2012 Presidential Campaign

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd expect the tax cut bill would be passed first and it would sail through easily. The closing loopholes part may never happen or if it does it will face extreme opposition as it would be classified as tax increases.

The resulting deficit projections would provide the excuse to privatize SS, which would make the deficit worse. But at least the GOP is full of very serious persons.

Yep - that's pretty much what I assume would happen.

[Autumn]

Fiscal responsibility FTW!

[DaddyTorgo]

The "Very serious people" thing is fucking annoying too. There's nothing "serious" about the Romney/Ryan plan. Insisting on massive tax cuts and magical assumptions of "expected growth" that have ZERO basis in reality isn't serious. In fact, it's the exact opposite of "serious."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

To clarify, Romney's plan is to make the Bush cuts permanent and then pass an additional 20% cut. That's 5 trillion(over ten years) on top of where we're at now. He also wants to spend 2 trillion more on defense. And he wants to add a few hundred trillion by repealing the ACA.

There's no way that can happen without massive(75% or more) cuts to everything the government does besides SS/Medicare/defense

If only I believe this would happen, I might vote for the sumbitch in spite of himself. I'd tweak a few dollars here & there but assuming he lacks the courage and/or decency to go sharply toward flat tax then this is the next best option out there.

[JediKooter]

Why are people so afraid to pay taxes?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Why are people so afraid to pay taxes?

Because people are selfish scared shitless me-first individuals?

Me I want taxes raised. I'm more than happy to let my annual refund go if it means fixing the problems this country sees.

Biggest issue most have is that they are sick of their tax money being wasted. Which I agree with, but am also pragmatic enough to understand that bitching about the lowest tax rates across the board in 60 years is kinda stupid.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Why are people so afraid to pay taxes?

Because the government is probably the most least trustworthy and most wasteful entity in the universe when it comes to money?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Because people are selfish scared shitless me-first individuals?

Me I want taxes raised. I'm more than happy to let my annual refund go if it means fixing the problems this country sees.

Biggest issue most have is that they are sick of their tax money being wasted. Which I agree with, but am also pragmatic enough to understand that bitching about the lowest tax rates across the board in 60 years is kinda stupid.

I feel a lot like you do. Yes, in a utopia, every last cent of my taxes would go to exactly what I want it to go to. We live the real world though. There's a need for taxes, because as you mentioned, the selfish me first people. We'd still have nothing but dirt roads if we let those people have their way.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Because the government is probably the most least trustworthy and most wasteful entity in the universe when it comes to money?

Then people should quit re-electing the same people that are contributing to that problem.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Because the government is probably the most least trustworthy and most wasteful entity in the universe when it comes to money?

Who do you trust more?

[Autumn]

People also need to just accept the reality that any government responsible for the governance of a huge country of 300 million people is going to be large, very complex, and involve a certain amount of waste and inefficiency. Any organization of people works the same way. Yes, we should try to do away with waste and inefficiency, but I feel like a lot of people live in a utopia where they imagine it's actually possible to do away with those things or make everything simple.

Get involved with organizing any size group of people for a period of time and you will see that a fair and effective system will by its nature grow in complexity. You'll start out with simple rules, add more and more nuances to recognize the realities of the system, and eventually you'll have something more complex than anyone wants, but does the closest to a good job that you can manage.

So when people bitch about how inefficient and untrustworthy the government is, I just feel like they're being unrealistic - as far as I can tell humanity has not yet discovered a system of government that can improve on it without taking away from the values we're based on. Things trend from small simple systems to a system like we have because it actually solves the problems that the other systems produced. We can scrap it all and I guarantee in a few hundred years we'd produce the same thing, basically. We should always keep tinkering and improving, but let's not pretend that there's some perfect solution out there that humans have just ignored for the past 5,000 years.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

People also need to just accept the reality that any government responsible for the governance of a huge country of 300 million people is going to be large, very complex, and involve a certain amount of waste and inefficiency. Any organization of people works the same way. Yes, we should try to do away with waste and inefficiency, but I feel like a lot of people live in a utopia where they imagine it's actually possible to do away with those things or make everything simple.

Get involved with organizing any size group of people for a period of time and you will see that a fair and effective system will by its nature grow in complexity. You'll start out with simple rules, add more and more nuances to recognize the realities of the system, and eventually you'll have something more complex than anyone wants, but does the closest to a good job that you can manage.

So when people bitch about how inefficient and untrustworthy the government is, I just feel like they're being unrealistic - as far as I can tell humanity has not yet discovered a system of government that can improve on it without taking away from the values we're based on. Things trend from small simple systems to a system like we have because it actually solves the problems that the other systems produced. We can scrap it all and I guarantee in a few hundred years we'd produce the same thing, basically. We should always keep tinkering and improving, but let's not pretend that there's some perfect solution out there that humans have just ignored for the past 5,000 years.

Waste and corruption are unavoidable but this is exactly why some people are more comfortable with decentralized power. For example, take a bunch of companies within an industry, or a bunch of smaller countries or city-states in Western Europe centuries ago. Those entities had waste, of course, but it actually mattered that they did, and the competition created incentive to try to minimize waste and be more efficient. Those countries or companies that became the most efficient survived, and other countries or companies copied them and that became the way things were done, until the next great minds made it even better. Some think that's why western civilization became so dominant, because they had all those close neighbors, that competition was bringing out new ideas that were constantly tested out, and then discarded or copied depending on how successful they were. When you just have one big fat empire and one set of rules, you can't have a lot of testing out of a lot of ideas, and that brings the evolution of government systems to a standstill.

The United States federal government and our political system is kind of like that. In theory, our check on waste and corruption is voting, but there's such a disconnect now between actual government performance and voter evaluation because everyone's just voting D or R. Performance and efficiency doesn't matter, because you would never vote for the other guy anyway. We have own big bloated entity that's difficult to evaluate, because anything that doesn't SEEM to work is automatically the other party's fault. So instead of having lots of ideas tested and evaluated, you have one idea tested, and no clear answer as to whether it worked or not (your opinion all depends on what party you're in) That's not a great environment for change or innovation in how government is best run.

Edit: And I think the issues with the American government "empire" are the same as you'd have with a giant corporation with an industry monopoly. Progress slows down or stops.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Because the government is probably the most least trustworthy and most wasteful entity in the universe when it comes to money?

Ever tried working for a large corporation? It's the exact same. There are pockets of trustworthy individuals and groups. But, by and large, those with substantial powers are untrustworthy and wasteful.

So many of our corporations exist solely on their size advantage as the "if they were so wasteful, they wouldn't be in business" is a myth when size is a mitigating factor.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ever tried working for a large corporation? It's the exact same. There are pockets of trustworthy individuals and groups. But, by and large, those with substantial powers are untrustworthy and wasteful.

So many of our corporations exist solely on their size advantage as the "if they were so wasteful, they wouldn't be in business" is a myth when size is a mitigating factor.

SI

So maybe massive all-powerful governments and massive all-powerful corporations are both bad.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

So maybe massive all-powerful governments and massive all-powerful corporations are both bad.

Wow, there's the 800lb gorilla in the room.....

[Autumn]

I'm not so sure that it's competitive pressure that makes better governments surface. I think when it comes to social organizations it's more that more effective and sustainable systems thrive, others crash, quickly or eventually. So yes, a big bloated, unsustainable system will die, but I don't think we need a "marketplace" of government. We just need a system that responds to internal pressure for reform. Which means I think it's good that people don't want waste in government, or are innovating improvements and ideas. But I think the reality is any social organization that works is going to be more bloated and complex than we like. So that's the inherent pressure that drives innovation, not competition.

I speak as someone who agrees that there is a need for more bottom up measures, more change coming from the local government on up. So I probably essentially agree with you, Molson. But I think we also have larger national and global issues that just didn't exist 50 years ago, nevermind 300 years ago. They're going to require a rather large and complex federal government.

[JPhillips]

In a lot of cases the desire to let states handle it is because the states will gut it. Look at Medicaid in MS, the cutoff for a family of three is $8000. They aren't looking for a better way to protect the needy, they just don't want to give them medical care.

That doesn't mean there's nothing the states do better, but when the people arguing for state control also want to drastically cut programs it may be because they don't want to achieve the same goal.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

So maybe massive all-powerful governments and massive all-powerful corporations are both bad.

When boiled down to that essence, of course.

But it's more complicated than that simple framing. As entities get larger, there is still a need for governance. Whether weaker or stronger is a matter of preference but each side has negatives and positives. At their core, stronger governance leads to more order and less individuality. Weaker governance leads to weaker order and more individuality. Those are just 2 spectrums, tho, and there are many more.

Now you can look at corporations as they will be growing ever larger and more influential as well. A stronger central government will give them more control over corporations. A weaker central government will give corporations the ability to control the government more. Inaction will have an effect, too, as there will be a power vacuum and some entity will seek to fill it.

As there are more people, there will be larger and more powerful entities because there is more to control and more to have power over. Saying "I hate government" while not similarly decrying other large power-seeking entities is not a want of "freedom" but a tacit preference towards the dominant money-seeking power entity (corporations) as opposed to other power-seeking entities (church, government, etc).

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

When boiled down to that essence, of course.

But it's more complicated than that simple framing. As entities get larger, there is still a need for governance. Whether weaker or stronger is a matter of preference but each side has negatives and positives. At their core, stronger governance leads to more order and less individuality. Weaker governance leads to weaker order and more individuality. Those are just 2 spectrums, tho, and there are many more.

Now you can look at corporations as they will be growing ever larger and more influential as well. A stronger central government will give them more control over corporations. A weaker central government will give corporations the ability to control the government more. Inaction will have an effect, too, as there will be a power vacuum and some entity will seek to fill it.

As there are more people, there will be larger and more powerful entities because there is more to control and more to have power over. Saying "I hate government" while not similarly decrying other large power-seeking entities is not a want of "freedom" but a tacit preference towards the dominant money-seeking power entity (corporations) as opposed to other power-seeking entities (church, government, etc).

SI

Ya, it's definitely not a black and white/good and bad thing, big entities are necessary, and even desirable in a lot of ways, it's just about trying to minimize the danger and have a system with real checks on power of both entities. The "government is evil" crowd is looking at it way too simply but so is the "corporations are evil" crowd. Some people are just more afraid of corporations, and some people are just more afraid of government, like how some people are more afraid of spiders or snakes

Having real checks is tricky - the extreme pro-business crowd likes to say that capitalism eliminates bad business practices but obviously that's not reality. It's also not reality that we can just change our federal government by voting.

[molson]

When you look at it outside of the current modern U.S. political climate though, I think at least more people would prefer a system like the one that was set up in the U.S. Or at least, more people would understand those fears of big government.

If there were no Republicans, no Democrats, and just 300 million diverse people that we have to govern across a huge country, how would we do it? I bet we'd be pretty wary of having too much centralized power - maybe we'd still have it in some areas, but we'd be really careful about how it was run. We'd probably want a bunch of smaller governments trying stuff out, to see what works. Now maybe that has no application to practical decisions now, because Republicans and Democrats, sadly, DO exist, but I think we can learn something to look at it from that politically-neutral way too.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Why are people so afraid to pay taxes?

The problem is people want certain groups to pay most of the income taxes, but not themselves. If we are going to fix our debt/spending problems, everyone is going to have to chip in, and everyone is going to have to make sacrifices.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Why are people so afraid to pay taxes?

Because I don't want my money going to help people that refuse to help themselves.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The problem is people want certain groups to pay most of the income taxes, but not themselves. If we are going to fix our debt/spending problems, everyone is going to have to chip in, and everyone is going to have to make sacrifices.

Just out of curiosity, why is it specifically income taxes? Most other taxes and fees have been shown to be regressive.

Let's say we need to pay 30% of income to the government to get to a mythical "perfect level of government". Income tax makes up 1/2 of all taxes and fees paid while "other taxes and fees" like sales tax, property taxes, government fees like drivers license fees, etc make up the other half.

So, to get the first half of money needed:
* Poor people pay 30% of their income in other taxes and fees
* Middle people pay 20% of their income in other taxes and fees
* Rich people pay 10% of their income in other taxes and fees

To get your other 15%, which do you do?
A. Poor, Middle, Rich pay 15%
B. Poor pays 0%, Middle pays 10%, and Rich pays 20%?
C. Other

Which of those is more fair?

SI

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The problem is people want certain groups to pay most of the income taxes, but not themselves. If we are going to fix our debt/spending problems, everyone is going to have to chip in, and everyone is going to have to make sacrifices.

I thought, from the media, that Mitt Romney was personally raiding the treasury and stealing medical care from babies in poverty. Yet he paid $3.2 million in 2010 for the same roads and the same services we all have. I don't pay anywhere near $3.2 million. I won't make $3.2 million in my entire life.

The top 1% already pay a lot in tax. They paid about 25% of all income tax 25 years ago, and about 37% in 2009 (it peaked at 40% in 2007). These are the people who are effectively financing our government, providing our safety nets.

We can certainly argue about whether anyone "deserves" to have the income that generates $3.2 million in taxes, but when it comes to "paying his fair share," I'd be more inclined to thank Romney than vilify him.

I'm also not sure raising taxes generates tax revenue. France is the latest to experiment with a huge targeted tax increase (75% on the wealthy). It will be interesting to see if that provides any relief to crushing public debt.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ever tried working for a large corporation? It's the exact same. There are pockets of trustworthy individuals and groups. But, by and large, those with substantial powers are untrustworthy and wasteful.

So many of our corporations exist solely on their size advantage as the "if they were so wasteful, they wouldn't be in business" is a myth when size is a mitigating factor.

SI

I do work for a massive corporation these days. We're a small moderately autonomous entity within it, but we have to deal with massive bureaucratic nonsense on a daily basis. I know very well how outrageously wasteful they are. I wouldn't trust them to spend my money wisely, either.

What I quite simply don't get is people supporting throwing more of their (and everyone else's) money at an organization that has proven time and time again to be at best incompetent, and at worst, malicious.

Voting out those in power and voting new ones in hasn't, and doesn't work. Extreme gutting and re-engineering is the only solution that COULD help, but it's both political suicide and the shockwaves would cause massive damage to business and citizen alike.

The bureaucratic system has effectively become the dreaded Too Big To Fail. Politicians have incentive to maintain the status quo, for it keeps them elected and in power, those receiving backing from the government (both business and personal) have the same incentive. In the long run, such a system is unsustainable, but the unfortunate reality is the two entities with the most power under the current system (politicians and mega corporations) have the most to lose in attempting to fix anything.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Just out of curiosity, why is it specifically income taxes? Most other taxes and fees have been shown to be regressive.

Let's say we need to pay 30% of income to the government to get to a mythical "perfect level of government". Income tax makes up 1/2 of all taxes and fees paid while "other taxes and fees" like sales tax, property taxes, government fees like drivers license fees, etc make up the other half.

So, to get the first half of money needed:
* Poor people pay 30% of their income in other taxes and fees
* Middle people pay 20% of their income in other taxes and fees
* Rich people pay 10% of their income in other taxes and fees

To get your other 15%, which do you do?
A. Poor, Middle, Rich pay 15%
B. Poor pays 0%, Middle pays 10%, and Rich pays 20%?
C. Other

Which of those is more fair?

SI

What kind of taxes are we talking about? Aren't we talking about federal budget/spending, not local or state?

Sales and property taxes do not go to the federal government/budget.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I thought, from the media, that Mitt Romney was personally raiding the treasury and stealing medical care from babies in poverty. Yet he paid $3.2 million in 2010 for the same roads and the same services we all have. I don't pay anywhere near $3.2 million. I won't make $3.2 million in my entire life.

The top 1% already pay a lot in tax. They paid about 25% of all income tax 25 years ago, and about 37% in 2009 (it peaked at 40% in 2007). These are the people who are effectively financing our government, providing our safety nets.

We can certainly argue about whether anyone "deserves" to have the income that generates $3.2 million in taxes, but when it comes to "paying his fair share," I'd be more inclined to thank Romney than vilify him.

I'm also not sure raising taxes generates tax revenue. France is the latest to experiment with a huge targeted tax increase (75% on the wealthy). It will be interesting to see if that provides any relief to crushing public debt.

Those are the stated tax rates, not the effective tax rates (after loopholes and deductions).

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm also not sure raising taxes generates tax revenue. France is the latest to experiment with a huge targeted tax increase (75% on the wealthy). It will be interesting to see if that provides any relief to crushing public debt.

The hole in this logic for France is the wealthy will just move (and their money) to tax-friendlier nations like the UK, Switzerland, Luxembourg, or even to places like Dubai or Singapore.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

What I quite simply don't get is people supporting throwing more of their (and everyone else's) money at an organization that has proven time and time again to be at best incompetent, and at worst, malicious.

I guess the response to that (and I lean towards you way of thinking on this), is that, we really don't have a choice. Sure, the federal government is wasteful, but they still have necessary functions that have to be funded. The fact that the government is too big to perform a certain role well doesn't mean that there's an inherent problem with whatever it is we've tasked them to do. The problem of "the government is too big and wasteful" isn't really addressed by cutting taxes. That just leaves you with a big and wasteful government in debt.

That's why I think maybe that execution is more important than the pure political ideologies. "How government can run more efficiently" is no easy question anyway, but it gets even muddier and more impossible to address when you tie it in with politics. Because it gets into what JPhillips was saying, maybe role X could be better run this way, but politically, they just want to run it that way so they can cut stuff, and so they other side doesn't want to run it that way only so that it won't be cut. Actual execution, and how things can best be run, has no place in a discussion like that. There's where big government gets scary for me. There's no incentive to make it work better. There's only an incentive to make it work in the manner that best promotes someone's political preferences.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The problem is people want certain groups to pay most of the income taxes, but not themselves. If we are going to fix our debt/spending problems, everyone is going to have to chip in, and everyone is going to have to make sacrifices.

So you're saying, we're all in this together? For good or bad, we are all on the same boat. I don't mind paying slightly more in taxes. Until we live in the Star Trek universe where money no longer is needed, there's never going to be a system that satisfies 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Because I don't want my money going to help people that refuse to help themselves.

How do you quantify that though and in what way are those people refusing to help themselves? In a perfect world, those who are of able body and mind, should be able to fend for themselves and not need monetary assistance from the government. But, we don't live in a perfect world. People are discriminated against, people make mistakes, people aren't always given the same opportunities that others might get or may not even be aware of opportunities they may have.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Just out of curiosity, why is it specifically income taxes? Most other taxes and fees have been shown to be regressive.

Let's say we need to pay 30% of income to the government to get to a mythical "perfect level of government". Income tax makes up 1/2 of all taxes and fees paid while "other taxes and fees" like sales tax, property taxes, government fees like drivers license fees, etc make up the other half.

So, to get the first half of money needed:
* Poor people pay 30% of their income in other taxes and fees
* Middle people pay 20% of their income in other taxes and fees
* Rich people pay 10% of their income in other taxes and fees

To get your other 15%, which do you do?
A. Poor, Middle, Rich pay 15%
B. Poor pays 0%, Middle pays 10%, and Rich pays 20%?
C. Other

Which of those is more fair?

SI

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What kind of taxes are we talking about? Aren't we talking about federal budget/spending, not local or state?

Sales and property taxes do not go to the federal government/budget.

You were the one who was specific and mentioned income tax so I just went with it.

Clarification:
In Mythtopia, the federal government uses 10% of income to cover the military, parks, etc while the local governments use 10% for schools, infrastructure, etc. The remaining 10% are used on social safety nets. As the federal government collects about 20% of the taxes, they send down some of that (a quarter, or 5% of total income) to the states in block grants. The strings attached are that the states must meet the minimum requirements for social safety nets or they forego funding as the Mythtopia Supreme Court ruled that it should be this way. In the past the Mythtopia states have said they want to do it on their own but they just kept the money to balance other debts because lots of Mythtopia states have balanced budget amendments in their state constitutions and taking money from disenfranchised poor and elderly people is easier than taking it from monied interests.

SI

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Those are the stated tax rates, not the effective tax rates (after loopholes and deductions).

No, this was what was actually paid, according to The Tax Foundation.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

How do you quantify that though and in what way are those people refusing to help themselves? In a perfect world, those who are of able body and mind, should be able to fend for themselves and not need monetary assistance from the government. But, we don't live in a perfect world. People are discriminated against, people make mistakes, people aren't always given the same opportunities that others might get or may not even be aware of opportunities they may have.

It is my opinion that a majority of the people on welfare have it within themselves to solve their own problems and not rely on the government to give them handouts.

If people make mistakes, fuck em. Educate them so that they don't make mistakes. Make them aware of their opportunities. Don't give them free handouts.

You're under 27 and need a job? Let them know that they have a free job as long as they have a HS diploma and aren't a felon.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The hole in this logic for France is the wealthy will just move (and their money) to tax-friendlier nations like the UK, Switzerland, Luxembourg, or even to places like Dubai or Singapore.

Definitely. What we're seeing in Greece is the utter collapse of this philosophy at it approaches its end-game. Large companies are leaving. They don't riot, like people will riot when you finally have to remove entrenched entitlements. They simply take their jobs and leave.

The sad truth in this world is that while money does not buy happiness, it can buy freedom. And freedom can be a huge component in happiness. Unless you're more a proponent of the big government feeding everyone Soma to make them happy approach.

Nothing we're seeing today is unique. Governments that promise too much eventually collapse. Governments that propose policies that promise too much also need to control your desire for freedom. But that means killing the very same animal that creates wealth in the first place.

Ayn Rand is a wonderful substitute for porn.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Ayn Rand is a wonderful substitute for porn.

You need to get better porn

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

It is my opinion that a majority of the people on welfare have it within themselves to solve their own problems and not rely on the government to give them handouts.

If people make mistakes, fuck em. Educate them so that they don't make mistakes. Make them aware of their opportunities. Don't give them free handouts.

You're under 27 and need a job? Let them know that they have a free job as long as they have a HS diploma and aren't a felon.

So your taxes, in your opinion, basically go to fund welfare?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

When you look at it outside of the current modern U.S. political climate though, I think at least more people would prefer a system like the one that was set up in the U.S. Or at least, more people would understand those fears of big government.

If there were no Republicans, no Democrats, and just 300 million diverse people that we have to govern across a huge country, how would we do it? I bet we'd be pretty wary of having too much centralized power - maybe we'd still have it in some areas, but we'd be really careful about how it was run. We'd probably want a bunch of smaller governments trying stuff out, to see what works. Now maybe that has no application to practical decisions now, because Republicans and Democrats, sadly, DO exist, but I think we can learn something to look at it from that politically-neutral way too.

But all this has already played out. We tried the articles of confederation, moved on from them to a constitution, moved from a small federal government in simpler times to a bigger ones in more complex times. The idea that this was all thrust upon us isn't true. We created in response to needs we felt.

Is it perfect? No. But the poltiical parties, the various institutions of government, they bubbled up as responses to needs our society had. You don't want parties? Great, good luck deciding between the 485 candidates for president this year. You will of course need to read the entire policy dossier and life history on each of them to figure out which one best represents your views on things. Don't worry, the next year will be 24 hour political advertising to help you sort things out. Political parties are often ridiculous, but we have them because it makes a possibly very complex thing, voting for representatives, much simpler. I would love to have a proportionate representation system myself, so I understand grousing at the parties. but the people who complain about our political system have never tried living in a system without one. And if they did, I guarantee in ten years they'd have some approximation of political parties.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Ayn Rand is a wonderful substitute for porn.

Seriously??

I don't think I would have placed you in that camp.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

It is my opinion that a majority of the people on welfare have it within themselves to solve their own problems and not rely on the government to give them handouts.

If people make mistakes, fuck em. Educate them so that they don't make mistakes. Make them aware of their opportunities. Don't give them free handouts.

You're under 27 and need a job? Let them know that they have a free job as long as they have a HS diploma and aren't a felon.

How would you accomplish this? We don't have enough jobs for people with college degrees, much less HS diplomas. What you're proposing would cost far more for the government than welfare programs.

And what do you do with these people that are felons or don't have HS diplomas? Hope that a magical fairy will make them all disappear and not increase the crime rate, hurting businesses and property values in their areas and thus fucking over more people than just those who made mistakes?

It kinda reminds me of the whole mortgage debates, where people made arguments that those who were stupid and took out bad mortgages shouldn't be helped. That's great, but foreclosures don't just hurt the people who lose their home, but they hurt property values in the surrounding areas and screw over people who were responsible.

We can argue until the end of time whether the majority of people on welfare are worthless freeloaders or not, but there are practical reasons for social programs that go far beyond simple altruistic bleeding heart concern.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

But all this has already played out. We tried the articles of confederation, moved on from them to a constitution, moved from a small federal government in simpler times to a bigger ones in more complex times. The idea that this was all thrust upon us isn't true. We created in response to needs we felt.

Is it perfect? No. But the poltiical parties, the various institutions of government, they bubbled up as responses to needs our society had. You don't want parties? Great, good luck deciding between the 485 candidates for president this year. You will of course need to read the entire policy dossier and life history on each of them to figure out which one best represents your views on things. Don't worry, the next year will be 24 hour political advertising to help you sort things out. Political parties are often ridiculous, but we have them because it makes a possibly very complex thing, voting for representatives, much simpler. I would love to have a proportionate representation system myself, so I understand grousing at the parties. but the people who complain about our political system have never tried living in a system without one. And if they did, I guarantee in ten years they'd have some approximation of political parties.

FWIW, my position is not that political parties should be banned. I've been trying to stay in the grey areas as much as possible here. I don't think there's clear answers to any of it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Seriously??

I don't think I would have placed you in that camp.

Jim has always been a pretty reasonable conservative, but now that he's gone full Rand and liberal media conspiracy, I don't know.

[Autumn]

No, I understand, it's more of a thought experiment. Lately I've just been thinking about how in my experience with organizations, more often than not what is in place grew there for a reason. It looks unwieldy at the end, but once a problem is solved it's hard to see it anymore,a nd so we start to assume old institutions are useless.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Autumn

So your taxes, in your opinion, basically go to fund welfare?

It all goes into one large pool of money that gets used for a lot of different things.

I just have a big problem with welfare. I have had numerous relatives that have been welfare abusers simply because they are lazy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I thought, from the media, that Mitt Romney was personally raiding the treasury and stealing medical care from babies in poverty. Yet he paid $3.2 million in 2010 for the same roads and the same services we all have. I don't pay anywhere near $3.2 million. I won't make $3.2 million in my entire life.

The top 1% already pay a lot in tax. They paid about 25% of all income tax 25 years ago, and about 37% in 2009 (it peaked at 40% in 2007). These are the people who are effectively financing our government, providing our safety nets.

We can certainly argue about whether anyone "deserves" to have the income that generates $3.2 million in taxes, but when it comes to "paying his fair share," I'd be more inclined to thank Romney than vilify him.

I'm also not sure raising taxes generates tax revenue. France is the latest to experiment with a huge targeted tax increase (75% on the wealthy). It will be interesting to see if that provides any relief to crushing public debt.

3.2 million doesn't mean anything. Effective rate is the only way to fairly judge taxes paid. I bet I'll pay more this year than someone porn in abject poverty will pay in their lifetime, but that doesn't say anything about equity.

Of course the share paid by the top 1% has gone up. That's what happens when you cut taxes over and over. Taxes as a percentage of GDP is at it's lowest level in fifty years and under Obama that percentage has gone down. I would have never guessed the end result of the Reagan/Bush tax cuts would be a demand that poor/lower middle class workers should pay more in taxes.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Autumn

No, I understand, it's more of a thought experiment. Lately I've just been thinking about how in my experience with organizations, more often than not what is in place grew there for a reason. It looks unwieldy at the end, but once a problem is solved it's hard to see it anymore,a nd so we start to assume old institutions are useless.

And right now the Repubs and Dems have reached a point where they no longer solve the original issue, since you still don't really know what they stand for or are going to actually do. The parties are all about getting re-elected so they can keep feeding their cronies, period.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How would you accomplish this? We don't have enough jobs for people with college degrees, much less HS diplomas. What you're proposing would cost far more for the government than welfare programs.

And what do you do with these people that are felons or don't have HS diplomas? Hope that a magical fairy will make them all disappear and not increase the crime rate, hurting businesses and property values in their areas and thus fucking over more people than just those who made mistakes?

It kinda reminds me of the whole mortgage debates, where people made arguments that those who were stupid and took out bad mortgages shouldn't be helped. That's great, but foreclosures don't just hurt the people who lose their home, but they hurt property values in the surrounding areas and screw over people who were responsible.

We can argue until the end of time whether the majority of people on welfare are worthless freeloaders or not, but there are practical reasons for social programs that go far beyond simple altruistic bleeding heart concern.

Do I have to have a solution to recognize there is a problem? Hell, my opinion is likely due to a lot of ignorance anyway. I can admit that. Maybe if we stopped giving people a free ride, they'd have more incentive to do something for themselves.

One thing I would like to see is less involvement in the rest of the world's problems and more focus on our own.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Jim has always been a pretty reasonable conservative, but now that he's gone full Rand and liberal media conspiracy, I don't know.

I've always been a fan of Rand's, but I recognize it for what it is: an extreme view for those who lean libertarian - just as porn is an extreme view for those who like being intimate with women (as I do).

As for the liberal media conspiracy? There isn't one. It's just that surveys consistently show that 90-95% of those who enter the profession are liberal in their politics. Interviews with editors a few years ago illustrated that many feel they have an obligation to steer the public, for its own good. That's just the way it is.

I watched the debate the other day, and I had read concern that the moderator was besties with Obama. But she seemed to do what she could to be fair. I didn't see any secret hand signals with Biden (though I thought at first he must have a bad case of gas).

My own politics? I'm pretty solidly a fiscal conservative, social liberal. I think a government exists to provide a very small set of services and a limited safety net. I think both major parties are pretty much equally evil.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

3.2 million doesn't mean anything. Effective rate is the only way to fairly judge taxes paid. I bet I'll pay more this year than someone porn in abject poverty will pay in their lifetime, but that doesn't say anything about equity.

Of course the share paid by the top 1% has gone up. That's what happens when you cut taxes over and over. Taxes as a percentage of GDP is at it's lowest level in fifty years and under Obama that percentage has gone down. I would have never guessed the end result of the Reagan/Bush tax cuts would be a demand that poor/lower middle class workers should pay more in taxes.

What is equity?

If $3.2 million doesn't mean anything to you, I'm afraid we aren't going to come to an agreement on this issue.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

My own politics? I'm pretty solidly a fiscal conservative, social liberal. I think a government exists to provide a very small set of services and a limited safety net. I think both major parties are pretty much equally evil.

Amen, especially to that middle sentence. When we try to provide safety nets for all, then people don't see a need to try (Soviet Union anyone?), and fewer and fewer people end up supporting the rest. Way too many people in this country think they deserve their government money.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

You need to get better porn

I'm getting old, and I have a ridiculously hot girlfriend.