So, apparently, society doesn't run so smoothly when you starve it for revenue.  Charity might be able to help those in need, but it's inefficient, annoying, and done more to boost the ego of the givers than help the recievers.

Also ensures that minority charities get some funding too (otherwise there's a danger that the cat homes get tons of money and the clinics for the homeless get none).

I've always been happy to outsource my charitable donations to our government, if they could be trusted to actually pass it on to said charities.

Herbie

Blasphemy!

Why not eliminate the middle man and give it to them directly?

Anyway, the reason that I found this out is because there's been controversy over the Salvation Army turning away LBGT persons because of their religion-based discriminatory stance against homosexuals. I don't recall ever dropping anything into their red kettles before, and in hindsight I'm glad that I never did so.

7 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

More tax?

Blasphemy!

Why not eliminate the middle man and give it to them directly?

You have no problem if the tax money goes to big oil though, right?

20 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

More tax?

Blasphemy!

Why not eliminate the middle man and give it to them directly?

Because I believe it is simpler, more efficient, and more fair if a centralised body deals with the distribution of funds.  If there was some organisation that did this instead of the government, I would be equally happy to use it, but the benefit if including it in taxes is that everyone pays and there's no forgetting or 'getting round to it sometime' involved (never underestimate the power of apathy).

Herbie

4 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

Because I believe it is simpler, more efficient, and more fair if a centralised body deals with the distribution of funds.  If there was some organisation that did this instead of the government, I would be equally happy to use it, but the benefit if including it in taxes is that everyone pays and there's no forgetting or 'getting round to it sometime' involved (never underestimate the power of apathy).

Herbie

I have to say that the US IRS is pretty damn efficient at collecting and disbursing money.

25 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

Because I believe it is simpler, more efficient, and more fair if a centralised body deals with the distribution of funds.  If there was some organisation that did this instead of the government, I would be equally happy to use it, but the benefit if including it in taxes is that everyone pays and there's no forgetting or 'getting round to it sometime' involved (never underestimate the power of apathy).

Herbie

In an ideal world, that's true. But less money reaches the charity after all of the bureacracy, and the money that you "donate" could go to help someone 2000 miles away instead of improving your own community.

If my tax rate was 10% instead of 30%, I'd definitely give more to local charities. Yes, there is a risk that the homeless kittens get more support than the homeless men, but I think the reason people donate to the kittens now is because their taxa dollars are already going to support the homeless men (at least that's my personal reasoning).

The country either needs to rewrite the constitution and make it a complete socialist government (i.e. higher taxes with more social programs) or go back to their roots and treat the federal government like the EU plus a military.

2 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

The country either needs to rewrite the constitution and make it a complete socialist government (i.e. higher taxes with more social programs) or go back to their roots and treat the federal government like the EU plus a military.

I don't think you anticipate the direction the EU is headed in.

(For the record, I am for a Greater Europe).

@spivonious: I agree, bulk of the money never reaches destination. Our country is still looking for the millions that we donated to Haiti.

5 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

So apparently, every organized group of people find it neccessary to start a food/toy drive for the holidays.  I've been hassled, daily, by my employer, my client, and now people walking through the neighborhood.  I can't go into a grocery store without being accosted by some idiot ringing a bell asking for money, and just this week, my city decided to start fining people for their trash can placement.

So, apparently, society doesn't run so smoothly when you starve it for revenue.  Charity might be able to help those in need, but it's inefficient, annoying, and done more to boost the ego of the givers than help the recievers.

Okay, so you're saying taxes should be higher because you're an anti-social a-hole who hates having to deal with people.

I bet you complain about people trying to get you to sign ballot initiatives also, and people trying to get third parties on the ballot. And want the city to clean up the streets to get rid of homeless beggars.

34 seconds ago, brian.shapiro wrote

*snip*

Okay, so you're saying taxes should be higher because you're an anti-social * who hates having to deal with people.

Not wanted to be solicited for money doesn't make one anti-social. Do you welcome every door-to-door salesman into your house?

I hope that one of the end results of the LHC is that we crack open a wormhole that allows us to peer into alternate realities where various forms of government, economy, and society have flourished.  I'd love to see how well raw, unfettered capitalism works out.

9 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Not wanted to be solicited for money doesn't make one anti-social. Do you welcome every door-to-door salesman into your house?

Yes, and if I'm not interested, I say "sorry, I'm not interested". I think people who get annoyed by solicitors are a-holes, frankly.

6 minutes ago, brian.shapiro wrote

*snip*

Okay, so you're saying taxes should be higher because you're an anti-social a-hole who hates having to deal with people.

Well, yes, that's one way of looking at it.  Another way would be that I'm an anti-social a-hole that would very much like to solve these social issues but recognizes that there are more efficient ways to do this.  

I bet you complain about people trying to get you to sign ballot initiatives also, and people trying to get third parties on the ballot. And want the city to clean up the streets to get rid of homeless beggars.

I think you failed to grasp what I'm having a problem with.  The sheer volume of the 'give to the needy' requests have quadrupled since last year.  I'd rather pay taxes that are used to address social problems like lack of food, clothing, housing, etc. 

More efficient or less annoying?

At any rate, the thing that bothered me was your rationale...

But what exactly are you proposing? We already have a safety net, Congress has extended unemployment insurance, people can get Medicaid if they need help, or help from many state-funded private organizations (states fund homeless shelters, free clinics, and housing projects). The federal government, states, and municipal governments are already running large deficits, its not that we need taxes; we're paying for it without the tax revenue. Cities that are creating new fines generally pay things through things like fines or services in the first place,.. cities don't do income, sales, or property taxes.. those are left to the federal or state governments. 

1 hour ago, brian.shapiro wrote

@ScanIAm:

More efficient or less annoying?

Both.  I'll not apologize for being annoyed by solicitations for money. 

But what exactly are you proposing? We already have a safety net, Congress has extended unemployment insurance, people can get Medicaid if they need help, or help from many state-funded private organizations (states fund homeless shelters, free clinics, and housing projects). The federal government, states, and municipal governments are already running large deficits, its not that we need taxes; we're paying for it without the tax revenue. Cities that are creating new fines generally pay things through things like fines or services in the first place,.. cities don't do income, sales, or property taxes.. those are left to the federal or state governments. 

I'm proposing what I pretty much said, twice, already: return to paying taxes at a reasonable level so that we fund social programs that currently aren't able to cover the spread.

And, I'm not sure where you got information about how funding works below the federal level, but you're certainly not describing reality where I live.

I like them. It is like advertisement to remind people to be grateful and help others. I prefer donation because it is voluntary and I know I can stop donating to a specific group if they are using it to war on other countries.

37 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Both.  I'll not apologize for being annoyed by solicitations for money. 

*snip*

I'm proposing what I pretty much said, twice, already: return to paying taxes at a reasonable level so that we fund social programs that currently aren't able to cover the spread.

And, I'm not sure where you got information about how funding works below the federal level, but you're certainly not describing reality where I live.

Counties collect property taxes, but there are generally rules put on them by the state's board of equalization.

We're funding social programs now even without the tax revenue to pay for them, we didn't stop funding them.

I don't want to have to wait till I am in my 60's to do this., but I would have done my bit. The problem is people always approach you as if you didn't give any money last week, or the week before that.

The Government always make statements about flexible working and so on, but business inevitably turn back to them and say £££. If the government was serious they would  say for every day I worked for example, I had some (or all) tax taken off my final wage, but as it is it now costs nearly £8 for a pack of tuna with 4 little cans in it, life is just so expensive.

In every place I have worked for the last 15 years or so, there are blokes that are work at 7 in the morning and leave at around 7 at night, for no extra pay. It is impossible to impress anyone at work by working hard as Britain is literally a nation of workaholics, I am so unsatisfied with the rat race, there has to be more to life that eating corn flakes, being at work for 8 and jumping from meeting to meeting.

I digress...

5 hours ago, CreamFilling512 wrote

In the US at least, you're able to donate to the US treasury if you think they'll do such a great job spending your money.  (Hint: they don't).  The rest of us would rather give a little more thought and care to where we donate our money.

That's a straw-man argument if ever there was one. ScanIAm is not complaining that he has too much money and would like the federal government to have more of it - he's complaining that on average taxes are too low for the social programs he agrees with, which is different.

Now I do stuff in my spare time that are actually fun!

But I don't think more tax is the solution either, in Holland we have so many tax and Ngo's and the problem still exists. I have a feeling that maybe these groups don't want to solve their problems at all.....

1 day ago, brian.shapiro wrote

*snip*

Counties collect property taxes, but there are generally rules put on them by the state's board of equalization.

We're funding social programs now even without the tax revenue to pay for them, we didn't stop funding them.

Ya, know, I have a bit of respect for you, so I took it on faith that you wouldn't just make that claim when it wasn't actually true.

Then, I did a bit of research, and it appears that quite a few programs have had funding cuts at the federal level:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/whats-getting-cut-in-the-fy-2011-budget/2011/04/11/AFMIynLD_blog.html

Honestly, though, I just succumbed to the pressure and bought a crap load of dry goods to donate at my employer. 

2 days ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

That's a straw-man argument if ever there was one. ScanIAm is not complaining that he has too much money and would like the federal government to have more of it - he's complaining that on average taxes are too low for the social programs he agrees with, which is different.

It's not an argument, it's sarcasm.  It's the job of the legislature to figure out how to fund their own programs, if they can't manage that you should fire them.

Also you can't close the budget gap simply through higher taxes, even if you taxed at 100% you wouldn't be close to closing the gap on the major entitlement liabilities (SS, Medicare/caid).  The deficit is in trillions, and 100% of the income of top earners ($1 million and up) is more like $700 billion.

And if you taxed at 100%, you'd have no growth, and the next year everyone would be bankrupt.

It's not an argument, it's sarcasm.  It's the job of the legislature to figure out how to fund their own programs, if they can't manage that you should fire them.

With polling for congress usually just below 10%, I'd have thought abolishing the institution is probably more appropriate than just firing them.

Also you can't close the budget gap simply through higher taxes, even if you taxed at 100% you wouldn't be close to closing the gap on the major entitlement liabilities (SS, Medicare/caid).  The deficit is in trillions, and 100% of the income of top earners ($1 million and up) is more like $700 billion.

And if you taxed at 100%, you'd have no growth, and the next year everyone would be bankrupt.

The deficit is more than the GDP, but the budget gap isn't. The US certainly couldn't pay back all it's debts in a year even with 100% taxes, but it could raise taxes high enough to not need to borrow in a year. I'm not saying that's a good or practicable idea, but it's possible.

I bet we could get rid of the debt in less than ten years if we did all of that.

And you have got to be kidding about local governments being more efficient. What needs to happen is more federal funding for regional branches of these federal departments and complete abolishment of redundant state-level organizations.

3 hours ago, cbae wrote

@spivonious: No, the real answer is cutting spending in some sectors and increasing it in others while increasing revenue. Our economy depends on government spending, but certain sectors like the military industrial complex are leeches that have worn out their welcome.

And you have got to be kidding about local governments being more efficient. What needs to happen is more federal funding for regional branches of these federal departments and complete abolishment of redundant state-level organizations.

Obviously, my liberatarian views are going to clash with your socialist views.

Our economy depends on spending yes, but from independent investors, not the government. The Department of Defense does spend way too much. We need to pull out of countries where we're not actively involved in a war, and we need to finish up in the countries that we are. Local governments are definitely more efficient. I have a problem with my water supply, I go to the local officials. I don't write a letter to the EPA and hope they find time to come and address my problem.

1 day ago, evildictaitor wrote

With polling for congress usually just below 10%, I'd have thought abolishing the institution is probably more appropriate than just firing them.

The federal government is slow and incompetent by design, it was supposed to be protection against tyranny and dictators.  Now it's asked to do everything it wasn't designed to do.  It didn't need to be agile in the original design, it was just supposed to do some limited number of things.  It was expected that the states would govern everything else because they're more agile and have widespread powers over their sovereign territory.

The deficit is more than the GDP, but the budget gap isn't. The US certainly couldn't pay back all it's debts in a year even with 100% taxes, but it could raise taxes high enough to not need to borrow in a year. I'm not saying that's a good or practicable idea, but it's possible.

I think you're confusing deficit with the absolute debt.  When I say deficit, I'm referring to the budget deficit, (i.e. the gap in funding everything).  The budget deficit for 2011 was $1.3 trillion (i.e. it added $1.3 trillion of new debt).  You're not going to cover $1.3 trillion through added taxes no matter how impractical they are.  I don't think 2012 is going to be much different, they cut a billion here, a billion there, doesn't add up to much.  And when more of Obamacare starts kicking in, it's going to get much worse. 

4 hours ago, cbae wrote

And you have got to be kidding about local governments being more efficient. What needs to happen is more federal funding for regional branches of these federal departments and complete abolishment of redundant state-level organizations.

You're the one who's kidding?  That's not how the US government works.  The federal government is just there to carry out certain delegated powers from the states.  If the state governments aren't there, the federal government wouldn't be legitimate, it gets its legitimacy from the states via the Constitution.

The transfer of power goes like this:  Natural Rights -> People -> States -> Federal

We need to make a decision, as a society, what we want to do with people who suck at life acutely or chronically.  If the decision is to say 'screw em', then I'll accept that.  If the decision is to try and help them, then I'll accept that.  We need to make this decision, however, because the constant back and forth over it is counterproductive.

And this bull-sh*t where we play games trying to starve the beast only ends up hurting the people who actually need the help.  The scam artists and fraudsters can game their social connections just as easily as they game the government.  The truly needy are only served by being cute (puppies, toys for tots, etc.) or having decent PR.

24 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

Oh christ, now we get to rehash the same old arguments about how to interpret the the various founding documents.  I swear some folks read them like they're some kind of religious text. 

They're not religious text, they're LAW.  That's one of the prime foundations of our civilized existence, you know, rule of law.  You don't get to run around selectively re-interpreting things because it's convenient for your political agenda.  The founders left legitimate ways to change the constitution, and other laws, and either you do that, or it's not legitimate.  It's as simple as that.  It's not up to your imagination.

Regardless of how forward thinking you feel the authors were, they had no concept of how to manage a society hundreds of millions of people in a world filled with 6 billion people.

I'd argue that federalism is even more relevent today because of the far greater diversity and population, and size of the nation.  The stakes are way higher too.  We can't afford to experiment with social programs on a nationwide level, the individual states are ideal laboratories.

If you're engineering a new system, you don't go throw it on the production server without testing it, you dogfood it locally first at least.

We need to make a decision, as a society, what we want to do with people who suck at life acutely or chronically.  If the decision is to say 'screw em', then I'll accept that.  If the decision is to try and help them, then I'll accept that.  We need to make this decision, however, because the constant back and forth over it is counterproductive.

IMO change to laws should happen through a stable consensus and republican means.  The fact things go back and forth is because there is no consensus.  It's counterproductive sure, but what do you think is going to happen when you try to impose top-down social programs at a national level, waste is a given.

If you're so frustrated with the progress, have you ever thought that maybe it's because the federal government is actually not the appropiate place for these programs?

And this bull-sh*t where we play games trying to starve the beast only ends up hurting the people who actually need the help.

No idea what this is supposed to mean, people get their entitlement checks regardless of whether it adds to the debt or not.

@CreamFilling512: Cheers. It's really sad how the left and right would trade away lawful government for their ideological crusades. It's as if they've never heard of what happened to the people underneath criminal governments throughout the 20th century. Rather than learning good economics and humbling themselves to dynamics of voluntary human action, they want to create a society built on their prejudices and hatred... enforced by thugs, jailors, executioners, and (now thanks to Bush il Deuce) torturers.

It is set up to become a war of all groups against all others where at least one group has a target on its back. What was once a society will become a prison to the prevailing hysteria of the moment. We'll reinvent the same old totalitarianism under a new guise, all because too few are willing to humbly educate themselves on limited, decentralized, republican government and real economics (EG - not Keynesianism).

I believe in America's core tradition of equal protection for everyone under the law. I don't care if you really ARE the 99%, the 1% has the same God-given rights as everyone else; the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness via the just acquisition of private property.

It is time to say 'NO' to criminal government, your welfare checks and bloated warfare budgets be damned! Neither of those will save you when your own government's got a boot on your neck. And if you have your eyes open, you'll see said boot is getting closer everyday - http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-set-to-become-law-the-terror-is-nearer-than-ever-2011-12#ixzz1gYi1BuI7

Ultimately, the argument isn't about whether you should help people out with your neighbor's money. The argument is about freedom - that is, the freedom to help yourself provided that you allow others to do the same for themselves and each other. Under an unrestrained criminal government, everyone is doomed. Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all provided gigantic welfare systems. In the end, their massive social safety nets only worked to ensnare and suffocate the people.

So don't give us that agitprop about people having the freedom to starve under laissez-faire. What people really need, and what criminal government utterly destroys, is the freedom to survive, and the ability to flourish. That's what made America prosperous, and can again. So let's stop playing around with grand utopian ideals, and get America back to the business of liberty.

Because it's either that, or http://jim.com/hayek.htm

18 hours ago, CreamFilling512 wrote

*snip*

They're not religious text, they're LAW.  That's one of the prime foundations of our civilized existence, you know, rule of law.  You don't get to run around selectively re-interpreting things because it's convenient for your political agenda.  

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I interpret this as "Since we will have miltias to fight off any attackers, the people need to be able to keep and carry weapons." As most (all?) states don't have a miltia anymore, this right is antiquated. Still, should militias need to pop up again, the people should be allowed posession and responsible use of firearms. The basic thought behind it is that the government can't forcibly disarm citizens who are otherwise respecting the laws (presumably to squelch a rebellion before it starts).

With this interpretation, I don't think there should be any controls on who buys what weapons. If I want to buy an Abrams tank, I should be able to. Personally, I don't own any guns and don't feel that I have a reason to own any. But the second amendment is there to keep the federal government from interfering.

20 hours ago, CreamFilling512 wrote

*snip*

They're not religious text, they're LAW.  That's one of the prime foundations of our civilized existence, you know, rule of law.  You don't get to run around selectively re-interpreting things because it's convenient for your political agenda.  The founders left legitimate ways to change the constitution, and other laws, and either you do that, or it's not legitimate.  It's as simple as that.  It's not up to your imagination.

Really?  The federalist papers and the millions of pages of reinterpretation of them are Laws?

In reality, the few bits that are actually law are so vague that we have a concept called 'legal precedence' that can be used to 'selectively re-interpreting things'. 

I'd argue that federalism is even more relevent today because of the far greater diversity and population, and size of the nation.  The stakes are way higher too.  We can't afford to experiment with social programs on a nationwide level, the individual states are ideal laboratories.

If you're engineering a new system, you don't go throw it on the production server without testing it, you dogfood it locally first at least.

I'm not complaining about the fact that we have laws, I'm just generally annoyed by the jingo-filled tripe that comes out of certain peoples mouths when the topic comes up.  I wasn't disappointed as a few of the usual suspects showed up.

IMO change to laws should happen through a stable consensus and republican means.  The fact things go back and forth is because there is no consensus.  It's counterproductive sure, but what do you think is going to happen when you try to impose top-down social programs at a national level, waste is a given.

If you're so frustrated with the progress, have you ever thought that maybe it's because the federal government is actually not the appropiate place for these programs?

I'm not frustrated by the progress, I'm frustrated by the poor sportsmanship and dirty tricks being used to avoid having to come to a consensus.  In the wake of the financial meltdown, the senate, house, and executive branch voted into law a consumer protection agency to give the actual constituents some recourse.  Certain d-bags have decided to refuse to confirm an agency head, so the agency has done nothing for a year.  The progress was made, now the goalposts have been moved behind a vault door.

No idea what this is supposed to mean, people get their entitlement checks regardless of whether it adds to the debt or not.

And, of course, the old 'entitlement checks' chestnut comes out.  Nothing says "I pulled myself up by my priviledged bootstraps, why can't you" more than going on about entitlement checks.

As I pointed out, earlier, quite a few programs have had their funds reduced, so no, in some cases they don't.

18 hours ago, bryanedds wrote

I'd rather just have freedom and general prosperity.

@CreamFilling512: Cheers. It's really sad how the left and right would trade away lawful government for their ideological crusades. It's as if they've never heard of what happened to the people underneath criminal governments throughout the 20th century. Rather than learning good economics and humbling themselves to dynamics of voluntary human action, they want to create a society built on their prejudices and hatred... enforced by thugs, jailors, executioners, and (now thanks to Bush il Deuce) torturers.

It is set up to become a war of all groups against all others where at least one group has a target on its back. What was once a society will become a prison to the prevailing hysteria of the moment. We'll reinvent the same old totalitarianism under a new guise, all because too few are willing to humbly educate themselves on limited, decentralized, republican government and real economics (EG - not Keynesianism).

I believe in America's core tradition of equal protection for everyone under the law. I don't care if you really ARE the 99%, the 1% has the same God-given rights as everyone else; the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness via the just acquisition of private property.

It is time to say 'NO' to criminal government, your welfare checks and bloated warfare budgets be damned! Neither of those will save you when your own government's got a boot on your neck. And if you have your eyes open, you'll see said boot is getting closer everyday - http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-set-to-become-law-the-terror-is-nearer-than-ever-2011-12#ixzz1gYi1BuI7

Ultimately, the argument isn't about whether you should help people out with your neighbor's money. The argument is about freedom - that is, the freedom to help yourself provided that you allow others to do the same for themselves and each other. Under an unrestrained criminal government, everyone is doomed. Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all provided gigantic welfare systems. In the end, their massive social safety nets only worked to ensnare and suffocate the people.

So don't give us that agitprop about people having the freedom to starve under laissez-faire. What people really need, and what criminal government utterly destroys, is the freedom to survive, and the ability to flourish. That's what made America prosperous, and can again. So let's stop playing around with grand utopian ideals, and get America back to the business of liberty.

Because it's either that, or http://jim.com/hayek.htm

Hahahahahhahah.

You worry too much.

20 hours ago, bryanedds wrote

I believe in America's core tradition of equal protection for everyone under the law. I don't care if you really ARE the 99%, the 1% has the same God-given rights as everyone else; the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness via the just acquisition of private property.

The only reason you can claim it to be private property is that society protects it for you.  And, frankly, if a small handful of Walton family members has more of it than a sizeable portion of the rest of the country, I'm interested in what you view as 'just'.  Is the walton family blessed with awesome genes that produce one good business idea after another, or did Sam just will it all to them.

Take a trip to Berlin, go up this tower;

From the top you can see the difference between east and west. East is a testament to the mediocrity I discribe.

32 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: Survival of the fittest, that's why I bust my balls every day to get up that ladder. 

I really wish people wouldn't invoke 'survival of the fittest' in regard to human society, Social Darwinism is an atrocity that stems from a misunderstanding of Darwin's use of 'fittest'.

Herbie

And if so, then why not rally against charity, too.  It's goals are similar.

Or, is it more likely that the economic issues in the USSR had less to do with their handling of social issues, and more to do with the cost of the cold war itself. 

Two can play at this game, though.  If you want full-on free market with very little government invervention and complete disregard for the citizenry, perhaps you'd like to move to lovely Somalia?  I hear it's quite lovely.

7 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: Survival of the fittest Appropriate rewards for effort, that's why I bust my balls every day to get up that ladder. If there was no ladder, there would be no need to bust my balls.

Reward is not a function of effort - in terms of physical effort (in units of Joules) it can be said a Chinese factory worker certainly works harder than your typical CEO.

In a capitalist system, reward is a function of opportunity and the initiative of an individual exploiting that opportunity - effort is more like a force-multiplier in this case.

It's ironic then, because what you're advocating is communism: where an individual's reward is based on their individual productivity according to their quota, so (in theory, at least) a coal miner who mines twice his daily quota of coal would earn the same as a factory manager who oversaw a twofold increase in production efficiency.

"Busting your balls" under capitalism is no guarantee of success or even self-improvement - it could be detrimental to your health when a similar employee can get by with less work and stress and after 10 years you're both in the same situation because the job market is such that you couldn't get another job or promotion elsewhere.

I don't give to charity, as I am forced by law to donate to it allready. And I don't think giving solves the long term problem, I believe that enabling solves more. I do think that you should help the weak, just that it shouldnt be institutionalized.

Two can play at this game, though.  If you want full-on free market with very little government invervention and complete disregard for the citizenry, perhaps you'd like to move to lovely Somalia?  I hear it's quite lovely.

Point taken.

46 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

I don't give to charity, as I am forced by law to donate to it allready. And I don't think giving solves the long term problem, I believe that enabling solves more. I do think that you should help the weak, just that it shouldnt be institutionalized.

Taxation isn't charity - the government has a duty of care to its citizens, and under certain schools of thought (i.e. the predominant one in Europe) that extends to ensuring society is largely egalitarian, but what they do is in everyones' interests and taxpayers expect a return on their 'investment' in taxation. For their taxation, Americans get the world's most powerful military force. In Europe, we taxpayers get some of the worlds' lowest poverty levels and highest standards of living (especially a high baseline standard). Less poverty means less crime which is good for everyone. Greater public education funding means a better-educated workforce which helps the economy in the long-term.

Charity cannot do this.

Point taken.

Wrong answer.

Somalia is not a Libertarian's wet-dream - it is an anarchist's wet dream. It is a failed state without a functioning government with which to provide security and safety, and without the means to protect the rights of its citizens. This is a requirement of Libertarianism.

48 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@W3bbo: actually, working with your mind costs a lot of energy too!

23 Watts in average, apparently. That works out at about 2MJ a day.

Let's assume a soldier has a similar daily energy consumption as a hard factory worker, according to this source the former has a diet of 2190 kcal per day, which is 9.2MJ.

2/9.2MJ = 21%

So it can be said an information-worker does 20% the work of a hard physical worker, based on power/energy calculations.

How on earth am I going to get my coffee?

And my computer program will save the company about 10 jobs,..

5 hours ago, W3bbo wrote

Somalia is not a Libertarian's wet-dream - it is an anarchist's wet dream. It is a failed state without a functioning government with which to provide security and safety, and without the means to protect the rights of its citizens. This is a requirement of Libertarianism.

That fiction doesn't exist.

USA is actually quite high because we pay both Fed and State/City income tax, in addition to bottle refund semi-tax, sales tax, San Fransisco mandatory random rate restaurant service fee, gas tax, telephone tax, and more.

And how much % of your income tax do you want to dedicate it to homeless, minors, illegal immigrants (like Taxes resident school rate for illegal immigrants), kids without parents. Of course, each charge separately, so, please list out the specific % to each categories.

11 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

Just wondering how much tax do you want? Like 100% or 50%?

USA is actually quite high because we pay both Fed and State/City income tax, in addition to bottle refund semi-tax, sales tax, San Fransisco mandatory random rate restaurant service fee, gas tax, telephone tax, and more.

And how much % of your income tax do you want to dedicate it to homeless, minors, illegal immigrants (like Taxes resident school rate for illegal immigrants), kids without parents. Of course, each charge separately, so, please list out the specific % to each categories.

My answer to that is enough so that the shitty quality of somebody else's life won't impinge on my own quality of life. If you want SF to be crime-infested and dotted with 100 panhandlers on every single street corner, then go right ahead and vote down any measure to help the poor and homeless. I'll be sure to stop visiting as often as I do.

7 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

My answer to that is enough so that the shitty quality of somebody else's life won't impinge on my own quality of life. If you want SF to be crime-infested and dotted with 100 panhandlers on every single street corner, then go right ahead and vote down any measure to help the poor and homeless. I'll be sure to stop visiting as often as I do.

I am not sure why are you talking to me like that, that's completely out of context. What makes you think I against welfare? And if you don't answer my question, why even bother to quote me? I am here to understand, not debating anything. If you want to find someone to argue, find someone else.

1 minute ago, magicalclick wrote

Just wondering how much tax do you want? Like 100% or 50%?

How about somewhere in between.

USA is actually quite high because we pay both Fed and State/City income tax, in addition to bottle refund semi-tax, sales tax, San Fransisco mandatory random rate restaurant service fee, gas tax, telephone tax, and more.

USA is neither the highest nor the lowest when it comes to taxes.

And how much % of your income tax do you want to dedicate it to homeless, minors, illegal immigrants (like Taxes resident rate for illegal immigrants), kids without parents. Of course, each charge separately, so, please list out the specific % to each categories.

Um, no, I'm not going to do that.  I'm going to suggest that all the jingoists that brag about how the US is the richest country in the world should be embarassed that 1 in 7 households are food insecure,   Slightly more that 46 million people live below the poverty line, and while it's cute to remember surviving on beer and ramen in college, the poverty line is $22K for a family of four. 

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@W3bbo: Cool! So, my whole body but my brain shuts down during information working?

How on earth am I going to get my coffee?

And my computer program will save the company about 10 jobs,..

If you're objecting to W3bbo's statement that "effort != reward", then you must be suggesting that the wealthiest 400 people in the US are glowing white-hot with the amount of work they must be doing, since they must be burning as many calories as the bottom 50% of the US population.

1 minute ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

How about somewhere in between.

*snip*

USA is neither the highest nor the lowest when it comes to taxes.

*snip*

Um, no, I'm not going to do that.  I'm going to suggest that all the jingoists that brag about how the US is the richest country in the world should be embarassed that 1 in 7 households are food insecure,   Slightly more that 46 million people live below the poverty line, and while it's cute to remember surviving on beer and ramen in college, the poverty line is $22K for a family of four. 

 

That pretty vague, you mean like 75%? Because I think you wouldn't want 90% right?

Yeah, USA is not highest nor the lowest.

I am not sure USA is the richest country in the world. The richest man in the world is in Middle East or Mexico or something, I don't remember. I know what you mean about poverty, but, if you don't reserve specific amount of % to each category, how are you going to make sure the government doesn't just use your money on bailing out rich people or fight countries?

If you keep being vague, those crooks will just take advantage of it and poor still lives in poverty. Anyway, if you don't want to be specific, I am ok with that. Sorry too pressure you.

47 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

*snip*

I am not sure why are you talking to me like that, that's completely out of context. What makes you think I against welfare? And if you don't answer my question, why even bother to quote me? I am here to understand, not debating anything. If you want to find someone to argue, find someone else.

When you ask "How much tax is enough? 100%?", that sounds like a hyperbolic rant about taxes.

30 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

When you ask "How much tax is enough? 100%?", that sounds like a hyperbolic rant about taxes.

I will be sure next time, I say, 100%, 50%, 0%. How about that when he said he wanted more tax and I include 0% to make sure it doesn't sounds like a hyperbolic rant? 

I am going to read my moto now, because posting here will always leads to something I have never ever said and I have to deal with all the pointless damage controls.

15 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

*snip*

I will be sure next time, I say, 100%, 50%, 0%. How about that when he said he wanted more tax and I include 0% to make sure it doesn't sounds like a hyperbolic rant? 

At the very least, omit the "100%". That's what's hyperbolic.

BTW, even with something like 90% as the highest tax rate, nobody (even including the most insanely high earners) would have an EFFECTIVE tax rate of 90%. The tax rates are marginal. The first dollar earned after some threshold would be taxed at 90%. The rest would be taxed at lower rates.

Once you consider that the brain consumes pretty much the same amount of energy regardless of its activity (or the quality of such activity) and that the BMR varies a lot with age, gender and body weight, you get enough evidence that thermodynamics is not a good way to measure effort.

@evildictaitor: while I'm in nitpicking mode: you keep quoting the comparison between the net worth of the top 400 with the bottom 50% of the population. While that number is impressive, I don't think it's very relevant as even redistributing all that wealth wouldn't make much of a difference (even more so once you consider that you can only redistribute it once). The figure I would use from the same source is the fact that the top 1% of the US households earns the same amount of money of the bottom 50% combined. While the ratio is a lot less spectacular, those are incomes that could potentially pay higher taxes every year.

I've changed the inital text in my post, to not rub Herbie the wrong way, and now it's leading a life of it's own.

Let me rephrase;

I think you should be rewarded for the value that you create. And that value is judged by a free market system.

Create a lot of value for society get a lot of reward.

Like a Pirates of the Carribean movie. Lot of value, lot of reward.

Taking out the trash, not a lot of value, not a lot of reward.

Being to weak/sick/impared/etc to create any value for society, you should be helped to find a way so you still can contribute or be put on welfare. Being to lazy to create value and opting for taking money by force from the 400 whealthyist to redistribute as a governmental body sees fit should be seen as an attack against the way we live and should never ever be allowed to happen.

1 day ago, W3bbo wrote

*snip*

Hahahahahhahah.

You worry too much.

How many knives need to be at your throat before you pull your head out of your *?

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

The founders created a minimal government as it was the ONLY way to restrain it from becoming a criminal enterprise. They wisely realized that making the government responsible for only a select few things was the ONLY way to keep it properly constrained. Sure, that means that the welfare and aggressive warfare functions of the government were to be non-existent, but that independence is the real price of freedom.

But over time, the country filled up with dumbfounded dipshits who couldn't absorb or remember that one principle lesson.

In closing, if America goes to hell, at least we will know why. It will have been the combination of political avarice and incorrigible stupidity.

9 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

I think you should be rewarded for the value that you create. And that value is judged by a free market system.

Create a lot of value for society get a lot of reward.

In some hypothetical free-market fantasy, I'm sure you're correct, but in the real world, CEOs vote themselves millions of dollars worth of pay packets, even when they are doing poorly.

It's pretty telling how many ex banking/housing/construction CEOs took home tens of millions in renumeration despite their company filing for bankruptcy protection.

So yes, in a free-market fantasy land I agree with you, but America (and most of the west) is unfairly skewed because the CEOs' reward has very little to do with the CEO's effectiveness and a lot more to do with how good they are at persuading the entire board to vote themselves pay rises.

2 hours ago, bryanedds wrote

*snip*

How many knives need to be at your throat before you pull your head out of your *?

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

The founders created a minimal government as it was the ONLY way to restrain it from becoming a criminal enterprise. They wisely realized that making the government responsible for only a select few things was the ONLY way to keep it properly constrained. Sure, that means that the welfare and aggressive warfare functions of the government were to be non-existent, but that independence is the real price of freedom.

But over time, the country filled up with dumbfounded dipshits who couldn't absorb or remember that one principle lesson.

In closing, if America goes to hell, at least we will know why. It will have been the combination of political avarice and incorrigible stupidity.

Well then, go use the democratic process to fix things.

I still think you worry unnecessarily.

Vive la Yurop!

1 day ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Like a Pirates of the Carribean movie. Lot of value, lot of reward.

Taking out the trash, not a lot of value, not a lot of reward.

After a couple of weeks of nobody collecting the trash, I suspect you'd have a very different opinion on whether or not it was valuable compared to a Pirates of the Carribean movie.

Those CEO's are doing what the stockholders are telling them to do. If the stockholders of a company wish that the value of the share is doubled and set a bonus accordingly, why is the CEO bad for trying to make the bonus?

I think you should look more to the stockholders who are constantly demanding better and better results, rather then the CEO's.

I do agree, that the CEO's that go against the wishes of the owners of the company but do what's in the best for the company are rare. And the reason they are rare, is that stockholders vote them out.

23 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Those CEO's are doing what the stockholders are telling them to do. If the stockholders of a company wish that the value of the share is doubled and set a bonus accordingly, why is the CEO bad for trying to make the bonus?

The problem is that CEOs aren't being paid according to how good they are - but according to how much other CEOs are being paid. This has turned into a virtuous cycle (or vicious cycle depending on your point of view) where CEO's renumeration last year went up by a median of nearly 35%, despite the entire western economy stagnating on average.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/executive-pay-compensation_n_995223.html

So for example, Cisco's stock price collapsed by 31.4% last year, laid off 11,500 and still found enough cash to pay the CEO his bonus of $19m.

I think you should look more to the stockholders who are constantly demanding better and better results, rather then the CEO's.

The majority of shareholders are corporate shareholders, which are run by executives who are often non-executive directors of the companies they are investing in. This means they have zero interest in stemming the tide of bonuses at the top because it'll only come and hit them in the wallet - besides, when CEOs forego their million dollars of bonuses, barely anyone notices, so why would you make that kind of sacrifice?

The problem is that corporate shareholders aren't really shareholders - it's not their money they're investing - it's your money. The money you have in your bank-account and your pension is all invested through corporate shareholders back onto the market, and although the CEO of your investment bank would like to make money, he'd rather do it by giving you a lower pension and bank-account rate than by starting the nasty-precedent of objecting to CEO payrises.

My principle objection to all of this is not the "some people make lots of money", but that "some people are making undeservedly vast sums of money by deliberately skewing the system in their favour" - particularly since such excesses at the top damage economic growth (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/study-income-inequality-kills-economic-growth) which in turn leads to poverty at the other end as jobs are cut and salaries are slashed as the cash gets siphoned off at the top.

And you always have a choice. You can no longer buy products they make, or take your business (pension and savings) elsewhere.

But we as consumers are lazy and generally dont give a hoot and we are letting them take advantage of us.

Capitalism and democracy are opposite sides of the same coin. They both introduce the inefficiency of choice in order to counteract the centralisation of power which can be misused to give benefit to the folk at the top by charging more or giving worse service to the customers/citizens at the bottom.

The problem with both is that choice here doesn't mean multiple candidates - it means citizens having the ability to take their business (or their votes) to someone else. This requires:

* There must be at least one candidate (otherwise it's just despotism / a monopoly)
* There must be at least one candidate which is different (otherwise it's just a one-party state / a cartel)
* It must be possible to choose the other candidate (otherwise it's vote rigging / anti-competitive behaviour)
* If all else fails, it must be possible for you to stand as an independent and win. 

The problem is that banks and pension companies all act the same, don't have customer's interests at heart, it's impossible for you to set up your own bank/pension company and so all of the capitalist benefits of consumer protection and appropriate rewards leading to good management behaviours aren't happening.

The problem voters in the UK and the US are increasingly seeing is exactly the same. Sure political parties are great at tearing each other apart, but no matter how much gets said on the issue, the things voters would like to change never do get changed (like immigration, the EU, bailing out bankers, foreign wars, police powers, the political-media machine, lobbying and corporate greed to name but a few). You also can't form your own party in the US and ever expect to win, and in the UK you can't ever form a government without a majority in parliament, and you can't ever form a majority in parliament by yourself, no matter how popular you might be across the country.

So anyway, my point is that I absolutely agree with Maddus that taking my business elsewhere (and W3bbo's point that you can just vote differently) should work. The point I want you to consider is that it doesn't work precisely because the west isn't even close to a capitalist/democratic ideal (and letting the system work itself out has clearly not worked because we got to where we are now precisely by letting the system work itself out).

The problem is that banks and pension companies all act the same, don't have customer's interests at heart, it's impossible for you to set up your own bank/pension company and so all of the capitalist benefits of consumer protection and appropriate rewards leading to good management behaviours aren't happening.

We have a company in Holland called Brand new Day that does exactly that.

Dec 09, 2011 at 7:19 AM, ScanIAm wrote

So apparently, every organized group of people find it neccessary to start a food/toy drive for the holidays.  I've been hassled, daily, by my employer, my client, and now people walking through the neighborhood.  I can't go into a grocery store without being accosted by some idiot ringing a bell asking for money, and just this week, my city decided to start fining people for their trash can placement.

So, apparently, society doesn't run so smoothly when you starve it for revenue.  Charity might be able to help those in need, but it's inefficient, annoying, and done more to boost the ego of the givers than help the recievers.

 

The US government is not starved for revenue. It collects and spends about 40% of GDP http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

If you would give up a significant fraction of your income just to see a marginal reduction in the work of charities because they annoy you, you are an unusual case. But even then, it would likely be cheaper for you to hire someone to accompany you and deal with soliciting charities rather than pay the extra tax.

Famous rock musician Ted Nugen decided to reveal the truth to us! Poor people are poor because of bad decisions!

His solution is simple, just remove the entire welfare state which means we stop rewarding stupid mistakes and puts people back on the right path.

Why didn't the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) realise this when they wrote the constitution? We should have a new amendment: Congress cannot legislate taking money away from successful people and giving it to poor people.

And "hit" is quite a reach.

In Holland state makes up for 49% of GDP, was 50%. We are the no.1 is taxing our people in the world.

Edit;

Article states something different;

Poor parental choices make poor children

this one is epic;

Never reward poor choices unless you want more of them. That's so simple, it's stupid.

You'll never get a kid to use the toilet unless they pee their pants a few times. You'll never train a dog to stop chewing on your slippers if you give him treats when he does it. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Methinks you both overlooked the ironic nature of my posting.

3 days ago, Blue Ink wrote

 While that number is impressive, I don't think it's very relevant as even redistributing all that wealth wouldn't make much of a difference (even more so once you consider that you can only redistribute it once). The figure I would use from the same source is the fact that the top 1% of the US households earns the same amount of money of the bottom 50% combined. While the ratio is a lot less spectacular, those are incomes that could potentially pay higher taxes every year.

Both conditions are terrible.  And, let's be honest, the wealth wouldn't be redistributed for long.  If we stripped all but $1M from the top 1%, and dumped it straight into the pockets of the bottom 50%, it would circulate for a while and end up back in the hands of the 1%.  These folks don't just have money, they have a framework for earning way more than their share as well.  I suspect that the only reason they would balk at the idea is that when the money comes back, some would get more and some would get less.  They'd all still end up richer than any of us will ever be.

And, to be honest, we wouldn't need to 'redistribute' it if that money was being circulated through the economy already.  I don't advocate stripping folks of a lifetime of rewards and posessions, but if you are sitting on a giant pile of cash, you are helping to cause this problem.  Spend it or lose it. 

3 days ago, W3bbo wrote

*snip*

Well then, go use the democratic process to fix things.

I still think you worry unnecessarily.

Vive la Yurop!

That is such a cop-out. If voting could change anything for the better, it would be illegal. No people I've voted for (or would vote for) ever wins enough seats to provide any counter-balance to the avalanche of assholes. I am effectively disenfranchised. People like me have no real voice in a democracy. The only hope for us is secession (at least, on a personal level), but since that WOULD actually change things for the better, it IS illegal. Nowadays people who have more than, what, 14 days of food?, is considered a terrorist suspect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8&feature=share&mid=53

Now, it is hard to explain to your typical democracy ideologue what it is like to be disenfranchised. Democracy ideologues, being the morons they are, are always in numerous company. They decide the elections typically, and can't see why anyone would object to a system that works so much in their perceived favor. They don't understand that democracy does not work for people other than themselves. Definitionally, the smarter people are always in the smaller minority. Smarter people refuse to live under perceptions of reality that have been warped into absurdity.

Non-idealogues know that freedom is more important than democracy, and that democracy tends to erode freedom more than protect it. But again, the people who know this are those who buck the prevailing mass culture and instead embrace the honest, if unpleasant, truth. They don't live in a simplistic fairy tale where the voting machine has a magical lever that will balance the world. These people, unfortunately, will always be in the minority. Which is why your pat answer is total bullshit. So maybe you can understand why such a statement is so fundamentally insulting.

The bottom line is that the problems caused by ideologies such as democracy cannot be fixed by piling more of it on. The answer is freedom, and that takes real individual action rather than what amounts to a political form of masturbation.

As to worry, I am not worried. I am pissed. I am outraged. And I am waiting and slowly preparing for the day I won't have to take this bullshit from Washington any more. And so is much of the rest of the country and likely the rest of the world. So pardon me for not sedating myself with fairy tales; I'm through.

34 minutes ago, bryanedds wrote

 

As to worry, I am not worried. I am pissed. I am outraged. And I am waiting and slowly preparing for the day I won't have to take this bullshit from Washington any more. And so is much of the rest of the country and likely the rest of the world. So pardon me for not sedating myself with fairy tales; I'm through.

Is that a threat?

Will you follow the right-wing dream of taking your gun into congress?

28 seconds ago, W3bbo wrote

*snip*

Is that a threat?

Will you follow the right-wing dream of taking your gun into congress?

To be fair, none of our right-wing nutters tried to blow up our houses of congress.

To be even more fair, the left wing loonies like wearing the right wing nutters' mask.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

To be fair, none of our right-wing nutters tried to blow up our houses of congress.

To be even more fair, the left wing loonies like wearing the right wing nutters' mask.

The fact that Guy Fawkes was a regressive activist intent on curtailing England's new religious freedom seems lost on the Anon contingent of the Occupy protestors.

*snip*

Is that a threat?

Will you follow the right-wing dream of taking your gun into congress?

[/quote]

It is the typical statist mindset to think aggressive violence is the only way to solve problems (voting merely being an indirect form). No, I don't plan on attacking Washington, if that's what you mean. Quite the contrary, I'm waiting for her to destroy herself. As Rome, the USSR, and all empires went, so will she. History has predicted every crisis this country has gone through, so a little knowledge goes a long way here.

However, life will be particularly difficult for those who refused to acknowledge this likelihood and would not prepare for life without a 'social safety net'. They will finally know what it is like to be powerless. And since they did it to themselves, I think I will be disinclined to help them out.

(Well, in truth, I'm soft-hearted and compassionate, so I probably will help anyone I see suffering, but damn, they better finally show a little respect for the people who were courageous enough to acknowledge reality.)

But anyway, feel free to misconstrue everything I say and consider me a right-wing terrorist or some self-serving bullocks.

Cowardice flees the light of truth. Courage often stands alone.

Seriously, I'm never disappointed in how much some folks can claim to 'love their country' but apparently hate a large portion of the people who live there.

And, no, you aren't soft-hearted and compassionate.  I can't think of a good name for it, but if you must actually see the suffering before you'll act and then only after they recipient admits "You told them so", the name certainly isn't compassionate.

And remember when Bush was president - the left was the most hateful group of people when it came to the rural majority! It was a nation-wide hate campaign. So your accusations are just a bunch of chicanery.

Unlike the demogogues who are running the world into the ground, I don't claim to be an angel. My compassion can only extend so far. Why would I help someone who has actively undermined my freedom, and would continue to do so? You have to someday start living in the real world. There is a difference between real compassion and a master / servant relationship. However, I realize that a statist is fundamentally unable to make this distinction.

Sadly, all normal avenues to freedom have been barricaded or are proving illusory. It is time to take up courage, accept the truth, and peacefully withdraw consent. This is the precise act of courage which is the only real backstop to tyranny. No, I don't deserve a sonnet, but I sure as **** don't deserve your ridicule either. Conversely, is there anything more cowardly than anonymously throwing stones at those who do stand up and speak out?

When I speak I put my reputation on the line. Because things are going to hell so fast, I now consider it imperative. And I couldn't give a damn about your petty insults; it just gives me another chance to clarify

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqyGMLSklw&feature=youtu.be

Judge us however you want, demonize us if you like, but we no longer consent to be part of this twisted, violent, stupid system... no matter how many crumbs it promises to hand out to us once it steals the rest of our bread.

2 hours ago, bryanedds wrote

Of course we're pissed at our fellow countrymen - look at what they've brought us to! And it doesn't mean we hate them; dogs are absolute dolts, but I personally am a huge humanitarian. Face the fact that the only reason your side gets to be all lovey-dovey with the masses is because you've managed to capture them with your ideology and made them your puppets. That is a sick form of compassion, my friend.

I'll do no such thing.  Maybe the reason that 'my side' promotes social welfare is that we don't view the less fortunate as dogs.

And remember when Bush was president - the left was the most hateful group of people when it came to the rural majority! It was a nation-wide hate campaign. So your accusations are just a bunch of chicanery. I can't see how a person who voluntarily supports a criminal, exploitative, and violent government can hand out character judgements anyway.

What the fsck are you talking about.  You'll need to back that crazy up with some actual facts before I can even begin to address it.

That sad truth is that I've tried for years to help change things, and nothing comes of it. It's because people simply will not change the way they think. Sometimes you just have to accept what things are going to be. That is the way of peace. Some measures of justice lie only in the hands of God. If you want to understand precisely how criminal governments are judged by the Creator, simply look at how they have been judged through history.

Unlike the demogogues who are running the world into the ground, I don't claim to be an angel. My compassion can only extend so far. Why would I help someone who has actively undermined my freedom, and would continue to do so? You have to someday start living in the real world. There is a difference between real compassion and a master / servant relationship. However, I realize that a statist is fundamentally unable to make this distinction.

Sadly, all avenues to freedom have been barricaded or are proving illusory. It is time to take up courage, accept the truth, and peacefully withdraw consent. Otherwise history will judge you as one of the supporters of the evil men who stained the world with the blood of the people. I have thought about the problem for decades and looked throughout history - and these are the only two choice. In the real world there are no supermen, regardless of your hypocritical expectations of me.

Mises tried to explain this to his German fellows as well. It felt on deaf ears because they thought they were free, Ultimately, his voice was drowned out by ideological hysterics, and he was forced to flee.

Glenn Beck would be proud. 

Look, most countries have the government they deserve and the US is no different.  If you are convinced that the tyrannical overlords of progressive hegemony are somehow sucking the liberty from your freedom loving marrow, then vote them out.  Or go all WACO and build yourself a compound.

But don't f*cking act like you're living in some totalitarian anti-utopia cuz you aren't.  I hate to break it to you, skippy, but paying your fair share of taxes doesn't qualify as carrying the yoke of servitude.  It's simply the ethical and moral responsibility we all have to the society that lets you spout this nonsense.

14 hours ago, bryanedds wrote

Of course we're pissed at our fellow countrymen - look at what they've brought us to! And it doesn't mean we hate them; dogs are absolute dolts, but I personally am a huge humanitarian. Face the fact that the only reason your side gets to be all lovey-dovey with the masses is because you've managed to capture them with your ideology and made them your puppets. That is a sick form of compassion, my friend.

*snip*

You've got to be freaking joking. "Your" side is the one gripped by ideology. If not for religious ideology, your side wouldn't even exist.

The thing is, dogs aren't dolts. They obey out of self interest--they want to be fed. But how willfully ignorant do you have to be in order to vote against your own self-interest? Voting for politicians who want to keep tax rates low for the uber-wealthy and high for the middle-class while you're barely making minimum wage is the very definition of being a dolt.

Even if you taxed the "uber wealthy" at 99.99% (you have to leave them with something), that will not produce the amounts of money required.  The only way we will get the money required is increase the tax base.  That means more people paying taxes.  Even if the "poor" paid 1% of their income as taxes, they would (collectively) pay more than most "uber wealthy" collectively.  Everyone should have their portion of the pain.  The fact that some do not pay into the pot is part of the problem.

In reality we have a spending problem. As things now sit the politicians of all parties will find a way to spend more than all the money all the time.

If I had my personal wish, I would tax everyone at a low rate (say 5%) of all transactions.  No exceptions, no deductions, no nothing.  Yes, that includes food.  We would be swimming in money.  I suspect 5% would be too high.

If they plan on spending 8% more than last year but spend 4% more than last year, that is both a cut and a surplus.  You and I would view that as spending more than before.  No surplus is generated either.  We the tax payers still are on the hook more more than last year.  

In reality the 1990's did not produce a surplus.  Less money was spent than planned.  Instead of putting it against the debt (like any sane person would do), the politicians found ways to spend it.  I agree the media portrayed that a surplus existed but you would be hard pressed to find real hard evidence of actual surpluses of money.  (Money not spent against anything other than reducing debt is not a surplus)

Your apparent definition means that you can owe the bank 1,000,000.00.  Get a check for $1,000,050.00.  Spend $1,00,049.99 on horseshoes and still have a surplus.  (You still owe the bank the $1,000,000.00)  That fact that you have 1 cent in your pocket makes it a surplus right?

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Spending more than you make, no matter how you define it, does not make a surplus. Until your debts are retired you are not debt free.  Yes Bill Clinton gets credit for some amazing figures but the were in spite of him not because of him. If congress had done everything he wanted things would have been even worse.

I still say we have a spending problem, by all parties, not a under taxed problem. To give some perspective on how bad things are:  remember we went to war with England on a simple tax of tea.  Ibelieve that rate was under 10%

1 hour ago, lensman wrote

 remember we went to war with England on a simple tax of tea.  Ibelieve that rate was under 10%

There was more to it than that.

2 hours ago, lensman wrote

@cbae:I did read the article. Your willingness to accept it at face value amazes me.  Whomever Glenn Beck is aside, I think for myself.  Just because the article defines a deficit in those terms does not make it so.  I defy you to use that definition in your personal finances. You would be in prison shortly. 

Spending more than you make, no matter how you define it, does not make a surplus. Until your debts are retired you are not debt free.  Yes Bill Clinton gets credit for some amazing figures but the were in spite of him not because of him. If congress had done everything he wanted things would have been even worse.

I still say we have a spending problem, by all parties, not a under taxed problem. To give some perspective on how bad things are:  remember we went to war with England on a simple tax of tea.  Ibelieve that rate was under 10%

If you really did read that article, then you simply don't comprehend English.

Let me spell it out for you. A budget surplus has do with what how much is spent vs. how much tax revenue you bring in for a budget YEAR. If have a huge debt accumulated over several years of budget deficits, a single year's budget surplus isn't going to wipe out that debt. But if you have a several successive years of surpluses, then you have a chance of wiping out that debt. You cannot  get out of debt until you at least have a budget surplus. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. If you bought a home and have a huge mortgage balance, do you just throw up your hands and say, "F*ck it! I don't make enough in a year to pay off the ENTIRE mortgage AT ONCE, so it doesn't matter if I spend less than my annual salary."? What kind of asinine thinking is that?

Under Clinton, we had 4 straight years of surpluses, and 4 straight years of our national debt balance actually DECREASING. Yes, we still had a debt balance when Clinton left office, but we were well on our way of erasing the ENTIRE debt until Dumbya completely wiped out 4 years of surpluses and dug us further into debt.

Dec 09, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

Because I believe it is simpler, more efficient, and more fair if a centralised body deals with the distribution of funds.  If there was some organisation that did this instead of the government, I would be equally happy to use it, but the benefit if including it in taxes is that everyone pays and there's no forgetting or 'getting round to it sometime' involved (never underestimate the power of apathy).

Herbie

The soviet central committee tried this and failed miserably. the state run farms under produced the small private plots  of land. 

I've worked in a call center soliciting donations for a charity and found out that the charity only received 18% of the total donations the remainder was absorbed in administrative costs.

United Appeal is supposed to be a central agency for donations but again a majority of the funds goes to administration rather than to the agencies themselves. The charities would be worse off if run by the government than if allowed to work alone.

The I forgot or I didn't get around to it are weak excuses and a way of trying to say, "I didn't want to, so up yours" in politically correct language.If you really wanted to you would have gone out of your way to do so.

Look at the lotteries (1/3 goes to the winners, the remaining 2/3rds is supposed to go to charities but they actually get less than 1/6th due to administrative costs and other overhead.

The idea that the proceeds of the lotteries was to go to charities was only put in place to placate those opposed to gambling

35 minutes ago, David7738 wrote

*snip*

The soviet central committee tried this and failed miserably. the state run farms under produced the small private plots  of land.

The Soviet system was rife with corruption and other human-factors. Of course communism doesn't work in reality - but plenty of ideas it takes (to their logical extremes) have a firm evidential basis - such as the principle that the state should serve its citizens directly and apply directed social-engineering (the sociological kind, not the penetration-attack kind) to achieve results - it's just so unfortunate that many of their grand experiments (such as the Five Year Plan and the Great Leap Forward) failed so miserably.

My mantra is "evidence-based decision-making" - choose the option that has the most evidence supporting its case, rather than emphasising simple (or "pure") ideology. In this case, the styles of government and social systems well-established in Western Europe (Germany, Scandinavia, etc) are all doing so well that Germany is capitalising on the misfortune (and mismanagement) of Greece's internal finances to bankroll their bailout package and maintain one of the world's highest quality of life indexes. On that basis, how can it be said that socialism is "bad", "doesn't work", or "evil" considering the evidence is right there, 400 miles from my doorstep.

7 hours ago, David7738 wrote

*snip*

The soviet central committee tried this and failed miserably. the state run farms under produced the small private plots  of land. 

I've worked in a call center soliciting donations for a charity and found out that the charity only received 18% of the total donations the remainder was absorbed in administrative costs.

United Appeal is supposed to be a central agency for donations but again a majority of the funds goes to administration rather than to the agencies themselves. The charities would be worse off if run by the government than if allowed to work alone.

The I forgot or I didn't get around to it are weak excuses and a way of trying to say, "I didn't want to, so up yours" in politically correct language.If you really wanted to you would have gone out of your way to do so.

Look at the lotteries (1/3 goes to the winners, the remaining 2/3rds is supposed to go to charities but they actually get less than 1/6th due to administrative costs and other overhead.

The idea that the proceeds of the lotteries was to go to charities was only put in place to placate those opposed to gambling

Soviet Russia?  Seems a bit too lateral to me, I was talking about centralising the distribution of charitable donations, not a centralised government.  While we're on the topic, though, Communism did actually work very well for a short initial period, but failed due to the greed and dictatorial approach of its leaders.  Centralisation was not the downfall of communism, it's downfall was that the people in charge were not answerable to the population. I think a democracy with centralised government works pretty well in the UK.

My point about a central organisation for charitable distribution is that centralisation of the administration would reduce the administration costs (due to economies of scale). This is why many large companies centralise their admin to one place. A centralised distribution would free up the charitable workers to perform the charity they want to do and not have to spend time doing admin.

I agree with your point about the amounts of money that actually end up at the point of need -- I did once find a league-table for UK charities showing what percentages went where; some were very good at getting a high percentage of the money to the end-cause, while some were appalling. I believe a centralised organisation would be at the more efficient end, especially it it was open to public scrutiny.

Herbie