Nineteen Eleven

unpro wrote:just because i think a different economic model than the one you want would be better doesnt mean im a pawn of anything.

While Alex is being inflammatory with his comment, that doesn't mean it isn't true. You've repeated yourself over and over again, so it's pretty clear where your thoughts on the matter are. It's also pretty clear from and outside observer that those views align themselves with a world-view that would benefit the elite 1%, where as you have clearly stated that you are not an elite 1%er. So, I can see how one my draw the "pawn" conclusion, however inflammatory.

ive explained it 20 **** times. i dont think the taxes need to be raised if we close all the BS loopholes and stop giving people deductions for spending money.

Example of the previous. While I understand that you've been convinced that this is the silver-bullet issue to fix all of our problems. This is factually untrue, as Mitch's has attempted to explain to you.

i think people who make under 15-20k a year should not be required to pay an income tax(i also think the income tax should be abolished)

i agree ss is ****, and needs to be reworked and stopped being used as a **** spend all account for the government. i also think it should be voluntary to put money into it.

i dont think its fair to raise taxes on the wealthy to the point where they effectively work for **** free once they make x amount of money.

For someone in most states making minimum wage (about 17,000 a year) will end up paying about 18-20% in income tax (state + federal). However, most people at this income level in most states are eligible for many tax breaks to reduce this amount due to their low income. I agree with you that those making minimum wage should pay very little, if any income tax (as has everyone else in this thread). But, abolishing the income tax completely, as others have tried to explain to you in this thread is a policy that would do nothing but benefit the 1% elite exponentially.

From what I gather from your previous posts, is that you have developed a strong emotionally charged negative opinion of social services that we use income taxes to pay for (like SS). This firmly held belief appears to prevent you from reaching any kind of middle ground with someone like mitch, who is offering a more objective, fact based argument on the contrary.

In these three statements you are making claims that would directly benefit the elite 1%, yet don't account for factually based counter-arguments that others have made.

I really appretiate you bringing your idead to the discussion, even if it's just on 1911 (lolz!), but as I've tried to point out to you before, all of your arguments are greatly weakened in contrast to others (like mitch), because they come from an ego-driven, emotive place.

i dont think wallstreet is solely responsible for the issues. if anything i think the federal government is MORE responsible for the current issues than anyone else, especially when it comes to things like the housing market, school loans, bail outs that enabled companies that should have failed to continue while making massive profits on terrible business decisions, etc.

corporate lobbying wouldnt be possible if it wasnt for the federal government enabling the behavior and practice. you cant blame one side fully and not blame the other side. especially when one can be considered to be the more accountable side.

See previous. With this claim you are attempting to divert blame from "wall-street" to the "federal government". What distinguishes the two entities? Who influences those two entities? Are they mutually exclusive?

First you attack the "federal government" for causing problems, while specifically giving "wall-street" a pass, and now

i think we need to reduce the size of our government. i would start with the TSA and homeland security.

Ok... Why? Support your thesis. Give us something that ties this in to whatever the **** else you are saying.

i dont think we should be spending billions of dollars "helping" other countries when we cant even fix the poverty issues in our own country.

By "helping" others do you mean humanitarian based foreign aid?, or do you mean fighting wars? Not since the Jimmy Carter era has foreign aid represented more than 0.8% of our spending per year.

I totally agree with you that we need a fundamental change in how we approach the allocation of resources and the tactics we use to combat poverty in this country. If this is a strong view for you, then why do you argue so passionately a world-view that is totally counter-intuitive to this ideology?

i dont think we have any right to spread our moralities to other countries or cultures simply because we disagree with theres if they have no interest.

Ok, you are anti team america policing the world to spread western culture and democracy, but you are for economic policy that is directly in support of this? How does that work.

This is a been a really entertaining thread, and I appreciate you continuing to contribute, but while Alex's cliff notes did take the opportunity to take a jab at you for being a "pawn". It's still a pretty reasonable conclusion giving how you have argued throughout the thread, and if you wish to argue in counter of that, you are going to be much better served hitting the library and going to the facts that might be able to help support some of your arguments (see mitch's posts).

alex kirk wrote:So how did it work? I assume it's not the sort of deal where anyone can just show up and start living there. Do you have to pay to cover costs of rent/food/etc.? Do you work?

Details, bro!

Haha, I was just a totally random person that showed up, decided to stay for the night after being invited, and somehow ende up spending 3 months immersing myself into monastic life. I paid for my living expenses just how every other monk does, by doing all the same chores they do. It's a really crazy trip to live that kind of lifestyle and would need an entire forum/thread dedicated to it if you want the full story, bro!

Sears wrote:Haha, I was just a totally random person that showed up, decided to stay for the night after being invited, and somehow ended up spending 3 months immersing myself into monastic life. I paid for my living expenses just how every other monk does, by doing all the same chores they do. It's a really crazy trip to live that kind of lifestyle and would need an entire forum/thread dedicated to it if you want the full story, bro!

Make it. Or PM me info. I'd love to learn more, and would totally be down to do something like that for a summer.

No. The money was not used as a checking account, money was borrowed against it, there is a difference. I agree with you that its a bad idea but that is not the reason there is a liquidity problem with SS itself. That problem affects the government budget as a whole though. I agree with you that cutting the defense budget is a good idea.

This is patently not true. Money wasn't borrowed against it. the FICA tax inflows were greater than the outflows, and adequately compensated for inflation, both in Medicare and Social Security. In 1994, during the Republican Revolution, the Republican congress decided it made far more sense to suddenly use this money and continuously cut taxes. It became a checking account.

Money was never borrowed against it as the law never had statutory language specifically requiring Congress to use FICA for its designed use. So long as the inflows AND the current trust are greater than nil, the Social Security Administration can request the Treasury to borrow money to compensate any short falls, which is what it does now.

FICA pays for discretionary spending, not as borrowed against collateral, but the money is directly siphoned off elsewhere.

All I was saying is he's a smart guy, not that I agree with him or support his ideas. You're right about social issues.

He is better than most, even across the Democratic side too. The problem is, he fits the same mold. At some point the problem is systemic and you have to fix it.

I still maintain the liquidity issue is due to the baby boomer's. You can easily find your own statistics about this. Now birthrates have gone down so there isn't the same ability to pay it through or as RIck Perry would call it A PONZI SCHEME !@)(&*!$@^& Also people are living longer and therefore taking more money out of social security.

FICA, for 50+ years had greater inflows than outflows. Something changed in the 1990s in how Congress approached it. I do agree generally with a lot of the fixes you've mentioned. People who have estates valued at a certain amount (I'd probably say $500,000 since I'd include 1 residential property), increasing FICA. I also think we should abolish Medicare Part D, the single biggest garbage giveaway to HMOs and Medical Insurance companies. It really makes anything before or since look paltry in waste. Why not pay HMOs and Health Insurers 125% reimbursement costs for the same program the U.S. Federal Government is doing for less?

The thing that Obama's Medical Insurance reform did right was just what you're talking about. It has, so far, brought in something like 1 million new payers into the health insurance coverage, the people who should be working (lol separate issue) to help defer the costs up top.

That is what I said

I don't, especially because at the end of the day, these people are largely bilking millions out of a living wage. The demand for government services will quietly subside if people are better able to make their own ends meet. If Wal-Mart wasn't paying $7.25 minimum wage to its full time employees, then many of these people would need food stamps, medicaid, and a litany of other government services. That, to me, is the essence of re-adjusting this picture.

If hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth are going to the people actually generating it, then that isn't wealth redistribution. That's getting paid for an honest day's work. In turn, this will drive the economy, and it will be real and substantial. The U.S. does have the ability to move beyond a heavy-industry based economy. I would like it if we did more, sure. But I think the advances in technology, information services, and actual healthcare will be what drives us.

I can think of a million things I'd rather be doing with money the government takes in. Billions developing the lead on 3rd generation energy technology, space exploration, etc. Yeah, it's a novelty in some respects, but billions spent on defense is a waste. Friedrich Hayek is right about that - war strictly destroys and consumes. It is waste. It doesn't create.

You're right about executive pay. Shareholders need more power in the relationship with management. These "interlocking directorates" where CEO of company A sits on the board of Company B and vice versa prevents reforms. You're missing my point about corporate taxation. The current system of corporate taxation exists so that money can't be laundered and to prevent scams, its purpose isn't so much to raise revenue as it is to prevent bad people from doing sneaky things. The alternative is to use the tax structure that is used by S-corporations, LLC's etc. But the problem with this system is that all shareholders need to be American citizens as the tax structure passes through to the individual. When you do this tax is paid on profits not withdrawn from the business and you couldn't collect money from foreign shareholders. If you removed the corporate tax code money would be funneled outside the country and then back in and it would be almost impossible to catch.

For the most part I think we're on the same page here though!

Indeed. On a side note, lol @ Bank Suisse and the other big Swiss banks for turning over tax evaders this week.

This one time I had a debate on the topic of gun control on gotfrag. Just sayin'.

Speaking of Hayek:



I tend to be liberal but this is what I have to say about gun control:

let's give it up for the peaceful protesters of oakland that started a 15 foot fire in the streets prompting police to be called in wearing riot gear. well played peace-loving protesters, well played.

i also loved to read that while the police were only called in after the fire (and some damage to property had been done) that some of the peaceful protesters had gas masks ready to go.

gwolf_ wrote:I tend to be liberal but this is what I have to say about gun control:

I'm trying to interpret that photograph but all I can think is that if the garand has 2.0 recoil RL then you should definitely be proned.

in mother russia, bear hunts you!

nevermind, not getting into a gun control war.