The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Eh, fixing Social Security is fairly easy. Remove the FICA cap so LeBron pays the same amount as a percentage of FICA tax as you and me and maybe raise the retirement age on a sliding scale so that it's 69 or 70 by time I'm an old man.

I'm all for personal retirement accounts and more flexibility for 401k's, but as an addition to the basics of Social Security. The whole point of Social Security is that it's basic and the foundation of retirement, so you shouldn't be able to invest it. If you want to invest money, that's why they invented 401ks.

I wouldn't call taxing innovative, hard-working people who took risks and became heavily skilled an extra 15% on everything they make over $100k an easy solution. Just gives less motivation to be succesful. I just don't understand this notion that we want to go out of our way to punish those who we should be praising. Fuck you Google guys, your ability to innovate how we all live our lives in a positive way is grounds for you to pay for thousands of people's retirements.

Maybe I'm just overly competitive, but shouldn't there be an element of society that says that if you want something, you should have to work for it? If you want to retire in comfort, make more money and save.

[Buccaneer]

I used the wrong terminology. What I meant was the Federal Income Tax deduction from the paycheck. Even though I get thousands back in refund each year, that doesn't come close to what I paid out. Does the 47% apply to lower to lower middle income brackets?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The 47% is who pays no net income taxes. It doesn't count FICA, Medicare, capital gains, etc. so it's also why basically the statement is BS.

As pointed out in the CNN article I posted earlier, it also includes many who get money back BEYOND what they paid in taxes, thus making up for much of their FICA, Medicare, etc costs. That's what's so insane, we're using our tax code to pay people, rather than collect.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I used the wrong terminology. What I meant was the Federal Income Tax deduction from the paycheck. Even though I get thousands back in refund each year, that doesn't come close to what I paid out. Does the 47% apply to lower to lower middle income brackets?

Yes, it means that their refunds wipe out or exceed what was withheld from their paycheck (if any) over the year.

[Buccaneer]

Back when I made $50,000 per year, I worked harder, learned new skills (I'm in IT) and paid more attention to business processes; and now I make considerably more.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

In other words, "I'm a better person than these people, so too bad for them?" I have the weird opinion that those making the _average income_ in this nation shouldn't be two missed paychecks away from being financially destroyed.

Maybe those making the average income should budget better.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

First of all, I disagree totally that the fact you make more than 100k is proof you're more innovative or hard-working than anyone else. But even putting aside that, for many people earning above 100-ish k, it'd be an extra 7%-ish tax on their income _over_ 100-ish k so it wouldn't be an actual total 7% tax raise.

There are exceptions no doubt, but by in large, if you're making over 100k, you've probably done something right along the way. You found a valued skill, went to school, or have a mind that is sought after. There is a reason a brain surgeon makes more than a janitor.

And it's 15%. 7.5% is paid by the employer which is just an extension of your salary. If the Cavs need to pay an extra 7.5% on Lebron's $20 million dollar deal, that's money out of their pocket and all NBA teams have to lower their salary scale. Just as if a surgeon makes $250k working for a hospital, his salary goes down if his employer needs to pay an additional 7.5% on an extra $150k.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Second, yes, I believe that every American should be guaranteed a basic standard of living after they've worked for 40 years. Also, Social Security guarantees a _basic_ level of comfort as in you can keep all the utilities on and pay for groceries. That's not even getting into the fact that Social Security + pensions/401k's have created a whole new group of consumers for those "innovative + hard working" people earning above 100k. It'll be hard for Grandma to buy plane tickets to visit her kids if she can barely afford to pay the light bill.

The reason the SS is going to be hurting has nothing to do with basic standards of living, it has to do with the fact we are all living longer. As our life expectancy continues to increase, so will the burden on the social security system.

The current system is setup so that everyone pays in as they go along into a sort of government controlled IRA/401K. With the cap at around $100k, no one is really left taking the burden of hundreds of people's retirement accounts. They more or less are paying for themselves and maybe a little for another person or two if they hover around that max.

What you are proposing is for people like Bill Gates to pay for tens of thousands of people's entire retirement because he just so happen to have been a smart guy who innovated the way we live our lives. This isn't some pro-rich rant either. I just hate this narrative we setup where people are first looking to mooching off people like Bill Gates instead of aspiring to be him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

In other words, "I'm a better person than these people, so too bad for them?" I have the weird opinion that those making the _average income_ in this nation shouldn't be two missed paychecks away from being financially destroyed.

In a harsh way, yes. Lebron James makes $20 million while some undrafted rookie makes the minimum is because Lebron is a better basketball player. He sells more tickets, more merchandise, and is more valuable.

And nothing in this world says "too bad". That average income person can work harder, gain new schools, acquire knowledge, and become more valuable. A brain surgeon makes what he makes because he didn't want to be average and we shouldn't be striving to tell everyone that average is good. We should have a society of people who strive to be much more than average and work hard to do it.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

If you read the link, you'd see th example I posted is of somebody making good financial decisions. An average, average spending on food, average spending on everything with no credit card debt, etc.

In addition, the whole myth that it's luxury spending and such causing people to go into debt is complete BS. The largest increases in people's spending by percentage over the past 30 years is housing, child care, transportation, and education costs. In fact, as a percentage of average income, spending on clothing and electronics have actually gone down.

I read the link. I just happen to think it's BS. In just about every category I spend less than the link's fantasy person. The person's financial decisions are at best "average" and that's being generous.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually, people at the low end don't pay enough into make up for the amount they pay into Social Security. I forget what the 'balancing' level of income is, but it's fairly high. The truth is, Social Security is already one of the most successful redistributive plans in the history of the world. I just want to make it more redistributive and financially solvent at the same time.

And this is where we disagree. I don't think everything should be redistributed. I don't think the guy who worked his ass off in medical school to become a brain surgeon and saved lives everyday should be paying for the retirement of a guy who dropped out of high school to work in a factory for 40 years.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I'll simply point out that even a large chunk of the Tea Party would run away from Paul once it was shown via large national ad buys what his plans for Social Security and Medicare are. The 41% for Paul could be Generic Republican based on people's actual knowledge of his policy positions on things outside of small government and maybe foreign policy.

What's funny is that Ron Paul pretty much created the Tea Party. (And I am not talking an Al Gore created the internet thing but actually created the tea party protests) Of course the corporate media won't acknowledge this because he is their worst enemy. Anyways on to your point... No doubt that a lot of these "tea partiers" are Johnny-come-lately's and would never vote for Paul in a million years but its kind of ironic that the big government they bitch and moan about is what Paul wants to get rid of and the people they will vote for (like Palin and Romney) will make it bigger.

With regards to Social Security: He believes there is a group of Americans who are now dependent on social security and he isn't about cutting them off. He also believes the system is out of control and needs to be fixed, one way to do that includes younger people deciding to "opt out" and not pay or receieve benfits. Not sure what is so radical or crazy about that.

With regards to Medicare: I honestly don't know his view on this is, so fill me in on what is crazy. I have always heard him say (just like social security) that there are people who are dependent on entitlement programs and you can't just sweep them away but you also have to start trying to stop the new generations from being dependent on them because one day we will run out of money. At that point who is less "compassionate" the guy who tried to avert the crisis or the Republicrats who spent so much that eventually the government went bankrupt and everyone got cut off? One seems to be a lot more drastic than the other.

I think where he is most interesting is his feelings about racism and helping the poor. He says that he is one of the few politicians that want to end the drug war and end the wars around the world that consist of front-line soldiers who are generally poorer/less educated/minorities. The Republicans are obviously the worst but a lot of the Democrats really don't help the poor much more.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Why shouldn't the average income be enough so an average family is financially secure? Again, you have this opinion that if people are financially stable and secure, they won't want to have an even better life. I disagree with that. In fact, if people don't have to worry about becoming one of the millions in bankruptcy if they get fired, they might even be more innovative and successful because they're not having an ulcer over their health care costs or saving for their kids education.

The difference is want and need. There are a lot of things I want, but I don't always put out the effort that is necessary to accomplish it. But if I needed something, I would.

Put us back in the simplest of times. You live in a cave with 10 people and they bring you back a portion of their kill everyday. Sure you may want to go out and kill your own animal for various reasons (power, sex, etc), but you don't need to. But if they don't share, you need to kill your own animal. You need to make yourself a good hunter and you need to work hard enough that you do bring home that food.

I'm saying that this society works too much on want and not enough on need. Need drives a better society.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

If you read the link, you'd see th example I posted is of somebody making good financial decisions. An average, average spending on food, average spending on everything with no credit card debt, etc.

In addition, the whole myth that it's luxury spending and such causing people to go into debt is complete BS. The largest increases in people's spending by percentage over the past 30 years is housing, child care, transportation, and education costs. In fact, as a percentage of average income, spending on clothing and electronics have actually gone down.

I would argue that a couple making $50K grand total might want to think about having that second child, or possibly the first. That is a HUGE financial decision.

Of course there is the whole "$45K was a 20% down payment on a house" deal, which means a $225K home. My wife and I made considerably more than that before we bought our current home for the same ballpark. Before that we were living in a $125K home. Perhaps that $50K family should have thought of that. Maybe they could even afford the 2 kids then.

Of course, $50K/year and 2 kids, I'd like to know how they saved the $45K down payment in the first place.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Um, to be blunt, assuming your location on your profile is where you're at, you're in Alabama. Of course you're spending is going on most things (and most importantly) housing is going to be less, you're in one of the least expensive places in the nation to live.

I'm in a pretty average place to live (I think it came out slightly above when I last checked salary survey / cost of living stuff), and a $225K home is a pretty nice one. You can buy very reasonable housing for half that. In an average place to live.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Again, to be blunt (and speaking as somebody in this age group), young people can't plan for two months in the future, let alone 40 years. So yes, a large chunk will opt out, continue to opt out, then wonder why they're broke and have to move in with the kids at 65. That doesn't even get into the story if we have another massive recession that wipes out peoples 401k's in the future.

They can't plan because they don't need to. If they needed to, they would. If it was engrained in our heads at a young age that if we don't put away 15% of our paychecks in some form of retirement savings, we will literally be homeless, people would start.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Again, to be blunt (and speaking as somebody in this age group), young people can't plan for two months in the future, let alone 40 years. So yes, a large chunk will opt out, continue to opt out, then wonder why they're broke and have to move in with the kids at 65. That doesn't even get into the story if we have another massive recession that wipes out peoples 401k's in the future.

.

Two worlds is all I have to say. I agree with you that young people might not be the best at planning for the future but if the solution is that everyone pay taxes because of that I am afraid me and you will never come to an agreement. I may come across as a multi-millionaire old guy with my views sometimes but I actually am a 35 year-old teacher who makes about 60K and was taught to be responsible finanicially. I hate unions (even though they probably do benefit me) and I hate living in a modest house in a modest neighborhood while people get their asses saved who couldn't think logically about why one bank will only give them a 100K loan and another will give them 250K. Sorry but that's just stupidity and doesn't need to be saved by the government. If the best we can come up with is that young people just won't do it then either our country really sucks or some people need a swift kick in the ass.

Sometimes I can see the other side of things like health care and unemployment benefits but the "Young people don't save" argument for more taxes is insane.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Again, it's based on the averages. The average house is indeed worth 225k (and with the housing bubble, not that great a house) and has 2 kids. Now, you can say that's their fault, etc. but the fact is that if you go by the average, the average person in this family is 2 missed paychecks away from financial disaster. I think that's a bad thing, people might disagree and believe if they've made mistakes, screw 'em.

That analysis is very flawed and the discussion about the house is a perfect example.

A family earning the median income should only be buying a median priced house if every family at every income level was buying houses which isn't true. Home buyers are going to come disproportionately from the higher incomes (poorer people rent, live with others, etc). This hypothetical family should be buying a house half that price.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

And in that same cave, if you broke your leg hunting for that kill, you died. Thank you, but I'd prefer our world.

Except I'd call 2010 a vastly better society than say, 1890 when there were no labor laws, social spending, or the like. Those are all "wants" that have created a better world.

I have no qualms with disability or even health care. I don't think people should be punished for things of that sort and as a society I think we should help those who are disabled.

I would say it's better as well. However labor laws and such don't really have anything to do with this conversation. Those are primarily issues with human rights and safety.

I'd also argue that we've lowered taxes dramatically on the richest people over the last 50 years and seen massive strides in technology, medicine, etc.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

OK, let's assume that they're lucky enough to live in a market where they can buy a 125k house. So, their mortgage is only $750 bucks a month. That's still only $350 bucks to save for retirement and emergencies, assuming they have zero credit card debt, no student loans,

if their mortgage is only $750 bucks a month then their rent wouldn't likely be much of a savings over that if they couldn't afford a 125k house either. so saying 'well they should just rent' isn't likely to make much of a difference.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

OK, let's assume that they're lucky enough to live in a market where they can buy a 125k house. So, their mortgage is only $750 bucks a month. That's still only $350 bucks to save for retirement and emergencies, assuming they have zero credit card debt, no student loans,

We have the financially irresponsible and our sense of entitlement for things we can't afford to thank for that scenario, and our still-high real-estate values.

Our grandparents would never have dreamed of financing a car. Many, including much of the working class, wouldn't think of financing a house. They just knew how to live within their means. We've shot way above our means with debt, and now consider it some kind of hardship if we lose those things we could never afford in the first place.

I recently bought a $93k house. I'm a cheaper part of the country, but even by the standards here, it's a cheap house. And it's small. At a salary close to $60k, I have plenty to save, blow, make improvements to the house over time as I can afford them. Both my real estate agent and my lender both suggested I could "afford more", and both reacted with surprise that I fell in love with this house. It's just expected, still, that I get into a situation I can't afford, or one that doesn't give me a lot of breathing room for the unexpected. And that sense of entitlement drives up prices, when free money is so easily available. But I'm way too conservative for that. I have a chance to be in a really good situation in 10 years if real estate values recover AT ALL (this house actually sold for $168k just 3 years ago).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Then why were large chunks of the elderly in just not poverty, but extreme poverty before Social Security existed?

The truth is, even if Social Security was eliminated, people still wouldn't save because this is a consumer society and that wouldn't change even with an elimination of Social Security. Also, as a group, humanity aren't good long-term planners.

Smart people would. Look at our rates of college graduates now to what they were 50 years ago. People have slowly realized that they need a degree to achieve more. If you have to watch your grandpa struggle mightily to pay his bills because he didn't save into retirement, you're probably not going to go down that path.

You can say this about a lot of stuff. Take smoking or HIV for example. After seeing the negative health effects of both, our generation is much less likely to smoke or have unprotected sex.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But yes, this does come down to a simple ideological difference. I believe everybody should have a basic standard of living guaranteed once they retire. You don't. I just hope the nation stays on my side in this one.

I would like to see everyone have a basic standard of living. I just want them to earn it. You want them to be handed it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Again, it's an ideological/philosophical question. I believe that if you've worked full-time for 40 years, you deserve that basic standard of living even if you are just a high school dropout who got a job at the factory or a single mom who ended up working as a secretary or whatever.

What's your idea of a basic standard of living?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

If you have no qualms with health care, why do you have qualms with Social Security? In both cases, it's redistributive.

I believe health care is more about luck and genetics in many areas while retirement is based on your efforts in life. Sure there are people who treat themselves horribly and I don't have a problem with not covering them. But I don't think that someone should be punished because they happen to be more genetically predisposed to getting cancer. Or because they slipped and fell on some ice and broke their hand.

If someone is unable to save anything for retirement, it's on them. Whether that's for not saving, not working more, or not becoming skilled enough to get a better job. And remember, without social security payments, most people are going to get an extra 15% in their salary that they weren't getting before.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Same thing with labor laws. In 1910, I'm sure plenty of factory owners made the claim they're the innovative and hard-working members of society and why should they have to pay their workers more, guarantee them overtime pay, or follow safety regulations.

I think safety regulations is a completely seperate topic and has nothing to do with our discussion. But I don't believe in forcing employers to pay more or guaranteeing overtime pay. I believe that a company should pay an employee what he's worth. Forcing them to pay more means that those who did make more because they earned it will now make less.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Rates of people being able to afford college is down to two things. More colleges being opened and...wait for it...expanded loans and grant programs especially compared to pre-WWII. Hell, the GI bill which just "gave" veterans a college education helped create the American middle class.

Again, a totally unrelated program you're talking about. College loans and grants are good things because they help level the playing field by making it fair for everyone to go to college. It's also a good investment because giving a kid a loan will be a net positive because a college graduate will make more money and thus pay more taxes over their lifetime. The government doesn't lose money on these programs in the long term, they make money.

It also helps create a smarter, more innovative country which helps benefit us all. Smarter people create more jobs and help this country lead the world in many industries.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Again, it's an ideological/philosophical question. I believe that if you've worked full-time for 40 years, you deserve that basic standard of living even if you are just a high school dropout who got a job at the factory or a single mom who ended up working as a secretary or whatever.

Because we're taught that there is something romantic about working in a factory for 40 years after dropping out of high school. There isn't. It's a lazy way out in this world and takes no skill, innovation, or talent.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

We have the financially irresponsible and our sense of entitlement for things we can't afford to thank for that scenario, and our still-high real-estate values.

Our grandparents would never have dreamed of financing a car. Many, including much of the working class, wouldn't think of financing a house. They just knew how to live within their means. We've shot way above our means with debt, and now consider it some kind of hardship if we lose those things we could never afford in the first place.

HUGE +1. Why did this family decide to buy a 225k house? Why do they have two kids? Hey kids are great but they are a MASSIVE expense. In places where you cannot possibly find a house less than 225k I would be willing to bet that a car isn't mandatory either, you probably live in an area with public transit. Why are you deciding in an area with public transit when you've had more kids than you can afford and bought a house that you can't afford that you have to have a car too?

For that matter, why are you living in an area where you can't find a house for less than 225k? In all my experience, cost of living doesn't scale with salary well at all. Why not try to find employment and move somewhere cheaper, even if that means another state/region?

We all know more than 2 or 3 people who had families of 4 in two bedroom apartments or lower cost 2 bedroom houses right? I shared a room with my only sibling for years because we were in the nicest place that my parents could afford. Less kids/less house/less entitlement lowers lots of those expenses all at once.

Maybe live well below your means for awhile, live with your parents and save up so that you can provide your kids with these things 5 years down the line. That way maybe an extra job can be picked up for extra income while less money is being spent at the same time. What, no family support structure? With no support structure why are you putting yourselves in a situation where you have no breathing room!?


These just don't seem like new problems to me at all. These seem like problems that people have had going way back but either we have an artificial rosy view of the past, or we have an insane sense of entitlement. Probably both.

[molson]

I like this retirement plan (it's completely unrelated, I'm not making any political or economic point with this article, I just thought it was funny):

From The London Times:
A Well-Planned Retirement

Outside England 's Bristol Zoo there is a parking lot for 150 cars and 8 buses. For 25 years, its parking fees were managed by a very pleasant attendant. The fees were 1 for cars ($1.40), 5 for buses (about $7).

Then, one day, after 25 solid years of never missing a day of work, he just didn't show up; so the Zoo Management called the City Council and asked it to send them another parking agent.

The Council did some research and replied that the parking lot was the Zoo's own responsibility. The Zoo advised the Council that the attendant was a City employee.. The City Council responded that the lot attendant had never been on the City payroll.

Meanwhile, sitting in his villa somewhere on the coast of Spain or France or Italy .... is a man who'd apparently had a ticket machine installed completely on his own and then had simply begun to show up every day, commencing to collect and keep the parking fees, estimated at about $560 per day -- for 25 years.

Assuming 7 days a week, this amounts to just over $7 million dollars ...... and no one even knows his name

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I believe health care is more about luck and genetics in many areas while retirement is based on your efforts in life. Sure there are people who treat themselves horribly and I don't have a problem with not covering them. But I don't think that someone should be punished because they happen to be more genetically predisposed to getting cancer. Or because they slipped and fell on some ice and broke their hand.

If someone is unable to save anything for retirement, it's on them. Whether that's for not saving, not working more, or not becoming skilled enough to get a better job. And remember, without social security payments, most people are going to get an extra 15% in their salary that they weren't getting before.


I think safety regulations is a completely seperate topic and has nothing to do with our discussion. But I don't believe in forcing employers to pay more or guaranteeing overtime pay. I believe that a company should pay an employee what he's worth. Forcing them to pay more means that those who did make more because they earned it will now make less.

how about if it's a single mother who had a kid before she finished college, had to drop out and start working as a secretary, never went back to school because she wanted to not have a latchkey-kid and by the time he was old enough it was too late, so she never becomes more than that, and gives all of her time & money into giving her son the best possible life and because of that and thin margins, doesn't manage to get anything saved.

should she just be discarded when she retires because she chose to be a good mom?

or what about if her son dies in a car accident after she's helped put him through college and she ends up without the potential of him to take care of her (which then would be a drag on HIS income and perpetuate that cycle again)?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because we're taught that there is something romantic about working in a factory for 40 years after dropping out of high school. There isn't. It's a lazy way out in this world and takes no skill, innovation, or talent.

Who are you to pass judgment on somebody else's decision, or what they may have been forced to do due to circumstances you have no knowledge of?

I fucking hate when people think they're justified in passing judgment on other people's decisions. I chewed the SHIT out of my sister and mother on Thanksgiving at dinner when she pulled the same thing about some personal decisions a family friend made.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

That's not even getting to the fact where at most factories in the modern day with how technology in manufacturing has developed, you definitiley need some skill and talent. Not the same talent or skill to be a surgeon or play with other people's money on Wall Street, but some skill and talent.

Doesn't take that much talent to be one of the guys creating these elaborate CDO's that were full of risky mortgages and blew up. And those guys pocket MILLIONS.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Who are you to pass judgment on somebody else's decision, or what they may have been forced to do due to circumstances you have no knowledge of?

I'm the person being asked to pay for it. Ask nothing of me, I'll ask no questions of you.

Of course, social security and Medicare pay for a heck of a lot more than the 40-year worker being thrown about here. Yes, someone who worked their pants off all their life, even if just in a lowly manufacturing job, earns a lot of respect from me. That only describes a portion of where social security goes, however.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Doesn't take that much talent to be one of the guys creating these elaborate CDO's that were full of risky mortgages and blew up. And those guys pocket MILLIONS.

I believe many of us are on record as stating those guys should be in jail.

[DaddyTorgo]

DEregulation is rarely a good thing. Typically the regulations were put in place for some reason or another - it's the height of folly to think that they're not needed anymore at any given point.

That's pretty much my general feeling about deregulation of any kind (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I believe many of us are on record as stating those guys should be in jail.

That's what I was thinking - that's really more of a criminal justice issue.

I don't think anyone can (or usually does) make the argument that every single poor person has no talent and can't contribute anything more to society. Life just doesn't have smooth lines like that. But you do have to balance the desire to help those people (which any decent person does on their own dime to some degree), with the need to create a society that greatly rewards and encourages talent, the fulfillment of that potential, and accomplishments. I think the government should be aggressive in finding the brilliant, the genius, the talent that are born into poverty, to help give them the chance to succeed.

Just as a micro-example, if you imagine an average high school reunion, the people that accomplished/contributed more in the last 20 years should be dramatically better off than the slackers and dummies who accomplished nothing, and are a net loss to society. That means society is working.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Who are you to pass judgment on somebody else's decision, or what they may have been forced to do due to circumstances you have no knowledge of?

I fucking hate when people think they're justified in passing judgment on other people's decisions. I chewed the SHIT out of my sister and mother on Thanksgiving at dinner when she pulled the same thing about some personal decisions a family friend made.

I am the guy paying 15% of my income up to $100k (with Steve wanting me to pay more) to support them. I don't give a shit what anyone does and I don't pass judgement on them for their decisions in what they want to do in life. But the minute you start asking for people to pony up money to support them, you bet they have a right to pass judgement.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I am the guy paying 15% of my income up to $100k (with Steve wanting me to pay more) to support them. I don't give a shit what anyone does and I don't pass judgement on them for their decisions in what they want to do in life. But the minute you start asking for people to pony up money to support them, you bet they have a right to pass judgement.

And I think that's the same thing DT and others were saying in that gay prom thread. That since the rich north is supporting the poor south through the federal government, that the north should have a say in how the south governs. The analysis seems to be different if you replace an entity deemed "bad" (the south) with entity deemed "good" (individual poor).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

DEregulation is rarely a good thing. Typically the regulations were put in place for some reason or another - it's the height of folly to think that they're not needed anymore at any given point.

That's pretty much my general feeling about deregulation of any kind (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

I hate this black or white stance on issues. Regulation is sometimes good and it's sometimes bad.

Deregulation in my opinion is good on moral grounds. As a business owner, why should I have to pay a guy who is only worth $3/hour, $7 hour? Not only does that hurt my bottom line, but it hurts those who have skills. Because the guy who has a skill and makes $25/hour, now has to take a $4/hour cut because some bum needs to hit the minimum wage. The moral issue is punishing those who better our society.

Regulation is bad when it's used to dumb down society too. I'm sorry, but if you signed a shitty mortgage, that's on you. If you picked up a credit card that has 30% interest, that's on you. When you start telling society that they don't have to be smart enough to read a piece of fucking paper before they take out a $300,000 loan, then you're hurting it as a whole.

On the other hand, regulation is good when it betters society. Banks should not be allowed to get too big where their failure destroys our economy. A business should not be allowed to control so much marketshare that it dramatically hurts most of its citizens. They shouldn't be able to create unsafe working conditions.

It's not about whether regulation is good or bad, it's about whether this particular one is good or bad for the country.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

And I think that's the same thing DT and others were saying in that gay prom thread. That since the rich north is supporting the poor south through the federal government, that the north should have a say in how the south governs. The analysis seems to be different if you replace an entity deemed "bad" (the south) with entity deemed "good" (individual poor).

Exactly. Good comparision.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not about whether regulation is good or bad, it's about whether this particular one is good or bad for the country.

Unfortunately, this would require some common sense by our elected officials. Sadly, the common sense pool is rather shallow when it comes to those people.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Or the business owner can take four dollars per house less in profit. It isn't an either/or proposition. And before you say, "but what if he can't make a profit doing that", then it's simple. Anybody who can't pay the current minimum wage to his employees is doing it wrong and probably shouldn't be in business.

This is where we disagree. The business owner has a skill, probably has education, and has taken all the risk to create a business and provide jobs for the community. But you want to punish him and take from his income to support someone who has no skills, no education, and no talent.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

So, it's their fault even if they've been told by a banker (someone society has told them all their life in a million different ways knows a lot about financial things) that it's a good idea? As for interest rates, I'm in favor of a capped maximum interest rate for everything, so I won't even get in that discussion. As far as a piece of paper, that's sort of simplifying it. It's more a long, complicated piece of paper that again, someone society tells you can be trusted is a good thing, that you're being told to sign to complete the "American Dream."

When did bankers begin to be trusted? Why the hell would you trust some complete stranger with a $300,000 loan? I'm sorry, but if you walk into a meeting with a banker and they say "don't sweat the details, just sign, trust me it's a good deal", then you deserve to get ripped off. That's just stupid.

And don't get me wrong, it happens to us all. I got stupid with credit cards at one point in my life and I learned a tough lesson from it. But at no time did I ever sign something that important without reading the fine print.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

In other words, "I'm a better person than these people, so too bad for them?" I have the weird opinion that those making the _average income_ in this nation shouldn't be two missed paychecks away from being financially destroyed.

You are wrong for saying that and you have lost whay tiny respect that I had in listening to you. I'll play your stupid game and say, "In other words, how dare I strive to make more than the average, that can only come at the expense of those making less than the average." Listen, I gave more monies and donations last year than the net federal income tax that I paid. And such monies did far more tangible good to help those in need than someone contributing pennies on the dollar to the federal bureaucracy and arrogantly saying that makes a difference. If you want a system to where everyone trends toward the average, then that's all you are going to get.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

First of all, I find it interesting that you assume you're money going toward charities goes to those directly in need while your taxes only go to bureaucracy.

But to your main point, then how do you explain if socialism and such only makes everybody "trend toward average" that countries such as Denmark, France, and such have much higher class mobility than the US or in other words, you're more likely to move from the middle class to the upper class in those countries than here? It seems people are still striving to be successful, even if they don't have the freedomto go bankrupt thank to medical costs or the freedom to have thousands in student loans.

How do you quantify class mobility? Middle to upper class, by definition, has to be hard, but it's not at all far fetched for the brilliant and talented in this country. I would say those people are "found" by our system and elevated from the middle class pretty effectively. (though we could use some work in finding them in the poorer classes)

And ya, do the people in the European paradises you cite so often borrow $100k+ to attend mediocre colleges, and "own" property worth five times their annual income with no money down? Do they consider two or three children sharing a bedroom to be living in poverty?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

First of all, I find it interesting that you assume you're money going toward charities goes to those directly in need while your taxes only go to bureaucracy.

Assume? Not when I paid for prescriptions, groceries, utility billsand rent relief. But that was stupid and selfish of me being in the position to be able to do that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

For class mobility, I don't make up the terms, actual organizations who look at this stuff do. (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/42/44566315.pdf)

But no, in the rest of the First World, college is either free or highly subsidized so nobodies throwing down 100k on college in their lifetime in 95% of cases, they have regulations so banks can't do that even though they've had their own housing bubbles that have burst but the fallout hasn't been that bad due to that evil thing called regulation, and the poverty thing is just total BS - there is a measure of poverty (that btw, many people think is flawed because it makes it too easy to not be considered in 'poverty'), but I would think not since the average European home is smaller than the average American one.

I still don't understand how European countries can pay higher, but not extreme, taxes for all this free stuff, and we have to pay infinity billion dollars for a shitty health care plan that doesn't even cover close to everyone. And I still don't understand how THAT isn't the real issue.

If we provide Norway-level services in the U.S., how much would that cost us here? 99% of everyone's income?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

One, they aren't paying 700 billion dollars a year for a bloated defense budget.

Two, because money is still paramount in American politics and it isn't in European politics. The benefit of publicly-funded and/or heavily regulated elections. I would point out though that a much better bill was passed and would've been the bill that passed if we were a parliamentary system like Europe - it was the original House health care bill.

The defense budget effects things on the whole, but the health care plan is a separate entity. Based on what we're spending on health care, alone, we should have the greatest government health care services in the world, by far. And we're not even CLOSE, we're below-average, we're an absolute embarrassment and a disaster in that area.

The second point I agree with. Our federal government is rotten. Shoveling them more money isn't the answer.

[Buccaneer]

"Norway's economy consists largely of oil revenues, allowing taxes and spending levels that, in other countries, would probably destroy the very economy that makes the welfare state possible."

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But, I'm sure you bought into the bipartisan BS of deregulation that allowed it to happen.

Did I? Actually I was mostly too young to know what was going on back when the conditions that allowed this to happen occurred (the roots of this go all the way back to the late 80s when Salomon Brothers created the mortgage market).

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I'll simply point out that even a large chunk of the Tea Party would run away from Paul once it was shown via large national ad buys what his plans for Social Security and Medicare are. The 41% for Paul could be Generic Republican based on people's actual knowledge of his policy positions on things outside of small government and maybe foreign policy.

Even Ron Paul has said you are not going to kill Social Security and Medicare over night. No doubt the propaganda will say he's going to throw granny out on the street to the wolves, but if anyone paid attention to the guy he makes a calm and well reasoned argument... it might not be one you agree with, but I have to say he seems to show a lot more class than his opposition.

As far as I've heard, his plan for Social Security and Medicare is to phase them out over time. Given they are likely to collapse from their own weight by the time most 40 year olds are due to collect, it might make sense to set up a gradual transition rather than let the programs just explode (they will because all those FICA taxes have been pirated to fuel spending and pork so instead of building up an investment, the accounts are all IOUs).

I'll be the first to counter some of Paul's arguments, but at the same time a number of things he is saying are based on real facts that the 'party' (Republicrats) deliberately ignores.

I'd also venture that Paul isn't quite the party that Jon supports, he promotes a platform he considers 'traditional Republican values' which have never truly been embraced by the real party which is really a shadow puppet for big money in the modern area (under the facade of religious populism). Paul is essentially a pure libertarian platform, socially liberal (under the guise of state rights) and fiscally conservative (in the classical sense of the term, not the Reagonomics sense).

Its really quite annoying that his own party tries to treat him like he is garbage when he at least presents himself with class and true conviction at all times. All they need to say is that they don't agree with his policies, the problem is they don't have a platform of their own (until their lobbyists write it for them) so they just resort to namecalling and playing to their Fox News handlers. I lean Democrat but after the most recent disgrace I'd vote for Paul, Kucinich, or any 'party-rebel' type in a heartbeat before another party stooge candidate. I'm sick of the smug two party hollow puppets and their low class, low honesty personalities.

[albionmoonlight]

One thing that I would love is for every interview with every national politician to begin with the following question/statement:

"It is impossible to do all of the following three things:
(1) balance the federal budget;
(2) not raise taxes;
(3) not make cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Do you agree or disagree?"

And the interview/press conference/whatever could not progress until the politician either answered or expressly declined to answer the question. And I would have some sense about how seriously to take that politician.

[DaddyTorgo]

i don't like the fact that Paul is socially liberal under the guise of state's rights though. i disagree fundamentally that that is the best way to accomplish that.

it creates social disparities and issues - what about the married gay couple from MA who want to travel to TX on vacation and one of the partners gets critically injured - all of a sudden his husband doesn't have the same rights with regard to making medical decisions or visiting him in the hospital that he would have in MA? That's just a mess, and just one simple example of the issues with that.

You can't leave basic Civil Rights up to the individual states discretion. If you could...well...we all know where that sentence would go. That's why we're a Federal Republic. If you leave basic Civil Rights up to the individual states then you might as well dissolve the Federal government entirely and create smaller nations regionally.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I'd also venture that Paul isn't quite the party that Jon supports, he promotes a platform he considers 'traditional Republican values' which have never truly been embraced by the real party which is really a shadow puppet for big money in the modern area (under the facade of religious populism). Paul is essentially a pure libertarian platform, socially liberal (under the guise of state rights) and fiscally conservative (in the classical sense of the term, not the Reagonomics sense).

I think "isn't quite" is probably understating it considerably.

I don't believe most people have enough sense for libertarianism to be remotely desirable, and without the social conservatism aspect there'd be no chance I'd have become a GOP supporter. As fiscally conservative as I may be, those issues take a tremendous back seat to social concerns for me.