[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
This should fix 'em![/quote]
LOL at fattys eating salad.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
UNLESS…you do something for society as I mentioned earlier where there is some sort of product created, in purely economic terms, for the payment you receive from the govt in the form of a tax break for performing said charity/volunteer work. Perhaps if a private company wants to set up as a 501(c)(3) so they can provide food or shelter or job training services or free healthcare, they should be tax exempt. But that’s it. What’s so bad about that?[/quote]
You are still going to end up having to draw the line somewhere. Does my firm get tax exemption for providing breath mints to the needy or letting hobos use the bathroom?
Privatising welfare is a terrible idea. It’s tantamount to putting society at large on the honor system with regards to taking care of the needy. What if the bourgeoisie decides they really just don’t give a shit?
The system needs to be reformed, not overhauled. Mandatory drug tests for those on welfare, not rewarding laziness and obesity, etc.
This debate has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics…
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
hhhmmmmm I really did think this was a lot simpler.
Should people who eat all that they want, do not move, get fat so they can’t work, be okay for disability?
I kinda think just paying that person to NOT MOVE and to NOT WORK just feeds the problem.
I really thought it was that simple.
Why isn’t it that simple?
For those of you advocating an entire revision of the system… Please tell me how.
[/quote]
Okay, here goes.
First of all, when I say get rid of social services that are funded by taxes and run by the govt, I don’t mean you simply cut disability and the like and then stop. No, that would leave a huge hole where there is clearly a need in society. The average American really doesn’t give a shit about the poor and less fortunate, across the board regardless of why they are poor/disabled/etc. That’s why we have these programs in the first place: to provide a safety net that we wouldn’t necessarily have in place otherwise.
Now this is a problem. I’ve said before in other threads that I think this country is slipping down the slope of spiritual bankruptcy (this has nothing to do with organized religion). I feel that we need to create a renewed sense of community and compassion in this country. I am extremely liberal in that sense.
But I do not feel that the way to create this societal harmony is to tax it out of us. One, this is bad for the economy as a whole and secondly, creating these sorts of programs only leads to more and more programs that spiral out of control, such as Medicare and SS. The way to do this is to further stimulate the economy by providing tax cuts to people who can prove that they have spent a considerable amount of time or money working with those who would otherwise be on govt welfare. I think that this will bring the fortunate into close contact with those less fortunate than themselves and that this will eventually lead to a greater sense of fulfillment for those that do so.
You see, if something needs to be done, you are much better off providing an incentive for someone to do it rather than force them to do it, no matter what “it” is. All taxing us in this manner does is take from one and give to another and it creates a feeling of resentment toward not only the taker, but the recipient as well. This isn’t good at all and I strongly, strongly feel that THIS is the root cause of the massive political polarization in this country right now.
So the solution is to cut all this govt bullshit. Everything, all subsidies (although I would support subsidizing education in a small way simply because educating our children is the single best investment we can make in this country and I support anything that helps bring education to everyone in this country), all frivolous taxes like estate taxes and sales taxes and SS taxes, no disability, no minimum wage, no unemployment, no Medicare or Medicaid, drastically-reduced corporate taxes, reduced income taxes at the state and federal level, a very slight progressive tax that has even the highest rate far below what it is now, and a whole slew of similar such things. ALL of these programs end up costing this country and this economy money in the long run, some in the short run, and none of them contribute to actually CREATING wealth, only transferring it.
If these programs are gone the country’s wealth should rise dramatically and the accompanying increase in personal income will make it easier for those who are less fortunate to earn a satisfactory wage. Those who are unable to work will have to rely on charity and that sort of thing, but that’s exactly what they rely on now, except that the net negative effect is much greater.[/quote]
Not to be unkind or dismissive, but I just will not read through a novel.
Why can’t the answer be a bit more succinct?
Why shouldn’t the answer be as simple as the question?
[/quote]
This type of response has become all too typical in just about every facet of our society. Reading his response took me less than a minute, and answered your question thoroughly with both poise and detail as he has done through this entire thread.
Also, lol @ nicotine salads.
DB, I am compelled to ask, what is your profession? I have not heard reference to the opposing theories of government of Locke and Hobbes in years.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
UNLESS…you do something for society as I mentioned earlier where there is some sort of product created, in purely economic terms, for the payment you receive from the govt in the form of a tax break for performing said charity/volunteer work. Perhaps if a private company wants to set up as a 501(c)(3) so they can provide food or shelter or job training services or free healthcare, they should be tax exempt. But that’s it. What’s so bad about that?[/quote]
You are still going to end up having to draw the line somewhere. Does my firm get tax exemption for providing breath mints to the needy or letting hobos use the bathroom?
Privatising welfare is a terrible idea. It’s tantamount to putting society at large on the honor system with regards to taking care of the needy. What if the bourgeoisie decides they really just don’t give a shit?
The system needs to be reformed, not overhauled. Mandatory drug tests for those on welfare, not rewarding laziness and obesity, etc.
This debate has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics…[/quote]
No, it has everything to do with economics, or maybe you’ve missed my purely economical analysis of why these programs are wasteful.
You’re right, you’d put the whole country on an “honor system”. So what? What’s wrong with that? If my suggestions don’t work then what you’re saying is that the country failed the honor system, that we have no honor. That would be a shame, but it would be the fault of the people and not the system. There is no systematic remedy for a society who doesn’t give a shit about the poor to the extent that the poor are completely forgotten about. That is a people problem, not a system problem.
The current system only exacerbates this by creating a feeling of resentment from taxpayers toward those receiving payments and toward the govt taking those payments. Look at this fucking country right now and tell me that resentment doesn’t exist at a high level here right now. And yes, you’d still have to pick and choose who gets what tax break, but you know what? I’d much rather have to pick and choose who gets an ADDITIONAL tax break rather than pick and choose which needy person gets disability payments.
Furthermore, even with my system in place there will still be those who are forgotten about, who have nothing and no one to help them. So. Fucking. What. There will ALWAYS be that person out there somewhere. It’s a shame, but it’s reality. The current system does nothing more than attempt to accomplish the impossible, and does so at a huge detriment to the country as a whole. If you want people to have motivation to get off the govt dole then improve the economy so that there are more, tangible opportunities out there. How do you improve the economy? See: this entire thread.
[quote]devilmanVISA wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
hhhmmmmm I really did think this was a lot simpler.
Should people who eat all that they want, do not move, get fat so they can’t work, be okay for disability?
I kinda think just paying that person to NOT MOVE and to NOT WORK just feeds the problem.
I really thought it was that simple.
Why isn’t it that simple?
For those of you advocating an entire revision of the system… Please tell me how.
[/quote]
Okay, here goes.
First of all, when I say get rid of social services that are funded by taxes and run by the govt, I don’t mean you simply cut disability and the like and then stop. No, that would leave a huge hole where there is clearly a need in society. The average American really doesn’t give a shit about the poor and less fortunate, across the board regardless of why they are poor/disabled/etc. That’s why we have these programs in the first place: to provide a safety net that we wouldn’t necessarily have in place otherwise.
Now this is a problem. I’ve said before in other threads that I think this country is slipping down the slope of spiritual bankruptcy (this has nothing to do with organized religion). I feel that we need to create a renewed sense of community and compassion in this country. I am extremely liberal in that sense.
But I do not feel that the way to create this societal harmony is to tax it out of us. One, this is bad for the economy as a whole and secondly, creating these sorts of programs only leads to more and more programs that spiral out of control, such as Medicare and SS. The way to do this is to further stimulate the economy by providing tax cuts to people who can prove that they have spent a considerable amount of time or money working with those who would otherwise be on govt welfare. I think that this will bring the fortunate into close contact with those less fortunate than themselves and that this will eventually lead to a greater sense of fulfillment for those that do so.
You see, if something needs to be done, you are much better off providing an incentive for someone to do it rather than force them to do it, no matter what “it” is. All taxing us in this manner does is take from one and give to another and it creates a feeling of resentment toward not only the taker, but the recipient as well. This isn’t good at all and I strongly, strongly feel that THIS is the root cause of the massive political polarization in this country right now.
So the solution is to cut all this govt bullshit. Everything, all subsidies (although I would support subsidizing education in a small way simply because educating our children is the single best investment we can make in this country and I support anything that helps bring education to everyone in this country), all frivolous taxes like estate taxes and sales taxes and SS taxes, no disability, no minimum wage, no unemployment, no Medicare or Medicaid, drastically-reduced corporate taxes, reduced income taxes at the state and federal level, a very slight progressive tax that has even the highest rate far below what it is now, and a whole slew of similar such things. ALL of these programs end up costing this country and this economy money in the long run, some in the short run, and none of them contribute to actually CREATING wealth, only transferring it.
If these programs are gone the country’s wealth should rise dramatically and the accompanying increase in personal income will make it easier for those who are less fortunate to earn a satisfactory wage. Those who are unable to work will have to rely on charity and that sort of thing, but that’s exactly what they rely on now, except that the net negative effect is much greater.[/quote]
Not to be unkind or dismissive, but I just will not read through a novel.
Why can’t the answer be a bit more succinct?
Why shouldn’t the answer be as simple as the question?
[/quote]
This type of response has become all too typical in just about every facet of our society. Reading his response took me less than a minute, and answered your question thoroughly with both poise and detail as he has done through this entire thread.
Also, lol @ nicotine salads.
DB, I am compelled to ask, what is your profession? I have not heard reference to the opposing theories of government of Locke and Hobbes in years. [/quote]
I write for a magazine (a sort of underground version of Rolling Stone). I have a degree in political science and history and I am currently back in school to earn my single subject teaching credential.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
UNLESS…you do something for society as I mentioned earlier where there is some sort of product created, in purely economic terms, for the payment you receive from the govt in the form of a tax break for performing said charity/volunteer work. Perhaps if a private company wants to set up as a 501(c)(3) so they can provide food or shelter or job training services or free healthcare, they should be tax exempt. But that’s it. What’s so bad about that?[/quote]
You are still going to end up having to draw the line somewhere. Does my firm get tax exemption for providing breath mints to the needy or letting hobos use the bathroom?
Privatising welfare is a terrible idea. It’s tantamount to putting society at large on the honor system with regards to taking care of the needy. What if the bourgeoisie decides they really just don’t give a shit?
The system needs to be reformed, not overhauled. Mandatory drug tests for those on welfare, not rewarding laziness and obesity, etc.
This debate has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics…[/quote]
One other thing: if my plan were installed, your firm would not a single tax break no matter how much they donated to the poor. Those tax breaks would occur on an individual basis and apply only to people who spend time face-to-face working with the poor and less fortunate. Corporations, who currently get taxed at a rate of about 35%, which is the highest in the civilized world and is the exact opposite way to encourage firms and the jobs they create to set up shop in the U.S., would already receive a huge tax cut anyways.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
hhhmmmmm I really did think this was a lot simpler.
Should people who eat all that they want, do not move, get fat so they can’t work, be okay for disability?
I kinda think just paying that person to NOT MOVE and to NOT WORK just feeds the problem.
I really thought it was that simple.
Why isn’t it that simple?
[/quote]
Suppose a person blows out his/her knees from lifting, and can no longer move, work, etc. (or insert whatever lifting injury you like. back’s another option.) and it’s because they were abusing whatever lift caused the problem (IE maxing squats all the time). Let’s also say that for that individual to be able to work again, they would have to exert a similar effort as the over-eater would have to (serious rehab vs serious diet). Isn’t it the same thing? They made a personal choice that resulted in debilitation. And I’d prefer not to hear an argument that the lifter was doing what he/she was doing with the intention of improving health, while the eater was negligent. Nobody maxes lifts to get healthier.
Just a thought, since I think alot of our T-Nation would rather see benefits go to the lifter than the eater.
Also, I realize that my argument has a serious fallacy in it, in that I’m not actually arguing against your point. What I’m doing is bringing up a problem with the reasoning behind what would lead one to take benefits away from obese people. If you extended that logic across the board, you would have to use alot of discretion involving what is a choice, etc.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
UNLESS…you do something for society as I mentioned earlier where there is some sort of product created, in purely economic terms, for the payment you receive from the govt in the form of a tax break for performing said charity/volunteer work. Perhaps if a private company wants to set up as a 501(c)(3) so they can provide food or shelter or job training services or free healthcare, they should be tax exempt. But that’s it. What’s so bad about that?[/quote]
You are still going to end up having to draw the line somewhere. Does my firm get tax exemption for providing breath mints to the needy or letting hobos use the bathroom?
Privatising welfare is a terrible idea. It’s tantamount to putting society at large on the honor system with regards to taking care of the needy. What if the bourgeoisie decides they really just don’t give a shit?
The system needs to be reformed, not overhauled. Mandatory drug tests for those on welfare, not rewarding laziness and obesity, etc.
This debate has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics…[/quote]
One other thing: if my plan were installed, your firm would not a single tax break no matter how much they donated to the poor. Those tax breaks would occur on an individual basis and apply only to people who spend time face-to-face working with the poor and less fortunate. Corporations, who currently get taxed at a rate of about 35%, which is the highest in the civilized world and is the exact opposite way to encourage firms and the jobs they create to set up shop in the U.S., would already receive a huge tax cut anyways.[/quote]
And if we fail, we just say whoopsies and let a whole bunch of people starve to death? Or, more likely, watch as they resort to stealing what they need? You can’t legislate morality dude.
As to your economic analysis, I didn’t read most of your essays, but some of your assumptions are just plain wrong. Government spending has been used for centuries to expand the economy. Roads and infrastructure have secondary and tertiary benefits that far exceed the jobs they provide. It’s not nearly so simple as just a reapportionment of wealth or simple supply and demand. Plus, it doesn’t matter if you spend the dollar or hobo Joe spends the dollar, GDP still increases by $1.
^^ I’ll be graduating with a degree in Econ in a couple of months. I think you’re pushing a political agenda under the guise of “its better for the economy!” with a bunch of pseudo-econ to confuse the issue.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
hhhmmmmm I really did think this was a lot simpler.
Should people who eat all that they want, do not move, get fat so they can’t work, be okay for disability?
I kinda think just paying that person to NOT MOVE and to NOT WORK just feeds the problem.
I really thought it was that simple.
Why isn’t it that simple?
For those of you advocating an entire revision of the system… Please tell me how.
[/quote]
Okay, here goes.
First of all, when I say get rid of social services that are funded by taxes and run by the govt, I don’t mean you simply cut disability and the like and then stop. No, that would leave a huge hole where there is clearly a need in society. The average American really doesn’t give a shit about the poor and less fortunate, across the board regardless of why they are poor/disabled/etc. That’s why we have these programs in the first place: to provide a safety net that we wouldn’t necessarily have in place otherwise.
Now this is a problem. I’ve said before in other threads that I think this country is slipping down the slope of spiritual bankruptcy (this has nothing to do with organized religion). I feel that we need to create a renewed sense of community and compassion in this country. I am extremely liberal in that sense.
But I do not feel that the way to create this societal harmony is to tax it out of us. One, this is bad for the economy as a whole and secondly, creating these sorts of programs only leads to more and more programs that spiral out of control, such as Medicare and SS. The way to do this is to further stimulate the economy by providing tax cuts to people who can prove that they have spent a considerable amount of time or money working with those who would otherwise be on govt welfare. I think that this will bring the fortunate into close contact with those less fortunate than themselves and that this will eventually lead to a greater sense of fulfillment for those that do so.
You see, if something needs to be done, you are much better off providing an incentive for someone to do it rather than force them to do it, no matter what “it” is. All taxing us in this manner does is take from one and give to another and it creates a feeling of resentment toward not only the taker, but the recipient as well. This isn’t good at all and I strongly, strongly feel that THIS is the root cause of the massive political polarization in this country right now.
So the solution is to cut all this govt bullshit. Everything, all subsidies (although I would support subsidizing education in a small way simply because educating our children is the single best investment we can make in this country and I support anything that helps bring education to everyone in this country), all frivolous taxes like estate taxes and sales taxes and SS taxes, no disability, no minimum wage, no unemployment, no Medicare or Medicaid, drastically-reduced corporate taxes, reduced income taxes at the state and federal level, a very slight progressive tax that has even the highest rate far below what it is now, and a whole slew of similar such things. ALL of these programs end up costing this country and this economy money in the long run, some in the short run, and none of them contribute to actually CREATING wealth, only transferring it.
If these programs are gone the country’s wealth should rise dramatically and the accompanying increase in personal income will make it easier for those who are less fortunate to earn a satisfactory wage. Those who are unable to work will have to rely on charity and that sort of thing, but that’s exactly what they rely on now, except that the net negative effect is much greater.[/quote]
hello there everyone. this sparked my interest mainly due to the fact that working in the medical field for 6 years in south texas, i have taken care of many many welfare patients. there needs to be adjustments in the welfare system and acutally utilize the way it was meant to be, temporary not a generational thing. a quick simple fix it is not, we all know that. but beginning with cutting down the abuse, such as random drug testing would be a good start. i can’t tell you how many people recieve welfare and either sell their food stamps( card) for cash so they can buy drugs. as for the resentment that DB says the recicipent feels, it’s not there. i came across a sense of entitlement from the welfare recipients. do you know medicaid pays for otc tylenol? yes it does. and i would hear, “oh write me a prescription for tylenol, medicaid pays for it”. this is said from someone who has a vehicle, cell phone, mani and pedicure with a coach purse. so in essence yes, our system needs a lot of readjustment, but going to the other extreme to cut everything out is not locical or realistic, and continuing with the way it is will only foster the “entitlement” attitude. sorry for the rambling.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
UNLESS…you do something for society as I mentioned earlier where there is some sort of product created, in purely economic terms, for the payment you receive from the govt in the form of a tax break for performing said charity/volunteer work. Perhaps if a private company wants to set up as a 501(c)(3) so they can provide food or shelter or job training services or free healthcare, they should be tax exempt. But that’s it. What’s so bad about that?[/quote]
You are still going to end up having to draw the line somewhere. Does my firm get tax exemption for providing breath mints to the needy or letting hobos use the bathroom?
Privatising welfare is a terrible idea. It’s tantamount to putting society at large on the honor system with regards to taking care of the needy. What if the bourgeoisie decides they really just don’t give a shit?
The system needs to be reformed, not overhauled. Mandatory drug tests for those on welfare, not rewarding laziness and obesity, etc.
This debate has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics…[/quote]
One other thing: if my plan were installed, your firm would not a single tax break no matter how much they donated to the poor. Those tax breaks would occur on an individual basis and apply only to people who spend time face-to-face working with the poor and less fortunate. Corporations, who currently get taxed at a rate of about 35%, which is the highest in the civilized world and is the exact opposite way to encourage firms and the jobs they create to set up shop in the U.S., would already receive a huge tax cut anyways.[/quote]
And if we fail, we just say whoopsies and let a whole bunch of people starve to death? Or, more likely, watch as they resort to stealing what they need? You can’t legislate morality dude.
As to your economic analysis, I didn’t read most of your essays, but some of your assumptions are just plain wrong. Government spending has been used for centuries to expand the economy. Roads and infrastructure have secondary and tertiary benefits that far exceed the jobs they provide. It’s not nearly so simple as just a reapportionment of wealth or simple supply and demand. Plus, it doesn’t matter if you spend the dollar or hobo Joe spends the dollar, GDP still increases by $1.
^^ I’ll be graduating with a degree in Econ in a couple of months. I think you’re pushing a political agenda under the guise of “its better for the economy!” with a bunch of pseudo-econ to confuse the issue. [/quote]
Ya, it is just that you try to legislate morality by supporting welfare programs and breed contemptand rob the civil society of the moral capital and know how to organize it itself by doing so, that GDP is meaningless if you try to use it as a means to measure cardinal aggregate utility, one of its many, many flaws, redistributing money from him to Joe Hobo creates a disincentive to work and invest which actually does decrease GDP and while infrastructure projects certainly do provide secondary and tertiary effects, so does literally any other investment and trying to quantify such effects is quackery at best and being the economic equivalent of a court historian at worst.
But, I am glad you get your degree soon.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
UNLESS…you do something for society as I mentioned earlier where there is some sort of product created, in purely economic terms, for the payment you receive from the govt in the form of a tax break for performing said charity/volunteer work. Perhaps if a private company wants to set up as a 501(c)(3) so they can provide food or shelter or job training services or free healthcare, they should be tax exempt. But that’s it. What’s so bad about that?[/quote]
You are still going to end up having to draw the line somewhere. Does my firm get tax exemption for providing breath mints to the needy or letting hobos use the bathroom?
Privatising welfare is a terrible idea. It’s tantamount to putting society at large on the honor system with regards to taking care of the needy. What if the bourgeoisie decides they really just don’t give a shit?
The system needs to be reformed, not overhauled. Mandatory drug tests for those on welfare, not rewarding laziness and obesity, etc.
This debate has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics…[/quote]
One other thing: if my plan were installed, your firm would not a single tax break no matter how much they donated to the poor. Those tax breaks would occur on an individual basis and apply only to people who spend time face-to-face working with the poor and less fortunate. Corporations, who currently get taxed at a rate of about 35%, which is the highest in the civilized world and is the exact opposite way to encourage firms and the jobs they create to set up shop in the U.S., would already receive a huge tax cut anyways.[/quote]
And if we fail, we just say whoopsies and let a whole bunch of people starve to death? Or, more likely, watch as they resort to stealing what they need? You can’t legislate morality dude.
As to your economic analysis, I didn’t read most of your essays, but some of your assumptions are just plain wrong. Government spending has been used for centuries to expand the economy. Roads and infrastructure have secondary and tertiary benefits that far exceed the jobs they provide. It’s not nearly so simple as just a reapportionment of wealth or simple supply and demand. Plus, it doesn’t matter if you spend the dollar or hobo Joe spends the dollar, GDP still increases by $1.
^^ I’ll be graduating with a degree in Econ in a couple of months. I think you’re pushing a political agenda under the guise of “its better for the economy!” with a bunch of pseudo-econ to confuse the issue. [/quote]
Building roads and infrastructure isn’t a transfer of wealth with nothing in return, which is exactly what transfer and transfer-in-kind payments are. I’m not talking about eliminating taxes for meaningful things like infrastructure maintenance/upgrades. Never did I say that those particular endeavors are worthless. I only stated that these sorts of social programs like what I’ve mentioned in several of the essays I’ve written and you have apparently chosen not to read in their entirety before attacking their substance.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]devilmanVISA wrote:
DB, I am compelled to ask, what is your profession? I have not heard reference to the opposing theories of government of Locke and Hobbes in years. [/quote]
I write for a magazine (a sort of underground version of Rolling Stone). I have a degree in political science and history and I am currently back in school to earn my single subject teaching credential.[/quote]
That is awesome. You sir are making excellent use of your education and talents. You have my respect and admiration, as little as that should be worth given the venue in which it was earned.
notice like most conservatives (or libertarians) dbcooper keeps talking about these general principles about what’s right and what is true, as if everything can be deduced from eternal principles. liberals look at history and facts and think inductively starting from evidence to form their theories.
anyone with a basic understanding of the great depression will dismiss his economics, and anyone with a basic understanding of the 19th century robber barons (when his libertarian ideals were implemented) will ignore his politics. the fact that he thinks we are on the wrong side of the laffer curve and that cutting taxes will stimulate growth when that policy has repeatedly failed tells you he’s committed to dogma not evidence.
the sad thing is that he sounds like a smart guy, but he’s been brainwashed in to voting and thinking against his own interests. pretty common in this country unfortunately.
[quote]wramsey wrote:
notice like most conservatives (or libertarians) dbcooper keeps talking about these general principles about what’s right and what is true, as if everything can be deduced from eternal principles. liberals look at history and facts and think inductively starting from evidence to form their theories.
anyone with a basic understanding of the great depression will dismiss his economics, and anyone with a basic understanding of the 19th century robber barons (when his libertarian ideals were implemented) will ignore his politics. the fact that he thinks we are on the wrong side of the laffer curve and that cutting taxes will stimulate growth when that policy has repeatedly failed tells you he’s committed to dogma not evidence.
the sad thing is that he sounds like a smart guy, but he’s been brainwashed in to voting and thinking against his own interests. pretty common in this country unfortunately.
[/quote]
You don’t look at history or else you’d be aware of the principles upon which this country was founded, which are in direct conflict with your economic principles. You’d also understand that nowhere in the history of the western world has the most powerful economy in the world ever willingly agreed to have that economy weakened in some vain attempt at “social or economic equality.”
You also ignore history in that you seem to be totally unaware of the political theories that evolved several centuries ago that have largely been responsible for creating the concept of the modern democratic republic, which is what the U.S. embodies today. The first and foremost of those political theories is that people DO NOT enter into a commonwealth to protect themselves and their property only to have those things assailed in the name of the sovereign power. This is what EVERYBODY wants. Thanks to people like you, who would legislate their social agenda, we have an entire segment of this country who is deceived into thinking that the transfer of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not creates a healthy, vibrant economic climate. It does not.
[quote]devilmanVISA wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
hhhmmmmm I really did think this was a lot simpler.
Should people who eat all that they want, do not move, get fat so they can’t work, be okay for disability?
I kinda think just paying that person to NOT MOVE and to NOT WORK just feeds the problem.
I really thought it was that simple.
Why isn’t it that simple?
For those of you advocating an entire revision of the system… Please tell me how.
[/quote]
Okay, here goes.
First of all, when I say get rid of social services that are funded by taxes and run by the govt, I don’t mean you simply cut disability and the like and then stop. No, that would leave a huge hole where there is clearly a need in society. The average American really doesn’t give a shit about the poor and less fortunate, across the board regardless of why they are poor/disabled/etc. That’s why we have these programs in the first place: to provide a safety net that we wouldn’t necessarily have in place otherwise.
Now this is a problem. I’ve said before in other threads that I think this country is slipping down the slope of spiritual bankruptcy (this has nothing to do with organized religion). I feel that we need to create a renewed sense of community and compassion in this country. I am extremely liberal in that sense.
But I do not feel that the way to create this societal harmony is to tax it out of us. One, this is bad for the economy as a whole and secondly, creating these sorts of programs only leads to more and more programs that spiral out of control, such as Medicare and SS. The way to do this is to further stimulate the economy by providing tax cuts to people who can prove that they have spent a considerable amount of time or money working with those who would otherwise be on govt welfare. I think that this will bring the fortunate into close contact with those less fortunate than themselves and that this will eventually lead to a greater sense of fulfillment for those that do so.
You see, if something needs to be done, you are much better off providing an incentive for someone to do it rather than force them to do it, no matter what “it” is. All taxing us in this manner does is take from one and give to another and it creates a feeling of resentment toward not only the taker, but the recipient as well. This isn’t good at all and I strongly, strongly feel that THIS is the root cause of the massive political polarization in this country right now.
So the solution is to cut all this govt bullshit. Everything, all subsidies (although I would support subsidizing education in a small way simply because educating our children is the single best investment we can make in this country and I support anything that helps bring education to everyone in this country), all frivolous taxes like estate taxes and sales taxes and SS taxes, no disability, no minimum wage, no unemployment, no Medicare or Medicaid, drastically-reduced corporate taxes, reduced income taxes at the state and federal level, a very slight progressive tax that has even the highest rate far below what it is now, and a whole slew of similar such things. ALL of these programs end up costing this country and this economy money in the long run, some in the short run, and none of them contribute to actually CREATING wealth, only transferring it.
If these programs are gone the country’s wealth should rise dramatically and the accompanying increase in personal income will make it easier for those who are less fortunate to earn a satisfactory wage. Those who are unable to work will have to rely on charity and that sort of thing, but that’s exactly what they rely on now, except that the net negative effect is much greater.[/quote]
Not to be unkind or dismissive, but I just will not read through a novel.
Why can’t the answer be a bit more succinct?
Why shouldn’t the answer be as simple as the question?
[/quote]
This type of response has become all too typical in just about every facet of our society. Reading his response took me less than a minute, and answered your question thoroughly with both poise and detail as he has done through this entire thread.
[/quote]
I did read through the post, I was being flippant as DB just swamps posts with huge posts.
I also don’t think his solution is workable in regards to the private sector caring for the millions of needy. That smacks a bit of socialism.
Also people already get tax incentives to donate to charitable entities.
I do agree that welfare should be temporary and in some states it is, some states have opted out of welfare being temporary.
But this isn’t about welfare, this is about disability and someone receiving disability because they ate and ate and ate and didn’t move. Now this person will be paid to sit and eat more an not move and garner even more benefits as their health begins to fail even more. I absolutely believe we can distinguish which is a worthy disability and what isn’t. Courts do that kind of thing all the time including the act of murder where they take in all these different factors and then distinguish what degree of punishment if any.
If this program were to be addressed by the government, they really would parse each issue such as obesity as one specific issue. This is how this specific condition was recognized by the ADA, it was not lumped into just disability along with thalidomide babies, those injured at work or military.
[quote]wramsey wrote:
notice like most conservatives (or libertarians) dbcooper keeps talking about these general principles about what’s right and what is true, as if everything can be deduced from eternal principles. liberals look at history and facts and think inductively starting from evidence to form their theories.
anyone with a basic understanding of the great depression will dismiss his economics, and anyone with a basic understanding of the 19th century robber barons (when his libertarian ideals were implemented) will ignore his politics. the fact that he thinks we are on the wrong side of the laffer curve and that cutting taxes will stimulate growth when that policy has repeatedly failed tells you he’s committed to dogma not evidence.
the sad thing is that he sounds like a smart guy, but he’s been brainwashed in to voting and thinking against his own interests. pretty common in this country unfortunately.
[/quote]
It is in fact you that does not have a real understanding of either the great depression or the supposed “robber barons” of the 19th century. The “robber barons” actually improved the quality of life of the average American by leaps and bounds and government intervention, along with heavy handed credit inflation caused and exacerbated the great depression. Try reading real history books that actually include data sometime.
[quote]wramsey wrote:
notice like most conservatives (or libertarians) dbcooper keeps talking about these general principles about what’s right and what is true, as if everything can be deduced from eternal principles. liberals look at history and facts and think inductively starting from evidence to form their theories.
anyone with a basic understanding of the great depression will dismiss his economics, and anyone with a basic understanding of the 19th century robber barons (when his libertarian ideals were implemented) will ignore his politics. the fact that he thinks we are on the wrong side of the laffer curve and that cutting taxes will stimulate growth when that policy has repeatedly failed tells you he’s committed to dogma not evidence.
the sad thing is that he sounds like a smart guy, but he’s been brainwashed in to voting and thinking against his own interests. pretty common in this country unfortunately.
[/quote]
Pish posh.
I like the “liberals look at history and facts and think inductively starting from evidence to form their theories” bit.
Wherever you look, gun control, prohibition, welfare benefits, liberals are always on the cuttting edge and oh so very based in factual evidence.
This must be a troll job or else I fear for my sanity.
[quote]orion wrote:
I like the “liberals look at history and facts and think inductively starting from evidence to form their theories” bit.
Wherever you look, gun control, prohibition, welfare benefits, liberals are always on the cuttting edge and oh so very based in factual evidence.
This must be a troll job or else I fear for my sanity.
[/quote]
He’s obviously a troll. There is no way that a self-respecting university would give a degree, in ANY subject, let alone economics, to someone who is apparently completely off-base in even the most basic of economic theory.
Sorry, the “I’m obese due to my genes,” thing doesn’t hold water with me. I can accept that there is such a thing as being genetically predisposed to fat gain, but it doesn’t follow that those who have the gene will easily balloon up to the kind of weight where they are disabled!
Will they naturally be pudgy and soft, and “big boned” unless they work extra hard to avoid that? Absolutely. But to get to 300 lbs or 400 , they will still have to be dedicated. In this case, dedication would mean studiously avoiding ANY exercise of any kind and also being a total asshat about eating.
It’s sort of the same thing as bodybuilding genetics. No question Arnold was blessed genetically. If he had never picked up a weight in his life, he might still have been impressively lean and muscular just from normal everyday activities – but there’s no way we would have gotten where he did with no special exercise, dieting, or pharmaceutical help. You need to make an effort to maximize your genetics - even obesity genetics.