Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[nsplayr]

Do you do anything else other than post opinions on baseops?

Yea, I ride in airplanes once in a while.

Ah hah! I knew it. You want lots of welfares so you and your party can get more votes. Its all about buying the election versus principle and leadership.

What, you don't want her vote for your preferred party or candidate? I think we've ID'd the problem right there...if I support a particular candidate for office I hope they win with 100% of the vote (ok, that's a little Saddam-esque, but you get my point). Not so much into writing people off...if they wanna give their support for policies my candidate is proposing, great, welcome to the team.

Based on this evidence, are you the type that will take any measure necessary to get promoted? Whatever it takes to ge the votes, right? Because once you gain high rank, you can govern, right? Maybe not, but it has a common sounding theme.

Don't worry, my illustrious career in the AF isn't going much further in all likelihood, although I have attained the prestigious rank of Captain despite the several hoops one now has to jump through to make it that far.

Again, if there's a movement out there in the political world that's more interested in orthodoxy than electoral victory it won't last very long. It's doesn't have to be about "whatever it takes to get votes," but at a minimum you need to not turn people off with extreme policies or harsh rhetoric or write them off as unlikely to support you before you even begin.

[HeloDude]

A libertarian would rather help someone get on their feet rather than paying for them... but by putting in that effort they are still acting as a responsible party for that person. That's what society is all about.

Not at the federal man...and not so much even at the State level, though The Constitution definitely allows for it under the 10th Amendment. If a self described Libertarian wants to voluntarily help people on a private/organizational level separate from the government in the form of charity, then I'm all for it.

And just case you were curious as to what the Libertarian Party says on the issue:

https://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare

Or are you just all about the Libertarian stuff when it comes to drugs, gay marriage, and abortion?

[Vertigo]

Not at the federal man...and not so much even at the State level, though The Constitution definitely allows for it under the 10th Amendment. If a self described Libertarian wants to voluntarily help people on a private/organizational level separate from the government in the form of charity, then I'm all for it.

And just case you were curious as to what the Libertarian Party says on the issue:

https://www.lp.org/is...rty-and-welfare

Or are you just all about the Libertarian stuff when it comes to drugs, gay marriage, and abortion?

Thanks for the link, may I quote one particualr line from it?

"A compassionate society will find other ways to help people who need temporary assistance"

That sounds eerily similar to my line:

"A libertarian would rather help someone get on their feet rather than paying for them... but by putting in that effort they are still acting as a responsible party for that person. That's what society is all about."

So, in other words, thanks for backing me up and showing what I was saying was in line with the official libertarian party stance.

In a society we are all, in one way or another, responsible for everyone else.

[HeloDude]

In a society we are all, in one way or another, responsible for everyone else.

So you then concur that it shouldn't be done at the government level via taxes? Especially at the federal level? Thats what the Libertrian Party says, damn near their exact words.

Vertigo, if you want to give your hard earned money away to charity and to help people, whether they really or not, then that is more then fine and I commend you for doing it...but stealing from people to give it to someone else isn't charity, it's government theft. Or as Obama says "spreading the wealth around".

Isn't a state government still government control? Why are things suddenly, magically okay because it's not federal? Is welfare okay if it's run by a state legislature and governor?

Are you all about the Libertarian stuff only when it comes to getting taxed less? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem pretty pro-defense, but wouldn't a libertarian advocate a fully isolationist foreign policy and a military that is made up of a decentralized network of local volunteers?

Because this is one of those "society" things he was talking about.

My number one Libertarian view is the Federal and State governments honor and follow The Constitution...the 10th Amendment was specifically put in to give most of the powers and decisions to the States, regardless of whether you disagree or agree that it's a good idea. From that, my personal opinion is that charity works best when it's not ran by an inefficient government. Again, why is it ok to take from a person in order to turn around and give it someone else? Because you say it is? Because 90% of people say it's ok?

[Vertigo]

So you then concur that it shouldn't be done at the government level via taxes? Especially at the federal level? Thats what the Libertrian Party says, damn near their exact words.

Vertigo, if you want to give your hard earned money away to charity and to help people, whether they really or not, then that is more then fine and I commend you for doing it...but stealing from people to give it to someone else isn't charity, it's government theft. Or as Obama says "spreading the wealth around".

Yes I do concur- I never said anything contrary. I just pointed out to RUSH, when he implied his disgust at being responsible for others, that responsibility for others is a large part of being in a society.

So until the time comes when people start actually voting libertarian instead of agreeing on the principles of the party and then voting the status quo, we're stuck paying these taxes and conversely stuck giving that money to others in the form of welfare. In the meantime I'll continue to donate my time, energy, and whatever resources I have available to them outside that scope in the hopes they'll get to the point they can in turn pull themselves out of the hole and start helping others as well.

[TreeA10]

"A compassionate society will find other ways to help people who need temporary assistance"

I'm all for a hand out, a hand up, a second chance for those that find themselves needing it. I give money to charity for just that reason. That being said, I think the problem a lot of people have is how we define "temporary" and what is the consequences, if any, of going past that definition.

[Tonka]

The YMMV country! I just don't get the fascination with having states with radically different policies, are we one nation or what? That's a whole different story though, no need to respond.

It wouldn't be radically different; it would be similar to a centralized command decentralized execution-esque model... who better to make decisions, but those leaders nearest their effects? Each state has a higher than average # of specific demographics, and could adjust policies accordingly to those local attributes.

Additionally, if a representative of that state had to spend the states $, rather than put pork in federal bills so that a federal bill is passed AND they get federal $ to their state... you might just have a fewer bridges to nowhere.

In some sense: if my local town was solely responsible for everything in that town: roads, welfare, unemployment, etc.(obviously a logical extreme example) you would probably find that towns/states would become much more incentivized to be efficient with that money (because it is THEIRS!) and therefore would find ways to incentivize (or better help) individuals to become less dependent (in fact I, as a voter of that region, would reward efficient politicians, not those that spent with abandon). You could then greatly reduce the federal involvement while letting them focus on broader items like defense, intelligence, and the like.

Mother Teresa didn't just "cut a check" to solve the problems of the poor.

[Vertigo]

Libertarians are isolationists.

This is false- which makes your entire question based on a faulty premise.

Not sticking our noses into other nations affairs doesn't make one an isolationist. Trade is a key factor in avoiding war per the libertarian philosophy. How can good cross borders if you are an isolationist? When goods cross borders, armies don't.

[Guest one]

I am sure he meant non-interventionist.

[RASH]

Yes I do concur- I never said anything contrary. I just pointed out to RUSH, when he implied his disgust at being responsible for others, that responsibility for others is a large part of being in a society.

So until the time comes when people start actually voting libertarian instead of agreeing on the principles of the party and then voting the status quo, we're stuck paying these taxes and conversely stuck giving that money to others in the form of welfare. In the meantime I'll continue to donate my time, energy, and whatever resources I have available to them outside that scope in the hopes they'll get to the point they can in turn pull themselves out of the hole and start helping others as well.

But Forced Responsibility is not...I'm more than happy to lend a helping hand to those in need, and do so on a regular basis. But the key here is the NEED--it disgusts me to know that our tax dollars go to people who are gaming the system, and that we've allowed the system to deteriorate to this condition.

[Vertigo]

it disgusts me to know that our tax dollars go to people who are gaming the system, and that we've allowed the system to deteriorate to this condition.

So do you call your fellow aircrew members out when they game their travel voucher? Or stay off base when on base would suffice?

Edited March 5, 2013 by Vertigo

[Slander]

So do you call your fellow aircrew members out when they game their travel voucher? Or stay off base when on base would suffice?

Yes. Claim what you're entitled to claim, but don't gouge.

[RASH]

So do you call your fellow aircrew members out when they game their travel voucher? Or stay off base when on base would suffice?

I've been retired 4 years, and my last aircrew TDY when we had a choice where we would stay was in 2004. We (I) moved everyone off base when I saw the condition of the E's quarters at Pope.

But to answer your question, yes, I did call them out when I knew about it.

ETA: Do you?

Edited March 6, 2013 by RASH

[Vertigo]

I've been retired 4 years, and my last aircrew TDY when we had a choice where we would stay was in 2004. We (I) moved everyone off base when I saw the condition of the E's quarters at Pope.

But to answer your question, yes, I did call them out when I knew about it.

ETA: Do you?

If I see it I do... but then I'm also not the one bitching about people "gaming" the system.

[RASH]

If I see it I do... but then I'm also not the one bitching about people "gaming" the system.

So you don't care if people game the system to their benefit at the expense of you paying higher taxes?

[Vertigo]

So you don't care if people game the system to their benefit at the expense of you paying higher taxes?

Caring is one thing. Bitching is another.

No system is perfect and whatever system we use will get abused. That's life. Deal with it.

[Buddy Spike]

The fact that you were even surprised by it is proof itself. People have been talking about this for years. Hell, there was even a massive Occupy Wall Street protest that was massively publicized and dragged on for months. Either you have been willfully ignoring these truths for some unknown reason, or you, like most people here, refuse to believe it or accept it because of rhetoric that has been neatly prepackaged and spread by the organized efforts of the very same 1% that the video was talking about.

Or are you just really uninformed? Until you explain why, I'll have to rely on speculation.

Gearpig, I think the fact that joe1234 is arguing so heavily in favor of that video (and trying to talk down to you while doing so) is proof enough that it's complete and utter bullshit.

[Guest one]

Gearpig, I think the fact that joe1234 is arguing so heavily in favor of that video (and trying to talk down to you while doing so) is proof enough that it's complete and utter bullshit.

Do you not agree with the numbers? It is widely accepted that the top 1% is responsible for around 35% to 40% of our nation's wealth.

The debatable part of the topic is whether or not this is a bad thing.

Edited March 7, 2013 by one

[Buddy Spike]

Do you not agree with the numbers? It is widely accepted that the top 1% is responsible for around 35% to 40% of our nation's wealth.

The debatable part of the topic is whether or not this is a bad thing.

The numbers are fine - the argument that wealth is finite and that the 1% taking the pie so that the bottom 40% starve is complete bullshit.

Wealth is created. One person creating wealth does not take away from another.

[Guest one]

The numbers are fine - the argument that wealth is finite and that the 1% taking the pie so that the bottom 40% starve is complete bullshit.

Wealth is created. One person creating wealth does not take away from another.

I completely agree with that. The statistics are still very troubling. To have so many people so close to the poverty line is dangerous. There are many benefits of having wealth held by a small percentage of the population but the problem is the money they are accruing will be worthless if the bottom 40% can't afford to consume. Right now we can get by with no major problems but in a "great depression" type situation our system would probably have a hard time rebounding without major reforms to our economic system.

Edited March 7, 2013 by one

[nsplayr]

Wealth is created. One person creating wealth does not take away from another.

True statement, just seems "interesting" that the results of our wealth creation system in this country have produced such astronomical gains for a very lucky few (good for them, they figured out how to win based on the rules of the game), and everyone else who has seen their wealth and wages either fall or at best stagnate.

I don't begrudge anyone who's wealthy as long as they did it without breaking the rules, I hope to be wealthy someday myself and have a plan to get there. I also happen to be a fan of looking at those rules which are changeable (tax code, financial regulations, et al) and asking, after examine the results of the current set, "Is this the result we really want to create?"

There are significant political consequences to extremely imbalanced wealth distributions within a population, we seem to keep chugging along either because we haven't reached what the people consider a tipping point in their decision to get mad about it or (more likely IMHO, which the video supports) people just don't know the true situation.

If 90% of your population wants a more equal distribution of wealth (they do), they think it's a little out of whack favoring the rich, and the actual no-shit truth is that it's cartoonishly out of whack favoring the rich, what political consequences does that have for the country?

Edited March 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[RASH]

If 90% of your population wants a more equal distribution of wealth (they do),

Do you have something to back this up? I'd be interested to see it...

[Guest one]

I doubt 90% of the populations wants a more equal distribution of wealth just for the simple fact that the majority of Americans have no idea on how wealth is currently distributed. Just like the video stated, most people think that gap is much smaller than it actually is.

Edited March 7, 2013 by one

[nsplayr]

Do you have something to back this up? I'd be interested to see it...

The "ideal" distribution graphs were taken from data found in this study. It goes further and shows the ideal distributions of men vs women, the rich vs the poor, etc., although none of the differences in gender or wealth really made meaningful differences in what that person thinks is ideal. Lots of good data to back up their conclusions, the video posted just aggregates the results of this study plus some other data and presents it graphically.

I doubt 90% of the populations wants a more equal distribution of wealth just for the simple fact that the majority of Americans have no idea on how wealth is currently distributed. Just like the video stated, most people think that gap is much smaller than it actually is.

People can know what they want without knowing the truth. The thing that's disturbing is that people are correct that our current distribution of wealth is less equal than they would ideally want...the main thing they're wrong about is the scale of the difference between their stated ideal and what actually exists.

Edited March 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[Buddy Spike]

True statement, just seems "interesting" that the results of our wealth creation system in this country have produced such astronomical gains for a very lucky few (good for them, they figured out how to win based on the rules of the game), and everyone else who has seen their wealth and wages either fall or at best stagnate.

Lucky? So none of the people that are wealthy did so out of skill or ability? What about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates? Again, you said true statement yet you're pushing this notion that the wealthy get wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

I don't begrudge anyone who's wealthy as long as they did it without breaking the rules, I hope to be wealthy someday myself and have a plan to get there. I also happen to be a fan of looking at those rules which are changeable (tax code, financial regulations, et al) and asking, after examine the results of the current set, "Is this the result we really want to create?"

What about the increases in those on government assistance?

There are significant political consequences to extremely imbalanced wealth distributions within a population, we seem to keep chugging along either because we haven't reached what the people consider a tipping point in their decision to get mad about it or (more likely IMHO, which the video supports) people just don't know the true situation.

Again, this assumes wealth is a zero sum game. If you took away all of the wealth and put everyone on an equal playing field, do you think there would be a wealth inequality after 10 years? 20?

If 90% of your population wants a more equal distribution of wealth (they do), they think it's a little out of whack favoring the rich, and the actual no-shit truth is that it's cartoonishly out of whack favoring the rich, what political consequences does that have for the country?

Again, it is not a distribution. Distribution implies a common source. Yes, there is a wealth disparity in this country, but a lot of it has to do with economic conditions, inflation, available jobs, etc. (most of which we've regulated ourselves out of thanks to your party's initiatives)

The average IQ in this country is 98. Do you think the average American has the ability to create large amounts of wealth?