Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

ftfy.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Why do I have to 'benefit' from supporting a position? Shouldn't I just hold a certain position because its morally/ethically right? I may be a 'degreeless tech,' and have nothing but hardship to look forward to after I'm replaced by a Terminator, but does my 'hardship' entitle me to the fruits of anyone else's labor? If I'm starving, and I rob someone to get their money to buy food, it's neither morally or legally correct, yet somehow having a second party deprive someone else of their property for me isn't? The government serves many legitimate functions...guaranteeing outcomes isn't, or shouldn't be, one of them. If we're going to insist on having an income tax, everyone should have to contribute some portion of their income to it, no matter how small that percentage may be. I'm all for ending corporate welfare and any other wasteful/abusive/unjust spending as part of that...especially since corporate welfare is the same kind of theft I mentioned earlier, only with the darker tarnish of the money going to people who don't need it.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Its not so much of you "benefiting" from the position as opposed to you supporting something that directly goes against your best interests.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I'd totally agree with a lot of that, except that despite the ever-growing amount of money we pour into the 'war on poverty,' we keep losing. I have no issue with putting money into programs 'proven to work,' but I don't see evidence of there being any. Education is great, but much of the money spent under the auspices of education gets wasted in DC in the form of bloated administrative costs. Areas like DC and Detroit, where the spending per student is above the national average, produce poorly educated students. I don't want people to live in ignorance or squalor. I don't want them living in cardboard boxes on the street. I don't want them walking about with their stomach grumbling and worries about when they'll next eat. Leaving aside the disappointment of people throwing away their chances at education and/or the fact that we have so many people living in poverty who make me look fit...there is a lot of waste in the way the government spends the money it spends to address these problems. There are a lot of abuses of the systems that are set up to deal with these problems. People see this, and are understandably disappointed. It turns them off to the idea that the government is a solution to these problems, and shows evidence that government intervention makes things worse instead of better.

We're in bad shape. We're living above our means as a country. The fix isn't to live even further above our means. The government needs to become efficient and effective at solving these problems if people are expected to continue to support these efforts. As it stands, a lot of us don't have faith that this will ever be the case, and would just as soon cut our losses and find other ways to address these issues.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

This is a large part of the problem that a lot of the people on my side have with the people on your side, Mayo. You assume you know better than we do what's in our best interest.

Some of you have said, "the rich should pay more, because of such-and-such an injustice (corporate welfare, I believe was specifically mentioned)." How far have we fallen that any of you, who are not generally stupid, would say that instead of saying, "we need to do away with corporate welfare." Why is our thinking so skewed that we attempt to justify one wrong with another instead of just correcting the first wrong? Is it in my best interest to allow some people to bear a disproportionate burden so long as I'm not one of them? I don't think it is in the long term, though it may be in the short term, but it's not right just because it might benefit me. As far as my 'best interests' go, it's in my best interest not to allow my fellows, regardless of their luck or privilege, to be taken advantage of in such a fashion, if for no other reason than because I will no longer have the moral authority to object should I and others like myself be likewise targeted in the future.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

That is a myth. Government has lower administrative costs than private industry, and spending on what you describe is only a small fraction of overall public spending. After all, government doesn't pay dividends, Congressmen get paid less than CEOs ($200kish versus millions), and public attorneys and administrators make less than most private attorneys and executives. A successful attorney or manager can make a high six to seven digit figure but a government worker doing the same work will cap out at less than a senator.

Government can't solve all problems, but it does so little because of irrational public fear stoked by wealthy corporations that don't want their latitude threatened.



First part is pure projection. No one here is saying, "If we're going to have corporate welfare, let's also have hobo welfare". We're saying what Fanta said which is that the country must take care of its own.

Fwiw, corporate welfare exists for the same reasons your opinions do - and that's what makes it so hard to get rid of. They have convinced people to vote against their own interests by using propaganda and misinformation. This is a democracy of sorts, after all.

Second part is a case of begging the question. The only people bearing a disproportionate burden atm are the middle class who get fewer benefits than the poor but bear more responsibility than the rich.

Considering the wealthiest have never been living larger nor the rest of the country done worse nor ever had the wealthy fewer responsibilities, the wealthiest are hardly being fleeced. They are enjoying the status quo, they should pay for it. Nothing unfair about that.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

this country has never done worse? the great depression would like a word.

the congressmen's paychecks may only be 200kish, but there has to be a reason they would endure such hate and scorn from the other half of the nation for their entire careers because 200k sure as shit ain't worth it. I dont know what it is, but if you can get a better job for 10 times the money and none of the hate, why be a congressman at all?

Fair enough - and if the government had done nothing then, it would have meant civil war. It was that experience that broadened government responsibility.




Some people covet power for its own sake. Others truly wish to serve their country.

Take me, for example. If you offered me the choice between $500k a year and a Senate seat, which do you think I'd choose and why? If you offered me the choice between $10M a year and being Commander-in-Chief, which do you think I'd choose and why?

As for the hate - that is what being a leader is all about - responsibility. Part of the job is simply taking the blame. That's democracy for you. After all, what, do you think people are going to blame themselves? lol.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Alrighty, let's get back on topic about Reagan vs Obama on Economic Policy rather than throw this into another "hupfuckyougotsmine" mud slinging fest. I'm curious if the people who disagree with myself, Jubber and USD think that Obama's economic policy is a good one and why? If it's not a good one, what should be done to change it to suit your view on how the country should move forward.

There is no economic policy.

The status quo hasn't changed besides some minor adjustments to taxes, interest rates and unemployment insurance. Nothing proactive is being done about the depression.

The political climate is such that a proactive policy is simply not going to emerge from this or any administration. Asking what should be done is kind of a meaningless question because the political system stands between should and could.

Obama fails not because he's wrong but because like every other president since JFK he doesn't have the strength of personality to change the game. Partly that's him, and partly that's the system.

I think a good starting point to change the system would be to ban campaign donations and political contracting, and have all political campaigns use fixed airtime slots and spending allowances. Of course, that isn't going to happen.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

They really have nothing more to give. As Stewart mentioned, even if we took HALF of EVERYTHING they have, we will make $700B. WOWWWWWWWW that will surly help our situation. And what's funny is that the same people supporting "broadening the tax base" for $700B are against raising the exact same number from the top 1%.

Wat.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

I don't think we need to take half of anyone's earnings, rich or poor. Let's eliminate all tax deductions, fix tax brackets, and have a basic tax rate for every bracket, for business and individuals. Get rid of the complication of the tax code, and the end of year filing. Just take what people/businesses are actually supposed to pay out of their paychecks and do away with the refunds, credits, and other bullshit. Then get rid of all the corporate welfare bullshit. We could have people paying as low as 1% or their income for those who earn a pittance, up to 30%-35% for high income earners, and we could split the difference in between those ends. The big difference would be that all the write-offs would be gone for high income earners, and they'd actually be paying what they're supposed to be paying.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I don't want higher taxes on the rich, because of two reasons.

1 - Today it's the property rights of the rich, tomorrow it's my property rights. Rights are guaranteed in all circumstances where someone doesn't trample the rights of another. Someone being wealthy doesn't trample someone else's rights. If we're going to shove aside parts of our constitution, we'd might as well shove all parts aside. Because what's the point of it if we're just going to pick and choose what like and what we don't like?

2 - The private sector invests for financial gain. What do you call a private sector doing well? Prosperity. The public sector invests for political gain. What do you call a public sector doing well? Tyranny.



Also, what Jubber just said. He strikes a couple philosophical points I agree with. The first being everyone should pay something in taxes. You avoid the majority oppressing the minority (which is something we all like to get really heated about when it involves race or sex or etc.). As an example, 51% of households have no federal income tax. 51% of people have no direct reason to care if the tax goes forever up. It could be 100% for all they care. Granted that's an extreme example. But not only that, you have a portion of that 51%, who have a vested interest in the federal tax going up. Because the federal government is paying them. In this respect, the poor have trampled the rights of the rich. Like I said earlier, today it's the rich's rights, tomorrow it's mine.

Now allow me to cut the other way (while referring and agreeing to a philosophical point found in Jubber's post), because I have really have no love lost for corporations either. To use my business is a man and government is his sword metaphor. If you remove tax breaks, you separate the private and public sectors, and you dull the sword. Maybe even reduce him to a dagger. You remove a respectable chunk of the private sectors power to manipulate the government, which is what people who fear corporations really fear.

I stopped reading here. I don't see how paying a little more in taxes is the same as the government bursting in your home and pulling out your gold teeth.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

YEAH FUCK ALL THOSE SCHOOLS, EDUCATING PEOPLE, THAT'S SOME BULLSHIT MAN!

AND FUCK ROADS, AND DAMS, AND INFRASTRUCTURE!

I DIDN'T DIE FROM FOOD POISONING THIS MONTH, THOSE FUCKING FDA TYRANTS, WE NEED TO TEAR THIS MOTHER DOWN!

THE ONLY REASON TO DO ANYTHING IS IF YOU CAN GET MONEY, BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU'RE PROBABLY A SOCIALIST!

MY CAR WINDOW STOPPED WORKING YESTERDAY, MY FRIEND SUGGESTED FIXING IT, BUT FUCK THAT GUY, THIS IS AMERICA, IF SOMETHING DOESN'T WORK LIKE IT USED TO YOU DON'T TRY TO FIX IT, THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS BURN THAT SHIT TO THE GROUND!

Dvergar /
Quisling