[quote]H factor wrote:
Of course. Bailouts of huge institutions and a coordinated effort to get rid of any legislation that may force them to change their ways are some of the hallmarks of our economy.
The lobbying against Wall Street reform was unbelievable. It didn’t take us too long to get them propped back up AFTER we had bailed them out. [/quote]
Worst part is, when they do regulate, it is often FUBAR legislation.
Dodd_Frank is the biggest pile of horse shit ever imagined and thus far has only seen the major “too big to fail” banks get bigger under Bam’s watch, and not to mention give amazingly dangerous amounts of control to the Treasury.
This is what most people do now.
And this is exactly why the Western World is demographically graying, and maybe dying.
Which is why the Western world will need more and more and more welfare and healthcare for the decades to come.
When a nation start to think that a mother of three is somewhat less “socially useful” or less “contributing”, than someone who sell tons of useless shit for a living, you can be sure that “taxes” aren’t its worse problem.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Of course. Bailouts of huge institutions and a coordinated effort to get rid of any legislation that may force them to change their ways are some of the hallmarks of our economy.
The lobbying against Wall Street reform was unbelievable. It didn’t take us too long to get them propped back up AFTER we had bailed them out. [/quote]
I didn’t like the bailouts either. If the Unions were to content to let GM fail and not renegotiate then let them fail or learn to make a better car. The market decided that GM, Chrysler, and AIG fucked up but the government didn’t make them pay the price. If they failed fine, if they could right the ship fine as well. That is private sector problems and the government should have butted out.
This is what most people do now.
And this is exactly why the Western World is demographically graying, and maybe dying.
Which is why the Western world will need more and more and more welfare and healthcare for the decades to come.
When a nation start to think that a mother of three is somewhat less “socially useful” or less “contributing”, than someone who sell tons of useless shit for a living, you can be sure that “taxes” aren’t its worse problem.
[/quote]
Didnt realize population growth was the measurement of success and prosperity for the western world.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Of course. Bailouts of huge institutions and a coordinated effort to get rid of any legislation that may force them to change their ways are some of the hallmarks of our economy.
The lobbying against Wall Street reform was unbelievable. It didn’t take us too long to get them propped back up AFTER we had bailed them out. [/quote]
I didn’t like the bailouts either. If the Unions were to content to let GM fail and not renegotiate then let them fail or learn to make a better car. The market decided that GM, Chrysler, and AIG fucked up but the government didn’t make them pay the price. If they failed fine, if they could right the ship fine as well. That is private sector problems and the government should have butted out.[/quote]
As for the original post (sort of), here is how it breaks down in my mind:
Things I’m okay with my tax dollars paying for
Temporary help to those in need. WIC for example. Bread, formula, milk and the like for poor kids is fine. It is a finite benefit, and the hopes that these kids grow up healthy and don’t drain on medical expenses is a good one. Unemployment is fine too, just not 280 weeks FFS. Life long government dependency for anyone that isn’t truly disabled/unable to work is a no-no. I’m pretty anti people getting SSDI that haven’t ever paid into it, again outside of the truly disabled.
Payments when someone is earning. This includes people that work for the government, as employees or contractors. If you earn your pay, I’m cool with you getting paid your worth. Lazy assholes sucking off the union teet do not apply here. I’m not sold on the pensions either way to be honest. Depends on the employee really. (Note: this includes armed service people, people paving the streets, teachers, ect.) If you earn your pay, I have no problem with the government facilitating the work. I would prefer it was my local government or state doing the facilitation where feasible though. I don’t see why the Feds need a Dept of Education. Some jackwagon in DC doesn’t know what is best for a 6 year old in Reno or a 9th grader in Spokane.
There is going to be fraud and abuse in the above for sure.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Keeping her from having children? No, I am referring to keeping her from profiting from having children. [/quote]
How many people here would swap places with that single mother of three for 55K a year?
[/quote]
Living a life where a complete lack of pride means that you will never have to accept any personal responsibility and you get paid for it doesn’t sound half bad if your conscience would let you do it. No one made her have those kids and had the first one caused her financial hardship instead of earned her some clubbing money, she might have kept her legs closed for the second or third.[/quote]
You are correct from an ideological point of view. Now that you have vented; what is your practical proposal? [/quote]
After she has the second, mandatory sterilization is she wishes to continue to receive benefits. If not regular visits by social services to make sure that she is providing adequate care. I will even go so far as to say maybe even a small voucher for daycare and assistance in obtaining enough jobs to support her family. Even if that means multiple fast food jobs.
[quote]
Didnt realize population growth was the measurement of success and prosperity for the western world.[/quote]
not what i said.
it’s not about population growth, it’s about generation renewal.
the negative growth of the percentage of working-age people is defintely a factor of our future lack of success and prosperity.
This is what most people do now.
And this is exactly why the Western World is demographically graying, and maybe dying.
Which is why the Western world will need more and more and more welfare and healthcare for the decades to come.
When a nation start to think that a mother of three is somewhat less “socially useful” or less “contributing”, than someone who sell tons of useless shit for a living, you can be sure that “taxes” aren’t its worse problem.
[/quote]
Didnt realize population growth was the measurement of success and prosperity for the western world.[/quote]
Most economist believe a + population growth is critical for a healthly economy. That is why the business sector has worked to stop immigration reform.
This is what most people do now.
And this is exactly why the Western World is demographically graying, and maybe dying.
Which is why the Western world will need more and more and more welfare and healthcare for the decades to come.
When a nation start to think that a mother of three is somewhat less “socially useful” or less “contributing”, than someone who sell tons of useless shit for a living, you can be sure that “taxes” aren’t its worse problem.
[/quote]
Didnt realize population growth was the measurement of success and prosperity for the western world.[/quote]
Most economist believe a + population growth is critical for a healthly economy. That is why the business sector has worked to stop immigration reform. [/quote]
When a large portion of that population growth is due to illegal immigration (no taxes) or those below the poverty line with no desire to work (no tax revenue but a tax expenditure) it creates a wrinkle in typical economic theory however.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As for the original post (sort of), here is how it breaks down in my mind:
Things I’m okay with my tax dollars paying for
Temporary help to those in need. WIC for example. Bread, formula, milk and the like for poor kids is fine. It is a finite benefit, and the hopes that these kids grow up healthy and don’t drain on medical expenses is a good one. Unemployment is fine too, just not 280 weeks FFS. Life long government dependency for anyone that isn’t truly disabled/unable to work is a no-no. I’m pretty anti people getting SSDI that haven’t ever paid into it, again outside of the truly disabled.
Payments when someone is earning. This includes people that work for the government, as employees or contractors. If you earn your pay, I’m cool with you getting paid your worth. Lazy assholes sucking off the union teet do not apply here. I’m not sold on the pensions either way to be honest. Depends on the employee really. (Note: this includes armed service people, people paving the streets, teachers, ect.) If you earn your pay, I have no problem with the government facilitating the work. I would prefer it was my local government or state doing the facilitation where feasible though. I don’t see why the Feds need a Dept of Education. Some jackwagon in DC doesn’t know what is best for a 6 year old in Reno or a 9th grader in Spokane.
There is going to be fraud and abuse in the above for sure.
[/quote]
I agree with everything here.
Sort of irrelevant, but I really would like to see anyone who served overseas in a conflict be exempted from taxes as I believe that their debt has been paid with their service.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
After she has the second, mandatory sterilization is she wishes to continue to receive benefits. If not regular visits by social services to make sure that she is providing adequate care. I will even go so far as to say maybe even a small voucher for daycare and assistance in obtaining enough jobs to support her family. Even if that means multiple fast food jobs.[/quote]
Let’s assume I agree with you…does that sound like a policy that would ‘pass muster’. Temporarily sterilizing everyone at birth and reversing it when they demonstrate ‘ability to support’ their offspring seems a better approach. All we have to do then is decide what ability to support is.
As far as the redistribution of wealth goes, from all the talk I have heard the middle class is loosing buying power year by year. There is growing fear that middle class won’t be much better than what we call poverty today in the future. Middle income right now varies quite a bit to me means is that you make too much money to qualify for any kind of government aid so you just feel like your paying in, but you don’t make enough to where your potential for accumulating wealth outpaces your ability to spend by any significant margin. In other words you’ll never get rich but you won’t be living off the government aside from using public services like schools and the like. But it is likely that more than one very wrong turn or large expense could put you in serious need.
From the government I would like to see it continue to fund and improve, education, defense, energy and health. These areas are fundamental to maintaining a healthy profitable society and the government should be allowed to provide benefits and regulate the operation of these services. That being said there should be private options for these as well, excluding defense of course. As long as there are basic government run regulations in place to help keep the private option from overriding the quality of their service with their desire for financial benefit.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
These areas are fundamental to maintaining a healthy profitable society and the government should be allowed to provide benefits and regulate the operation of these services. [/quote]
Honest question:
We all know there isn’t a single politician that isn’t a lying sack of immoral waste right? Why on Earth do you have faith in these people to regulate those things you feel are fundamental?
Why do you assume the “ruling class” we currently have is actually the right people for this job of regulating?
[quote]H factor wrote:
Of course. Bailouts of huge institutions and a coordinated effort to get rid of any legislation that may force them to change their ways are some of the hallmarks of our economy.
The lobbying against Wall Street reform was unbelievable. It didn’t take us too long to get them propped back up AFTER we had bailed them out. [/quote]
Worst part is, when they do regulate, it is often FUBAR legislation.
Dodd_Frank is the biggest pile of horse shit ever imagined and thus far has only seen the major “too big to fail” banks get bigger under Bam’s watch, and not to mention give amazingly dangerous amounts of control to the Treasury.
Shocking, I know. [/quote]
Follow the lobbying on it though. It was the industry (and connected politicians) striking down any major changes. Any sort of useful regulation that would diminish power of big banks was fought hard against so banks are still allowed to gamble with your money.
Only when it was gutted and made worse and worse did you see Wall St. defend it. And why wouldn’t they? They had succeeded in dismantling it so time to get on board so it looks like we “did” something.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
These areas are fundamental to maintaining a healthy profitable society and the government should be allowed to provide benefits and regulate the operation of these services. [/quote]
Honest question:
We all know there isn’t a single politician that isn’t a lying sack of immoral waste right? Why on Earth do you have faith in these people to regulate those things you feel are fundamental?
Why do you assume the “ruling class” we currently have is actually the right people for this job of regulating?[/quote]
If only we could nominate business and community leaders to make these challenging decisions for us. We could even hold some kind of process of voting to make sure whoever ends up making these decisions are what the majority of us want. Oh wait…
