[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
But if smug condescension is what you need, and I am your target for it
[/quote]
You are really in no position to be calling other people out on the above.
Less you aim to be a hypocrite.
I want some of you to analyze an explanation given to me about why Social Security is a scam, thoughts from you guys please…
SS was created in 1935, written to keep people 65 or over out of poverty. The main problem most people never saw, but the government knew, was that life expectancy back then was 61 yrs old. Now since people live way longer, and their older years are usually much more costly since they are usually sick with shit, SS is spending way more than it collects.
Opinions ?
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
No spin necessary on “us guys’” part. You expressed some ignorance on the subject and were called out on it and didn’t correct yourself until then. [/quote]
LOL sweetheart it wasn’t because I was ignoring it up to that point, its because unlike some of you guys I don’t have the free time on my hand to monitor the multiple thousands of posts in this forum, track them, and then find time to comment on them.
The fact that you and some of the other contributors who post here have their posts on mod-alert doesn’t help the matter any since they show up at the time tey were submitted, and I scan the last post I read and not for changes in front of it.
Can I make a suggestion, which you’re totally free to ignore? Chill with LOL’s, the haha’s, and I honestly think you’ll find your conversations here to go a lot smoother. Right now you kind of come off like a politically aware Biff Tannen.
I think you’d actually come to enjoy PWI more if you toned it down by, like, alot. Heck, you might even be glad to hear from some of the folks from the opposite side. However, if you come in here with your chest sticking out, thinking your going to give everyone a noogie or wedgie, then things are going to go more like this. Hey, might you enjoy it like this though. Up to you.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
…People don’t want to hear about tax increases, but in conjunction with cuts is there really any other acceptable way?[/quote]
Yes but it’s not acceptable enough.[/quote]
Push,
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
But if smug condescension is what you need, and I am your target for it
[/quote]
You are really in no position to be calling other people out on the above.
Less you aim to be a hypocrite. [/quote]
I’m perfectly fine with being the bad guy you guys point your crooked little fingers at…
Its all in good fun
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
No spin necessary on “us guys’” part. You expressed some ignorance on the subject and were called out on it and didn’t correct yourself until then. [/quote]
LOL sweetheart it wasn’t because I was ignoring it up to that point, its because unlike some of you guys I don’t have the free time on my hand to monitor the multiple thousands of posts in this forum, track them, and then find time to comment on them.
The fact that you and some of the other contributors who post here have their posts on mod-alert doesn’t help the matter any since they show up at the time tey were submitted, and I scan the last post I read and not for changes in front of it.
Can I make a suggestion, which you’re totally free to ignore? Chill with LOL’s, the haha’s, and I honestly think you’ll find your conversations here to go a lot smoother. Right now you kind of come off like a politically aware Biff Tannen.
I think you’d actually come to enjoy PWI more if you toned it down by, like, alot. Heck, you might even be glad to hear from some of the folks from the opposite side. However, if you come in here with your chest sticking out, thinking your going to give everyone a noogie or wedgie, then things are going to go more like this. Hey, might you enjoy it like this though. Up to you.[/quote]
haha come on man, you can’t evoke Biff Tannen and expect me not to have a “haha” or a “LOL” in my follow-on post. That shit made me LOL for real. Well done.
You have fair points, and as I mentioned above to beans, I’m perfectly ok playing the heel. I have gathered some perspective from the more conservative members here, and I don’t necessarily bash them for their opinion but some of them are so blatantly misguided that I felt the need to call them on it. Could I have been more diplomatic? Of course…but its not like anyone has ever heard a diplomatic argument for why they are wrong, and then suddenly “saw the light” and reversed their ways. That’s just now how people operate, evidence contrary to ones’ opinion tends to actually further entrench that opinion!!! So if I am arguing against a brick wall, I am at least going to have fun with it and blow off a little steam.
Furthermore, I’m under no illusions that my time here in the PWI forum is anything but limited. I simply don’t have the time to filter through pages upon pages of [largely offtopic] responses to a topic I am following and then respond accordingly. I seriously don’t know how you 15,000+ posters here do it. You are way better at internetting than I am, for sure.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
haha come on man, you can’t evoke Biff Tannen and expect me not to have a “haha” or a “LOL” in my follow-on post. That shit made me LOL for real. Well done.[/quote]
Heh, had to reach down deep to pull that one out. It’ll takes at least 6 months of recovery before I manage something else funny.
It’s silly that people are talking about how we should tax insert label more to pay off the debt and whatever. No, that will not pay off the debt. It will just encourage the gov’t to grow more quickly. The gov’t will NEVER have any problems gobbling up extra revenue that is gathered, unless it is specifically limited from doing so. That is our biggest downfall. We have an insanely confusing, muddled, unnecessarily complex and inefficient system. Screw this “evil big corporation” BS. Our own government is the real larger-than-life bloated threat, not companies that produce goods and employ people in doing so. The government doesn’t produce any actual goods, therefore it needs to be kept as small as possible.
The government does produce goods. They are public goods that the market cannot produce. The first fundamental theory of welfare economics dictates that under certain conditions a pareto efficient allocation of resources (invisible hand) can occur so long as there is:
- multiple competitors
- no information asymetry (open information between customers and sellers)
- no monopolies (incomplete markets)
In some instances government has to produce public goods such as national defense, clean air, roads etc…
Road work can be contracted out to be delivered but it is owned by everyone. If people owned roads it is a market failure as they have a monopoly without anyone competing for that road.
As the theory states anyways.
***But yes I do believe government is always going to be big because of Parkinson’s Law.
*** A combination of expenditure cuts and slight tax increase can bring in the deficit and the debt if done responsibly and the new revenue is not used and abused for anything or than debt reduction.
Check Canada in the 90’s
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
The government does produce goods. They are public goods that the market cannot produce. The first fundamental theory of welfare economics dictates that under certain conditions a pareto efficient allocation of resources (invisible hand) can occur so long as there is:
- multiple competitors
- no information asymetry (open information between customers and sellers)
- no monopolies (incomplete markets)
In some instances government has to produce public goods such as national defense, clean air, roads etc…
Road work can be contracted out to be delivered but it is owned by everyone. If people owned roads it is a market failure as they have a monopoly without anyone competing for that road.
As the theory states anyways.
***But yes I do believe government is always going to be big because of Parkinson’s Law.
*** A combination of expenditure cuts and slight tax increase can bring in the deficit and the debt if done responsibly and the new revenue is not used and abused for anything or than debt reduction.
Check Canada in the 90’s[/quote]
Good grief, Nick, those aren’t “goods.” For cryin’ out loud you’re talking regulations.
Even in the case of national defense or roads the government doesn’t produce one single piece of goods. Not one.
Stop it.[/quote]
No I am talking about the difference between a private market created good and a public good that government creates such as national defence. Your protection is provided because the government provides national defence which is a public good. A good that is not transaction based but produced as a good for all to have.
This is just the language that is in a first year micro-economics textbook. It is just semantics.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn’t equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.
[/quote]
Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides’ tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.
[/quote]
That’s 3x median Household income according to the last census. I think upper middle class people are by definition, rich. They just aren’t the most rich. [/quote]
Ok that’s cool man, if your end game is $175k/year to make yourself feel rich that’s fine, but you don’t get to pick and choose your own definition of rich based on your own current salary and ambitions.
[/quote]
Why don’t you write a check to the Treasury if you are so hell bent on raising taxes on the rich? No one is stopping you.
You are rich because your income defines you as rich by the IRS. [/quote]
Most lefties just want to spend other people’s money Max. I laughed when I saw the amount that Joe Biden gave to charity last year. It was something like $5,500 dollars. The cheap bastard wants to steal money from those of us who have succeeded but he can’t quite open his own wallet and give to those less fortunate.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
The government does produce goods. They are public goods that the market cannot produce. The first fundamental theory of welfare economics dictates that under certain conditions a pareto efficient allocation of resources (invisible hand) can occur so long as there is:
- multiple competitors
- no information asymetry (open information between customers and sellers)
- no monopolies (incomplete markets)
In some instances government has to produce public goods such as national defense, clean air, roads etc…
Road work can be contracted out to be delivered but it is owned by everyone. If people owned roads it is a market failure as they have a monopoly without anyone competing for that road.
As the theory states anyways.
***But yes I do believe government is always going to be big because of Parkinson’s Law.
*** A combination of expenditure cuts and slight tax increase can bring in the deficit and the debt if done responsibly and the new revenue is not used and abused for anything or than debt reduction.
Check Canada in the 90’s[/quote]
The government’s job is to protect us from foreign and domestic threats, have basic laws and consequences for breaking those laws to keep us from killing each other, and that’s about it. The government does not manufacture goods in the same manner as a company. It is to make goods for us, once we have provided the funds for doing so, in cases like you pointed out, roads.
The gov’t produces clean air? What are you talking about?
Sure, there are basic laws in place to keep companies from selfishly polluting the shit out of the environment and screwing over society as a whole, but that’s entirely different. But a company with profit as its motive does the same thing as government, where money is not much of an issue (hey, we can always print more), and the company can always do it more efficiently.
Government influence does things like bail out companies that deserve to go under. If the company went bankrupt in the first place, generally speaking, it was because of bad policies, unrealistic expectations, and corruption. So why would you artificially keep them alive? That’s exactly the kind of company that SHOULD go out of business.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
The government does produce goods. They are public goods that the market cannot produce. The first fundamental theory of welfare economics dictates that under certain conditions a pareto efficient allocation of resources (invisible hand) can occur so long as there is:
- multiple competitors
- no information asymetry (open information between customers and sellers)
- no monopolies (incomplete markets)
In some instances government has to produce public goods such as national defense, clean air, roads etc…
Road work can be contracted out to be delivered but it is owned by everyone. If people owned roads it is a market failure as they have a monopoly without anyone competing for that road.
As the theory states anyways.
***But yes I do believe government is always going to be big because of Parkinson’s Law.
*** A combination of expenditure cuts and slight tax increase can bring in the deficit and the debt if done responsibly and the new revenue is not used and abused for anything or than debt reduction.
Check Canada in the 90’s[/quote]
Good grief, Nick, those aren’t “goods.” For cryin’ out loud you’re talking regulations.
Even in the case of national defense or roads the government doesn’t produce one single piece of goods. Not one.
Stop it.[/quote]
No I am talking about the difference between a private market created good and a public good that government creates such as national defence. Your protection is provided because the government provides national defence which is a public good. A good that is not transaction based but produced as a good for all to have.
This is just the language that is in a first year micro-economics textbook. It is just semantics.[/quote]
Military is not a “good”. Enlisting people to defend the nation against enemies =/= a car, toaster, house, clothes, food, etc.
Schiff is great. Touch of Chicken Little blended perfectly into a smart dude, with a dash of crazy.
Good stuff.