|
Post by drbill on Dec 19, 2017 16:04:17 GMT -6
When we demand that the Government tell us what "truth" is, we are surely doomed. 100000000% doomed.
Each of us is responsible for ourselves. If the Government has to tell us what is right and wrong, we are beyond saving.... That's really the reason that we find ourselves in the mess that we are in. No government intervention will help.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 19, 2017 16:29:25 GMT -6
"Unfaid"? I don't think that "fair" really has much place in the news, as it's a totally subjective thing, and subjectivity has no place in news reporting. What's important in the news is TRUTH, and that's something that's frequently lacking, especially in the broascasting of one particular entity. What the government has the ability to do - and the obligation to do (in a free democracy) is mandate fact checking in a process that is transparent and subject to impartial oversight. This is something that we notably do not have at present. Some news organizations make a serious effort to be factual and impartial (although individuals may have obvious opinions, those are generally expressed as such, apart from core content), but other organizations function primarily as propaganda machines governed by allegiance to an agenda and truth be damned. It has become quite clear that a great many people are unable to differentiate between the two, and that many believe that both types of organization are equally unfactual and partisan and essentiall regard the whole thing as something akin to a sort of sports competition or perhaps a TV reality show. This situation is patently unhealthy and can only lead to an increasingly fragmented, delusional society that is ripe for manipulation by powerful, unscupulous individuals and organizations. We need legally mandated fact checking in news reporting along with legally mandated separation of news reporting and editorial interpretation and opinion. And we need it NOW! (fat chance....) We demand an authoritarian government, and we demand it NOW! Kinda scary that you're literally arguing for a Type 1 society, where "truth" is defined by the state. I've been around for a long time. I know collectively our country was a much fairer place with a wider dispersal of income than it i today. I'm not advocating for government mandated truth, but what we have now is propaganda media that is the dream of the wealthy. They have been so successful that they have people consistently voting against their own economic interests. I'm sure this is many a rich man's dream, but the moral bill is about to be paid. Just today, in my state of Indiana, the Department of Child Services Director quit because she cannot get state funding. That's where we are: We can't even provide for helpless children and we're going to soon have even less revenue as the wealthy get huge tax cuts. I'm sure the Libertarians-and I know a lot of smug middle class one's who I could buy 10 times over- are rejoicing. I think it's a disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 19, 2017 16:49:06 GMT -6
Federal taxation has only a notional relationship with federal spending, and not even that for state spending. I think you can do better than that. Regardless, most poor people in our country are not actually poor. ![](http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.jpg) Anyway, no one is preventing you from paying more taxes than what is required by law. Just continue to file your taxes in 2018 using the same methods you use in 2017. I'd rather keep more in my pocket (and have more to donate to my church and other worthwhile charities).
|
|
ctone
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ctone on Dec 19, 2017 17:30:46 GMT -6
Federal taxation has only a notional relationship with federal spending, and not even that for state spending. I think you can do better than that. Regardless, most poor people in our country are not actually poor. ![](http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.jpg) Anyway, no one is preventing you from paying more taxes than what is required by law. Just continue to file your taxes in 2018 using the same methods you use in 2017. I'd rather keep more in my pocket (and have more to donate to my church and other worthwhile charities). At this stage it's hard to understand all the hand wringing about what are pretty minor tax changes, given that most of the tax revenue goes right into the pockets of the super wealthy bond holders (either directly or indirectly, courtesy of the federal reserve debt based currency), or pubic pensioners, who are relatively rich, or arms manufacturers and the military industrial complex, or politicians and their staffs, or banker bailouts, or simply disappearing into who knows who's pockets, as trillions have been documented to have done.....non of that money is going into the pockets of people living under bridges or in doorways......raise taxes, the rich are assured payment on their bonds, they are in effect, paying themselves, lowering taxes on the rich just takes out the middleman, there isn't much difference either way. One might argue that lowering the taxes on the rich is the more honest or transparent position, as it removes the illusion that raising taxes somehow hurts them and helps the poor and working classes......unless major changes are made in how tax dollars are spent and allocated, whether top earners pay 28% or 30% or whatever, isn't going to make any difference for the poor, and very little difference for most others. If you really want to create a fair tax system and put an end to the ever growing public debt burden, you have to re-institute public control over currency creation, thus getting rid of the debt based system and the resulting constant revenue stream from workers to the wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 19, 2017 19:15:03 GMT -6
Federal taxation has only a notional relationship with federal spending, and not even that for state spending. I think you can do better than that. Regardless, most poor people in our country are not actually poor. ![](http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.jpg) Anyway, no one is preventing you from paying more taxes than what is required by law. Just continue to file your taxes in 2018 using the same methods you use in 2017. I'd rather keep more in my pocket (and have more to donate to my church and other worthwhile charities). That chart is another click bait thing to cause emotional response. Does that chart really tell you anything? Anyone in the US can buy almost everything on that list with their first credit card. People in the poorest countries on earth can find a way to get that stuff too. Poor people know to look at thrift stores and craigslist to get the essentials, used, barely working, whatever. And they do find deals. Oh darn they found a video game system for their kids for $10. SHAME. Its sad to see that almost 40% still have to use laundromat- at inflated prices of course and the time burden. It truly sucks to not have any money or any hope to get out of poverty. Crime gets attractive real fast.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 19, 2017 21:30:58 GMT -6
Come on man. I’ve been to some of the poorest countries in the world. Places where people actually starve or don’t have clean water to drink. Folks would kill for a laundromat.
Seriously? The worst thing is that they have to use a credit card or pay at a laundromat?
So yeah that chart tells me something. Capitalism makes the basics of life essentially free, so that nearly everyone has them. And some luxury items too, like TVs. In Colombia and Peru many people don’t have electricity or hot water, much less a TV or Fridge.
Anyway it's not a winning discussion. People have their beliefs, more power to ya.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 19, 2017 21:37:11 GMT -6
Federal taxation has only a notional relationship with federal spending, and not even that for state spending. I think you can do better than that. Regardless, most poor people in our country are not actually poor. Anyway, no one is preventing you from paying more taxes than what is required by law. Just continue to file your taxes in 2018 using the same methods you use in 2017. I'd rather keep more in my pocket (and have more to donate to my church and other worthwhile charities). At this stage it's hard to understand all the hand wringing about what are pretty minor tax changes, given that most of the tax revenue goes right into the pockets of the super wealthy bond holders (either directly or indirectly, courtesy of the federal reserve debt based currency), or pubic pensioners, who are relatively rich, or arms manufacturers and the military industrial complex, or politicians and their staffs, or banker bailouts, or simply disappearing into who knows who's pockets, as trillions have been documented to have done.....non of that money is going into the pockets of people living under bridges or in doorways......raise taxes, the rich are assured payment on their bonds, they are in effect, paying themselves, lowering taxes on the rich just takes out the middleman, there isn't much difference either way. One might argue that lowering the taxes on the rich is the more honest or transparent position, as it removes the illusion that raising taxes somehow hurts them and helps the poor and working classes......unless major changes are made in how tax dollars are spent and allocated, whether top earners pay 28% or 30% or whatever, isn't going to make any difference for the poor, and very little difference for most others. If you really want to create a fair tax system and put an end to the ever growing public debt burden, you have to re-institute public control over currency creation, thus getting rid of the debt based system and the resulting constant revenue stream from workers to the wealthy. True. And as long as the govt can fiat spend with impunity the relationship between income and spending is basically zero. *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 19, 2017 22:01:32 GMT -6
In Colombia and Peru many people don’t have electricity or hot water, much less a TV or Fridge. In California as well. We do have shelters and government helped Hospitals though. Starbucks with clean toilets thankfully. But they make you buy a coffee. Hey.. its really easy to be critical of someone else. What is the deal? Why do people feel so jealous and critical of poor people? I've worked with many under the poverty line. Most are incredible citizens who never complain.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 19, 2017 22:46:27 GMT -6
Who’s critical?
And the fact that you think California is comparable with rural areas of Latin America.. well.. I don’t know what to say to that. I can’t help you there.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 19, 2017 23:12:30 GMT -6
Hey, it doesn't matter really. I know some Peruvian people, really incredible stories, (and amazing food) and they enjoy American music, which is cool. Google Earth pretty much proves the world isn't as different as it used to be, or what we used to think. I only wanted to point out that the narrative we are taught, we can reverberate it or mute it. So much is from news media, the 'news' reporters have zero gain from us muting their feed. They love us to get riled up and addicted. Easiest way to make a quick friend is to tap into someone's anger. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, simple car sales tactic. So anyway, not sure what the point is, or why I'm even trying to figure it out. Or why I ever even hope to try to get someone to understand when they simply can't. Poverty really is horrible, people become powerless and lose hope, it wears the psyche down, all the way to mental illness and beyond. That's all. Take care.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 20, 2017 0:18:32 GMT -6
This situation is patently unhealthy and can only lead to an increasingly fragmented, delusional society that is ripe for manipulation by powerful, unscupulous individuals and organizations. We need legally mandated fact checking in news reporting along with legally mandated separation of news reporting and editorial interpretation and opinion. And we need it NOW! (fat chance....) We demand an authoritarian government, and we demand it NOW! Kinda scary that you're literally arguing for a Type 1 society, where "truth" is defined by the state. I guess your reading comprehension is not good. Dyslexia? What we have now is in fact very close to "truth" bein g defined by by the government or that's what they're doing everything possible to enact. What kind of a sign is it when the President of the actively encourages neo-Nazis and Klansmen? What I said is that is exactly what we have now. And it's getting worse. What do you think is wrong with fact checking by impartial experts to ensure that the news we get isn't full of lying propaganda? In what way do you think that truth in news rerporting is a bad or authoritarian thing? If you believe that truth is a bad thing, please explain your reasoning. Have you not been following the news on the disastrous tax bill? The 0.05% of people in this country currently hold over 80% of the wealth and they were just handed a tax break of another 32%, with a large special bonus for those who who speculate in real estate like Donald Trump and..... Dianne Feinstein (who is personally responsible - along with her real estate developer husband and and their cronies) for my being forced of the place in San Franciosco where I had lived for the last 10 years and had my studio, destroying the band I has had building for the last 9 years in the process, just as it was about ready to finally move up to a commercial level and right on the eve of the completion of our new album, which has now been delayed by 2 years. Not mention the vast majority of other musicians and artists who made the city both their home and the cultural magnet it was since the '50s. I don't care what label the bloodsuckers call themselves by, we need to get rid of the lot of them. If we don't we risk seeing a reenactment of the French Revolution,which didn't work out well for anybody, and which is something we really need to avoid. Such revolutions never have their desired effect and ALWAYS work out worse for everybody involved. I don't want to see that happen to my country. Suicidally blinded by greed? Ya think? Ans specifically on the subject of net neutrality, in the short period of time since the FCC repealed the 2015 provisions I've been noticing a definite degredation of my AT&T U-Verse TV that appears to afflict the channels like MSNBC that are most critical of the present regime. Coincidence? Maybe, if you believe in such things - I don't.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 20, 2017 0:48:26 GMT -6
When we demand that the Government tell us what "truth" is, we are surely doomed. 100000000% doomed. Each of us is responsible for ourselves. If the Government has to tell us what is right and wrong, we are beyond saving.... That's really the reason that we find ourselves in the mess that we are in. No government intervention will help. First, setting a mechanism to to prevent/control lying in the news is a very different thing from the government telling us what's right and wrong. Which is a silly thing to say anyway because isn't that one of the basic functions of government, anyway? To tell us that theft and murder are wrong and being good to your fellow man is right? Of course it is! And couching arguments in such stupidly simplistic "black and white" terms is one of the basic tools of the propagandist working to twist our thinking. Government is trying to tell us what "truth" is now. What need is a mandate to compel IMPARTIAL fact checking that is not done by the government, but by independeant entities. You know, like we had 30 or 40 years ago. Like when journalists were telling truth about the Vietnam war, much to the displeasure of the government. Do you think that that the current government would permit reporting like that about the the My Lai massacre now? HELL NO! The won't even let journalists go into areas that not "authorized" anymore - all combat footage is controlled and censored. That's the whole point of having autonomous regulatory agencies that are specifically divorced from partisan politics. So they can't be influenced by whatever faction happens to be in power and, if necessary can expose malfeasance and bring down a corrupt regime. You can't trust a commercial entity to do it unaided because commercial entities can always be easily taken over and subverted by any sufficiently determined group that is sufficiently well funded, patient, and determined to impose their agenda. Which is exactly what's happening now. What we're seeing now is the end game of an organized group that has working on subverting democracy and seizing power since the 30s, if not before. We need reinstatement of the Truth in Journalism laws. We haven't anything vaguely resembling that since Reagan. That's not coincidence but I'm not going into that can of worms now. How can we we be responsible for ourselves if the flow of information we rely on to form decisions has been subverted and controlled? We can't. When one of the largest, most popular "news" organizations in the country routinely presents lies as fact and suppresses factual information how can we rely on people to make sound decisions or even act in their own best interests? In 10 years time look back on this and think on these words. If I thought I'll still be around I'd ask you to revisit this discussion . But I doubt I will be, if for no other reason than if things progress as currently planned, with no action to reverse what's going on now I'll have lost my medical coverage and I'll have no real income and I'll be dead. Fortunately for me, because things are going to get really ugly.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 20, 2017 2:01:09 GMT -6
We demand an authoritarian government, and we demand it NOW! Kinda scary that you're literally arguing for a Type 1 society, where "truth" is defined by the state. I guess your reading comprehension is not good. Dyslexia? What we have now is in fact very close to "truth" bein g defined by by the government or that's what they're doing everything possible to enact. What kind of a sign is it when the President of the actively encourages neo-Nazis and Klansmen? What I said is that is exactly what we have now. And it's getting worse. What do you think is wrong with fact checking by impartial experts to ensure that the news we get isn't full of lying propaganda? In what way do you think that truth in news rerporting is a bad or authoritarian thing? If you believe that truth is a bad thing, please explain your reasoning. Have you not been following the news on the disastrous tax bill? The 0.05% of people in this country currently hold over 80% of the wealth and they were just handed a tax break of another 32%, with a large special bonus for those who who speculate in real estate like Donald Trump and..... Dianne Feinstein (who is personally responsible - along with her real estate developer husband and and their cronies) for my being forced of the place in San Franciosco where I had lived for the last 10 years and had my studio, destroying the band I has had building for the last 9 years in the process, just as it was about ready to finally move up to a commercial level and right on the eve of the completion of our new album, which has now been delayed by 2 years. Not mention the vast majority of other musicians and artists who made the city both their home and the cultural magnet it was since the '50s. I don't care what label the bloodsuckers call themselves by, we need to get rid of the lot of them. If we don't we risk seeing a reenactment of the French Revolution,which didn't work out well for anybody, and which is something we really need to avoid. Such revolutions never have their desired effect and ALWAYS work out worse for everybody involved. I don't want to see that happen to my country. Suicidally blinded by greed? Ya think? Ans specifically on the subject of net neutrality, in the short period of time since the FCC repealed the 2015 provisions I've been noticing a definite degredation of my AT&T U-Verse TV that appears to afflict the channels like MSNBC that are most critical of the present regime. Coincidence? Maybe, if you believe in such things - I don't. Just about everyone from both 'sides' of US politics will benefit from the tax package as most have some kinds of property investment portfolios. There ain't a politician on the planet who will vote down legalisation that puts more money in their own pockets. You mentioned Feinstein. Go and do some digging on Nancy Pelosi's accrued wealth while she has been in office. It's staggering! Like from not badly off to over $100 million. I dunno some people just have all the luck when it comes to investing especially when the decisions they make push up the stock prices of their own portfolios. AND these cretins watered down a bill a few years ago which allows them to insider trade with impunity! And as far a media coverage is concerned the negative Trump airtime by MSNBC, CBS, ABC etc. is magnitudes greater than any pro Trump news spin that Fox can muster. I mean the other week MSNBC's first top 10 stories were all Trump hit pieces with the tax bill story at 11. I know Trump is a jerk but that and the constant Russiagate BS does get tiring.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 20, 2017 8:37:26 GMT -6
Authoritarian? Sorry, I don't think so.
Quite the opposite in fact. " The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1] The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3] The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 20, 2017 8:39:02 GMT -6
It's pretty funny to watch confirmation bias on both sides. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Bob, the Wiki summary is basic fact, sure. The issues are where I emphasized below. So, some issues right off the bat. We're letting honest, equitable, and balanced be subject to the view of the FCC. FDR threatened to stack the supreme court. You don't think an unscrupulous president would stack the FCC if he thought it benefited him or his party? Second, compliance wasn't really all that difficult to swing into propaganda. You have to show both sides, but you could show one side's view as news and the other as editorial. And not equal time. So this doesn't seem to really affect partisanship or do what John is claiming it would. And the third paragraph shows why it's not necessary any more. With the net, cable TV, etc, you can't squelch minority or odd viewpoints. When the doctrine started, there were basically three outlets for news, and all were under the purview of the government. Today there's so many the government couldn't control them if they tried. And that's a good thing. To enforce something like the Fairness Doctrine today would require such draconian means and methods be granted to the FCC no one would like it. It's very simple. Americans get what they vote for. They wanted Trump. They wanted their congressmen. Americans hate congress but generally like their congressmen. Americans decry the state of politics, but they watch MSNBC and Fox News. They go partisan websites. The government can't fix that. Politics is our sport du jour.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 20, 2017 9:12:44 GMT -6
Federal taxation has only a notional relationship with federal spending, and not even that for state spending. I think you can do better than that. Regardless, most poor people in our country are not actually poor. ![](http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.jpg) Anyway, no one is preventing you from paying more taxes than what is required by law. Just continue to file your taxes in 2018 using the same methods you use in 2017. I'd rather keep more in my pocket (and have more to donate to my church and other worthwhile charities). At this stage it's hard to understand all the hand wringing about what are pretty minor tax changes,..... Well, let me just give you one example. In the S Corporation I own one Shareholder who owns the largest share earns about $1,000,000.00 per year. He just got a tax deduction of 21%. So, $200,000.00 that used to be taxed at 39% is now not going to be taxed at all. Now multiply that over thousands of people. So, the already indebted treasury is going to be starved more for revenue, which means when it comes to national programs to help states for things like children's services, there is going to be less money. The libertarian answer? "You can pay more money if you want"- as if that's going to happen- and "I'm gonna spend more with my church" , which is a piss stream compared to what the federal government can do nationally when the tax balance is right. But hey, were not as poor as third world countries. So, everything is okey dokey, right?
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 20, 2017 11:19:26 GMT -6
Even with record receipts, the government still overspent by .6 Trillion this year. It's almost moot to complain about potential impacts of tax rates going down. We've added about 10 Trillion in new debt since 2008. Economic growth is the only hope for increased revenues over the long haul.
National prosperity hasn't been fashionable here in a while. Hope it's coming back!
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 20, 2017 12:04:08 GMT -6
I knew, cognitively, that there were people who thought like this. Seeing it personally is still kind of shocking.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 20, 2017 13:32:19 GMT -6
Even with record receipts, the government still overspent by .6 Trillion this year. It's almost moot to complain about potential impacts of tax rates going down. We've added about 10 Trillion in new debt since 2008. Economic growth is the only hope for increased revenues over the long haul. National prosperity hasn't been fashionable here in a while. Hope it's coming back! But that's not where we are at now Don. We have an opioid crises, a homeless crises, a child services crises. Our states are strapped and our government deficit is huge. What's your solution? Do you think economic growth is going to help these crises'. And what proof do you have that that is on the horizen?
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 20, 2017 13:33:07 GMT -6
I knew, cognitively, that there were people who thought like this. Seeing it personally is still kind of shocking. Why don't you translate that for me.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 20, 2017 13:35:57 GMT -6
its never black and white like the parties want us to believe. They are both right and wrong. But they need to be against each other. For example: NAFTA. The jobs that were in central california bailed and went to mexico. Those used to be 'meh' union jobs that paid the bills at least, but were hard jobs. Then they busted the unions and they became minimum wage below poverty jobs that didn't pay the bills. Then they moved the jobs away, and there were NO jobs. Now many of us were angry because we saw all this as the selling out of America. And rightly so because it was pretty simple to see they could bypass all our laws here including wages and pollution standards. So what if your hershey's bar is made with Mexico water,.. they cleaned the water first,... right? (And don't neglect that NAFTA was a libertarian idea please, pro business, requiring a republican controlled congress to pass ). It was a disaster to American workers. BUT that said, if the average Hershey's employee would have parked $10,000 in Hershey's stock back when the first layoffs happened, they would have made way more money on the stock than working full time over the next 20 years. So unfortunately, thats where the world is very confusing.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 20, 2017 14:32:33 GMT -6
I knew, cognitively, that there were people who thought like this. Seeing it personally is still kind of shocking. Why don't you translate that for me. I am just kind of amazed that you think this way. Trying to follow your logic... it seems to be that here are people who need help, but in general people won't help them on their own, so the government has to do it by taking their money to give to other people. This is just kind of shocking to me. It's either a zero sum game (i.e., money that would have been donated to charity instead goes to government... some portion goes to benefits, some goes to pork, some goes to military and so on) OR you're forcing people to give more than they would on their own, which doesn't really seem... great? I guess? Forced virtue isn't all that virtuous. Your position seems to be that people suck and have to be forced to do good by the government. But the people elect the government? So I don't really understand. It's fascinating. Besides, federal revenues have zero, nothing, nada to do with the amount of child welfare spending in Indiana. No one, literally no one, is planning to cut spending because of this. And let's all be real honest, federal spending (discretionary + mandatory) is around 70% based on entitlement spending (SS+Medicare/Medicaid alone are about 53% of spending) and military at about 16%. None of which is going to change one iota, so the discussion about the deficit is pretty much moot.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 20, 2017 14:36:17 GMT -6
its never black and white like the parties want us to believe. They are both right and wrong. But they need to be against each other. For example: NAFTA. The jobs that were in central california bailed and went to mexico. Those used to be 'meh' union jobs that paid the bills at least, but were hard jobs. Then they busted the unions and they became minimum wage below poverty jobs that didn't pay the bills. Then they moved the jobs away, and there were NO jobs. Now many of us were angry because we saw all this as the selling out of America. And rightly so because it was pretty simple to see they could bypass all our laws here including wages and pollution standards. So what if your hershey's bar is made with Mexico water,.. they cleaned the water first,... right? (And don't neglect that NAFTA was a libertarian idea please, pro business, requiring a republican controlled congress to pass ). It was a disaster to American workers. BUT that said, if the average Hershey's employee would have parked $10,000 in Hershey's stock back when the first layoffs happened, they would have made way more money on the stock than working full time over the next 20 years. So unfortunately, thats where the world is very confusing. I agree, which was my point in the get-go. Net Neutrality is a complex topic. NAFTA is a complex topic. I'm not even sure we can really say that NAFTA was a disaster for American workers. We can say it was a disaster for some, sure...but a boon for others, no doubt. But only ~60% of eligible voters even vote in presidential elections (and it's way less in midterms) and of those, I'd guess that a solid majority are voting on a horribly simple basis - either blind party affiliation, or single-issue litmus tests, and so on. Which is why I think American politics is theater, and a general waste of time for any thinking person. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 20, 2017 15:15:42 GMT -6
The theoretical dogma that redistribution of wealth is bad is ridiculous. People certainly weren't better off when Rockefeller, J.P Morgan and Carnegie had almost all the money.
We live in a symbiotic system. Business people who "made it on their own" didn't make it in a vacuum. They actually depended on there being highways to transport products, railways that work, streets paved, fireman ready to save property, public transportation, safe air travel, streets safe enough for those working at factories and offices to survive getting there. They needed the infrastructure like bridges and tunnels, road maintenance, garbage collection, electrical power, and on and on. No one does it on their own here, so taxes keep things together enough for people to make money to a large degree. And let's not forget they need other people to have money to buy what they produced.
I get that people want to keep their money, I would too, but they wouldn't have anything without the systems in place to support them in the first place. Not to mention that the Christian thing to do is help people if you can. So bitching about our taxes helping some poor old guy get a respirator, or a young single mom getting shots for their kids is shortsighted and cruel. Even with its flaws, Obamacare was better than 50 undocumented immigrants clogging up emergency rooms to get medical treatment. My ex had a severely broken arm, and there were actually 51 people ahead of her in the emergency room. Only one had an emergency.
We're finally going to see just what happens when Republicans finally get their way. They've promised wealth would trickle down for 35 years, and I'm still waiting..
On a basic level, people here in NYC have seen Trump up close for 35 years. We know him better than people not from New York. Basically, if you trust him to do something right, you're screwed, he never does what's right, only what gets more for himself. So trusting that lying, cheating, disgusting braggart to do something right is seriously misplaced trust, and you will get burned, and we the people will get burned, mark my words.
I'm not a Republican or a Democrat anymore, it's divided us all. I'm only interested in what you are for. We've begun basing our judgement of people on what they believe, and not who they are and what they do. It's a huge mistake. I don't care if you're super right wing, or a pinko Liberal, if you're a good person, I'll be your friend.
|
|
ctone
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ctone on Dec 20, 2017 15:37:34 GMT -6
At this stage it's hard to understand all the hand wringing about what are pretty minor tax changes,..... Well, let me just give you one example. In the S Corporation I own one Shareholder who owns the largest share earns about $1,000,000.00 per year. He just got a tax deduction of 21%. So, $200,000.00 that used to be taxed at 39% is now not going to be taxed at all. Now multiply that over thousands of people. So, the already indebted treasury is going to be starved more for revenue, which means when it comes to national programs to help states for things like children's services, there is going to be less money. The libertarian answer? "You can pay more money if you want"- as if that's going to happen- and "I'm gonna spend more with my church" , which is a piss stream compared to what the federal government can do nationally when the tax balance is right. But hey, were not as poor as third world countries. So, everything is okey dokey, right? The indebted treasury is indebted due to our debt based currency system, and until that currency system is changed that debt will continue to spiral, and we, taxpayers, will continue to pay the ever rising interest on that debt, with no hope, none, of ever paying that debt off, that debt is in turn used dubiously as the justification for not being able to afford a sensible, equitable distribution of our more than ample wealth. ....hence the disgrace of people living in doorways, no adequate public health system, a far too expensive public college system, decaying infrastructure....etc.....this usage of the public debt as a means of squelching public spending of our tax dollars for the general public's welfare is by design....and you have provided a great example of the success of that strategy, as you state, "the already indebted treasury", yes indeed, what is that debt, about 20 trillion dollars now? That debt, a large portion, really the controlling proportion, is owned by the wealthy, either directly or indirectly, another large portion of it is basically passed around various fed agencies in a kind of shell game.....what it's not being spent on, and apparently will never be spent on in any significant measure, are the types of public programs you and many others would prefer to have funded. So, your friend's tax break windfall, if it had ended up as tax revenue, had exactly zero chance of contributing to these public programs in any meaningful way, rather, it would have been used to keep bond holders (the wealthy, pensioners etc.) secure and happy...among whom bondholders, was very possibly your friend, that's the irony. Unless the tool or control mechanism of a debt based currency system is replaced with the type of system the USA was intended to have, befuddled "liberals" (among whom i'd include myself before learning about what's actually going on) will forever be chasing their tails trying to get the PTB to shift spending priorities from their (the wealthy) own interests, to those of the broad public. That isn't going to happen.....and, I think the people who ultimately control spending priorities, and those aren't the elected officials, may justify their selfishness, skewed priorities, at least in part, as all conmen or woman justify their crimes, i.e., if the public (or "mark") is too stupid to understand that they are the victims of an obvious scam, the debt based currency, then they get what they deserve, and we, the scammers, have every right to profit by it. We saw eight years of supposedly "liberal" Obama during which the debt continued to balloon, and the social problems and related skewed spending priorities remained firmly in place, the visible signs of poverty, homelessness, unstable and under employment, etc....continued to grow unabated...with not a mention of the real source of the problem from Obama or anyone else in any position of influence.....hence Trump. On a brighter note, maybe your friend will take his windfall and invest it in some job creating venture, maybe he'll buy a lot of boutique recording equipment, and help keep some of those small companies going...or, maybe he'll invest in some development real estate which will entail employing construction workers, engineers, real-estate brokers, property managers etc. and he can help keep they and their family's fed and secure......in addition, if he invests in residential real estate, that investment may very well place some downward pressure on housing costs..he has options to spend that money ethically - good for him....or, maybe, hopefully not but it's his choice, he'll take the money and invest in the financial markets, if he does that, the effect will not be much different than had that money ended up as tax revenue, as it will ultimately end up in the same people's pockets. At least your friend can now make his own decision with how that windfall will be spent, hopefully he does so for Main street and not for the same forces that control both wall street and the treasury.
|
|