[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Even if Romney loses, his pick of Ryan will have given Ryan enough legitimacy to where he would have little trouble surpassing the other GOP presidential hopefuls. This is Win/Win either way if you look at the BIG PICTURE.
[/quote]
I feel like he was going that direction even without being on this ticket.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. [/quote]
Single mothers aren’t more likely to vote for entitlements? Childless elderly, or those whose children are also impoverished, or whose children are in prison, won’t vote for entitlements? An entitlement society is a safety net for the socially liberal middle and lower income. [/quote]
Spot on!
In fact an argument could be made that virtually every social problem ultimately costs the government (the taxpayer) more money.
[/quote]
In a Nanny state. Also, it depends on your definition of “social problem”. You can’t legislate morality.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And not to single out single mothers (pun not intended). Who are THEIR parents more likely to vote for? Their brothers, their sisters? What about the baby daddy that doesn’t want to actually have to support the kid daily? Their friends? How about anyone that has the imagination to realize their lifestyle could leave them with…consequences? They likely vote for the nanny state man. The safety net for any ‘oopsies!’ The entitlement state is the absentee father, the replacement adult child for the elderly, the new dad, the new mom, the bread earner.
Edit: But that’s it for me, don’t want to take this thread too far off course. But social issues will be big. Romney has claimed socially conservative positions he will end up having to answer for over and over again. We will hear lots more about those.[/quote]
Romney is plenty capable of staying on message about the economy and about job creation. All I’m saying is that if he controls his message he won’t alienate the middle. That was my whole point. I get it: you are a hard core Christian - good for you. MOST of America IS NOT as hard core as you are. We do however, share the same economic views and right now, since that’s the BIGGEST problem we are facing, perhaps it MIGHT behoove us to focus on that. Hmmmmm?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. [/quote]
Single mothers aren’t more likely to vote for entitlements? Childless elderly, or those whose children are also impoverished, or whose children are in prison, won’t vote for entitlements? An entitlement society is a safety net for the socially liberal middle and lower income. [/quote]
Spot on!
In fact an argument could be made that virtually every social problem ultimately costs the government (the taxpayer) more money.
[/quote]
In a Nanny state. Also, it depends on your definition of “social problem”. You can’t legislate morality.[/quote]
Sure you can. We legislate ‘charity.’ We legislate against murder (unless it’s in the womb). We legislate against theft. Fraud. On and on.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. [/quote]
Single mothers aren’t more likely to vote for entitlements? Childless elderly, or those whose children are also impoverished, or whose children are in prison, won’t vote for entitlements? An entitlement society is a safety net for the socially liberal middle and lower income. [/quote]
Spot on!
In fact an argument could be made that virtually every social problem ultimately costs the government (the taxpayer) more money.
[/quote]
In a Nanny state. Also, it depends on your definition of “social problem”. You can’t legislate morality.[/quote]
Sure you can. We legislate ‘charity.’ We legislate against murder (unless it’s in the womb). We legislate against theft. Fraud. On and on.[/quote]
Sure, but you cannot do it effectively unless most people consider those laws to be in their interest, as with murder, rape, theft and whatnot.
If you try to do more, you are just burning money and that has always been true.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. [/quote]
Single mothers aren’t more likely to vote for entitlements? Childless elderly, or those whose children are also impoverished, or whose children are in prison, won’t vote for entitlements? An entitlement society is a safety net for the socially liberal middle and lower income. [/quote]
Spot on!
In fact an argument could be made that virtually every social problem ultimately costs the government (the taxpayer) more money.
[/quote]
In a Nanny state. Also, it depends on your definition of “social problem”. You can’t legislate morality.[/quote]
Sure you can most laws are rooted in morality.
Hey every time a teen gets pregnant and has to go on welfare it costs us money. I know where you’re coming from but when there are no bounds it costs us money.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Can we all agree to hate eachother’s view on social issues after we stop heading for economic endgame?
[/quote]
The most religious posters here think atheism and the social issues are directly responsible for any economic downfalls. To them dropping those issues would be dropping everything.[/quote]
Well, I think atheists are capable of being social conservatives.
[/quote]
You are correct, but what they are not capable of is using government to force their conservative agenda on others.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. [/quote]
Single mothers aren’t more likely to vote for entitlements? Childless elderly, or those whose children are also impoverished, or whose children are in prison, won’t vote for entitlements? An entitlement society is a safety net for the socially liberal middle and lower income. [/quote]
Spot on!
In fact an argument could be made that virtually every social problem ultimately costs the government (the taxpayer) more money.
[/quote]
In a Nanny state. Also, it depends on your definition of “social problem”. You can’t legislate morality.[/quote]
Sure you can most laws are rooted in morality.
[/quote]
That just goes to show how little you know about laws.
99,9 % of all all laws have nothing to do with morality whatsoever.
They are purely technical laws from lobster fishing to technical regulations for railroads, trucks, toasters, traffic rules, tax codes and whatnot.
Criminal law is an itsy, bitsy, tiny part of the whole body of the law.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Can we all agree to hate eachother’s view on social issues after we stop heading for economic endgame?
[/quote]
The most religious posters here think atheism and the social issues are directly responsible for any economic downfalls. To them dropping those issues would be dropping everything.[/quote]
Well, I think atheists are capable of being social conservatives.
[/quote]
You are correct, but what they are not capable of is using government to force their conservative agenda on others.[/quote]
O_O
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sure you can most laws are rooted in morality.
[/quote]
then morality is rooted in self interest
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fuck you Zeb
[/quote]
LULZ[/quote]
FU2
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the best thing they could do for Mitt is not allow any questions [/quote]
Confused again?
It’s Obama that doesn’t respond very well without his teleprompter.
Romney is great on his feet and will no doubt give a good accounting of himself in the debates.[/quote]
How about you formulate your opinion and allow me to formulate mine 
[/quote]
I have formulated my opinion, that is you’re opinion is wrong!
[/quote]
It is my opinion that it is not possible you have the ability to formulate anything. Your so called opinions are right out of the Republican play book
[/quote]
It’s people like you that the Obama people speak to when they spread their lies about the republicans being racist, and the rich not paying taxes and scaring granny about republicans taking away her social security check. And the rest of the endless nonsense bla bla bla… They’ve been lying to you for a long time and you’ve been eating it up like homemade brownies.
You and about 35% of the democratic base are incapable of an original thought. All you know is vote democrat and the sad part is you don’t even know why the hell you’re you’re doing it!
[/quote]
Fuck you Zeb
[/quote]
This is the type of discourse that you and yours are very good at.
You well represent the base Obama supporter.
Good for you![/quote]
I am sorry Zeb it is a discourse I use for some one that has no ability to comprehend anything out side their scope
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. [/quote]
Single mothers aren’t more likely to vote for entitlements? Childless elderly, or those whose children are also impoverished, or whose children are in prison, won’t vote for entitlements? An entitlement society is a safety net for the socially liberal middle and lower income. [/quote]
You know it’s funny, Social Security for example.
It is the most regressive tax ever. Even if you un-cap it, you don’t solve the problem, because people can’t do basic math and see it is an entitlement because it is a giant ponzi scheme, and it benefits those with more money, more than those that actually need it.
Yet people love the shit out of it.
(I can explain what I mean if anyone would like.)[/quote]
I would like. I really enjoy your explanations. The way you explained taxes with the ten guys drinking beer was awesome. So tell us about Social Security.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the best thing they could do for Mitt is not allow any questions [/quote]
Confused again?
It’s Obama that doesn’t respond very well without his teleprompter.
Romney is great on his feet and will no doubt give a good accounting of himself in the debates.[/quote]
How about you formulate your opinion and allow me to formulate mine
[/quote]
I have formulated my opinion, that is you’re opinion is wrong!
[/quote]
It is my opinion that it is not possible you have the ability to formulate anything. Your so called opinions are right out of the Republican play book
[/quote]
It’s people like you that the Obama people speak to when they spread their lies about the republicans being racist, and the rich not paying taxes and scaring granny about republicans taking away her social security check. And the rest of the endless nonsense bla bla bla… They’ve been lying to you for a long time and you’ve been eating it up like homemade brownies.
You and about 35% of the democratic base are incapable of an original thought. All you know is vote democrat and the sad part is you don’t even know why the hell you’re you’re doing it!
[/quote]
Fuck you Zeb
[/quote]
This is the type of discourse that you and yours are very good at.
You well represent the base Obama supporter.
Good for you![/quote]
I am sorry Zeb it is a discourse I use for some one that has no ability to comprehend anything out side their scope [/quote]
Pitt, you just post whatever makes you feel better. I don’t have any problem with any of it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fuck you Zeb
[/quote]
LULZ[/quote]
FU2 [/quote]
I think you might have a new tag line there Pitt.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You know it’s funny, Social Security for example.
(I can explain what I mean if anyone would like.)[/quote]
I would like. I really enjoy your explanations. The way you explained taxes with the ten guys drinking beer was awesome. So tell us about Social Security.[/quote]
This isn’t as fun as the beer story, which I did borrow from someone else, I can’t take credit for that.
Okay, so the employee pays 6.2% of every dollar into the fund and the employer matches that. This is just accounting. In a true economic sense, that 6.2% paid by the employer is part of the employees pay package. Now when an employer is thinking about hiring a Duke MBA to head their new foreign investment team at 120K, that 6% isn’t going to play a huge role, because once you are thinking on that scale, 6% isn’t going to make or break your choice. When someone is thinking about hiring 4 teens to work the drivethru at $8 an hour, that additional 6% eats into an already tight margin. They will likely hire 2 or 3 and run shifts lite hoping for productivity from low skilled labor in an environment with high turnover.
Advantage: skilled, expensive labor, high wage earners.
Two people:
Person A: works in a factory all his life, low skilled, low paid. HArdest worker around. Well liked but makes one fatal flaw, and trades houses late in life, thinking the factory is going to increase wages. Well they don’t. Age 65 comes around and the fixed income from his SS is not going to cover his mortgage. So he keeps working. End of the year, his benefits are taxable, along with his wages. He is now still paying into a system he is taking from and paying income taxes, reducing his disposable income, and still working at almost 70 years old.
Person B: Works as a broker, pays the max into SS his entire life and does well in the market. He hits 65 and says “shit I’m done”. He sits back and lives off his investments, collects his fair share of SS (higher than person a) and the tax hit from his benefits are less of a hit to his disposable income because he has more of it.
Advantage: higher wage earner
Ponzi scheme: “Well just uncap SS and it solves all the funding problems” well no, no it doesn’t unless you want to deny high wage earners what they paid in for the benefit of those that paid in less, like a communist.
Look at this, Facts:
Your payout increases the more you paid in during your working life.
Person brings in 15,294 a year, 1,158 of which is medicare, leaving 14,136 in SS benefits.
Divide 14,136 by .062 and you get 228,000. That means this person’s SS is covered by two people paying in at almost the limit a year. (Limit is around 119k I believe). Show what you say? They paid into it, they are just getting back what they put in! No, not even close.
Assume that person lives 20 years. Their collection is equal to 4,560,000 of wages taxed in today’d dollars. (228,000 x 20). If you assume that person worked 50 years that averages to 91,200 a year. (4,560,000 / 50).
Now I got those figures from someone I know, and he didn’t make anywhere near 90k a year on average, not even in inflated dollars.
So, people paying in today are covering pretend “gains” on money paid in 50 years ago. Ponzi, and also why raising the cap does nothing but kick the can down the road.
But, it being a ponzi is the only way in which the tax is progressive, because the wigh wage earners of today are covering the low wage earners of yesterday, only to fuck the low wage earners of today when today’s earners retire.
If I missed anything I’ll expand later, but basically, people are willingly paying into a Ponzi scheme that requires economic growth across the entire market spectrium to survive, that favors higher wage earners, and has to, in order to survive.
People would be much better off putting that 6.2% in a 401k, IRA, or with an experienced advisor where you can control where your money sits and hedge against risk.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Can we all agree to hate eachother’s view on social issues after we stop heading for economic endgame?
[/quote]
The most religious posters here think atheism and the social issues are directly responsible for any economic downfalls. To them dropping those issues would be dropping everything.[/quote]
Well, I think atheists are capable of being social conservatives.
[/quote]
You are correct, but what they are not capable of is using government to force their conservative agenda on others.[/quote]
What Orion said.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You know it’s funny, Social Security for example.
(I can explain what I mean if anyone would like.)[/quote]
I would like. I really enjoy your explanations. The way you explained taxes with the ten guys drinking beer was awesome. So tell us about Social Security.[/quote]
This isn’t as fun as the beer story, which I did borrow from someone else, I can’t take credit for that.
Okay, so the employee pays 6.2% of every dollar into the fund and the employer matches that. This is just accounting. In a true economic sense, that 6.2% paid by the employer is part of the employees pay package. Now when an employer is thinking about hiring a Duke MBA to head their new foreign investment team at 120K, that 6% isn’t going to play a huge role, because once you are thinking on that scale, 6% isn’t going to make or break your choice. When someone is thinking about hiring 4 teens to work the drivethru at $8 an hour, that additional 6% eats into an already tight margin. They will likely hire 2 or 3 and run shifts lite hoping for productivity from low skilled labor in an environment with high turnover.
Advantage: skilled, expensive labor, high wage earners.
Two people:
Person A: works in a factory all his life, low skilled, low paid. HArdest worker around. Well liked but makes one fatal flaw, and trades houses late in life, thinking the factory is going to increase wages. Well they don’t. Age 65 comes around and the fixed income from his SS is not going to cover his mortgage. So he keeps working. End of the year, his benefits are taxable, along with his wages. He is now still paying into a system he is taking from and paying income taxes, reducing his disposable income, and still working at almost 70 years old.
Person B: Works as a broker, pays the max into SS his entire life and does well in the market. He hits 65 and says “shit I’m done”. He sits back and lives off his investments, collects his fair share of SS (higher than person a) and the tax hit from his benefits are less of a hit to his disposable income because he has more of it.
Advantage: higher wage earner
Ponzi scheme: “Well just uncap SS and it solves all the funding problems” well no, no it doesn’t unless you want to deny high wage earners what they paid in for the benefit of those that paid in less, like a communist.
Look at this, Facts:
Your payout increases the more you paid in during your working life.
Person brings in 15,294 a year, 1,158 of which is medicare, leaving 14,136 in SS benefits.
Divide 14,136 by .062 and you get 228,000. That means this person’s SS is covered by two people paying in at almost the limit a year. (Limit is around 119k I believe). Show what you say? They paid into it, they are just getting back what they put in! No, not even close.
Assume that person lives 20 years. Their collection is equal to 4,560,000 of wages taxed in today’d dollars. (228,000 x 20). If you assume that person worked 50 years that averages to 91,200 a year. (4,560,000 / 50).
Now I got those figures from someone I know, and he didn’t make anywhere near 90k a year on average, not even in inflated dollars.
So, people paying in today are covering pretend “gains” on money paid in 50 years ago. Ponzi, and also why raising the cap does nothing but kick the can down the road.
But, it being a ponzi is the only way in which the tax is progressive, because the wigh wage earners of today are covering the low wage earners of yesterday, only to fuck the low wage earners of today when today’s earners retire.
If I missed anything I’ll expand later, but basically, people are willingly paying into a Ponzi scheme that requires economic growth across the entire market spectrium to survive, that favors higher wage earners, and has to, in order to survive.
People would be much better off putting that 6.2% in a 401k, IRA, or with an experienced advisor where you can control where your money sits and hedge against risk.[/quote]
Thanks, Beans. As usual, you know how to break it down. Now I gotta bid you fine gentlemen goodnight and godspeed. I fly offshore again tomorrow morning for about a week so I may not have internet (depends on the rig). I will miss the lively discourse.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fuck you Zeb
[/quote]
LULZ[/quote]
FU2 [/quote]
I think you might have a new tag line there Pitt.[/quote]
I would be so proud
[quote]orion wrote:
That just goes to show how little you know about laws.
99,9 % of all all laws have nothing to do with morality whatsoever.
They are purely technical laws from lobster fishing to technical regulations for railroads, trucks, toasters, traffic rules, tax codes and whatnot.
Criminal law is an itsy, bitsy, tiny part of the whole body of the law. [/quote]
Completely false - each and every one of those “technical” regulations embody some ethic or morality - anti-fraud measures, safety (i.e., reduce risk because it is immoral not to given certain dangers, as in you must make a toaster up to a certain specification out of certain materials to prevent foreseeable injury), incentivize better behavior (i.e., tax code exemptions, etc.).
Many regulations are designed to improve efficiency, and that is fine as well. But your point is completely incorrect - most laws have, at their base, some “moral” underpinning it.