Who's ready for a... $5 trillion budget deficit?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

o god this is some funny shit. i seriously cannot understand how someone can actually believe the stuff the republicans say. i cannot even begin with what is wrong with what big willie has said... mainly because it is all wrong.

just a few things. lowering taxes does not equal more revenue. the bush tax cuts did not do this, hell even bushs own economic big wig from the early 2000s said it was stupid and would never happen.

reagan raised taxes and went on an incredible spending spree, what happened under reagan could well be pointed to as the modern day cause of the situation we are in now. why he is seen as a good president is beyond me. i guess since the republicans do not like reality and facts they can just pick who ever they want and pretend.

a helluva lot of places have much higher min wage than america, including my country australia which is amongst the highest in the world.... burgers do not cost $50. things do cost more in australia sure but when the average wage is now about 70k a year so what.

europe, australia and so on have higher % spent on social programs then america. it does not result in people bludging off the system. apparently most people do not like living at the bottom of the rung, that is why it is important to not only support them to actually keep a roof over their head and food on the table but help them get off the bottom.

there is so much more i could say, but i have a lvl 59 wizard that is calling to me

ravenshrike:
A better system requires completely redoing the current one. Destroying the NEA and completely removing the department of educations ability to meddle in primary and secondary education. I seriously don't see that happening anytime soon.

We can't keep duct-taping over these holes and leaks forever. If we want the graduates of the US public education system to a shot at being relevant in the future, we're going to have to consider investing in a new ship. Yes it will be difficult, and will probably require stopping education altogether for a time for the transition to occur. But if we don't accept that something needs to change we will never get a plan ready. And we'll keep procrastinating and acting like it's not a big deal until the entire system is on the verge of collapse, and we are forced to take rash and uncalculated measures to try and restore order. Then by that point, their goal will not be investing in a good system, but rather any system to make the people stop panicking about the state of education.

arbane:

Not G. Ivingname:

Military bases in allied countries: Why do we need to have all the bases in Europe? Do any of these nations really our military bases there? I am pretty sure Europe isn't under much military threat from anybody (no matter how many Call of Duty games say Russia is) and they have enough of a military budget to defend themselves.

Oh, sure, you say that NOW, but when Genghis Khan rises from his grave, THEN you'll be sorry.

Well... they are they are the exception.

Ok seriously, I can understand we still have them left over from the Cold War, but the USSR has fallen. Russia is a barely functioning nation that isn't a threat to anyone but itself. There are no enemies that threaten Europe. I can understand (although don't agree with) having bases in the Middle East because of how unstable the area, and we are fighting several wars there., and South East Asia to keep an eye on China (Taiwan only exists because of the US navy's presence in the area), but Europe? The area is stable (minus Greece) and nobody is interested in fighting each other due to fear of economic ruin.

Lilani:

ravenshrike:
A better system requires completely redoing the current one. Destroying the NEA and completely removing the department of educations ability to meddle in primary and secondary education. I seriously don't see that happening anytime soon.

We can't keep duct-taping over these holes and leaks forever. If we want the graduates of the US public education system to a shot at being relevant in the future, we're going to have to consider investing in a new ship. Yes it will be difficult, and will probably require stopping education altogether for a time for the transition to occur. But if we don't accept that something needs to change we will never get a plan ready. And we'll keep procrastinating and acting like it's not a big deal until the entire system is on the verge of collapse, and we are forced to take rash and uncalculated measures to try and restore order. Then by that point, their goal will not be investing in a good system, but rather any system to make the people stop panicking about the state of education.

Don't get me wrong, I would like it to happen however there are too many entrenched interests. The mechanisms of power, once granted, are very hard to remove in a non-autocratic society.

DrVornoff:
Cut defense, bar contractors who have defrauded the government, repeal the Bush tax cuts, reform education to get rid of that fucking NCLB bullshit, institute a government works program to improve infrastructure, mandate a livable wage, and close tax loopholes and shelters. This isn't complicated.

I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm just pointing out the faults with these plans.

1)Defense is already going to be cut after the Afghan war. But it still won't solve our larger problems.

2)And how much money would that save exactly?

3)Bush tax cuts apply to everyone, not just the rich.

4)NCLB is already undergoing changes but what do you suggest we use instead of standards?

5)All infrastructure? That's going to be very, very, very expensive.

6)So we're going to increase the minimum wage? That would be even more reason for coperations to send jobs overseas.

7)No arguement there.

Not G. Ivingname:
It costs more to make pennies than they are worth, the finished metal cost is also more than what the penny is worth (but you can't sell them for scrap since melting down pennies is a felony) drives up the cost of copper and zinc, adds to inflation without being used, and is just dead weight on the economy. All that would be required to stop the madness is for the government to stop making the copper and zinc orders, turn off the machines, and allow pennies to be melted down for scrap and profit.

That's only true for pennies minted between 1909-1982. The melt cost of the current penny is much more manageable. However, this isn't the case for the nickel as the melt cost was at over 100% of it's value up until about a month ago since the price of metals has been dropping lately.

So to sum things up both nickels and pennies cost more to mint only very old pennies are worth more melted down due to a change in composition and nickels are normally worth more melted down than as currency by today's standards and between the two the nickel loses the US more money per year when it comes to the cost of actually minting and distributing the coin.

A nifty tool that stays updated regularly in terms of coinage is Coinflation.

ugh, 3.1 pages of headache, where to start...

On unions: there is no empirical evidence that they increase the costs of something. Look at the data of all 50 states, some of which have unions, some of which don't. There is no correlation when looking at just that, as there are some states where it is cheaper and some where it is more costly for either one. Unions are also experiencing a continual downward growth for a good many years now, thus their power is already being diminished and must fight to retain what they have gained. Remember it was largely through unions that a number of work safety, wage fairness and opportunity laws came to be. Yes some have become a bit over-bloated in their endeavors but that does not mean we must scrap them in their entirety.

Healthcare: By telling people to use the ER and not pay you exacerbate the root cause of the cost problem. It was either 2010 or 2011 that estimated unpaid medical bills was about 50 billion dollars. Now, obviously that's fairly small compared to overall costs, but lets apply some economics and logic: hospitals have to make up the cost(pass it on to others), and those that don't pay aren't evenly distributed. This leads to a ripple effect, where a small cluster of hospitals has a large share of nonpayers, thus they need to raise costs significantly. Nearby hospitals compare their costs to those of nearby, and see that it is higher there, thus raise it to near match. This is partly encouraged by insurers, because when hospitals raise rates, the patient pays their percentage part and they take the rest, thus the insurer raises rates on all to compensate. Carry on a lot and voila, despite the higher costs being in limited areas it spread everywhere. Nonpaying patients are a multiplier to medical costs, with everyone being insured, that multiplier goes away. On that note...

Universal Healthcare: Fun fact, there are currently 32 nations that have it! There are also 33 nations that are classified as developed. Those numbers matching up is indeed what you think it is. There are three kinds of UHC: single payer, insurance mandate and a combo of the two. Of the 32 nations with it, none spends more than 12% of their GDP on healthcare to cover everyone, while the US spends 17.8%. Our administrative costs are about 30% (so for every dollar you spend, 30 cents is to pay non medical costs), whereas the highest is about 18% iirc, with some nations as low as 4%. I'd also like to note that our insurance rates are rising faster than inflation, with an average annual costs to be higher than average income inside a decade. Oddly enough, in Massachusetts, where there is state UHC, its insurance rate increases are at half of the national average.
Yes we have so many of the drug companies, but drugs are sold internationally, for having it researched and built here doesn't make it better here. Yes we may have shorter wait times, but when only part of your populace has regular access it's a fixed argument. We average about 3 doctor visits a year per person in the US, while other nations with UHC that number is as high as 15+ a year. With a five fold difference, wait time difference is only natural. Also, we might have some better specialists for some procedures, but overall our healthcare system is worse when you measure the effectiveness on the whole population. If anyone really cares, look up some health statistics, two lil tidbits I can recall is that our life expectancy and infant mortality rates are ranked in the twenties world wide.

Also, I detest the 'but we will have to ration care' argument. Tell me, is it better to keep doctors with idle times doing nothing and large stores of drugs attracting dust, while those who need treatment/procedures(the kind you can't walk into the ER to get) are left out so that those with cash can just walk in and get it? or should we have a situation where resources are being pushed to the limit and we have to decide what is the most effective use of things? Seems to me that would drive efficiency to treat as many patients(customers) as possible, while simultaneously driving up production of medical items and demand of medical students. It always baffles me that the republican side is supposed to be largely religious/christian yet are against letting everyone have wider access to healthcare. Add on that they are 'pro business', last I checked a more healthy populace that lives longer and is sick less is more productive for a longer period of time, and productivity is money, albeit productivity hasn't matched income for awhile now, so what do I know...

Taxes: *face/palm* the issue with saying 'cut all loopholes and incentives' etc is that a number truly do help, and those with the power to do so never will due to their nature. I also fear the growing 'expand the base' rhetoric. Yes about 50% don't pay federal income, but they pay all other local, state and federal taxes(social security, medicare). Also, in case people are unaware, the reason that 50% don't pay is because they are under the federal classification of 'poor', which last I heard is someone who makes LESS than $22,500 a year.

Military: We can afford cuts somewhere, trust me. Also, war spending isn't included on the budget(as it is kinda hard to predict), it goes straight to debt, unless Obama finally managed to get it directly onto the books, so for those that didn't notice, defense spending is still the same even after ending Iraq, we just don't have the war operations costs there anymore. Also, I think we have enough military hardware stockpiled, and if you reduce spending it isn't going to kill production or research, they will learn to work within their new means. For some fun facts off some military research sites, do you want to know how we compare numerically to the rest of the world military? our navy is larger than the next 13 largest combined, but we have the most carriers in the world(with a new one being built atm) Our airforce(fighters, bombers, cargo planes, helicopters...) is larger than about the next 5 combined. We spend more per soldier than any other nation by a wide margin and we have about 1800 nukes ready to use with about twice that in storage... I don't know about you, but, damn.

...As to the OP topic, uhmm... I'm not ready, but when you're in a recession govt is supposed to spend, you practice austerity and pay off debts in the boon times, not the crash. Unfortunately we haven't practiced Keynesian economics for some time so naturally doing only part of it in a half-assed measure didn't get us out as fast as it would if we followed to the letter. Also, social security is still self funding til the 2040s, I hope we will solve it by then. Medicare is indeed an issue that is being attempted at fixing with universal care, leaving defense the last big budget item to be touched. Rage about retirement benefits/entitlement all you want, I'm not of the opinion to destroy something that was promised to people who worked a lifetime believing that was what they would get.

ravenshrike:
A better system requires completely redoing the current one. Destroying the NEA and completely removing the department of educations ability to meddle in primary and secondary education. I seriously don't see that happening anytime soon.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly start with anything as simple as getting the student/teacher ratio down below 30 and paying enough that being a teacher doesn't require a vow of poverty. Gotta crush them unions first!

DrVornoff:
Americans have this unfortunate tendency to follow capitalism the way they do the Bible. It's not an economic theory, it's dogma. And sadly, most of them are not very good at it.

I refer to it as "the Cult of the Almighty Dollar". I wish I thought I was joking.

arbane:

ravenshrike:
A better system requires completely redoing the current one. Destroying the NEA and completely removing the department of educations ability to meddle in primary and secondary education. I seriously don't see that happening anytime soon.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly start with anything as simple as getting the student/teacher ratio down below 30 and paying enough that being a teacher doesn't require a vow of poverty. Gotta crush them unions first!

Don't be ridiculous, if we pay teachers fuck all then the teachers we have will be the people that really want to do it, that way we get the best. What do you think will happen if we pay teachers well, that we will attract bright minds into the field, hah, like that will happen.

Non-sarcastically though, the issue of education in America is larger than just the education system. Society itself has a large say on education. The single largest factor in how well a child learns is parental involvement. Of course, when you live in a society where a considerable portion of parents are working 60+ hour weeks just to put a roof over their heads parental involvement in education is decreased.

It also does not help when the minimum standard of education is very poor. The best education in American is jut that, the best. Where America falls down is that it really sucks at giving those not born into money to pay for the best education an opportunity. Education funding needs to be more balanced. If a school is having poor results do you really think stripping it of funding is going to help?

arbane:

ravenshrike:
A better system requires completely redoing the current one. Destroying the NEA and completely removing the department of educations ability to meddle in primary and secondary education. I seriously don't see that happening anytime soon.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly start with anything as simple as getting the student/teacher ratio down below 30 and paying enough that being a teacher doesn't require a vow of poverty. Gotta crush them unions first!

I said nothing about removing state or local unions. Seeing as the NEA does not decide issues of pay your poe pink rather misses it's target. Not to mention since by and large the unions have set up their contracts to base pensions off the last 2-5 years before retirement their pay structures reflect that. THAT is probably the largest single source of low pay for teachers during their first 2 decades of teaching.

Saucycarpdog:
1)Defense is already going to be cut after the Afghan war. But it still won't solve our larger problems.

We're spending fucktons of money on constantly expanding a massive arsenal, some of which is obsolete but we keep making more of it anymore. And the only excuse the Republicans can summon up is, "But we might need it later!" Fuck that.

2)And how much money would that save exactly?

Can't give a concrete prediction, but why are we giving defense contracts to known frauds?

3)Bush tax cuts apply to everyone, not just the rich.

So?

4)NCLB is already undergoing changes but what do you suggest we use instead of standards?

Standardized testing is bullshit. All it does is result in teachers teaching you how to beat a test. Get the student teacher ratio down to 15, reform the grading system, emphasize practical use of information being taught, and foster cooperation rather than cutthroat competition.

5)All infrastructure? That's going to be very, very, very expensive.

Or just the bridges. Whatever. Just fucking fix something!

6)So we're going to increase the minimum wage? That would be even more reason for coperations to send jobs overseas.

Then tell them to pack that shit in. A government has the power to do that.

Oh, and one I forgot: fuck the War on Drugs! It's an expensive, pointless, fruitless boondoggle with no victory conditions pumping propaganda and lies into our schools and getting in the way medical research. Decriminalize this shit, legalize marijuana, and turn the DEA into something that doesn't concern itself with what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

DrVornoff:

2)And how much money would that save exactly?

Can't give a concrete prediction, but why are we giving defense contracts to known frauds?

Anybody who wants to cut military spending(A separate issue from iraq/afghanistan) can't figure out that military spending is outside of abnormal conditions like those caused by massive gdp inflation with runaway government spending less than a fifth of yearly tax receipts. This is a rather small amount when all is said and done, and even were all military spending to be eliminated, THERE WOULD STILL BE A DEFICIT. So no, it is NOT an issue of military spending being too high. It's an issue of governemnt spending way too much shit on everything else.

ravenshrike:
Anybody who wants to cut military spending(A separate issue from iraq/afghanistan) can't figure out that military spending is outside of abnormal conditions like those caused by massive gdp inflation with runaway government spending less than a fifth of yearly tax receipts. This is a rather small amount when all is said and done, and even were all military spending to be eliminated, THERE WOULD STILL BE A DEFICIT. So no, it is NOT an issue of military spending being too high. It's an issue of governemnt spending way too much shit on everything else.

And of course, we go right back to protecting corporate welfare while dismantling social welfare. Until you can give me a legit explanation why Lockheed-Martin needs more defense contracts after they've defrauded us twice but starving children don't need food stamps, I really have no interest in listening to your poorly thought out talking points.

DrVornoff:

ravenshrike:
Anybody who wants to cut military spending(A separate issue from iraq/afghanistan) can't figure out that military spending is outside of abnormal conditions like those caused by massive gdp inflation with runaway government spending less than a fifth of yearly tax receipts. This is a rather small amount when all is said and done, and even were all military spending to be eliminated, THERE WOULD STILL BE A DEFICIT. So no, it is NOT an issue of military spending being too high. It's an issue of governemnt spending way too much shit on everything else.

And of course, we go right back to protecting corporate welfare while dismantling social welfare. Until you can give me a legit explanation why Lockheed-Martin needs more defense contracts after they've defrauded us twice but starving children don't need food stamps, I really have no interest in listening to your poorly thought out talking points.

If by defrauded you're talking about the F-35, that's what comes from government continually adding to contracts. The original concept for the F-35 was quite simple. However the various military branches kept wanting new capabilities on the same airframe. Thus the current boondoggle. Is it technically possible to do everything they want done for the F-35 airframe, yes. But the engineering behind it gets ever more complex with each added feature.

As for food stamps, that's such a miniscule part of .gov spending I'm confused as to why you'd think there'd be any substitution effect by stopping military spending.

Saucycarpdog:

3)Bush tax cuts apply to everyone, not just the rich.

The rich get far more back individually than the lower and middle classes. I think getting rid of the cuts would help lower the deficit without crashing the economy much further.

Bohemian Waltz:

Not G. Ivingname:
It costs more to make pennies than they are worth, the finished metal cost is also more than what the penny is worth (but you can't sell them for scrap since melting down pennies is a felony) drives up the cost of copper and zinc, adds to inflation without being used, and is just dead weight on the economy. All that would be required to stop the madness is for the government to stop making the copper and zinc orders, turn off the machines, and allow pennies to be melted down for scrap and profit.

That's only true for pennies minted between 1909-1982. The melt cost of the current penny is much more manageable. However, this isn't the case for the nickel as the melt cost was at over 100% of it's value up until about a month ago since the price of metals has been dropping lately.

So to sum things up both nickels and pennies cost more to mint only very old pennies are worth more melted down due to a change in composition and nickels are normally worth more melted down than as currency by today's standards and between the two the nickel loses the US more money per year when it comes to the cost of actually minting and distributing the coin.

A nifty tool that stays updated regularly in terms of coinage is Coinflation.

My mistake.

Still, it costs more to make than they are worth (and with inflation in effect all the money cost making them is worth more than the money printed).

The Left and the Right are Wrong on the budget issues. look your going to have to cut social spending somewhere Social Security is fine Medicare and Medicaid eh not so much. I have Grandparents that I love very much but there has to be a Reconstruction of the system as of right now one of them I cant remember is being paid by the State not the federal its unsustainable. Look those Programs has always has had trouble being funded its not like its Recently Republicans has been trying to get rid of it. And Democrats/ Progressives has to learn that while yes you can tax the wealthy (I'm in no way wealthy and I expect to make maybe if im lucky 80-100 thousand salary one day) they have the ability to leave the damn country you cant force them to pay higher taxes. The Problem is that people on the Left think that Defense cuts will help balance the budget but they refuse to look at the biggest spender of federal dollars. The Rights problem is that they think that government cannot do anything right...well they are right on that but you can at least try to make it better not just put a thumb up your butt. Defense spending personally I have seen it as a force for good than evil it gives people perspective and structure when you cut military spending your cutting someones job so you can pay a mid level bureaucrat to take a coffee break. Bureaucracy can be effective if the government made people actually have to work to keep there job and I think that Mitt Romney was right when he said I like to fire people (now i'm sure he made an ass out of himself but he made a point but maybe not the one he thought he did or what the left distorted or the right) But If i'm treated like dirt at an establishment I wont go there again its purchasing power and it gets people fired and hired

Also Im probably going to vote Obama out of respect to the God Emperor of America BIDEN

Ninjamedic:
Well I can sit on my arse all day watching bad Films and playing Twisted Metal, does that mean we can pay the average executive/banker sweet fuck all?

You seem to have a very twisted sense of what corporate executives do, so I'm just going to ignore this.

DrVornoff:
"If they have any dying to do, let them do it quickly and decrease the surplus population."

So what? Who are you?

That's a laugh. A lot of CEO have MBAs and the MBA is the worst thing to ever happen to American business. There are a lot of CEO's who actually aren't very good at their jobs, but they keep them because the shareholders know that executive turnover causes the stock prices to dip.

As for smart people not flipping burgers, that's bullshit too. It depends entirely on whether the industry with their relevant skills is hiring. Some sectors are either very difficult to break into or have been affected by the recession.

For example, I know a number of artists who are working shit jobs because that's the only thing currently available to them. These guys have amazing talent, but there aren't enough entertainment industry jobs going around for all of them. A number of them are still trying to build up an audience. If they had better wages, they could afford to do more marketing and speed up the process.

Your idea that just possessing intelligence means you have a ticket to Easy Street really shows how naive you are.

Pithy quote that sounds nice but means nothing.

I am my own moral agent.

Yeah, Mr. Authority on Business over here. If the business is doing terrible and the stock price is tanking, the shareholders fire the executives usually.

Yes, like acting. Flipping burgers is the only thing you skill you can fall back on? Construction pays more than that. Tempting at an office pays more than that.

Starving artist is a term and not, say, starving physicist because artists have few skills to fall back on. Yes, and paying them $30,000 a year to flip burgers would shoot the price of the burgers up. You do realize that, right? They made some shitty choices, clearly. To have so few skills to fall back on that they end up having to do minimum wage works prove their idiocy.

Intelligence means you should diversify your skill set and hobbies. Have something else to fall back on, have some connections by networking, etc. Your friends made some really shitty life choices.

Ninjamedic:

What about long term injuries or disabilities?

I cant get any info online about the state budgets, so I'll leave this point to posters with better knowledge in this area.

Well Sir, while I vehemently disagree with what your saying I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Wait, you don't have means testing in your country?

Poor people made some poor life choices. If they didn't and have some severe mental problems, there are organizations out there to help them.

California has like a $12 billion budget deficit this year. Wisconsin, under Scott Walker, closed a $3 billion deficit. Comparisons, comparisons.

Good.

No, we don't have means testing. Paul Ryan wants to implement it, though, but the liberals really hate him, with a bloody passion. He's the first person to survive touching the third rail of politics.

arbane:

I thought you were claiming to dislike 'freeloaders'? But here you are suggesting a policy that involves freeloaders actually jacking up medical costs for everyone, until the hospital is forced to shut down the emergency room, resulting in more deaths-

-never mind, I get it now.

And when they execute the wrong guy, you're fine with that, right?

(And Captcha says "Do more sit-ups". IT'S WATCHING ME.... O_o )

I was stating a legal reality, that's all. I don't have to like it.

Does not happen very often, especially with modern DNA science.

DrVornoff:

Don't bullshit me. You made a claim. I proved it wrong. Stop pretending you made a different claim.

There's a difference between insurance and continually bloating your military to satisfy paranoid delusions and a chronic sense of insecurity in your superiority.

Neither do you, and yet here you are. And are you telling me that the Tea Party are fit to lead? I wouldn't trust that confederacy of morons and psycho-Christians to hold a door open for me, let alone determine state/national policy.

Doesn't change the fact that they're not conclusive. See, like in the first example in that article, in 1990, DNA evidence wasn't the norm. Police found not have been fastidiously collecting every little fiber like they do now. You do know that, right?

It's fun being on top. Makes it easier to wave at others.

Paul Ryan > Obama any day, dude.

Skeleon:
You know, I'm not going to enter into the discussion proper, but I just felt the need to express my feelings on this.
I'd hate to be like you, I'd hate to have anything to do with you and I'd hate to live in a country where your opinion has any kind of significant prevalence. I neither want to nor am able to properly put my disgust into words, so let's leave it at that.

Gotta love that leftist civility!

Ninjamedic:
Paris Hilton, My Super Sweet 16. Explain.

Easy to explain: Parents/grandparents had/have money up to their eyeballs. See, there's this new thing called inheritance. Oh, and trust funds. A lot of those Occupy protesters know a thing or two about trust funds, seeing as many had them (how else do you think they could spend months away from their actual lives?)

arbane:

It. Was. Implemented. BECAUSE. The. Stock. Market. CRASHED. And. People. STARVED.

I feel like I'm arguing with an Eliza script that was programmed with the complete works of Ron Paul. :-P

Thank you for your gift of condescension. I will cherish it forever.

Much like Obama's stimulus attempt, the New Deal got its budget cut by people like you. it worked, it just didn't work as well as it was hoped it would, and like Obama's stimulus, that gives people like you an opportunity to say that it was completely worthless and should never have happened.

Sadly, we do not have the ability to peer into alternate universes to see how things would have gone.

Are you sure that the only reason?
And why is it that relying on government is considered a moral failing by your crowd, but relying on Private Charity is... actually, also considered a moral failing.

Wow. Even among Republicans, it's not every day that I get to see the Fuck the Poor argument stated so nakedly.

I take it it hasn't occurred to you that these shit jobs that you think should be made deliberately unlivable are STILL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

Man, you suck at time frames. The economy didn't crap the bed until months after the crash. It was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that kicked off the Great Depression, chief.

By the way, I hate Ron Paul. He's fuckin' crazy.

Obama's stimulus wasn't cut in funding, it just didn't work. The New Deal didn't get cut either. FDR even threatened the SCOTUS with court-packing if they invalidated any more of his New Deal legislation. The Democrats had total control of Washington back then.

Private charity is funded by people who voluntarily do so. That's the quick answer.

"Fuck the Poor"? Not quite. Poor people need to learn skills. The answer isn't making their shit jobs pay more. The answer is training them in a technical profession. Plumbers, roofers, and electricians make good money. I know many.

It is, but it does not mean I should pay someone $30,000 a year to do it. Teenagers are always willing to do it if given the chance.

DrVornoff:
Do you get all of your information on criminal justice from reruns of CSI?

I think they deserve a wage that you can live off of. Your sensationalist blustering isn't going to change that this is a moral imperative and you're just coming across as a heartless egomaniac and a cheapskate.

So the vampires selling toxic mortgages and then betting on them to fail were just innocent victims of the evil federal government? You are voluntarily giving up your right to get pissed off at criminals.

And you get yours from the Southern Poverty Law Center, obviously. I get mine from the annals of medical science texts. They're boring to read sometimes, but I learn a lot.

Burger flippers don't have the skills to deserve a living wage. Try learning a skill.

The government created the market by messing with the mortgage industry in the '90s and then doing nothing to stop Fannie and Freddie from eating up all the mortgages. The bankers just knew the government would bail out Fannie and Freddie. They were right, after all.

Nice of you to be using the Obama campaign's rhetoric.

Love that you're calling them criminals when, you know, none have been convicted in the aftermath of the housing bust. Your selective outrage at bankers but not at murderers is telling.

Stagnant:
Willie, do you realize that the protection of human dignity has essentially been the core of all political writing since the late 1700s? And do you realize that you just shat all over it?

I can only cosign what Skeleon said. You are a terrible person, and I am ashamed that you live in the western world.

Respect needs to be earned. If a person flipping burgers can tell me he can do nothing to improve his situation, he's lying through his teeth.

Hard work is necessary to succeed. Flipping burgers is not gonna get you there.

Diablo1099:
People who Work have responsibilities, All the more reason to NOT pay them so low that they will starve then!

I pray you never get to a position of power.

Loads of Famous people started low and worked their way up, but by making low paying jobs like flipping burgers not pay enough to cover basic living costs, they'll never make it to the big times.
See the problem there?

Yes, they do. They also need skills to earn a living wage.

Politics is far too messy in its current form. Republicans have to get a media colonoscopy to run. No thank you.

In the constitutional republic that is the United States, I'd have a challenger in any election. If the people choose me, so be it.

Yes, they worked their way up with hard work, not getting paid $30,000 a year to do absolute shit.

They WORKED FOR IT! Those famous people who started at the bottom did not get paid living wages at the bottom. See the problem with your logic there?

arbane:

Bullshit.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930.
The Great Depression began with a catastrophic stock market crash on October 29, 1929.

Unless some investor had a Tardis, I don't think you get to pin this one on Teh Ebil Gubmint.

That's my point, chief. The cratering of the economy didn't start until after that bill was signed into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act#Economic_effects :

Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, some economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression. Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.

Suck on that.

DrVornoff:
So that means absolutely nothing to you?

Again, this really shows how selfish you are. I became a performing artist and a multimedia artist because that is what I was put on this earth to do. I never feel more alive than when I'm performing, playing music, or watching the video come together in the editing. I'm well aware of the fact that people like you place zero value on culture. But I'm following my bliss. That doesn't however make me inferior to you. It doesn't make me less of a person than you are. It doesn't mean that I deserve to starve to death to satisfy your selfish ego.

I don't wish poverty and destitution and misfortune on you. It's just a shame that you can't return the favor.

So you keep insisting. But I have seen absolutely no proof in the real world that livable wage results in the sort of sensationalist, disproportionate rises in cost of living that you claim.

It might sound cold to say it, but some people are weak in mind and body. Those who turn to crime are definitely weak willed.

I place a high value on culture. I love the shit out of Penn & Teller, but, you see, they have more than just their magic tricks to fall back on.

Also, I am a huge video game, movie, television, economics, politics, and comics buff. Why else would I be on this site otherwise?

Yes, and your bliss sometimes won't pay your bills. And that's no one's fault but your own. I am not responsible for your shitty life choices. You are. Own them.

I'm not wishing poverty or anything on you. It would be great if everyone were rich. It just isn't going to happen. If you chose a shitty profession, you must live with the consequences.

Let's keep this simple for you: Costs go up, prices go up to reflect the increase in costs. Do I need to simplify it any more for you?

arbane:

Diablo1099:

Loads of Famous people started low and worked their way up, but by making low paying jobs like flipping burgers not pay enough to cover basic living costs, they'll never make it to the big times.
See the problem there?

I'm willing to bet that no, no he doesn't. To the true Royalist, the system keeping the serfs in their place is a feature, not a bug.

I admire the rags-to-riches people. You seemingly think they can't rise up without severe government assistance. I have more faith in the human spirit than you do.

Lilani:

Big_Willie_Styles:
The death penalty is not about cost, it is about justice and retribution. And it is only so expensive because of the endless appeals process. And all the stupid stuff we have to give men on death row.

Lol what? So you would rather cut welfare than cut the death penalty? People not having the money to purchase food isn't as important as revenge? Please tell me you're also pro-life, I'm in the mood for some good, tender irony.

Also, just out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the penny? We lose millions making the penny every year, it's about time we just stopped making it wouldn't you say? Other countries (including Canada, just recently) have stopped minting their pennies, and none of them ever saw a rise in the price of goods or a lowering in the amount of charitable contributions. And they no longer spend all that money making something that costs more to make than it is actually worth.

I'd like to cut many things, but once again you don't know the difference between state spending and federal spending. The death penalty is paid for by the states. Welfare is paid for by the federal government. States can do whatever they want, but the federal government is a different animal. The 10th Amendment exists for a reason.

arbane:
I do. Not permanently, or even very long, but just long enough for him to realize It Can Happen To Me.

EVERY SINGLE IMPROVEMENT for workers in American history has been met by weeping and wailing from Management insisting that it would bankrupt their companies, beggar their investors, and allow Communism to win. Hasn't happened yet.

Given that Big Willy (*snerk*) doesn't appear to be management, he sure seems to have a lot of emotional investment in safeguarding the upper classes. Economic Stockholm Syndrome, maybe. Or maybe he's just a rich kid.

My mother grew up in a trailer park. My parents have been very financially smart so that I graduated college without a cent in debt.

And teenage unemployment continues to be high. Unions nearly brought down the Big Three. PEU have caused the state governments to have unfunded pension liabilities totaling several trillion dollars. So, big fan of Noam Chomsky, are we? My best friend loves the shit out of that guy. It was fun learning to deconstruct that dude's arguments. Helps that he was a Cambodian genocide denier.

No, I have a lot invested in safe-guarding the free market.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." -- F. A. Hayek, "The Fatal Conceit"

DrVornoff:

arbane:
Given that Big Willy (*snerk*) doesn't appear to be management, he sure seems to have a lot of emotional investment in safeguarding the upper classes. Economic Stockholm Syndrome, maybe. Or maybe he's just a rich kid.

Maybe he imagines he'll be joining them someday soon. If so, he wouldn't be the first person to fall for that stupid, "We're a society of haves and soon-to-haves," line.

Honestly, I'm more concerned with the fact that he seems to believe that profit is more important than human dignity.

Success is more important than a misconceived and incredibly naive notion of fairness.

Oh, and I'm not a rich kid. Middle class.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here