Prove it (or at least provide some evidence)!

[daveman]

Five members of the Supreme Court voted to make the influence of money on our elections a matter of free speech; CU v. FEC remains a wrong headed decision which has created Super PACs able to spend unlimited funds from unkown sources to influence voters.

I ask again: Do you oppose union political campaign donations? If so, why?

Again I'm forced not to ignore your obvious ignorance and respond. Unions are not Super PACs, the money used by unions in making donations is money paid by union members. The source is known, as is the amount.

CU v. FEC allows an unlimited amount of money to influence our elections and allows for the complete anonymity of where the money originated.

Are you stupid or truly mendacious? The evidence suggests both.

I'm sure it comports you to feel that way, but the answer is, of course, neither.

Your alleged reasoning is less than compelling. Occam's Razor suggests than an ideologue such as yourself supports union donations simply because they donate to Democrats.

 

[saveliberty]

Is it poor financial management to take on a mortgage or car payment?

Is it my duty to always have debt? It certainly can be poor financial management to have a house or car loan. Proven fact for many these days.

No it isn't your duty, but you're clearly trying to argue extremes. There is nothing wrong with debt in the correct proportion to income and managed properly.

It is a rare circumstance where that occurs these days. Income is rarely guaranteed, so just what proportion do you think is acceptable?

 

[Bern80]

Is it my duty to always have debt? It certainly can be poor financial management to have a house or car loan. Proven fact for many these days.

No it isn't your duty, but you're clearly trying to argue extremes. There is nothing wrong with debt in the correct proportion to income and managed properly.

It is a rare circumstance where that occurs these days. Income is rarely guaranteed, so just what proportion do you think is acceptable?

Well, for example, most personal finance experts believe your housing payment, whether that be rent or mortgage, should be no more than a third of your monthly income.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think it now may be your turn to pony up some evidence.

I don't have hard evidence, I formed my opinion based on data in the links I posted above as well as having traveled. Walking to a beach on Grand Cayman I passed what appeared to be an abandoned four unit apt. complex. Listed on the building were the names of maybe twenty corporations/businesses I was familiar with from watching TV commercials here in the states. Of course that speaks to corporate America, but I infer that the Sr. Management of such corporations also use off shore accounts. I maybe wrong, but the circumstantial evidence is compelling.

In short; Wry demands of others what he does not have the integrity to supply himself.

There is a difference, obvious and I'm sure you got it but chose to omit it. I don't claim that I know the truth, unlike many on the right who hold unproven postulates as immutable facts.

I offer my reasons for holding opinions and supply the basis for my beliefs. When you disagree with my opinion you are most welcome to express your disagreement, and I don't care if you offer a counterpoint or not. What is not acceptable to me is your method of attacking me by claiming I demand of others what I won't do myself.

People who think make inferences, draw conclusions and express them as opinions. People who rely on emotion usually parrot an 'authority' and never question what they believe. The latter almost always default to attacking the person and not the message.

 

[daveman]

People who rely on emotion usually parrot an 'authority' and never question what they believe. The latter almost always default to attacking the person and not the message.

Indeed.

 

[saveliberty]

No it isn't your duty, but you're clearly trying to argue extremes. There is nothing wrong with debt in the correct proportion to income and managed properly.

It is a rare circumstance where that occurs these days. Income is rarely guaranteed, so just what proportion do you think is acceptable?

Well, for example, most personal finance experts believe your housing payment, whether that be rent or mortgage, should be no more than a third of your monthly income.

You may want to amend that to a third of net income. Even so, many people followed that rule and lost in the housing market. Your experts will be issuing revisions soon I'm sure.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I haven't proved anything beyond the fact that I actually think about our nation's problems. Using the cliché (Democrats are tax and spenders) is one more example that you're ruled by emotion. Under George W. Bush we had a worse policy, don't tax and spend and spend and spend; and in his first six years in office his party held the majority in the House.

Why not list, point by point as I do, ideas you believe would hasten economic recovery? Of course what I would expect is "cut taxes, cuts spending, cut regulations" without detail or any suggestion that to do so would result in a positive outcome. Furthermore, not a hint of what might go wrong if such a policy were put into effect.

Hey If you ever bothered to pay attention, I have been just as critical of repugnantcans as I have of dimocrats.

BOTH parties have consistently grown the size, scope and cost of government and BOTH parties have consistently spent a higher percentage of GDP every year.

It is your love of the dimocratic dogma that drives you. I have absolutely no loyalty to any political party.

To think that allowing these corrupt politicians to take more money from the public will solve anything is beyond moronic. The only answer to our problems is to completely clean house in state and federal government.

You're all for regulating private citizens but it's time we regulated government.

Laws, death and taxes are the only certainty in this life; private citizens are regulated by all governments but the fact remains you and I live in, "a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal".

We know that people are not created equal. Some are smater than others, some more talented etc.

You want to take from those more talented under the pretense of equalizing but it can't be done. Equal treatment under the law is all government is supposed to ensure.

Government is regulated by law. It's called the Constitution of the United States and provides protection to all citizens. Politicians have been corrpupted, but not by tax money. The only way to completely clean house in state and federal government is to get the money out of politics.

Corrupt politicians direct our tax money to improve their own ends. Have you not read about the insider trading scams rampant among our elected officials? How is it that Senators beat the market by an average of 12% when the best financial planners can only manage to beat the market by 6%?

You want to take money out of politics then ALL elected officials should be compelled to place all of their assets in a blind trust as a condition of serving. When these corrupt assholes can't profit from their own legislation then maybe we'll see some responsible spending.

Five members of the Supreme Court voted to make the influence of money on our elections a matter of free speech; CU v. FEC remains a wrong headed decision which has created Super PACs able to spend unlimited funds from unkown sources to influence voters.

I have no problem excluding corporate donations but let's include the DNC, RNC and Unions in that pot as well. ALL political contributions should come from individual citizens only and should be given directly to a candidate. They should be subject to limits and be made public record as well.

We have to put a tighter leash on our representatives.

 

[Bern80]

It is a rare circumstance where that occurs these days. Income is rarely guaranteed, so just what proportion do you think is acceptable?

Well, for example, most personal finance experts believe your housing payment, whether that be rent or mortgage, should be no more than a third of your monthly income.

You may want to amend that to a third of net income. Even so, many people followed that rule and lost in the housing market. Your experts will be issuing revisions soon I'm sure.

How would you lose if you followed that rule?

 

[saveliberty]

Well, for example, most personal finance experts believe your housing payment, whether that be rent or mortgage, should be no more than a third of your monthly income.

You may want to amend that to a third of net income. Even so, many people followed that rule and lost in the housing market. Your experts will be issuing revisions soon I'm sure.

How would you lose if you followed that rule?

1. You used an ARM to achieve the payment.
2. The martgage balance is higher than the home's value.
3. You lose your job and can't find one at the same rate of pay.

 

[bripat9643]

While some of what you wrote in the thread I would agree to, the above is simply incorrect. I'm not sure why people believe that the government can get away with managing it's finances in a way that would cripple an avg. american household.

Because the average American household is not immortal, and its income will not grow forever. The comparison, therefore, is specious.

How does being immortal make it OK to spend more than you can possibly ever pay back? Corporations are also immortal, and they go bankrupt all the time.

 

[bripat9643]

Inflation could render the rate of interest prohibitive to pay.

Inflation actually reduces effective debt, it doesn't increase it.

We are currently increasing the rate of accumulated debt.

Yes, we are. Obviously the current deficits are unsustainable. But I was referring only to paying back that accumulated debt.

We still have debt on the federal books that has been rolled over (the old bonds paid off and new ones taken to do that) since the U.S.-Mexican War. If it weren't for the fact that Andrew Jackson took it on himself to pay off the accumulated federal debt, we'd have debt going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. Right after he did that, the economy went belly-up in a huge depression.

The economy went belly up because Congress declined to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. When a state [government] bank has been inflating the credit market and then suddenly stops, it tends to have a negative effect on the economy.

Paying off the debt isn't a good idea. To do that, the government has to levy taxes and not spend the money. This would obviously be a drag on the economy and there's no reason to do it.

Wrong. It can also cut spending, which would have a positive effect on the economy. It's interesting that you can't imagine any alternative to raising taxes.

What we do need to do is stop the practice of deficit spending in times of peace and prosperity. The Reagan Administration had to run deficits in its first few years (due to the recession) but should have balanced the budget starting in 1983, and didn't.

It tried, but got nothing but resistance from Tip O'Neal and the Democrats in Congress.

Same logic applies to both of the Bushes. Deficits are for fighting major wars and getting us through economic downturns, but the budget should always be balanced when we're at peace and the economy is doing well. If you're running a deficit in good times of peace, then either taxes need to be raised or spending needs to be cut or both.

Actually, there's no good reason ever to run a deficit other than the fact that politicians don't want to raise taxes to pay for their spending because it's politically unpalatable.

 

[saveliberty]

It is actually why income tax started. Pay for a deficit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. Repealing the Bush Tax cuts and making Billionaires and Millionaires pay more in tax will kill jobs.

2, Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)

3. Only the private sector creates jobs.

4. Shrinking government will jump start our economy (explain how adding thousands to the unemployment roles will benefit commerce, small business and the real estate market).

5. Gay & Lesbian Marriage threatens traditional marriage.

6. Citizens United v. FEC is good for America.

5. Gay & Lesbian Marriage threatens traditional marriage.

This is a very good way to control the population by allowing people to marry who cannot reproduce new population. A good globalist tactic

3. Only the private sector creates jobs.

The private sector is the driving engine to the economy. Without it the government cannot have a means to hire people to do government work.

1. Repealing the Bush Tax cuts and making Billionaires and Millionaires pay more in tax will kill jobs.

obama disagreed with you.

2, Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)

Have you ever worked for a poor person?

4. Shrinking government will jump start our economy (explain how adding thousands to the unemployment roles will benefit commerce, small business and the real estate market).

Smaller government means less money it has to pay out to public unions.

 

[Dragon]

How long you live as nothing to do with what would be considered healthy debt vs. bad debt. The government historically has collected the same amount in tax revenue relative to GDP, year in year out for decades. There income is NOT growing year after year after year. The notion that the fed's potentional for generating tax revenue is infinite is simply false. They are bound by the same basic laws and rules of finance that an avg. business or household is.

Every sentence of the above is simply not true.

How long you live has a great deal to do with healthy versus unhealthy debt. A household has an income trajectory. Its income rises to a certain point, plateaus, then declines when its leading members retire. It drops to zero when those people die. For that reason, accumulated debt should be held to a level that can be paid off during the productive part of a person's life. There is a limited amount of time in which to do it. That is simply not a consideration with the government. The productive life of a whole nation, unlike that of a household, is potentially unlimited. There is no reason why a nation needs to ever pay off its public debt. No reason at all.

That the government has been collecting roughly the same amount of revenue as a percentage of GDP is also not true, but even if it was true it would be meaningless, because GDP growth would still mean growing revenue. But it isn't true:

United States Government Revenue History - Charts

Of course, as GDP grew during the same period covered in these charts, total revenue as an absolute amount grew much more than the charts would indicate.

There is no claim that government's potential to generate revenue is "infinite," but there is no limit to its long-term growth. There are however practical limits to its short-term growth, which is why, although the accumulated debt isn't important, the deficit -- the rate at which the total debt is increasing -- is very important.

No, the government is not bound by the same rules as a household. It will not retire, it will not die, and it can print its own money, none of which is true of a household.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hey If you ever bothered to pay attention, I have been just as critical of repugnantcans as I have of dimocrats.

BOTH parties have consistently grown the size, scope and cost of government and BOTH parties have consistently spent a higher percentage of GDP every year.

It is your love of the dimocratic dogma that drives you. I have absolutely no loyalty to any political party.

To think that allowing these corrupt politicians to take more money from the public will solve anything is beyond moronic. The only answer to our problems is to completely clean house in state and federal government.

You're all for regulating private citizens but it's time we regulated government.

Laws, death and taxes are the only certainty in this life; private citizens are regulated by all governments but the fact remains you and I live in, "a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal".

We know that people are not created equal. Some are smater than others, some more talented etc.

You want to take from those more talented under the pretense of equalizing but it can't be done. Equal treatment under the law is all government is supposed to ensure.

Government is regulated by law. It's called the Constitution of the United States and provides protection to all citizens. Politicians have been corrpupted, but not by tax money. The only way to completely clean house in state and federal government is to get the money out of politics.

Corrupt politicians direct our tax money to improve their own ends. Have you not read about the insider trading scams rampant among our elected officials? How is it that Senators beat the market by an average of 12% when the best financial planners can only manage to beat the market by 6%?

You want to take money out of politics then ALL elected officials should be compelled to place all of their assets in a blind trust as a condition of serving. When these corrupt assholes can't profit from their own legislation then maybe we'll see some responsible spending.

Five members of the Supreme Court voted to make the influence of money on our elections a matter of free speech; CU v. FEC remains a wrong headed decision which has created Super PACs able to spend unlimited funds from unkown sources to influence voters.

I have no problem excluding corporate donations but let's include the DNC, RNC and Unions in that pot as well. ALL political contributions should come from individual citizens only and should be given directly to a candidate. They should be subject to limits and be made public record as well.

We have to put a tighter leash on our representatives.

You've made several solid points. Thank you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I ask again: Do you oppose union political campaign donations? If so, why?

Again I'm forced not to ignore your obvious ignorance and respond. Unions are not Super PACs, the money used by unions in making donations is money paid by union members. The source is known, as is the amount.

CU v. FEC allows an unlimited amount of money to influence our elections and allows for the complete anonymity of where the money originated.

Are you stupid or truly mendacious? The evidence suggests both.

I'm sure it comports you to feel that way, but the answer is, of course, neither.

Your alleged reasoning is less than compelling. Occam's Razor suggests than an ideologue such as yourself supports union donations simply because they donate to Democrats.

LOL, advantage to stupid.

 

[Dragon]

You make it sound like its the duty of govenrment to be in debt.

It is. That is to say, it's the duty of the government to deal with emergencies that may arise, and Congress is granted the authority to borrow money for that very reason. And once it has done so, it is irresponsible of the government to pay the debt off. So there will be a tendency for the accumulated debt to ratchet up over time, as emergencies are dealt with.

Effective debt makes no difference if the interest is so high you can't make the payment. That is default.

Correct, but that's a separate issue. The government has things it can do to keep interest rates down (or up, as the case may be).

Poor financial management by government needs to end.

I don't disagree with this. I just disagree that good financial management includes an obligation to retire old public debt.

 

[saveliberty]

It is. That is to say, it's the duty of the government to deal with emergencies that may arise, and Congress is granted the authority to borrow money for that very reason. And once it has done so, it is irresponsible of the government to pay the debt off. So there will be a tendency for the accumulated debt to ratchet up over time, as emergencies are dealt with.


Correct, but that's a separate issue. The government has things it can do to keep interest rates down (or up, as the case may be).

I don't disagree with this. I just disagree that good financial management includes an obligation to retire old public debt.

Of course government borrows for far more than emergencies. They in fact, create emergencies on ocassion. We created a sinking fund equal to 15% of our annual budget for emergenies in our community (one of my ideas).

It is not irresponsible to pay off debt. What a silly statement. The government has flooded the world with US dollars, that will create inflation and higher interest rates
soon.

 

[Dragon]

Of course government borrows for far more than emergencies. They in fact, create emergencies on ocassion. We created a sinking fund equal to 15% of our annual budget for emergenies in our community (one of my ideas).

Interesting. Of course, there's really no need for the federal government to create such a sinking fund, which doesn't mean it was a bad idea. In my opinion, the government should not borrow money except for emergencies -- major wars, economic downturns, an asteroid smashing the hell out of Kansas, etc. Borrowing money should not be SOP.

It is not irresponsible to pay off debt. What a silly statement. The government has flooded the world with US dollars, that will create inflation and higher interest rates
soon.

That "inflation is just around the corner" argument has been trumpeted for a long time now. It's been long enough for us to reasonably conclude that the arguments against it (based on the idea of a liquidity trap) are correct and it's not going to happen.

It is irresponsible for the federal government to retire debt. It would do great damage to the economy. It's also irresponsible for the government to borrow money when it doesn't have to. What we have to be sure of is that the debt does not grow over the long term any faster than GDP. Otherwise, it isn't a problem.

 

[saveliberty]

You ignore that government borrowing is a major contributor to less borrowing available to private parties.