The Next President is...

[MooseAg03]

15 hours ago, Seriously said:

Cool... I agree with that author and everything he said, but he didn't really say anything of substance. He said loving your country is good, you shouldn't burn the flag (but you have the right to), living in America is great, and that the American government was meant to be limited and self-governing. Then he lists a bunch of stuff that we get for free... 

That stuff doesn't just happen. It happens because we have a well-funded government that is generally not corrupt. You get safe to drink water and a sewage system because of the government's regulations. You get a well built house because we have building codes and inspectors to ensure construction companies are complying with those codes. You get generally safe to eat food in the grocery store because our government has rules in place to safeguard them and the means to enforce those rules.

The free market didn't magically give us all of those things. Why is Nogales, Mexico a complete shithole, and Nogales, Arizona is only partially a shithole? Because good laws and the means to enforce them make a difference. 

So then what exactly is limited government? Because I feel like we're having a pointless debate right now.

 

You say you agree with limited government but just a few posts ago you were advocating for universal income and free college tuition for everyone. Those ideas are mutually exclusive to limited government.

Social security is the prime example. A temporary safety net has grown into a permanent “entitlement” that people think will take care of them after they retire. Wasteful government blew the nest egg that was supposed to fund it, and it is in danger of going insolvent. I’d rather keep the 6.2% of my paycheck and do with it as I damn well please, that’s what it means to be American. That’s what limited government and liberty are about.

Edited August 26, 2018 by MooseAg03
crazy quote format

[Sua Sponte]

What a petty douche.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-rejected-plans-for-a-white-house-statement-praising-mccain/2018/08/26/0d0478e4-a967-11e8-8f4b-aee063e14538_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d0640e38b3dd

Edited August 27, 2018 by Sua Sponte

[Vertigo]

5 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

So then explain to me how the record deficits under Obama (most of which were approved by a Republican Congress) didn’t result in better GDP growth. We had 8 years where for the highest growth was 2.9% with very high deficits. Somehow now the 4% growth is because of deficit spending? I don’t follow the logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We had growth way over 2.9% over the last 8 years.

Q2 of 2014 saw 5.1% followed by Q3 of 2014 with 4.9%.

Q4 of '11 was 4.7%

There were multiple quarters in the 3%+ range.

Also note that for the years 2013-2017 the deficit was 1/3 to 1/2 of what it was in 2009-2012.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Vertigo
Added info

[Stoker]

22 hours ago, Seriously said:

..., it taxes the fact that you decided to hoard your money instead of putting it back into the economy. 

For the farm example, I honestly don't feel that bad about a son having to sell some of the land. The current exemption is $11.18 million, so I'm not sad if he only gets $6 million. He can easily make up the difference in less than a decade, and that money would go back towards repairing the infrastructure that keeps our country running.

 

That's kind of a fundamental misunderstanding of how saving works. Very few people are literally Scrooge McDucking their savings in a giant vault. The estate tax hits productive enterprises that have a monetary value, or stocks that represent capital investments. Even if it's just cash in a bank account, the bank can now lend that money out to people who want to accomplish things with it.

The issue with the estate tax is that it's relatively easy to evade, and the incentives to do so are extremely high. People with $100 million estates are paying a smart lawyer to set up trusts and shells to avoid paying much, if anything. Heirs of people with a relatively small family business, say, $10 million, are forced to sell out in order to pay the taxes. You often can't really just sell half of a small company. Even in your farm example, it's not so simple as selling a few hundred acres. Now you don't really have the land to justify that $400k combine you bought, and maybe a fulltime manager just isn't really in the cards... in a few years, your productivity is down so much you sell the rest.

[di1630]

Federal spending goes into GDP. Thanks to huge deficit spending we get a high GDP and the national debt goes into overdrive.

I’m fairly certain the debt-to-GDP ratio needs to be looked at here. The US actually is pretty good vs many other wealthy countries.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[MooseAg03]

We had growth way over 2.9% over the last 8 years.
Q2 of 2014 saw 5.1% followed by Q3 of 2014 with 4.9%.
Q4 of '11 was 4.7%
There were multiple quarters in the 3%+ range.
Also note that for the years 2013-2017 the deficit was 1/3 to 1/2 of what it was in 2009-2012.
 
 

I was looking at annual numbers, I’m surprised we had quarters that good. You’re right, the deficit was headed in the right direction and the abortion of an omnibus that we just passed has reversed that trend. I am not a fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seriously]

41 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

 

You say you agree with limited government but just a few posts ago you were advocating for universal income and free college tuition for everyone. Those ideas are mutually exclusive to limited government.

 Social security is the prime example. A temporary safety net has grown into a permanent “entitlement” that people think will take care of them after they retire. Wasteful government blew the nest egg that was supposed to fund it, and it is in danger of going insolvent. I’d rather keep the 6.2% of my paycheck and do with it as I damn well please, that’s what it means to be American. That’s what limited government and liberty are about.

 

5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

 

The government's job is to ensure fair free enterprise. That's the difference. If you think there is free enterprise in Mexico then you're even less informed than I thought. Incredible levels of private and government corruption are the enemies of a free capitalist society.

Regulation is not socialism. It is a necessary function of government to ensure a fair system. But it must be conservatively applied, and every new regulation scrutinized to ensure it is not picking winners rather than preventing cheaters.

But these are details. The bottom line is that your philosophy ignores human nature, and you yourself are proof. People will always take care of themselves first. Always. You saving masses of wealth, contributing to the very problem you cite, is all we need to know about the possible success of your desired system. You have to be literally forced by the government to do something that you claim to believe in, how on Earth will that work for people like me who don't believe in your cause? And when I say no, then what? I suppose we should just be forced harder, maybe imprisoned? Killed? Don't scoff, no one in the USSR thought the grand plan would kill 60 million. But it did. Liberals never look past today.

Oh, and it's not even theory. Go ahead, show me all the ways redistributive systems have helped the world. Your plans, so loosely applied in the United States over the past century, have improved the lives of millions in America by the most generous estimates (aside from creating an entire class of dependant humans). Capitalist enterprise has improved the lives of billions across the globe with all the incredible invention you seem to think would just happen no matter what.

You say we need the Elon Musks if the world, but don't you think it's odd they never pop up in socialist, redistributive nations? Must be a coincidence.

I've said it before. I'm not for capitalism because I have no sympathy for the poor of today. I'm for capitalism because I don't want YOUR grandkids to know what a poor person is.

 

Ratner.. why are you telling me about the evils of socialism? Please quote me where I advocated socialism. Everyone already knows that economic system does not work. My original post was talking about defining socialism because it isn't cut and dry like you try to make it out to be. there's definitely a spectrum, and we're finally starting to get there with MooseAg03's post.

I'm trying to stick to one topic at a time, so we'll continue with social security since MosseAg03 brought it up and that's a pretty easy kill. 

Social security has definitely become a failure because the government has treated the money as if it's their own personal bank account. They haven't been good stewards of the money, and now that system is collapsing. It was poorly designed and poorly implemented.

It was a good idea though, and I'm sure there are ways to implement individual retirement accounts for everyone so that they can live into old age with the bare necessities taken care of so that they aren't homeless and starving. Not everyone has a loving family that can care for them, and not everyone has the means to plan properly for their retirement.  There are a lot of people that lose their entire savings because they were tricked (by financial planner not held to a fiduciary standard), took bad advice, or just blew all their money on some addiction (shopping, gambling, what have you). You can call them dumb, and they might be, but they don't deserve to be thrown out onto the streets with no food and nowhere to go. I certainly don't want a bunch of bums milling around. They attract crime and bring down property values. So we need something as a society to prevent that from happening.  

I don't call that socialism. I call that taking care of Americans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Seriously]

9 hours ago, Stoker said:

That's kind of a fundamental misunderstanding of how saving works. Very few people are literally Scrooge McDucking their savings in a giant vault. The estate tax hits productive enterprises that have a monetary value, or stocks that represent capital investments. Even if it's just cash in a bank account, the bank can now lend that money out to people who want to accomplish things with it.

The issue with the estate tax is that it's relatively easy to evade, and the incentives to do so are extremely high. People with $100 million estates are paying a smart lawyer to set up trusts and shells to avoid paying much, if anything. Heirs of people with a relatively small family business, say, $10 million, are forced to sell out in order to pay the taxes. You often can't really just sell half of a small company. Even in your farm example, it's not so simple as selling a few hundred acres. Now you don't really have the land to justify that $400k combine you bought, and maybe a fulltime manager just isn't really in the cards... in a few years, your productivity is down so much you sell the rest.

 

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/11/23/a-hated-tax-but-a-fair-one This article addresses the pros and cons of the estate tax. 

And the farm argument was interesting to me at first, but if you do the research, the number of farms hit by that is extremely low, so the tax as designed, goes towards preventing wealthy dynasties from continuing to amass wealth and power.

https://www.businessinsider.com/does-estate-tax-hurt-small-businesses-2017-6

 

My comment about "hoarding money" was an oversimplification used for brevity.

[Lord Ratner]

Ratner.. why are you telling me about the evils of socialism? Please quote me where I advocated socialism. 
  
I don't call that socialism. I call that taking care of Americans.
 

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

The redistributive policies you call for, the decrying of hoarded wealth... What exactly do YOU think socialism is?

Social policy (good): You can't kick me out of your restaurant because I'm black or gay.

Regulation (good): Credit card companies must make clear the fees and rates before a customer signs a contract.

Socialism: The results of your labor will be seized and given to those with less to create a more equal outcome.

You hide behind words like "rights" and "taking care." But healthcare and retirement funds are not rights. Not in the Constitution, the Bible, nor in nature. They are socialist policy.

I get what you're saying. The concept is simple, that's why so many people like it. I even agree with it, life should be fair. But it's not, and I'm not willing to flip the table over to force it, when, for the millionth time, every historical example we have shows that what you want leads to chaos.

This isn't some artifact of human ambition. This is the natural law of the universe. The Pareto principal is inescapable. Artists, pea pods, galaxies, software bugs, customer sales, sports, fitness... A small proportion (10-20%) will always command a bulk of the resources, and yield a bulk of the production.

It was poorly designed and poorly implemented.
 

The most tired of all socialist claims. "All those example you cited about how socialist efforts failed miserably are just examples of people doing it wrong! I know the RIGHT way to do it!"

By the way, you haven't addressed your claim about needing to be the child of wealth-hoarding parents in America to strike it rich. Shall we hit that or just repeat your point that you hate socialism too, but here are a bunch of socialist policies I support but they're totally not socialism because socialism is bad guys, I swear?

[Lord Ratner]

Oh, and if we really want to kick this goat-rope into full on monkey-f#$king-a-door-knob status, we need to talk about genetics (not race) and IQ (the single most reliable predictor of success by an overwhelming margin).

[Stoker]

2 hours ago, Seriously said:

  

 And the farm argument was interesting to me at first, but if you do the research, the number of farms hit by that is extremely low, so the tax as designed, goes towards preventing wealthy dynasties from continuing to amass wealth and power.

 

Taxes should be for the purpose of raising revenue to fund government, not to punish people who government decides have too much money.

[HossHarris]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

genetics (not race) and IQ (the single most reliable predictor of success by an overwhelming margin).

[citation needed]

[Lord Ratner]

[citation needed]

Which part? Genetics or predictor of success? There's an ocean of research available with a quick Google search.

Here's something I found in five seconds

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/04/iq-trap-how-study-genetics-could-transform-education

[Vertigo]

9 hours ago, di1630 said:

I’m fairly certain the debt-to-GDP ratio needs to be looked at here. The US actually is pretty good vs many other wealthy countries.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Only 3 countries in the G20 have a higher percentage than us in the debt to GDP category:
Japan, Italy, and Singapore.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp

Edited August 27, 2018 by Vertigo

[nsplayr]

Hell of a good farewell statement by someone I didn’t always agree with politically, but whom I greatly respect as an American. 🇺🇸

 

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Hell of a good farewell statement by someone I didn’t always agree with politically, but whom I greatly respect as an American. 🇺🇸

 

 

[Lord Ratner]

Where did clown shoes go? Just when the questions were getting tough he vanished.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2018/09/03/what-would-a-socialist-america-look-like-219626

Here's a great look at what our new batch of socialist want. Note that these people are completely unable to articulate the differences between their "plans" and the failed experiments of the past.

[Lawman]

Where did clown shoes go? Just when the questions were getting tough he vanished.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2018/09/03/what-would-a-socialist-america-look-like-219626

Here's a great look at what our new batch of socialist want. Note that these people are completely unable to articulate the differences between their "plans" and the failed experiments of the past.

You will learn to embrace socialism.... either on your own or under/after the re-education.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

[matmacwc]

^What he said.

7 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

They all come down to “... but Europe does it!”, “racism” and “inequality”.

Life and nature is pretty damn unequal. I’m not as tall as I’d like, I’m not as attractive as Brad Pitt and I’m definitely not married to Kate Upton. Therefore, I’m oppressed. Is it the state’s responsibility to remedy those issues? Using their logic, it should be. The whole thing is an absolute joke.

I find if you ask them, “Equality outcomes of what?”  You’ll get the standard answers then I throw in height/weight/love/friendship and that usually makes them very uncomfortable and change the conversation.  There is no end to that road and lots of other people die to establish their “utopia”

[di1630]

You can’t argue with these people advocating socialism. They have something broken which is why the left is so disjointed and illogical in their hypocrisy and stances on issues.

 

I recently had a discussion with whom my leftist family members say is “so smart you can’t beat him in an argument.”

 

Well it started off ok until we reached a point discussing healthcare that his solid belief is that the only problem conservatives have with the ACA is that it was done with a black guy in the White House.

 

Done, logic won’t work with people who shape facts and reality to fit their already made up belief system.

 

I think most of these idiots are just a vocal minority but the problem will be them influencing future entitled generations.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

[Lord Ratner]

You can’t argue with these people advocating socialism. They have something broken which is why the left is so disjointed and illogical in their hypocrisy and stances on issues.
 
I recently had a discussion with whom my leftist family members say is “so smart you can’t beat him in an argument.”
 
Well it started off ok until we reached a point discussing healthcare that his solid belief is that the only problem conservatives have with the ACA is that it was done with a black guy in the White House.
 
Done, logic won’t work with people who shape facts and reality to fit their already made up belief system.
 
I think most of these idiots are just a vocal minority but the problem will be them influencing future entitled generations.
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
 

They are not a vocal minority. Their argument makes the most sense, if you have no history to draw on. Capitalism took thousands of years to stumble upon precisely because it's so counter intuitive. But the evidence is crystal clear.

As people become less educated about the past, these ideas will take greater hold. If I were a betting man, I'd say we will probably lose the battle.

All you can do is have very respectful debates (in person) with sound evidence. Listen carefully, find the parts of their life they take pride in, and explain how socialism would ruin it. For all you upper-middle-class folks with upper-middle-class friends, their kids are usually the best means of pointing out their own ideological hypocrisies.

Oh, and teach your own kids about the horrors of socialistic experiments. No one else will

[Seriously]

Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the government (which you stated). A capitalist system is one in which the means of production are privately owned. But clearly you have trouble identifying real-world examples of socialism, so here are some examples of things commonly dubbed "socialism" that categorically are not.

Socialism: Nationalized health care (like the UK)

Not socialism: Affordable Care Act 

Socialism: Publicly owned broadband

Not socialism: Net neutrality

Socialism: 100% taxes redistributed evenly

Not socialism: <100% estate tax

Socialism: Completely state owned education system

Not-socialism: Free college for everyone

I advocate for some of these policies but not all...

Yet, over and over again, anything the Democrats want is called "socialism" and anything the Republicans want is "fascism."  These words are now completely meaningless outside of an academic setting and have resulted in both the Democrats and Republicans thinking the other has moved radically away from center.

So you blindly calling all taxes or welfare systems "socialism" is flat-out wrong, continues to polarize your own views, and starves the conversation of actual debate as you've demonstrated...

Your basic premise for argument follows this typical formula:

pick any topic -> call it socialism -> point out that socialism has failed universally -> reiterate that all redistribution of wealth is socialism-> repeat.

Often, you'll create a straw-man argument and attack that instead. If that doesn't work, then you'll just resort to personal attacks. Classy. 

So here we sit. I've given some arguments for political topics like the estate tax and social security. You've given me, "That's redistribution of wealth, which is socialism, which is bad." You follow that up with more right-wing rallying cries against the Democrats. So who's argument is simple here? Because all I'm hearing is the same refrain repeated ad nauseum. 

We started this conversation before Senator McCain's passing which makes his farewell message ever more poignant.

it's reread my posts over the last couple of pages then reread paragraph 7 & 8 of Senator McCain's farewell message. Here was my first post, if you don't want to scroll back through the conversation:

Quote

I agree with everything you said. 

My post earlier was about the fact that people argue over the word socialism without giving any context. Everyone is essentially in agreement over everything except for the word "socialism" because people *do* want policies that make America a fair and equitable place to live in, where your success in life is determined by your own personal effort and not by who your parents are. 

But because the toxic label of "socialism" is applied by anything the Republican party disagrees with, we can't have an honest debate on the merits of such social policies as the estate tax, universal basic income or tuition free college for everyone, and whether or not those make sense economically for the country.

Commence more straw-man arguments...

[tac airlifter]

Seriously, I tried reading your post and seeing things from your POV.  But it’s just so obvious— you say “not socialism: free college for everyone.”  It just simply isn’t true.  There is NOTHING free.  Everything comes at a cost.

 You’re describing the government taking wealth from one person and giving it to another.  One person pays the cost, another benefits without paying, and the state is sole arbiter.  It never works and can’t work, humans reject it.

[Vertigo]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

Seriously, I tried reading your post and seeing things from your POV.  But it’s just so obvious— you say “not socialism: free college for everyone.”  It just simply isn’t true.  There is NOTHING free.  Everything comes at a cost.

 You’re describing the government taking wealth from one person and giving it to another.  One person pays the cost, another benefits without paying, and the state is sole arbiter.  It never works and can’t work, humans reject it.

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, his argument is that we are ALREADY doing that. Except that the wealth transfer is going to places it doesn't need to go to, and that we can shift that spending from one area to another area which may have a greater impact on our society. So instead of spending billions on the "war on drugs" for example, we instead spend billions in offering a higher education for our people.