PDA

View Full Version : tPF Why I am confused



AZ Jim
06-23-2017, 04:45 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.

Chris
06-23-2017, 04:49 PM
How do you know what's in my best interests, what I value and want--let alone the same for everyone else?

Now I happen to agree, I don't think this administration serves my best interests, but neither did the last one, and the one before that, ad infinitum.

Private Pickle
06-23-2017, 04:57 PM
How do you know what's in my best interests, what I value and want--let alone the same for everyone else?

Now I happen to agree, I don't think this administration serves my best interests, but neither did the last one, and the one before that, ad infinitum.

/thread



Thread banned by OP.

AZ Jim
06-23-2017, 04:59 PM
How do you know what's in my best interests, what I value and want--let alone the same for everyone else?

Now I happen to agree, I don't think this administration serves my best interests, but neither did the last one, and the one before that, ad infinitum. Degrees chris. Degrees of intent.

Common
06-23-2017, 05:03 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.
Just what I assume you mean the GOP what are they trying to take away from you.

Stopping illegal immigration is in your interest, the billions they spend on illegals is money that can be spent for the safety nets for Americans.

I could go on, but I dont believe any amount of facts would convince you

Docthehun
06-23-2017, 05:03 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.

"There, but for the grace of God, go I."

AZ Jim
06-23-2017, 05:04 PM
"There, but for the grace of God, go I."Exactly Doc....

AZ Jim
06-23-2017, 05:07 PM
Just what I assume you mean the GOP what are they trying to take away from you.

Stopping illegal immigration is in your interest, the billions they spend on illegals is money that can be spent for the safety nets for Americans.

I could go on, but I dont believe any amount of facts would convince youIllegal immigration has NO bearing in this question. Will YOU, YOURS, be untouched by the tragedies that have and will befall others?

stjames1_53
06-23-2017, 05:10 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.

the lesson, here Jim, is never count on government to take care of you or your loved ones. That is your/their responsibility, not the government. What the government gives, it can take away

stjames1_53
06-23-2017, 05:15 PM
Exactly Doc....

you should know better than anyone in here. It doesn't take but a blink of an eye for things to go real bad. We try to live healthy lives and bad sh!t happens to everybody. It is called Life and there is no escaping the pitfalls.......very scant few get to pick how they go out,
I'm not much of a romantic when it comes to death............

Captain Obvious
06-23-2017, 05:16 PM
I vote for what I believe is better for the nation, not myself.

If the nation thrives, so will I.

I don't want someone elses charity to succeed.


Thread banned by OP - direct complaints to that member.

AZ Jim
06-23-2017, 05:16 PM
the lesson, here Jim, is never count on government to take care of you or your loved ones. That is your/their responsibility, not the government. What the government gives, it can take awayThe depth of your replies reflects your lack of understanding of any "normal" person to withstand calamity. People who lived through Katrina understand things you cannot deal with alone.

Cletus
06-23-2017, 05:16 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.

Jim, it really is very simple. The government does not exist to take care of you. It has certain constitutionally mandated duties and responsibilities and that is all it should be doing. The only way it can do more than what it is supposed to do is to take something away from you. There is no such thing as a free lunch and if you want something, you have give up something, and in the case of government, that something is part of your freedom. Every time the government steps outside its constitutional mandate, it takes a little bit more of your freedom away.

Charity is not a legitimate function of government and since the only way charity can benefit someone is if they receive more than they give, that means the government has to take from someone else to give to them. I don't want to ride on the back of my fellow citizens. I want them to be able to keep the fruits of their labor just as I want to be able to keep mine. I want to make my own decisions, right or wrong, and be responsible for the outcome.

The more the government gives you, the more it controls you.

stjames1_53
06-23-2017, 05:22 PM
The depth of your replies reflects your lack of understanding of any "normal" person to withstand calamity. People who lived through Katrina understand things you cannot deal with alone.
you have know idea of what I've been through, under the situation you stated, there is no "normal" during such an event.
Help your neighbor, if you can, Don't beat yourself up if you cannot. simple rules for living.
By the way, I went down there for 6 months to help friends rebuild, 2 months after. I was there and you could never imagine the stench, the destruction. But I didn't beat myself up because I couldn't help more than I did.

jimmyz
06-23-2017, 05:22 PM
The depth of your replies reflects your lack of understanding of any "normal" person to withstand calamity. People who lived through Katrina understand things you cannot deal with alone.

The people affected by Katrina where warned to leave town immediately. The chose to stay. It's on them.

Cthulhu
06-23-2017, 05:24 PM
Degrees chris. Degrees of intent.
Intent means jack...I care about results.

The last 15 years of politics have not improved the nation one iota.

Simply put, some people are willing to not care for themselves because they are not selfish at the expense of others.

I don't need mother welfare and father state to look after me. I already have real parents who taught me well enough.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Safety
06-23-2017, 05:24 PM
The depth of your replies reflects your lack of understanding of any "normal" person to withstand calamity. People who lived through Katrina understand things you cannot deal with alone.

But, there will be those that say those people were warned to leave, without the cs to understand that some people don't have the means to leave.

stjames1_53
06-23-2017, 05:28 PM
But, there will be those that say those people were warned to leave, without the cs to understand that some people don't have the means to leave.
so, we're responsible for their lack of common sense?
with as much notice as they received, that freakin' town should have been a ghost town. There were people who didn't want to leave, as well.

Chris
06-23-2017, 05:28 PM
Degrees chris. Degrees of intent.

It feels like 107°.

Degrees works, make it small scale, like the revolutionaries who wrote the Articles of Confederation wanted it.

AZ Jim
06-23-2017, 05:28 PM
I started this with the idea that one or more might emphasize with someone they love and how mean legislation might treat them, it's obvious the majority on this board are above being touched by the things I referred to. I give up. Thanks for trying.

stjames1_53
06-23-2017, 05:32 PM
I started this with the idea that one or more might emphasize with someone they love and how mean legislation might treat them, it's obvious the majority on this board are above being touched by the things I referred to. I give up. Thanks for trying.

what you tried to do is force us to be emotional about a thinking problem....vast difference

AZ Jim
06-23-2017, 05:36 PM
what you tried to do is force us to be emotional about a thinking problem....vast differenceNo, I tried to illustrate what society means, but it's beyond you.

Dr. Who
06-23-2017, 05:45 PM
The people affected by Katrina where warned to leave town immediately. The chose to stay. It's on them.

They couldn't take their houses with them. Their insurance did not cover flood because insurers were averse to offering flood coverage. When your house is destroyed by a natural disaster and there is no compensation available, that often represents that person's investment in their own future. A home is a nest egg for most people and often the most stable investment a person can make. Stock markets rise and fall. People's market investments can be all but wiped out - see 2008. Is it good public policy to turn your back on responsible citizens who just had the rug pulled out from underneath them?

Cletus
06-23-2017, 06:00 PM
Nobody has turned their backs on them.

It is not a legitimate function of government to pay for their lack of preparedness.

jimmyz
06-23-2017, 06:25 PM
I started this with the idea that one or more might emphasize with someone they love and how mean legislation might treat them, it's obvious the majority on this board are above being touched by the things I referred to. I give up. Thanks for trying.

Come on man. Re-read our wishing you well and recovery in several threads. And the same to others here with problems on their hands.

jimmyz
06-23-2017, 06:35 PM
They couldn't take their houses with them. Their insurance did not cover flood because insurers were averse to offering flood coverage. When your house is destroyed by a natural disaster and there is no compensation available, that often represents that person's investment in their own future. A home is a nest egg for most people and often the most stable investment a person can make. Stock markets rise and fall. People's market investments can be all but wiped out - see 2008. Is it good public policy to turn your back on responsible citizens who just had the rug pulled out from underneath them?

There are many many insurance companies in New Orleans writing homeowners policies. I know because I googled it. They gambled and they lost either through stupidity or apathy.

Dr. Who
06-23-2017, 06:37 PM
There are many many insurance companies in New Orleans writing homeowners policies. I know because I googled it. They gambled and they lost either through stupidity or apathy.

I can guarantee that most of them did not offer overland flood coverage.

stjames1_53
06-23-2017, 06:40 PM
No, I tried to illustrate what society means, but it's beyond you.

you mean a "social" society. WE are not obligated to help others. We must want to do it, within reason. There are limits to reason.
I help where I want, when I want, without dictation from some bureaucrat or central government that tells I must. That is each Individual's Right to choose.
Family first, always. You do what you can for family. You do what you need.
That's not self-centered, that's reasonable.

decedent
06-23-2017, 06:41 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.

Tribalism.

stjames1_53
06-23-2017, 06:43 PM
Tribalism.

guess you could say that about both sides of the fence

jimmyz
06-23-2017, 06:46 PM
I can guarantee that most of them did not offer overland flood coverage.

About Flood Insurance in the New Orleans area

Who is Eligible for Flood Insurance Coverage?Federally subsidized flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program is available to homes and businesses throughout Southeast Louisiana.

Residential flood insurance provided by the National Flood Insurance Program is available to homeowners, condo owners, mobile and modular home owners as well as renters of homes, apartments and condos. Flood Insurance is also available for vacant homes.

Link - http://alliance-ins.com/flood-insurance/flood-insurance.html

Chris
06-23-2017, 06:49 PM
No, I tried to illustrate what society means, but it's beyond you.

Society is what/who we should depend upon rather than the government.

Dr. Who
06-23-2017, 06:50 PM
About Flood Insurance in the New Orleans area

Who is Eligible for Flood Insurance Coverage?Federally subsidized flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program is available to homes and businesses throughout Southeast Louisiana.

Residential flood insurance provided by the National Flood Insurance Program is available to homeowners, condo owners, mobile and modular home owners as well as renters of homes, apartments and condos. Flood Insurance is also available for vacant homes.

Link - http://alliance-ins.com/flood-insurance/flood-insurance.html
That is not insurance companies, that is government insurance that is offered because insurance companies won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

resister
06-23-2017, 06:54 PM
I lived thru hurricane Charlie in 2004 and happen to agree with St James. What hurricanes have you lived thru AZ Jim?

I think you listen to much to the Elizabeth Warrens of the world. So what is this administration taking from you and yours that Hillary would of given you?

jimmyz
06-23-2017, 07:03 PM
That is not insurance companies, that is government insurance that is offered because insurance companies won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Liberty Mutual (a very big national Insurance carrier) will write a policy for NO right now. I'm sure there are more that will but I didn't want to spend too much time on it.

Edit - Katrina victims with mortgages are mandated to carry homeowners insurance by the mortgage lender. Katrina victims that owned their homes outright either did have insurance or chose not to of their own free will. Katrina victims that rented and had no renters insurance did so of their own free will. It's on them.

jimmyz
06-23-2017, 07:10 PM
My guess is that most of the Katrina victims in the lower 9th ward were renters.

Dr. Who
06-23-2017, 07:46 PM
Liberty Mutual (a very big national Insurance carrier) will write a policy for NO right now. I'm sure there are more that will but I didn't want to spend too much time on it.

Edit - Katrina victims with mortgages are mandated to carry homeowners insurance by the mortgage lender. Katrina victims that owned their homes outright either did have insurance or chose not to of their own free will. Katrina victims that rented and had no renters insurance did so of their own free will. It's on them.
You can get overland flood coverage on commercial policies or on high-end residential policies, but general residential policies exclude it and most people would be unable to afford the coverage. The government product is seriously subsidized, but still may be more than people can afford. NO is an extremely high risk flood zone. Most new developments are below sea level. That shouldn't even be allowed by responsible government, but greed is a major factor. The average person doesn't understand what a flood plain is, nevermind why you shouldn't live there.

resister
06-23-2017, 07:49 PM
You can get overland flood coverage on commercial policies or on high-end residential policies, but general residential policies exclude it and most people would be unable to afford the coverage. The government product is seriously subsidized, but still may be more than people can afford. NO is an extremely high risk flood zone. Most new developments are below sea level. That shouldn't even be allowed by responsible government, but greed is a major factor. The average person doesn't understand what a flood plain is, nevermind why you shouldn't live there.
In the floodplains of the peace river, people have the good sense to build stilt houses. Where I was digging fossils in 15 inches of water 3 weeks ago, the water is now 7 ft deep.

Peter1469
06-23-2017, 08:04 PM
I voted 3rd party. In my view all the people who voted (D) are (R) are the problem.

How do you feel about that?


I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.

Mister D
06-23-2017, 08:06 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.
Allow me. You are not one to determine what is in the best interests of others. Less confused now?

Mister D
06-23-2017, 08:08 PM
I see the obvious response to this stupid question was given immediately. I would only add that this is part and parcel of liberalism in so far as humna existence is reduced to materialism.

Dr. Who
06-23-2017, 08:15 PM
In the floodplains of the peace river, people have the good sense to build stilt houses. Where I was digging fossils in 15 inches of water 3 weeks ago, the water is now 7 ft deep.

Old communities figured it out. Residential developers are allowed to do as they please, knowing that eventually, the entire community will be under water because heaven forbid that any law should exist that stops someone from making money from a bad idea. No instead government allows entrepreneurs to take advantage of people who believe that if that developer has a permit to build, it must be safe.

Common
06-23-2017, 08:29 PM
Illegal immigration has NO bearing in this question. Will YOU, YOURS, be untouched by the tragedies that have and will befall others?
It has everything to do with your question when you ask what they are taking from you and you specifically asked why people vote against their best interests. The single biggest issue people vote against their best interest on is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, it takes billions and billions from what could be going to americans

resister
06-23-2017, 08:46 PM
It has everything to do with your question when you ask what they are taking from you and you specifically asked why people vote against their best interests. The single biggest issue people vote against their best interest on is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, it takes billions and billions from what could be going to americansDouble thanks You are a great poster and an asset to TPF....no wink, no nudge.

Common
06-23-2017, 08:52 PM
Double thanks You are a great poster and an asset to TPF....no wink, no nudge.

Youre the only one that thinks that, you shouldnt tell anyone lol

Trish
06-23-2017, 09:05 PM
If we learned nothing from this seed I think we can honestly say we've learned that the United States no longer exists. We are a group of States that have been stitched together.

People vote against their own best interests because they don't want to admit that they are using the services or they simply don't understand it's against their own interest.

Welcome to the new America. Every man for himself.

Peter1469
06-23-2017, 09:13 PM
If we learned nothing from this seed I think we can honestly say we've learned that the United States no longer exists. We are a group of States that have been stitched together.

People vote against their own best interests because they don't want to admit that they are using the services or they simply don't understand it's against their own interest.

Welcome to the new America. Every man for himself.


That isn't the case, it is those who demand cradle to grave government assistance to those who demand a constitutional government - federalism.

Dr. Who
06-23-2017, 09:22 PM
Just throwing this out there, but if you pay into something that benefits other people throughout your working life, then when it is your time to collect and someone else is paying, why isn't that fair? How is that fundamentally different than a community helping each other i.e. if farmer Joe's barn burns down, the community contributes time and materials to rebuild farmer Joe's barn because the next time it might be their own barn that burned down?

Peter1469
06-23-2017, 09:26 PM
Just throwing this out there, but if you pay into something that benefits other people throughout your working life, then when it is your time to collect and someone else is paying, why isn't that fair? How is that fundamentally different than a community helping each other i.e. if farmer Joe's barn burns down, the community contributes time and materials to rebuild farmer Joe's barn because the next time it might be their own barn that burned down?
Those progams were crafted when we had say 25:1 workers v. retirees. We are not there anymore and are bankrupt.

Dr. Who
06-23-2017, 09:33 PM
Those progams were crafted when we had say 25:1 workers v. retirees. We are not there anymore and are bankrupt.
However, those retirees are the ones that have paid into that system for a lifetime. Denying their claims would be criminal.

Peter1469
06-23-2017, 11:28 PM
However, those retirees are the ones that have paid into that system for a lifetime. Denying their claims would be criminal.
What does the word no money mean to you?

Hit print?

The Xl
06-24-2017, 12:01 AM
I'm fine with the Wild West. It's gotta be the Wild West though, not the lower classes being left to fend for themselves, but the upper classes still being subsidized.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 12:04 AM
It is clear to anyone who is not a half-wit: we are broke.

Are you prepared for the crash?

Trish
06-24-2017, 09:00 AM
That isn't the case, it is those who demand cradle to grave government assistance to those who demand a constitutional government - federalism.

I think you're simplifying it too much. You're framing it to suggest that those who don't use services are better citizens and those who do need and use government subsidies and services are nothing but lazy moochers.

That's a stereotype that has worked well for GOP politicians but lets not kid ourselves into thinking it's an accurate depiction of the situation. Yes, there are abuses and yes we need to figure out a way to curb and eliminate these abuses.

Chris
06-24-2017, 09:52 AM
If we learned nothing from this seed I think we can honestly say we've learned that the United States no longer exists. We are a group of States that have been stitched together.

People vote against their own best interests because they don't want to admit that they are using the services or they simply don't understand it's against their own interest.

Welcome to the new America. Every man for himself.


Mix in equal parts liberalism, individualism, egalitarianism and you end up with, not a participatory democracy, but merely a voting democracy, where the people vote themselves largess from the public treasury distributed by electors who have little to no stake in the game but their own gain, a government no one can depend on, and every man is left to fend for himself, he's forgotten to turn to society where he once has a place and identity.

Chris
06-24-2017, 09:54 AM
Just throwing this out there, but if you pay into something that benefits other people throughout your working life, then when it is your time to collect and someone else is paying, why isn't that fair? How is that fundamentally different than a community helping each other i.e. if farmer Joe's barn burns down, the community contributes time and materials to rebuild farmer Joe's barn because the next time it might be their own barn that burned down?

1) The ponzi scheme is fine, until it collapses.

2) If it's the same as the community doing it, then why not leave it at that level?

Chris
06-24-2017, 09:56 AM
I'm fine with the Wild West. It's gotta be the Wild West though, not the lower classes being left to fend for themselves, but the upper classes still being subsidized.

That was anarchy, and it worked. See Terry H. Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 09:57 AM
I think you're simplifying it too much. You're framing it to suggest that those who don't use services are better citizens and those who do need and use government subsidies and services are nothing but lazy moochers.

That's a stereotype that has worked well for GOP politicians but lets not kid ourselves into thinking it's an accurate depiction of the situation. Yes, there are abuses and yes we need to figure out a way to curb and eliminate these abuses.


No.

It is not a simplification. It is accurate- the divide today in the US is between those who demand cradle to grave government assistance of some sort v. those who wish our Founder’s vision of federalism was honored. And that is not a GOP vision. They are just as bad as the Dems when it comes to government programs. Just look at the health care bill. That is no conservative bill. It is Obamacare 2.0.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 09:58 AM
That was anarchy, and it worked. See Terry H. Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West.
That book described how the rich families controled society.

Dr. Who
06-24-2017, 10:20 AM
What does the word no money mean to you?

Hit print?

If there is no money for pensions, there should equally be no money for the military, politician salaries, the CIA, the FBI or any other federal department or agency.

Trish
06-24-2017, 10:22 AM
If there is no money for pensions, there should equally be no money for the military, politician salaries, the CIA, the FBI or any other federal department or agency.
Or religious organizations! Don't forget the religious organizations!!!!! Whew - I got that in just in time. :0)

Trish
06-24-2017, 10:26 AM
No.
It is not a simplification. It is accurate- the divide today in the US is between those who demand cradle to grave government assistance of some sort v. those who wish our Founder’s vision of federalism was honored. And that is not a GOP vision. They are just as bad as the Dems when it comes to government programs. Just look at the health care bill. That is no conservative bill. It is Obamacare 2.0.

You didn't address my comment regarding good or bad citizenship but that's okay. Onward - Let me clarify - I didn't say it was only a GOP vision. I said that the GOP has been successful selling it. The Dems have there own issues but since we are discussing taking away and not piling on I focused on the GOP.

I still disagree and think you are over simplifying the issue.

Chris
06-24-2017, 10:27 AM
That book described how the rich families controled society.

You should read it. It did no such thing.

Cletus
06-24-2017, 11:01 AM
I think you're simplifying it too much. You're framing it to suggest that those who don't use services are better citizens and those who do need and use government subsidies and services are nothing but lazy moochers.

That's a stereotype that has worked well for GOP politicians but lets not kid ourselves into thinking it's an accurate depiction of the situation. Yes, there are abuses and yes we need to figure out a way to curb and eliminate these abuses.

What we need to do is return government to operating within the parameters set by the Constitution and eliminate any and all functions that are not specifically enumerated.

Charity is NOT a legitimate function of the federal government.

Trish
06-24-2017, 11:10 AM
What we need to do is return government to operating within the parameters set by the Constitution and eliminate any and all functions that are not specifically enumerated.Charity is NOT a legitimate function of the federal government.

Okay - So how do you propose we do that? You are also talking about getting rid of the tax breaks and incentives for the rich and big companies, correct?

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 11:23 AM
If there is no money for pensions, there should equally be no money for the military, politician salaries, the CIA, the FBI or any other federal department or agency.
We have $19.9T of official debt. Our deficits are too large to cut enough without upseting the takers in society.

We have no room to tack on more debt.

Cletus
06-24-2017, 11:24 AM
Okay - So how do you propose we do that? You are also talking about getting rid of the tax breaks and incentives for the rich and big companies, correct?

Tax breaks have nothing to do with what we are discussing. Not taking someone's money from them under threat of force is not charity.

As far as how to do it goes... You get out the rule book (the Constitution) and if the government is doing something it is not specifically empowered to do, we stop doing it. It is really pretty simple.

Unfortunately, it will never happen because once people figured out they could help themselves to treasury we started down a route from which there is no return. Perceived self interest, even if it is ultimately self destructive will always win out over reason. People are stupid, lazy and greedy and that is hard to combat.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 11:25 AM
You should read it. It did no such thing.
Incorrect. The book explains how two wealthy families bullied everyone to get their way while trying to destroy each other.

Your vision of non-governance is a fantasy- outside of a societal collapse. And soon, government would rise.

Trish
06-24-2017, 11:25 AM
We have $19.9T of official debt. Our deficits are too large to cut enough without upseting the takers in society.
We have no room to tack on more debt.

Or religious organizations! Don't forget the religious organizations!!!!! Egads (hehehehe)

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 11:26 AM
Okay - So how do you propose we do that? You are also talking about getting rid of the tax breaks and incentives for the rich and big companies, correct?


Of course.

I would eliminate all tax breaks. Get rid of the income tax. Tax consumption. With a tax rebate to the poor. The Fair Tax.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 11:28 AM
Or religious organizations! Don't forget the religious organizations!!!!! Egads (hehehehe)
With no income tax, that is not an issue.

What else can I fix for you? :smiley:

Trish
06-24-2017, 11:31 AM
Tax breaks have nothing to do with what we are discussing. Not taking someone's money from them under threat of force is not charity.
As far as how to do it goes... You get out the rule book (the Constitution) and if the government is doing something it is not specifically empowered to do, we stop doing it. It is really pretty simple.
Unfortunately, it will never happen because once people figured out they could help themselves to treasury we started down a route from which there is no return. Perceived self interest, even if it is ultimately self destructive will always win out over reason. People are stupid, lazy and greedy and that is hard to combat.

My point is - you will never get people on board with retracting what you are calling "charity" if the incentives and tax breaks aren't addressed simultaneously. It reeks of unfairness.

That's not my endorsement of charities. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. It's human nature to compare.

Cletus
06-24-2017, 11:40 AM
My point is - you will never get people on board with retracting what you are calling "charity" if the incentives and tax breaks aren't addressed simultaneously. It reeks of unfairness.

The tax code needs to be overhauled. I personally would favor some sort of consumption tax. Tax people on what they spend, not on what the earn.

You are looking at taxes the way Liberals look at taxes, which isn't good. If I have 10 Dollars and I give you 2 Dollars and keep the rest, I am not robbing you of 8 Dollars. The way the Left looks at income is that what is yours is really theirs and after they take what they want, they will allow to keep the remainder. That is why they get all worked up about tax breaks. Allowing people to keep their own money is a good thing. We should encourage tax breaks for everybody.

Chris
06-24-2017, 11:47 AM
My point is - you will never get people on board with retracting what you are calling "charity" if the incentives and tax breaks aren't addressed simultaneously. It reeks of unfairness.

That's not my endorsement of charities. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. It's human nature to compare.

If I'm understanding you, what you're pointing out is something that makes reform very difficult. There is out there the Fair Tax which would tax consumption instead of income, the problem being while the government might adopt it, it would likely never repeal income tax. There's something out there called Universal Basic Income which would give everyone a basic income of some amount and thereby replace other forms of welfare, but again while the government might adopt it, it would likely never repeal other welfare programs. These thngs have to happen simultaneously, but never will.

Trish
06-24-2017, 11:55 AM
The tax code needs to be overhauled. I personally would favor some sort of consumption tax. Tax people on what they spend, not on what the earn. You are looking at taxes the way Liberals look at taxes, which isn't good. If I have 10 Dollars and I give you 2 Dollars and keep the rest, I am not robbing you of 8 Dollars. The way the Left looks at income is that what is yours is really theirs and after they take what they want, they will allow to keep the remainder. That is why they get all worked up about tax breaks. Allowing people to keep their own money is a good thing. We should encourage tax breaks for everybody.

Hey! I'm not insulting you so why call me a liberal?!! hahahaha Just kidding. You're right I do have some left leaning positions. I think we are simplifying things that aren't so simple.

Cletus
06-24-2017, 12:04 PM
Hey! I'm not insulting you so why call me a liberal?!! hahahaha Just kidding. You're right I do have some left leaning positions. I think we are simplifying things that aren't so simple.

No insult intended. I was just trying in my own way to point out that the Left has this weird view of other people's money.

I think it is simple, or at least could be if we would allow it to be. There is just too much special interest out there for us to ever return to the system of government our founders wanted us to have. We have caused their grand experiment to fail. It was not a threat from outside. We did it to ourselves.

Bear
06-24-2017, 12:07 PM
Did you see how red-faced those Republican Congress members faces were when they came out of the healthcare vote? And they should be embarrassed/ashamed! But as a friend pointed out to me last night over dinner - the very people who depend on Medicaid are the ones that voted for trump. So may-be they will eventually wise-up or end up too sick (dead) to vote next election.

William
06-24-2017, 01:14 PM
Hello - we don't do economics in class until next year, so feel free to tell me to shut up - but I'm wondering how a country can operate with no income tax. As I understand it, income and indirect taxes (like stamp duty, sales tax or VAT, etc.) is how the treasury is funded.

If a country does away with income tax, doesn't that mean it has to increase indirect taxation? I Googled both the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax, and both included a huge loss of revenue to the treasury if you don't have a big increase in the tax on cost of goods. Also, neither are simple systems cos you have stuff like 'prebates' which have to go into the tax mix.

But don't we all realise that indirect taxation, like sales tax, hits the poorest hardest? The cost of living varies from person to person, but not anywhere near as much as the income from wages and salaries does. So there is a certain point below which you cannot live in each society, but spending $800,000 on a Bentley or Roller is a matter of choice. So it's a matter of necessity vs a matter of optional expenditure on luxury items.

Say the cost of living at the most basic level for a family of four is $38,000, and a man is on a take home wage of $40,000 (or roughly $20 an hour) - on paper this looks like he can save $2,000 a year. But in fact a family of four usually means two school age children - and if the basic cost of living does not include full medical, dental, and optical insurance, or the cost of school outings, or treats, or the fridge or washing machine needing replacement - that extra $2,000 a year goes nowhere. Now add an additional 30% to the cost of food and all necessary household goods to that equation, and you end up with government having to give what some people here call charity.

Indirect taxation always hits the poorest hardest - it is called regressive for obvious reasons.

So IMO - the only really fair basis for taxation is on income (whether that is wages, or investments, or capital gains, or profit from a business, or any other form of income). Make the system fair and simple, and do away with silly stuff like claiming exemptions for business entertaining and Lear Jets, and Lamborghinis, and stuff like that.

On a personal basis - you earn x amount and you pay tax on that at the approved marginal rate. For a business, you sell your goods for y and you deduct the direct cost of producing those goods (material, labour, depreciation on machinery, advertising - but not entertainment,) and pay company tax on the remaining profit.

The current taxation systems in my country operate like that but there is too much abuse - mainly by the very wealthy and business people who claim all sorts of stuff as legitimate expenses.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:19 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.
Because you refuse to accept the viability of any solution that doesn't involve more government.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 01:20 PM
The Fair Tax does not create a loss in tax dollars. Why do you think it does? They are very clear about that on their homepage.


Hello - we don't do economics in class until next year, so feel free to tell me to shut up - but I'm wondering how a country can operate with no income tax. As I understand it, income and indirect taxes (like stamp duty, sales tax or VAT, etc.) is how the treasury is funded.

If a country does away with income tax, doesn't that mean it has to increase indirect taxation? I Googled both the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax, and both included a huge loss of revenue to the treasury if you don't have a big increase in the tax on cost of goods. Also, neither are simple systems cos you have stuff like 'prebates' which have to go into the tax mix.

But don't we all realise that indirect taxation, like sales tax, hits the poorest hardest? The cost of living varies from person to person, but not anywhere near as much as the income from wages and salaries does. So there is a certain point below which you cannot live in each society, but spending $800,000 on a Bentley or Roller is a matter of choice. So it's a matter of necessity vs a matter of optional expenditure on luxury items.

Say the cost of living at the most basic level for a family of four is $38,000, and a man is on a take home wage of $40,000 (or roughly $20 an hour) - on paper this looks like he can save $2,000 a year. But in fact a family of four usually means two school age children - and if the basic cost of living does not include full medical, dental, and optical insurance, or the cost of school outings, or treats, or the fridge or washing machine needing replacement - that extra $2,000 a year goes nowhere. Now add an additional 30% to the cost of food and all necessary household goods to that equation, and you end up with government having to give what some people here call charity.

Indirect taxation always hits the poorest hardest - it is called regressive for obvious reasons.

So IMO - the only really fair basis for taxation is on income (whether that is wages, or investments, or capital gains, or profit from a business, or any other form of income). Make the system fair and simple, and do away with silly stuff like claiming exemptions for business entertaining and Lear Jets, and Lamborghinis, and stuff like that.

On a personal basis - you earn x amount and you pay tax on that at the approved marginal rate. For a business, you sell your goods for y and you deduct the direct cost of producing those goods (material, labour, depreciation on machinery, advertising - but not entertainment,) and pay company tax on the remaining profit.

The current taxation systems in my country operate like that but there is too much abuse - mainly by the very wealthy and business people who claim all sorts of stuff as legitimate expenses.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 01:21 PM
I think it is immoral to tax productivity- and counter productive. Taxing consumption is common sense.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:23 PM
I started this with the idea that one or more might emphasize with someone they love and how mean legislation might treat them, it's obvious the majority on this board are above being touched by the things I referred to. I give up. Thanks for trying.
In other words, you asked a question, got answers you didn't like, and gave up almost immediately on trying to understand where the other side is coming from.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:25 PM
No, I tried to illustrate what society means, but it's beyond you.
And what does society mean, Jim? More government? More collectivism? More taxes? More debt? Because those are the only things Democrats seem to associate with it.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 01:28 PM
And what does society mean, Jim? More government? More collectivism? More taxes? More debt? Because those are the only things Democrats seem to associate with it.


cradle to grave government assistance is what the hard left demands.

William
06-24-2017, 01:28 PM
The Fair Tax does not create a loss in tax dollars. Why do you think it does? They are very clear about that on their homepage.

It removes income tax, so without a roughly 30% increase in indirect taxation, it creates a huge loss in tax dollars. I read several articles - not just the fair tax home page (which is there to promote the system). I know the proposed system includes the increase in indirect taxation - and that is my main point against it. :smiley:

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:29 PM
Tribalism.
If only. Tribalism gets bashed a lot, but it's the oldest and most successful form of human organization that's ever existed. It's entirely rational and ethical to look out for your own "tribe" first and foremost. The idea that an individual should prioritize a perfect stranger living hundreds or even thousands of miles away in the same way they prioritize their close friend, neighbor, or family member is preposterous.

William
06-24-2017, 01:30 PM
I think it is immoral to tax productivity- and counter productive. Taxing consumption is common sense.

I guess that depends on which part of society you want to protect. :wink:

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 01:30 PM
It removes income tax, so without a roughly 30% increase in indirect taxation, it creates a huge loss in tax dollars. I read several articles - not just the fair tax home page (which is there to promote the system). I know the proposed system includes the increase in indirect taxation - and that is my main point against it. :smiley:


OK, you are incorrect, but that is fine.

The Fair Tax replaces current income tax revenues. That is the reason they set the sales tax at the level they did.

They should set it lower and slash government handouts.

Chris
06-24-2017, 01:31 PM
Hello - we don't do economics in class until next year, so feel free to tell me to shut up - but I'm wondering how a country can operate with no income tax. As I understand it, income and indirect taxes (like stamp duty, sales tax or VAT, etc.) is how the treasury is funded.

If a country does away with income tax, doesn't that mean it has to increase indirect taxation? I Googled both the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax, and both included a huge loss of revenue to the treasury if you don't have a big increase in the tax on cost of goods. Also, neither are simple systems cos you have stuff like 'prebates' which have to go into the tax mix.

But don't we all realise that indirect taxation, like sales tax, hits the poorest hardest? The cost of living varies from person to person, but not anywhere near as much as the income from wages and salaries does. So there is a certain point below which you cannot live in each society, but spending $800,000 on a Bentley or Roller is a matter of choice. So it's a matter of necessity vs a matter of optional expenditure on luxury items.

Say the cost of living at the most basic level for a family of four is $38,000, and a man is on a take home wage of $40,000 (or roughly $20 an hour) - on paper this looks like he can save $2,000 a year. But in fact a family of four usually means two school age children - and if the basic cost of living does not include full medical, dental, and optical insurance, or the cost of school outings, or treats, or the fridge or washing machine needing replacement - that extra $2,000 a year goes nowhere. Now add an additional 30% to the cost of food and all necessary household goods to that equation, and you end up with government having to give what some people here call charity.

Indirect taxation always hits the poorest hardest - it is called regressive for obvious reasons.

So IMO - the only really fair basis for taxation is on income (whether that is wages, or investments, or capital gains, or profit from a business, or any other form of income). Make the system fair and simple, and do away with silly stuff like claiming exemptions for business entertaining and Lear Jets, and Lamborghinis, and stuff like that.

On a personal basis - you earn x amount and you pay tax on that at the approved marginal rate. For a business, you sell your goods for y and you deduct the direct cost of producing those goods (material, labour, depreciation on machinery, advertising - but not entertainment,) and pay company tax on the remaining profit.

The current taxation systems in my country operate like that but there is too much abuse - mainly by the very wealthy and business people who claim all sorts of stuff as legitimate expenses.


Texas doesn't tax income. It manages.

The Fair Tax would tax end-production finall sales, iirc, at 23%. It's calculated that would incur no revenue loss even with income tax repealed. And just think this country managed without income tax till the 16th amendment.

The Fair Tax includes a prebate so purchases are tax-free up to a poverty level. Everyone gets the prebate.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:32 PM
Society is what/who we should depend upon rather than the government.
For many, there is no distinction between society and government.

Chris
06-24-2017, 01:34 PM
For many, there is no distinction between society and government.

Well, at one time the people did create governments, governments were of, for and by the people. What we have now is a runaway government that corruptly serves itself and special interests.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:36 PM
If we learned nothing from this seed I think we can honestly say we've learned that the United States no longer exists. We are a group of States that have been stitched together.

People vote against their own best interests because they don't want to admit that they are using the services or they simply don't understand it's against their own interest.

Welcome to the new America. Every man for himself.
Or maybe some people don't want or need such "services" and are content to rely on themselves, their families, and their communities, like most Americans did between 1776 and 1935.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:37 PM
Just throwing this out there, but if you pay into something that benefits other people throughout your working life, then when it is your time to collect and someone else is paying, why isn't that fair? How is that fundamentally different than a community helping each other i.e. if farmer Joe's barn burns down, the community contributes time and materials to rebuild farmer Joe's barn because the next time it might be their own barn that burned down?

One is voluntary and the other is not.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:42 PM
If there is no money for pensions, there should equally be no money for the military, politician salaries, the CIA, the FBI or any other federal department or agency.
America began with minimal government and prospered for well over a century.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:45 PM
The tax code needs to be overhauled. I personally would favor some sort of consumption tax. Tax people on what they spend, not on what the earn.

Assuming there should be any federal taxes, it should be the way it was in the beginning, relying mostly on tariffs.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:47 PM
Hello - we don't do economics in class until next year, so feel free to tell me to shut up - but I'm wondering how a country can operate with no income tax.

America had no income tax between 1776 and 1912. Our economy grew just fine. The federal government relied mostly on tariffs to finance its operations, which were minimal. Everything else was left to the states, as it should be.

AZ Jim
06-24-2017, 01:48 PM
Or maybe some people don't want or need such "services" and are content to rely on themselves, their families, and their communities, like most Americans did between 1776 and 1935.There ya go. Return to the Good Ole days when things were just duckie. Life expectancy was 46. That is only the beginning of how great it was. PS The figure was from 1900 since you used such a wide date spread.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 01:51 PM
There ya go. Return to the Good Ole days when things were just duckie. Life expectancy was 46. That is only the beginning of how great it was. PS The figure was from 1900 since you used such a wide date spread.

Life expectancy was lower during that time because technology was less advanced, so unless you think our technological state depends on government welfare, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

William
06-24-2017, 01:52 PM
Texas doesn't tax income. It manages.

The Fair Tax would tax end-production finall sales, iirc, at 23%. It's calculated that would incur no revenue loss even with income tax repealed. And just think this country managed without income tax till the 16th amendment.

The Fair Tax includes a prebate so purchases are tax-free up to a poverty level. Everyone gets the prebate.

None of the Australian States taxes income, nor do any of the English Counties. Income tax is paid to the HM Government in both countries. Don't you have a Federal Income Tax, which Texans pay? I thought we were discussing that.

And not everyone thinks the Fair Tax will be revenue or expense neutral.


William Gale of the Brookings Institute noted that the FairTax it isn’t accurate to refer to the Fair Tax as 23 percent. The rate is actually 30 percent. FairTax defines the sales tax as "$0.23 out of every dollar spent." This means there is a $0.23 tax added to every $0.77, not to every dollar, and $0.23 is 30 percent of $0.77. Gale also points out that the tax rate would likely need to be raised even higher. With no IRS to determine wages, states would need to abolish their income tax. This lost state revenue would require an additional 10 percent sales tax to replace it.

Another 5 percent would need to be added to recoup revenue from those who have figured out how to avoid the sales tax.

For example, many people would declare more purchases as business expenses, which wouldn't be taxed.

These three adjustments estimate the sales tax at 45 percent. If Americans successfully protested including food and healthcare in the tax, the effective rate could skyrocket to 67 percent.

Gale's calculations show that the Fair Tax would cause taxes to rise for 90 percent of all households. Only those in the highest 10 percent of incomes would get a tax cut. Those in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000.

If the Fair Tax Plan was adjusted so households are classified by consumption level, then those in the bottom two-thirds of the distribution would pay less, while those in the top third would pay more. But those at the very top would still pay much less, again receiving a tax cut of about $75,000.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-fair-tax-plan-pros-cons-effect-3305765

I wouldn't want that system in my country, but like I said in another thread - I can only give an opinion on the principles being discussed; I'm not here to tell Americans what they should do. :smiley:

AZ Jim
06-24-2017, 01:56 PM
Life expectancy was lower during that time because technology was less advanced, so unless you think our technological state depends on government welfare, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.I am sure you are not able to make the connection.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 02:00 PM
I am sure you are not able to make the connection.
Because there isn't one.

Chris
06-24-2017, 02:03 PM
For many, there is no distinction between society and government.


Well, at one time the people did create governments, governments were of, for and by the people. What we have now is a runaway government that corruptly serves itself and special interests.

I should add that small, local government would be the people, the society.

Chris
06-24-2017, 02:06 PM
There ya go. Return to the Good Ole days when things were just duckie. Life expectancy was 46. That is only the beginning of how great it was. PS The figure was from 1900 since you used such a wide date spread.

Not what he's saying. Reverting to a better form of government, learned from the past, doesn't mean set back the hands of time, reverse technological and other advances.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 02:08 PM
In 1793, nearly one in ten residents of Philadelphia died from an outbreak of yellow fever. Medical doctors at the time believed the cause was something in the air. In reality, it was caused by mosquitoes. I'm sure if social security or Medicare had existed at the time, those same doctors would have figured out the real cause of yellow fever and synthesized an effective vaccine, too.

Chris
06-24-2017, 02:10 PM
None of the Australian States taxes income, nor do any of the English Counties. Income tax is paid to the HM Government in both countries. Don't you have a Federal Income Tax, which Texans pay? I thought we were discussing that.

And not everyone thinks the Fair Tax will be revenue or expense neutral.


https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-fair-tax-plan-pros-cons-effect-3305765

I wouldn't want that system in my country, but like I said in another thread - I can only give an opinion on the principles being discussed; I'm not here to tell Americans what they should do. :smiley:



Yes, I pay federal taxes, but in Illinois, for example, I also paid state taxes.

William Gale calculates wrong, it's 23% meaning for every $1 spent 23 cents would be added. Gale is good a playing with numbers is all.

The main complaint against the Fair Tax is the government is unlikely ever to repeal the income tax but would enjoy taxing us more, and I do mean enjoy.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 02:59 PM
Or maybe some people don't want or need such "services" and are content to rely on themselves, their families, and their communities, like most Americans did between 1776 and 1935.

Life on the farm. As Americans moved into cities those family bonds ended. Pensions started in the late 1800s to help old folks who no longer were living with their younger generations.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 02:59 PM
America had no income tax between 1776 and 1912. Our economy grew just fine. The federal government relied mostly on tariffs to finance its operations, which were minimal. Everything else was left to the states, as it should be.

Tariffs- what would the liberatrians say of that!

AZ Jim
06-24-2017, 03:05 PM
Not what he's saying. Reverting to a better form of government, learned from the past, doesn't mean set back the hands of time, reverse technological and other advances.Take away medicare, medicaid and watch how unnecessary or premature deaths spiral up. Get it?

Chris
06-24-2017, 03:11 PM
Take away medicare, medicaid and watch how unnecessary or premature deaths spiral up. Get it?


And when those fail because they become too expensive and there's not enough to fund them...watch how unnecessary or premature deaths spiral up. Get it? TANSTAAFL.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 03:13 PM
Take away medicare, medicaid and watch how unnecessary or premature deaths spiral up. Get it?

We don't need to get rid of them. We need to improve the concept: quality care with low cost. See Stan Brock's ideas.

AZ Jim
06-24-2017, 03:15 PM
And when those fail because they become too expensive and there's not enough to fund them...watch how unnecessary or premature deaths spiral up. Get it? TANSTAAFL.Well I pay for Medicare and Mutual of Omaha supplemental coverage. I have never used medicaid but it is life support for many less fortunate. We have more money in Military than all other major players combined. If we quit thinking more is better we would have plenty of money for our own citizens needs. Sharpen up on fraud detection and we have even more .

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 03:23 PM
Tariffs- what would the liberatrians say of that!
If it's the only form of taxation, then they'd probably accept it as a reasonable compromise.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 03:24 PM
Take away medicare, medicaid and watch how unnecessary or premature deaths spiral up. Get it?
You tried to attribute lower life expectancy to a lack of government welfare. But it was because of the state of technology at the time. Government welfare wouldn't have changed that.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 03:42 PM
Life expectancy in western nations, including the USA, have been steadily increasing since 1800.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/20040327/CSU957.gif

This is largely because of advancements in medicine, sanitation, and agriculture, not because of government welfare programs.

AZ Jim
06-24-2017, 03:50 PM
You tried to attribute lower life expectancy to a lack of government welfare. But it was because of the state of technology at the time. Government welfare wouldn't have changed that.What about NOW???

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 03:55 PM
What about NOW???
Life expectancy is largely a function of technology, so as long as the state of technology remains unchanged, the average life expectancy will remain similarly unchanged.

decedent
06-24-2017, 04:13 PM
If only. Tribalism gets bashed a lot, but it's the oldest and most successful form of human organization that's ever existed. It's entirely rational and ethical to look out for your own "tribe" first and foremost. The idea that an individual should prioritize a perfect stranger living hundreds or even thousands of miles away in the same way they prioritize their close friend, neighbor, or family member is preposterous.

I don't mean actual tribes. I mean the "us versus them" mentality, and the consequential scapegoating, othering, demonizing, folk-deviling and transference.

Chris
06-24-2017, 04:45 PM
Well I pay for Medicare and Mutual of Omaha supplemental coverage. I have never used medicaid but it is life support for many less fortunate. We have more money in Military than all other major players combined. If we quit thinking more is better we would have plenty of money for our own citizens needs. Sharpen up on fraud detection and we have even more .

Agree, we have more to leave in the hands of citizens to spend as they value and want to.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 04:51 PM
I don't mean actual tribes. I mean the "us versus them" mentality, and the consequential scapegoating, othering, demonizing, folk-deviling and transference.
There is nothing wrong with adhering to your own group and insisting on a peaceable separation from other groups. That's why the USA and Canada are not the same country, for example. The problem in the USA is that many Americans are operating under the assumption that we're a unified "nation" with broad set of shared interests and values. In reality, we're a federation of states with a common defense and trade zone. That is basically the extent of our shared identity. Any attempt to push it beyond those limitations will only create resentment and conflict, and rightfully so.

Chris
06-24-2017, 05:00 PM
I don't mean actual tribes. I mean the "us versus them" mentality, and the consequential scapegoating, othering, demonizing, folk-deviling and transference.

Isn't that the identity politics liberals tend to play?

Bethere
06-24-2017, 05:01 PM
No.

It is not a simplification. It is accurate- the divide today in the US is between those who demand cradle to grave government assistance of some sort v. those who wish our Founder’s vision of federalism was honored. And that is not a GOP vision. They are just as bad as the Dems when it comes to government programs. Just look at the health care bill. That is no conservative bill. It is Obamacare 2.0.

Our founders' vision did not include a standing army. It did include federal action on behalf of the general welfare.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:04 PM
It did include federal action on behalf of the general welfare.
And this is why the union is a farce, because of nonsense like this. You cannot have a real union when a significant segment of the population insists on rewriting history and distorting the law.

Cletus
06-24-2017, 05:04 PM
Our founders' vision did not include a standing army. It did include federal action on behalf of the general welfare.

The term "General Welfare", as used by the Framers, referred only to those powers specifically enumerated.

AZ Jim
06-24-2017, 05:07 PM
The term "General Welfare", as used by the Framers, referred only to those powers specifically enumerated.Link it or lump it.

Chris
06-24-2017, 05:08 PM
Link it or lump it.

You need a link to the Constitution?

Cletus
06-24-2017, 05:12 PM
Link it or lump it.

Go bite at someone else's ankles.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:14 PM
Our founders' vision did not include a standing army. It did include federal action on behalf of the general welfare.

A lie.

See Article 1, sec. 8.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:16 PM
Link it or lump it.


James Madison to Andrew Stevenson: 27 Nov. 1830Letters 4:120--39 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html)

...With this addition, indeed, the language of the [general welfare] clause being in conformity with that of the clause in the Articles of Confederation, it would be qualified, as in those articles, by the specification of powers subjoined to it...

Bethere
06-24-2017, 05:20 PM
A lie.

See Article 1, sec. 8.

It's a trip that it takes a stoned musician such as myself to hip a lawyer to Helvering v Davis.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:21 PM
From the same letter, written by James Madison:


The obvious conclusion to which we are brought is, that these terms, copied from the Articles of Confederation, were regarded in the new as in the old instrument, merely as general terms, explained and limited by the subjoined specifications, and therefore requiring no critical attention or studied precaution.

Cletus
06-24-2017, 05:22 PM
Also...

“If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”
James Madison - debate on the House Floor - 1792

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:22 PM
It's a trip that it takes a stoned musician such as myself to hip a lawyer to Helvering v Davis.

Helvering v Davis is a blatant usurpation perpetrated by frauds.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:25 PM
It's a trip that it takes a stoned musician such as myself to hip a lawyer to Helvering v Davis.

Our founders did not intend the general welfare to mean cradle to grave government assistance. That is not open for debate.

Bethere
06-24-2017, 05:26 PM
Our founders did not intend the general welfare to mean cradle to grave government assistance. That is not open for debate.
I disagree.

Surely we can agree that the founders made no provisions for a standing army. Heck, they never even implied it.

Let's start there. Yes or no?

Then we can discuss general welfare.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:29 PM
I disagree.

Surely we can agree that the founders made no provisions for a standing army. Heck, they never even implied it.

Let's start there.
Correct on the standing army.

Incorrect on the concept that our founders were creating a welfare state.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:32 PM
I disagree.

Surely we can agree that the founders made no provisions for a standing army. Heck, they never even implied it.

Let's start there. Yes or no?

Then we can discuss general welfare.


"...For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them..."
--Thomas Jefferson

Bethere
06-24-2017, 05:33 PM
Correct on the standing army.Incorrect on the concept that our founders were creating a welfare state.And yet we have a standing army and you, the constitutional originalist has no problem with that.I suspect that you see a need for one.We see a need for a federal role in healthcare.See where I am going with this, counselor?At least I have general welfare and Helvering v Davis at which to point.You have no basis at all.The state rests.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:36 PM
And yet we have a standing army and you, the constitutional originalist has no problem with that.

I suspect that you see a need for one.

We see a need for a federal role in healthcare.

See where I am going with this, counselor?


At least I have general welfare and Helvering v Davis to point to.

You have no basis at all.

I see where you are going. A currency collapse via too much government spending.

I am prepared. Are you?

Bethere
06-24-2017, 05:37 PM
I see where you are going. A currency collapse via too much government spending.

I am prepared. Are you?

Your argument always ends this way. I take it as a compliment to my skills.

The answer is to raise the capital gains tax, not lower it--much less by paying for it by cutting medicaid.

After all, shouldn't the tax cut pay for itself by a miracle courtesy of misinterpretation of the Laffer curve?

Aren't you cutting medicaid just to be mean as trump said the other day?

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:38 PM
Your argument always ends this way. I take it as a compliment to my skills.

But you have no answer to the debt problem.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:41 PM
Correct on the standing army.

That depends on what we mean by a "standing army". The constitution specifically authorizes the congress to raise and support armies, but that no appropriation to that end shall be for a longer term than two years. And as long as the appropriation of money towards armies remains within that time frame, can it really be said to be a standing army?

Cletus
06-24-2017, 05:42 PM
And yet we have a standing army and you, the constitutional originalist has no problem with that.

That isn't exactly true.

Since 1947, we have had a Department of Defense. The Department of Defense funds the Army and it does so annually.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:43 PM
And yet we have a standing army...

That's debatable. And even if it were true, it would not justify perversions of the constitution in other areas.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:43 PM
That depends on what we mean by a "standing army". The constitution specifically authorizes the congress to raise and support armies, but that no appropriation to that end shall be for a longer term than two years. And as long as the appropriation of money towards armies remains within that time frame, can it really be said to be a standing army?
That language was Congress's way of oversight of a standing army.


Today we see the bulk of Congress's oversight of the military though the MILCON process.

Bethere
06-24-2017, 05:44 PM
But you have no answer to the debt problem.

Of course I do. Raise the capital gains tax.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:45 PM
Of course I do. Raise the capital gains tax.

Laughable.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:46 PM
That language was Congress's way of oversight of a standing army.

I would tend to agree, but that would imply the constitution does provide for a "standing army", contrary to what the masterful "Bethere" has claimed.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:48 PM
Of course I do. Raise the capital gains tax.

During the 2008 election cycle the socialists / democrats / media floated ideas about tax increases to solve the deficit problem. The most draconian proposals only added $225B to the government. That does not help considering our deficit spending.

It is simply impossible to tax ourselves out of this mess.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:50 PM
During the 2008 election cycle the socialists / democrats / media floated ideas about tax increases to solve the deficit problem. The most draconian proposals only added $225B to the government. That does not help considering our deficit spending.

It is simply impossible to tax ourselves out of this mess.
Raising taxes is the only "solution" Democrats ever offer. It's why Detroit went bankrupt and why Illinois is in the process of going bankrupt. Libertarians and conservatives have to accept reality. We cannot remain in a "union" with these people.

Bethere
06-24-2017, 05:51 PM
During the 2008 election cycle the socialists / democrats / media floated ideas about tax increases to solve the deficit problem. The most draconian proposals only added $225B to the government. That does not help considering our deficit spending.

It is simply impossible to tax ourselves out of this mess.

We'll accept some debt until demographics shift. It will be manageable provided we aren't tax cut into oblivion on purpose by a party that doesn't want government to work in the first place.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:54 PM
We'll accept some debt until demographics shift. It will be manageable provided we aren't tax cut into oblivion on purpose by a party that doesn't want government to work in the first place.
Accept $20T in debt. OK.

But continued deficts closing in on .5T is the real issue.

You fools can't keep spending money that we don't have with impunity.

Are you prepared for the crash? I am.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 05:57 PM
It doesn't matter what tax rates are, the government will only collect about 20% of GDP in revenues:

http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline/images/large/tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:58 PM
It doesn't matter what tax rates are, the government will only collect about 20% of GDP in revenues:

http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline/images/large/tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg


I think 18% is the average and seems to work.

Bethere
06-24-2017, 05:59 PM
Accept $20T in debt. OK.

But continued deficts closing in on .5T is the real issue.

You fools can't keep spending money that we don't have with impunity.

Are you prepared for the crash? I am.

What is $20 trillion in 2050 dollars expressed in 2017 dollars? At 6% interest that's just $2.315 trillion present value. Easily manageable with a modest capital gains increase.

Thank you for asking.

And no, we aren't going to let you guys crash anything on purpose.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 06:00 PM
I think 18% is the average and seems to work.
If they raise taxes, it will just result in more tax evasion, e.g., hiding income, shifting income, deferring income, losing income, etc.

Bethere
06-24-2017, 06:03 PM
I think 18% is the average and seems to work.

Gosh, you are talking about top marginal individual tax rates. You are off topic. I was talking about capital gains.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 06:04 PM
What is $20 trillion in 2050 dollars expressed in 2017 dollars? At 6% interest that's just $2.315 trillion present value. Easily manageable with a modest capital gains increase.

Thank you for asking.

This is denial in action- congrats! First the $20T debt is today. Not 2050.

You can't play on the interest- it is T' Bills. A pitiful return.

As interest rates rise, the cost to service the debt will crowd out everthing else. You will get a social security notice that you get zero while the US pays massive amounts of money to serive the debt

Bethere
06-24-2017, 06:08 PM
This is denial in action- congrats! First the $20T debt is today. Not 2050.

You can't play on the interest- it is T' Bills. A pitiful return.

As interest rates rise, the cost to service the debt will crowd out everthing else. You will get a social security notice that you get zero while the US pays massive amounts of money to serive the debt

If gdp continues to grow at just 2% as it has been, and gdp is 20 trillion, then our gdp in 2050 will be 41.61 trillion annually.

Lol.

I have no objections to straightening up our fiscal act a bit. Let's start by gutting the standing army and increasing the capital gains tax.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 06:15 PM
What is $20 trillion in 2050 dollars expressed in 2017 dollars? At 6% interest that's just $2.315 trillion present value. Easily manageable with a modest capital gains increase.

This makes no sense at all. It doesn't seem you understand what present value even means. How bizarre.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 06:18 PM
This is denial in action...

That's putting it mildly. His attempt to discount the future value of our present debt in the year 2050 is one of the more bizarre things I've seen from him. It makes no sense at all.

Mister D
06-24-2017, 06:23 PM
This makes no sense at all. It doesn't seem you understand what present value even means. How bizarre.
His insouciance with regard to spending and debt, however, is troubling primarily because it's so common. Contemporary Westerners are raised with expectations that they can consume more and more and that life will always be materially better from one decade to the next.

Bethere
06-24-2017, 06:24 PM
I'm still waiting on an answer as to why we were posting individual tax graphs when we were discussing capital gains. Pete, help me here.

Bethere
06-24-2017, 06:27 PM
His insouciance with regard to spending and debt, however, is troubling primarily because it's so common. Contemporary Westerners are raised with expectations that they can consume more and more and that life will always be materially better from one decade to the next.

Nah, we are too smart to use 2017 numbers to describe a world in 2050 when the demographics start to balance out. We are supposed to pretend that gdp won't grow, or tax revenue won't grow, or where there is no compound interest.

You guys can play that game with lesser posters. Bethere's time is valuable.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 06:27 PM
I'm still waiting on an answer as to why we were posting individual tax graphs when we were discussing capital gains. Pete, help me here.
I'm still waiting for you to explain your bizarre financial calculation. What in the world was that supposed to prove or demonstrate?

Mister D
06-24-2017, 06:29 PM
Nah, we are too smart to use 2017 numbers to describe a world in 2050 when the demographics start to balance out. We are supposed to pretend that gdp won't grow, or tax revenue won't grow, or where there is no compound interest.

You guys can play that game with lesser posters. Bethere's time is valuable.
You're babbling, bethere.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 06:29 PM
Nah, we are too smart to use 2017 numbers to describe a world in 2050 when the demographics start to balance out. We are supposed to pretend that gdp won't grow, or tax revenue won't grow, or where there is no compound interest.

You guys can play that game with lesser posters. Bethere's time is valuable.
Nobody is pretending that. You're just making things up and hoping no one will notice. But I did notice. And now others will notice, too.

Cletus
06-24-2017, 06:29 PM
Nah, we are too smart to use 2017 numbers to describe a world in 2050 when the demographics start to balance out. We are supposed to pretend that gdp won't grow, or tax revenue won't grow, or where there is no compound interest.

You guys can play that game with lesser posters. Bethere's time is valuable.

There are no lesser posters.

Mister D
06-24-2017, 06:30 PM
I'm still waiting for you to explain your bizarre financial calculation. What in the world was that supposed to prove or demonstrate?
I don't know. I guess "when demographics balance out" is a secret incantation that wipes away debt and makes unsustainable spending possible. He'll employ it "2050".

Bethere
06-24-2017, 06:31 PM
There are no lesser posters.

Your timely entrance refutes your point.

I'm out of here.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 06:31 PM
You're babbling, bethere.

But the "present value" of the money we owe to other people in the year 2050 is only $2.315 trillion!

Mister D
06-24-2017, 06:31 PM
Nobody is pretending that. You're just making things up and hoping no one will notice. But I did notice. And now others will notice, too.
In about 10 minutes he'll brag about how he took on the whole forum. lol

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 06:32 PM
I'm out of here.

That would probably be best.

Mister D
06-24-2017, 06:32 PM
Your timely entrance refutes your point.

I'm out of here.
You shouldl have left before you embarrassed yourself.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 06:33 PM
In about 10 minutes he'll brag about how he took on the whole forum. lol
Well, he is quite masterful.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 06:34 PM
If gdp continues to grow at just 2% as it has been, and gdp is 20 trillion, then our gdp in 2050 will be 41.61 trillion annually.

Lol.

I have no objections to straightening up our fiscal act a bit. Let's start by gutting the standing army and increasing the capital gains tax.

If interest rates rise as you seem to suggest, the cost of servcing the debt will be bigger than the descresionary budget.

Without drastic action from Congress, we are facing a currency collpase.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 06:36 PM
I'm still waiting on an answer as to why we were posting individual tax graphs when we were discussing capital gains. Pete, help me here.

Capital gains are captured on individual tax returns. If you make over a ceratin dollar amount- I don't recall what it is. Not much though.

Ethereal
06-24-2017, 06:38 PM
How do you make the $20 trillion you owe right now look like only $3 trillion? Simple. You take the $20 trillion you owe right now, send it thirty-three years into the future, and then discount it by six percent every year until you arrive in the present. Voila! $18 trillion have vanished!

Bethere
06-24-2017, 06:43 PM
If interest rates rise as you seem to suggest, the cost of servcing the debt will be bigger than the descresionary budget.

Without drastic action from Congress, we are facing a currency collpase.
Raise the capital gains tax. Cut the standing army.

Everything else would fall neatly into place. Consider that modest tax increases and virtually no spending cuts brought the budget into balance painlessly in fy 1996.

Oh, wait! The Republican balanced budget act of 1997 balanced the budget in 1996!

That reminds me of how unserious many members of your team are. It also reminds me that I said that I was leaving.

Hello, I must be going
I came to say, I cannot stay
I must be going.
I'm glad I came but just the same
I must be going.
I'll stay a week or two
I'll stay the summer through
But I am telling you
I must
Be going.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 06:44 PM
How do you make the $20 trillion you owe right now look like only $3 trillion? Simple. You take the $20 trillion you owe right now, send it thirty-three years into the future, and then discount it by six percent every year until you arrive in the present. Voila! $18 trillion have vanished!

Our statist friends are running out of cash.

Mister D
06-24-2017, 06:47 PM
Raise the capital gains tax. Cut the standing army.

Everything else would fall neatly into place. Consider that modest tax increases and virtually no spending cuts brought the budget into balance painlessly in fy 1996.

Oh, wait! The Republican balanced budget act of 1997 balanced the budget in 1996!

That reminds me of how unserious many members of your team are. It also reminds me that I said that I was leaving.

Hello, I must be going
I came to say, I cannot stay
I must be going.
I'm glad I came but just the same
I must be going.
I'll stay a week or two
I'll stay the summer through
But I am telling you
I must
Be going.
You still here? Who saw that coming? lol

Bethere
06-24-2017, 06:50 PM
You still here? Who saw that coming? lol

At the dog track the rabbit always wins.

Mister D
06-24-2017, 06:52 PM
At the dog track the rabbit always wins.
Still here? lol

Trish
06-24-2017, 06:55 PM
How do you make the $20 trillion you owe right now look like only $3 trillion? Simple. You take the $20 trillion you owe right now, send it thirty-three years into the future, and then discount it by six percent every year until you arrive in the present. Voila! $18 trillion have vanished!

Yep - looks like the pay it down the road method seems to be as popular in government as it is in sports........

donttread
06-25-2017, 06:54 AM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.

The saftey nets belong at the state level. I believe in them. I believe they should be monitored for effectivness ( hand up not a hand out type results where possible) . But they are not within the feds Constitutional limititations and federal red tape wrecks virtually every program they mandate.

Tahuyaman
06-25-2017, 04:20 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.

I believe your confusion is rooted in other reasons.

AZ Jim
06-25-2017, 06:10 PM
I believe your confusion is rooted in other reasons.I KNOW you are just a troll.

Tahuyaman
06-25-2017, 06:24 PM
I KNOW you are just a troll.

Hmmm.

You admit that You are confused. You state several reason. I say that I believe your confusion is rooted in other reasons. How does that make me a troll?

Tahuyaman
06-25-2017, 06:30 PM
Your birth made you a boring troll, go away.

Strange responses from the self admitted confused one.

Tahuyaman
06-25-2017, 06:37 PM
The longer someone follows the course of liberalism, the more confused they become with common sense and the real world. They find themselves supporting the same failed solutions for the same problems.

Often though they think individual success is a problem.

Hal Jordan
06-25-2017, 07:19 PM
The longer someone follows the course of liberalism, the more confused they become with common sense and the real world. They find themselves supporting the same failed solutions for the same problems.

Often though they think individual success is a problem.

threadbanned at request of OP

resister
06-25-2017, 07:23 PM
The longer someone follows the course of liberalism, the more confused they become with common sense and the real world. They find themselves supporting the same failed solutions for the same problems.

Often though they think individual success is a problem.

Hoosier8
06-25-2017, 10:18 PM
I cannot understand why some vote against what is best for themselves, support party and individual who have the ability to literally ruin their lives and the lives of those who they love. This forum doesn't attract legions of millionaires or Billionaires and we or our loved ones may need the safety nets put in place so that we didn't have to fall completely. Many of you live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Some may even have the help of a federal program of some kind. If not do you have a close friend, a grandparent who are in a rest home due to illness? What about them? Some say, I'm doing alright and never give a thought to what catastrophe could befall them or their family tomorrow. Will they need help? The current administration and it's allies in congress, clearly don't care. Their legislation is not for you, it's custom designed for themselves and those they are beholding to. Talk all you want about how self sufficient you are but remember "no man is an island". Serious replies only.

So you think Obamacare should just fail on it's own. It is dying on the vine. Think that benefits you?

resister
06-25-2017, 10:44 PM
So you think Obamacare should just fail on it's own. It is dying on the vine. Think that benefits you?Cant see the forest for the trees.