to for him and millions like him. My mother spent the first several years of their marriage calming my father down when he frequently woke in the middle of the night screaming bloody murder from nightmares of being attacked while sleeping in the woods.

Yes, these other programs payout more than we paid in, but at the same time, some people (who die before retirement age) paid into it and never got a nickel back. It's why we on the right oppose new ones just like it. It works like insurance. You may drive your entire life without so much as scratching another persons car. You lose because you paid into it and never used it. At the same time, bad drivers are covered when they do get into multiple accidents, and get back more than they paid in.

However unlike the private market, insurance companies raise their premiums when they are paying out more than taking in, and that's something our government didn't do often enough. That's why what you claim is absolutely true. If we want these programs, fine, we need to fund them like insurance. If we don't want them, devise a plan to slowly dissolve them.