Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

I've posted articles on here about businesses fleeing California. Turns out the land of fruits and nuts can't even keep the porn industry in state.

Porn Industry Says Viva Las Vegas After California Condom Law « CBS Sacramento

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I've posted articles on here about businesses fleeing California. Turns out the land of fruits and nuts can't even keep the porn industry in state.

Porn Industry Says Viva Las Vegas After California Condom Law « CBS Sacramento

Oh this one hurts.

No more seeing porn stars at the gas station in the SF Valley.

 

[Bluto]

I've posted articles on here about businesses fleeing California. Turns out the land of fruits and nuts can't even keep the porn industry in state.

Porn Industry Says Viva Las Vegas After California Condom Law « CBS Sacramento

A net positive in my opinion. Now all the flakes that move from the Midwest to make it in Hollywood will move back out of state (Nevada) when that doesn't workout.

 

[chicago51]

I've seen a federal government wage a 50 year war on poverty, spend trillions of dollars, and have little to show for it. SS, medicaid and medicare are all bankrupt by 2030, says the CBO.

Social Security as an anti poverty program has worked. Prior to the SS Act elderly had the highest level of poverty now they are the least.

Medicare was abused for generations, now things have gotten tighter but the efficiency of it can certainly be improved so that is fair criticism.

Medicaid? Even if we didn't have Medicaid we'd still be paying for it with even higher insurance rates. When poor people not on Medicaid get sick they show up in the ER in critical condition the insured end up paying for them with higher rates.

I agree we should be spending less on food stamps. Majority of food stamp recipients aren't unemployed mooching bums they are low usually minimum wage workers and children. If we had better wages food stamp spending would be much better.

For those want to cut food stamps fine I don't agree but if you feel we can't afford food stamps I don't how you support the same politicians that push for billions in agriculture subsidies to big farming that does need it. I call that socialism. See as much as conservatives yell "socialism" many of them aren't really conservatives has push more and more spending to giant farmers and they want to call others socialist. The majority conservatives are totally fake. I think true conservatives like Jefferson who was certainly more Republican than Democrat in his views on the role of government would be heavily critical of both today's Republican and Democrat parties for pusing such a socialist agenda for all the corporate subsidies not only to farmers but to the oil industry, and other corporate giants. It fascinates how those focused on the spending debate don't focus on the worst kind of socialist spending, corporate subsidies.

 

[Buster Bluth]

No, and it's very simple why. The government doesn't produce anything and therefore doesn't have any money of its own. Their only source of funding is confiscation of your personal property through taxation. Helping the poor is a noble goal, but it doesn't justify theft.

Taxes are theft?

Any child can tell you that two wrongs don't make a right, or that you shouldn't rob Peter to pay Paul, but this whole system is built upon the ends justifying the means. As long as a program is intended to "help the poor" or "keep us safe," they can do whatever they want to us, regardless of the violation of rights or just plain ineffectiveness. Conservatives aren't "greed is good" hypocrites, but Gordon Gekko has been the perfect strawman for liberals for years.

For someone complaining about Gordon Gekko finger pointing, you do a pretty awful job of representing opposing views.

Greed is evil, but you have the right to be greedy, since it's not my business to codify my notion of evil into the tax laws.

I'd like some elaboration here please.

For decades now we have removed basic math and logic and substituted both for emotion. As long as a program makes us "feel good" or noble, for God's sake we have to keep it or even grow it.

What happens in 2030 when these three major programs are BANKRUPT?

Using some of that "basic math and logic," it's not hard to see solutions to all three of those programs. Emotion is precisely what's getting in the way; it doesn't help when the GOP is handcuffed by people who want to eliminate/destroy these programs and think that taxes are theft/robbery.

What then will you say to people who "fall on hard times" and there is no government nanny program to save them?

You think that Social Security/Medcaid/Medicare is the government being a nanny? Are you kidding me?

I can promise you three things: there will still be poverty in this country, the government won't be able to fix it, and the taxpayers (you and I included) will have been robbed through taxation and not repaid when those three programs have sunk.

But hey, it makes you feel like you're helping the poor and the Democrats are really in it for the "middle class."

I'll never understand why anyone thinks the federal government has a right to tax people at higher rates simply because they have a higher income.

Are you serious? It's common sense.

I don't understand, looking at the long term social impacts of capitalism (both positive and negative), how one could think the progressive tax structure isn't far more sensible than a flat tax. It seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Buster Bluth]

if we ever do, it will be our responsibility to get ourselves through it. If others in our community choose to help us, great. But I do not believe it is the governments 'job' or responsibility to do it. Are you really willing to give up some of your individual liberty for that false sense of security that this government is going to 'take care of you or your family"?

I've facepalmed enough in just the last page of this thread. This is too much.

The world you speak of strikes me as abhorrently uncivilized. I get the fear of a federal government acting too paternally, I really do. But Social Security, unemployment, food stamps, etc all do really great things for this country. I don't even know how you can see otherwise. Are there flaws? Yes. But programs are versions 1.0 or 10.0, and can always we changed and improved over the years. I welcome any and all constructive criticisms, but the assault of the merits of these programs pisses me off to no end.

I'm saying this in general not to you, the idea that we don't live in a society and that someone and their neighbor aren't inherently tied together due to that society is so utterly stupid that I have no respect for someone who would choose to espouse those beliefs.

show me where in the Constitution where it states that is one of the responsibilities of the Federal government? Contrary to liberal beliefs, this country didn't start after the New Deal

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Higher the income tax, the more money that goes offshore.


Would like to hear people's opinions on Inheritance and Estate taxes.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I've always found "insure domestic tranquility" to be an under appreciated part of the Constitution. A lot of these welfare programs are defended under the relatively wimpy category of fairness. Really, they should be viewed as insurance against insurrection. Radically unequal distributions of wealth lead to hopelessness, crime, and- ultimately- revolution.

As to why wealthy people are taxed at a higher rate than non-wealthy people? a) they're really not. While the income tax is progressive, things like sales taxes (regressive) and capital gains (neutral, but incredibly favorable towards the wealthy) are not. No wealthy person with a brain is paying the full income tax on all their earnings. However, even if they were, it would make sense. Taxes are societies way of paying for collective goods and services. Obviously, those collective goods and services are of greater value to a wealthy person than to a poor person. Take police as an example. One of the primary functions of police is to protect private property. Wealthy people have significantly more private property, therefore they derive more value from the services of police.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Higher the income tax, the more money that goes offshore.

I'm not an advocate of higher income taxes, but I doubt that the bottom 97% of Americans would 1) know how to 2) want to (due to effort and cost) move their money offshore.

Would like to hear people's opinions on Inheritance and Estate taxes.

I think estate taxes are a bandaid on the problem of not raising capital gains taxes on gains over X amount.

99.5% of Americans should be able to use their (already-taxed) income to grow their wealth at a very low tax rate, like 5%. But the top .5% of Americans, who own such huge amounts of this country, and can sit back and play the markets and acquire more and more assets...that rubs me the wrong way. I think it would rub my two favorite Presidents, Jefferson and Roosevelt, the wrong way too.

If I'm reading this correctly, it only applies to the super wealthy anyway and they find a way to only get richer and richer. Seems alright to me.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I've always found "insure domestic tranquility" to be an under appreciated part of the Constitution. A lot of these welfare programs are defended under the relatively wimpy category of fairness. Really, they should be viewed as insurance against insurrection. Radically unequal distributions of wealth lead to hopelessness, crime, and- ultimately- revolution.

As to why wealthy people are taxed at a higher rate than non-wealthy people? a) they're really not. While the income tax is progressive, things like sales taxes (regressive) and capital gains (neutral, but incredibly favorable towards the wealthy) are not. No wealthy person with a brain is paying the full income tax on all their earnings. However, even if they were, it would make sense. Taxes are societies way of paying for collective goods and services. Obviously, those collective goods and services are of greater value to a wealthy person than to a poor person. Take police as an example. One of the primary functions of police is to protect private property. Wealthy people have significantly more private property, therefore they derive more value from the services of police.

 

[chicago51]

I'll never understand why anyone thinks the federal government has a right to tax people at higher rates simply because they have a higher income.

For one it makes sense economically. You want morey in the hands of the people that spend it not save it.

Also wealth can be a danger to the state.

It doesn't really work out that way anyway. Social Security taxes is only taxable up to around 110k. So that a wealthy individual doesn't pay SS tax on most of their income.

Plus since Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich made their budget deal capital gains taxes are less than middle class income taxes. Most of the really wealthy pay themselves in stock options so they pay a much lower tax rate than working families.

Edit: I post slow other posters beat me to my ideas.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I personally think inheritance and estate taxes are terrible. Besides, they are the easiest taxes to get around, any half-ass financial planner can get around them.

I'm okay with a fair tax plan, double taxation is not part of that. '


I have no problem with families acquiring vast sums of money, since wealth is not a zero sum game.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

For one it makes sense economically. You want morey in the hands of the people that spend it not save it.

Also wealth can be a danger to the state.

It doesn't really work out that way anyway. Social Security taxes is only taxable up to around 110k. So that a wealthy individual doesn't pay SS tax on most of their income.

Plus since Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich made their budget deal capital gains taxes are less than middle class income taxes. Most of the really wealthy pay themselves in stock options so they pay a much lower tax rate than working families.

More money in savings accounts = more money lent out by banks

 

[chicago51]

I really think capital gains being taxed differently is a huge problem.

I also dare I say agree with Mitt Romney on closing the corporate loopholes.

I know 2012 presidential candidate Barack Obama said he wanted to close loopholes to reduce the deficit but I really think he should do revenue neutral tax reform like the Republicans say they want . I am disappointed he won't do this sort of deal. Assuming the income tax is cut across the board and not mostly at the top end then I think it would probably really increase consumer spending and help the economy.

 

[IrishinSyria]

 

[chicago51]

More money in savings accounts = more money lent out by banks

If you want more money let out the banks we should break up the banking giants and create more competition among lenders. Banks would lend more generously if they had to compete with more competitors for business.

Edit: I would like to add that investing has a big role but the role of consumer spending is more significiant.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

If you want more money let out the banks we should break up the banking giants and create more competition among lenders. Banks would lend more generously if they had to compete with more competitors for business.

You need to do more research.


Banks aren't going to "lend more generously" just because they are bigger. It is all about risk-reward and rate of return.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

A net positive in my opinion. Now all the flakes that move from the Midwest to make it in Hollywood will move back out of state (Nevada) when that doesn't workout.

The state will miss the taxes lol. Billion dollar industry going bye bye

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Social Security as an anti poverty program has worked. Prior to the SS Act elderly had the highest level of poverty now they are the least.

Medicare was abused for generations, now things have gotten tighter but the efficiency of it can certainly be improved so that is fair criticism.

Medicaid? Even if we didn't have Medicaid we'd still be paying for it with even higher insurance rates. When poor people not on Medicaid get sick they show up in the ER in critical condition the insured end up paying for them with higher rates.

I agree we should be spending less on food stamps. Majority of food stamp recipients aren't unemployed mooching bums they are low usually minimum wage workers and children. If we had better wages food stamp spending would be much better.

For those want to cut food stamps fine I don't agree but if you feel we can't afford food stamps I don't how you support the same politicians that push for billions in agriculture subsidies to big farming that does need it. I call that socialism. See as much as conservatives yell "socialism" many of them aren't really conservatives has push more and more spending to giant farmers and they want to call others socialist. The majority conservatives are totally fake. I think true conservatives like Jefferson who was certainly more Republican than Democrat in his views on the role of government would be heavily critical of both today's Republican and Democrat parties for pusing such a socialist agenda for all the corporate subsidies not only to farmers but to the oil industry, and other corporate giants. It fascinates how those focused on the spending debate don't focus on the worst kind of socialist spending, corporate subsidies.

OK, Chicago. Let's play a game and assume (although incorrect) that all three programs have been successful. They're all still broke come 2030 and gone. So what solution/ new program will big government offer?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I've facepalmed enough in just the last page of this thread. This is too much.
The world you speak of strikes me as abhorrently uncivilized. I get the fear of a federal government acting too paternally, I really do. But Social Security, unemployment, food stamps, etc all do really great things for this country. I don't even know how you can see otherwise. Are there flaws? Yes. But programs are versions 1.0 or 10.0, and can always we changed and improved over the years. I welcome any and all constructive criticisms, but the assault of the merits of these programs pisses me off to no end.

I'm saying this in general not to you, the idea that we don't live in a society and that someone and their neighbor aren't inherently tied together due to that society is so utterly stupid that I have no respect for someone who would choose to espouse those beliefs.

Smartest guy in the room everywhere he goes!

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Taxes are theft?

For someone complaining about Gordon Gekko finger pointing, you do a pretty awful job of representing opposing views.



I'd like some elaboration here please.



Using some of that "basic math and logic," it's not hard to see solutions to all three of those programs. Emotion is precisely what's getting in the way; it doesn't help when the GOP is handcuffed by people who want to eliminate/destroy these programs and think that taxes are theft/robbery.



You think that Social Security/Medcaid/Medicare is the government being a nanny? Are you kidding me?

Are you serious? It's common sense.

I don't understand, looking at the long term social impacts of capitalism (both positive and negative), how one could think the progressive tax structure isn't far more sensible than a flat tax. It seems pretty obvious to me.

I just facepalmed. Thanks, Buster.

 

[Buster Bluth]

OK, Chicago. Let's play a game and assume (although incorrect) that all three programs have been successful. They're all still broke come 2030 and gone. So what solution/ new program will big government offer?

Have you done even a modicum of research into proposed solutions? Or does that get in the way of Glenn Beck hopeless-government-buy-my-book time?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Have you done even a modicum of research into proposed solutions? Or does that get in the way of Glenn Beck hopeless-government-buy-my-book time?

No, not my job, but anyone who passed 4th grade math knows those three programs are done come 2030. And the scene will not be pretty when certain things people are entitled to all of a sudden disappear. See: Europe in the past 5 years.

Not sure where the Glenn Beck thing came from: I don't watch him, listen to him, or have any of his books. I do like Andrew Wilkow, Mark Levin, Mark Steyn, Judge Naopolitano, among others.

 

[wizards8507]

Have you done even a modicum of research into proposed solutions? Or does that get in the way of Glenn Beck hopeless-government-buy-my-book time?

Solution: Let people opt out. For seniors who have built their lives around these promises, let them receive their benefits. Let ANYONE stay within the system for that matter. All I ask for is a way to politely decline future benefits in exchange for keeping my contributions to invest or bury in the backyard as I see fit.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Corry]

No, not my job, but anyone who passed 4th grade math knows those three programs are done come 2030. And the scene will not be pretty when certain things people are entitled to all of a sudden disappear. See: Europe in the past 5 years.

Not sure where the Glenn Beck thing came from: I don't watch him, listen to him, or have any of his books. I do like Andrew Wilkow, Mark Levin, Mark Steyn, Judge Naopolitano, among others.

Not sure I understand what you mean by done in 2030. Just because SS will not no longer be self sustaining doesn't mean it will be done. It will just start costing money. In my opinion from 2030-2050 you can keep the program as is, and by 2050 once the last of the baby boomers start to die off the program goes back to being solvent. Having 20 years of SS in the red is better, at least in my opinion, than blowing the program up completely.

 

[wizards8507]

Not sure I understand what you mean by done in 2030. Just because SS will not no longer be self sustaining doesn't mean it will be done. It will just start costing money. In my opinion from 2030-2050 you can keep the program as is, and by 2050 once the last of the baby boomers start to die off the program goes back to being solvent. Having 20 years of SS in the red is better, at least in my opinion, than blowing the program up completely.

The baby boomer issue is a myth. The Millennials are a much larger generation. SS was an unsustainable model from the beginning.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Black Irish]

I'll pull out my Social Security dead horse and beat it some more. America would be in better shape with regard to SS if we viewed it and implemented it as an anti-poverty program for the elderly, as others here have said. That was the original intent. But then it turned into a national pension plan, and instead of SS taxes being seen as just more money that you pay the government for them to spend on the less fortunate, your SS taxes became an investment. So everyone wants their piece come their 65th birthday. As long as you don't have income above x number of dollars, you get a SS check. Nevermind how much cash you have in the bank, or under your mattress, or if you have a nice pension or a juicy investment portfolio. That's bunk. Save SS for the old people who are down on their luck and increase the pay out so that those dollars can really stretch enough to help them. Cut SS off for people who don't need it. Turn it back into a welfare program, eliminate separate SS taxes, and just make it another social program expenditure (it already is anyway, the SS "trust fund" is an accounting sham).

As for Medicaid, I think that as a civilized society, we should take care of the less fortunate. But we need to do a better job of moving people out of poverty instead of just throwing money and benefits at them. Increase the amount of help we give poor people, but also up the expected return of responsible behavior. "We'll do this for you but we expect some incremental improvements in your situation because you are trying to better yourself (education, job training, etc)."

Medicare? The problem is not with the program itself so much as it is the circumstances that make it necessary. Since most people get their health insurance through their job, when they stop working, they don't have health insurance. (Of course, one of the reasons people stop working is so they can start collecting that sweet Social Security money. So taxpayers get hit with a double-whammy when people retire; we start paying out for both SS checks and Medicare payments). If there was a more competitive, less distorted health insurance marketplace out there, people could buy their own health insurance at a reasonable rate. But, we are moving further away from that possibility with Obamacare coming into effect.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...But we need to do a better job of moving people out of poverty instead of just throwing money and benefits at them. Increase the amount of help we give poor people, but also up the expected return of responsible behavior. "We'll do this for you but we expect some incremental improvements in your situation because you are trying to better yourself (education, job training, etc)..."

Why, it looks fine to me

 

[MJ12666]

I'll pull out my Social Security dead horse and beat it some more. America would be in better shape with regard to SS if we viewed it and implemented it as an anti-poverty program for the elderly, as others here have said. That was the original intent. But then it turned into a national pension plan, and instead of SS taxes being seen as just more money that you pay the government for them to spend on the less fortunate, your SS taxes became an investment. So everyone wants their piece come their 65th birthday. As long as you don't have income above x number of dollars, you get a SS check. Nevermind how much cash you have in the bank, or under your mattress, or if you have a nice pension or a juicy investment portfolio. That's bunk. Save SS for the old people who are down on their luck and increase the pay out so that those dollars can really stretch enough to help them. Cut SS off for people who don't need it. Turn it back into a welfare program, eliminate separate SS taxes, and just make it another social program expenditure (it already is anyway, the SS "trust fund" is an accounting sham).

As for Medicaid, I think that as a civilized society, we should take care of the less fortunate. But we need to do a better job of moving people out of poverty instead of just throwing money and benefits at them. Increase the amount of help we give poor people, but also up the expected return of responsible behavior. "We'll do this for you but we expect some incremental improvements in your situation because you are trying to better yourself (education, job training, etc)."

Medicare? The problem is not with the program itself so much as it is the circumstances that make it necessary. Since most people get their health insurance through their job, when they stop working, they don't have health insurance. (Of course, one of the reasons people stop working is so they can start collecting that sweet Social Security money. So taxpayers get hit with a double-whammy when people retire; we start paying out for both SS checks and Medicare payments). If there was a more competitive, less distorted health insurance marketplace out there, people could buy their own health insurance at a reasonable rate. But, we are moving further away from that possibility with Obamacare coming into effect.

Did you know that when SS was first implemented individuals would start recieving benefits at 65 but the life expectancy was 62 and there was no "means" testing. So exactly how does this equate to as an anti-poverty program for the elderly?

 

[chicago51]

Did you know that when SS was first implemented individuals would start recieving benefits at 65 but the life expectancy was 62 and there was no "means" testing. So exactly how does this equate to as an anti-poverty program for the elderly?

Social Security wasn't means teste because besides lifting seniors that really couldn't work anymore of poverty it was designed to get people out of the workforce. The unemployment rate would be insane today if not for SS. The economy because technological efficency, outsourcing, and other factors is having difficulty supporting the current work force.

The elderly had the hiest povert rate in the 1930s. Flash forward to 2013 seniors now have the lowest poverty rate, unfortunately children are now have the highest poverty rate. So regardless of it intention the anti-poverty impact of SS really can't be argued.

I am all for changing benifit calculations or doing other fixes to make SS last longer but I don't see how ending a program that has been so successful is going to fix America. How do expect the economy to support an increase of people working into their 70s when they don't have SS to fall back on when they reach retirement.