Economics: Explain this to Me

[USNationalist]

Redistributing wealth is a good thing.

It's a bad thing and I prove it by taking on on each point you made in the following:

It prevents bubbles by taking capital out of the hands of a the irresponsible few (wealth in the hands of a small class inevitably leads to risky investments).

On the contrary, it creates bubbles. Bubbles are another flavor of inflation. When a person does x amount of work:

a) If they receive exact credit for that work, the market is perfectly balanced. It's an even give and take.

b) If they do not receive exact credit for that work (redistributed to that hands of someone else who didn't perform that work), we have an uneven market. People have taken, but not given.

It results in healthier, happier workers, which increases productivity.

It results in less happy workers, because you are making less, your quality of life is less. An increase in productivity is nonsense, because energy if finite. If you take from the people, they buy less. Taking from a person's wages may appear to increase productivity if the system you are testing is tested in a small duration and very narrow scope, but due to energy laws, lowering a wage no more increase overall productivity than dancing creates rain.

If the small amount eeked from the workers doesn't lead to: (1) added energy in the market, (2) the take over of foreign markets or (3) increased efficiency that creates energy there is no increase in overall productivity. If perhaps you do achieve on of these things you have to measure the cost of lowering person's wage (wealth redistribution) to the quantity of that energy or the benefits of a new market.

And it results in investment in the production of real goods and services (rather than bets, which characterizes how the rich "invest"). The latter occurs in two ways. First, working people consume real goods and services, which increases the incentive of private capital to invest in the production of those goods and services.

They may only consume more if one of the three happens. Primarily, in capitalism, it doesn't happen, because capitalism competes on the micro level, business to business, not the macro level, government vs. government.

And second, working people start businesses and always have -- the more capital they have, the more business start up.

Energy is finite. If you start up a business and you do not add energy to the market in doing so according the three numbered items above, you are only redistributing wealth. If it doesn't satisfy any of the three points and it's only aesthetic choice it arguably ok, but the transition costs the economy for that change. Starting up a business isn't necessarily good for the economy, unless energy increases at the same time.

In short, your post is economic teabaggery.

Keep your homosexual metaphors to yourself. They are irrelevant and vomitory.

 

[head of joaquin]

It's a bad thing and I prove it by taking on on each point you made in the following:



On the contrary, it creates bubbles. Bubbles are another flavor of inflation. When a person does x amount of work:

a) If they receive exact credit for that work, the market is perfectly balanced. It's an even give and take.

b) If they do not receive exact credit for that work (redistributed to that hands of someone else who didn't perform that work), we have an uneven market. People have taken, but not given.

This is contrary to economic data which shows bubbles occur when capital is concentrated into the hands of a few, who tend to make risky investment, in contrast to lower income people who can't afford risk.

One down.

It results in less happy workers, because you are making less, your quality of life is less. An increase in productivity is nonsense, because energy if finite. If you take from the people, they buy less. Taking from a person's wages may appear to increase productivity if the system you are testing is tested in a small duration and very narrow scope, but due to energy laws, lowering a wage no more increase overall productivity than dancing creates rain.

So now more money doesn't produce healthier more productive citizens. Sounds like we should cut the pay of CEOS then.

More counterfactual babble.

Two down.

If the small amount eeked from the workers doesn't lead to: (1) added energy in the market, (2) the take over of foreign markets or (3) increased efficiency that creates energy there is no increase in overall productivity. If perhaps you do achieve on of these things you have to measure the cost of lowering person's wage (wealth redistribution) to the quantity of that energy or the benefits of a new market.

Energy isn't an economic term. Going to have to put this one in the totally whacky file. Three down.

They only consume more if one of the three happens. Primarily, in capitalism, it doesn't happen, because capitalism competes on the micro level, business to business, not the macro level, government vs. government.

More dollars chasing goods and services, higher prices, more incentive to invest in the production of those goods and services. Capitalism 101. You don't even understand your own system.

Four down.

Energy is finite. If you start up a business and you do not add energy to the market in doing so according the three numbered items above, you are only redistributing wealth. If it doesn't satisfy any of the three points and it's only aesthetic choice it arguably ok, but the transition costs the economy for that change. Starting up a business isn't necessarily good for the economy, unless energy increases at the same time.

Sorry, energy is not an economic term. Have to add this to the crank theory file. Five down.

Keep your homosexual metaphors to yourself. They are irrelevant and vomitory.

Teabagging isn't a homosexual term. Six down.

 

[DVSentinel]

I see

So you are now disputing the fact that the US tax payer funds the fascist US imperial military?

Interesting neurosis

No, no dispute about Taxpayers funding the military. It being Fascist or imperial, I would greatly disagree with that characterization. The military is under civilian control in this Country, not it's own. So if you think they have been used for those purposes, it is the Civilian politicians that have used them for that purpose and not the nature of the military itself. The Military is an instrument of National Policy, but does not in anyway set that Policy, thats the Civilians job in the process.

 

[DVSentinel]

Redistributing wealth is a good thing. It prevents bubbles by taking capital out of the hands of a the irresponsible few (wealth in the hands of a small class inevitably leads to risky investments). It results in healthier, happier workers, which increases productivity. And it results in investment in the production of real goods and services (rather than bets, which characterizes how the rich "invest"). The latter occurs in two ways. First, working people consume real goods and services, which increases the incentive of private capital to invest in the production of those goods and services. And second, working people start businesses and always have -- the more capital they have, the more business start up.

In short, your post is economic teabaggery.

Redistribution is good and can also be bad. Redistribution based upon value of input and introduction of the new is good. Redistribution based upon Marxist ideals that ignore the value of input and demand equal output is bad and contrary to natural order.

Corporatism/protectionism is bad, socialism is worse. Maintaining a healthy level of competition and allowing the introduction of new technologies and products that compete and replace existing products and allowing the creators of those ideas/products to bring them to market without enslaving themselves to existing corporations/companies is a good method of wealth redistribution.

 

[head of joaquin]

Redistribution is good and can also be bad. Redistribution based upon value of input and introduction of the new is good. Redistribution based upon Marxist ideals that ignore the value of input and demand equal output is bad and contrary to natural order.

Corporatism/protectionism is bad, socialism is worse. Maintaining a healthy level of competition and allowing the introduction of new technologies and products that compete and replace existing products and allowing the creators of those ideas/products to bring them to market without enslaving themselves to existing corporations/companies is a good method of wealth redistribution.

Sure.

The context here was simply a higher top marginal rate and using those revenues to produce a more productive society, by investing in the health, education and productivity of the lower brackets. That's amodest proposal which is both good economics and good morality.

 

[DVSentinel]

Sure.

The context here was simply a higher top marginal rate and using those revenues to produce a more productive society, by investing in the health, education and productivity of the lower brackets. That's amodest proposal which is both good economics and good morality.

I disagree, only something earned has any true value, something given but not earned is valueless and will only teach reliance upon others. You cannot instill social virtue and acceptance of the law through hand outs. The only way to change these indigents, welfarist, criminals and poor performers who made bad choices in life is to appeal to their survival instincts. Make their survival contingent upon performing and complying properly. It also cannot be an empty threat, without substance, a threat has no real affect.

We don't give them jack other than a minimalistic chance that they have to work for, if they don't, we let them starve, freeze or die in the streets according their preferred method. When people see that the government will not give them anything and will let them just die, then, they will do what is necessary and take what ever work is available in order to survive.

America would be and can be a much greater and better place if we start adhering the sound principal of survival instincts that will always encourage desirable behavior.

Your pro-socialist methodologies deny the existence of earned value and natural selection.

 

[head of joaquin]

I disagree, only something earned has any true value,.

Fortunately meaningless platitudes like this don't affect economics.

But I'm glad you support the estate tax, since of course inherited wealth isn't earned.

 

[DVSentinel]

Fortunately meaningless platitudes like this don't affect economics.

But I'm glad you support the estate tax, since of course inherited wealth isn't earned.

Don't know enough about an "estate tax" to comment on it. Generally though, I frown upon useless and unneeded taxes. We have more than enough taxes already to pay for legitimate government and pay off the debt, we just need to spend correctly instead of frivolously.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

You cannot instill social virtue and acceptance of the law through hand outs. The only way to change these indigents, welfarist, criminals and poor performers who made bad choices in life is to appeal to their survival instincts. Make their survival contingent upon performing and complying properly. It also cannot be an empty threat, without substance, a threat has no real affect. We don't give them jack other than a minimalistic chance that they have to work for, if they don't, we let them starve, freeze or die in the streets according their preferred method. When people see that the government will not give them anything and will let them just die, then, they will do what is necessary and take what ever work is available in order to survive.

Do you know what percentage of the people you refer to in such unchristian terms is under the age of 12? Over the age of 70? Living with long-term illness or disability? I'm guessing it's another thing you don't know enough about.

 

[Klown]

No, no dispute about Taxpayers funding the military. It being Fascist or imperial, I would greatly disagree with that characterization. .

...thats completely understandable

You havent even grasped the reality that the US is a fascist Corpocracy

The USA has over 1000 military installations in over 140 nations around the world. Since the end of WW2 the US military has attacked about 37 defenceles nations that didnt attack the US first which has resulted in about 23 million civilian deaths.

Every military action that the US has carried out on the international stage has been against nations that were almost completely defenceless and were driven by US corporate interests and imperial geo-political motives

This is not a matter of debate - its in the historical records - And by historical records I mean the ACADEMIC variety - not FOX news or the excrement that Holywood spews out daily

Look up Corpocracy or Corpocratic fascism - fits your nation like a glove

cheers

 

[Dittohead not!]

I disagree, only something earned has any true value, something given but not earned is valueless and will only teach reliance upon others. You cannot instill social virtue and acceptance of the law through hand outs. The only way to change these indigents, welfarist, criminals and poor performers who made bad choices in life is to appeal to their survival instincts. Make their survival contingent upon performing and complying properly. It also cannot be an empty threat, without substance, a threat has no real affect.

We don't give them jack other than a minimalistic chance that they have to work for, if they don't, we let them starve, freeze or die in the streets according their preferred method. When people see that the government will not give them anything and will let them just die, then, they will do what is necessary and take what ever work is available in order to survive.

America would be and can be a much greater and better place if we start adhering the sound principal of survival instincts that will always encourage desirable behavior.

Your pro-socialist methodologies deny the existence of earned value and natural selection.

Perhaps what we need are some predators picking off the weakest and slowest of the herd and thus improving the gene pool of the survivors.

If the very young, the very old, the lame, the less intelligent can't survive, then that's better for the rest of us, right?

 

[DVSentinel]

Perhaps what we need are some predators picking off the weakest and slowest of the herd and thus improving the gene pool of the survivors.

If the very young, the very old, the lame, the less intelligent can't survive, then that's better for the rest of us, right?

No predator needed. Many would eliminate themselves as the result of their own actions and choices. The young will be protected by their parents, or society if the parents are no longer available. The old should of made arrangements for their retirement while they could. SS was supposed to provide this, but it has been so grossly mismanaged and pilfered that it doesn't work anymore. I have no problem with helping the truly disabled either, unfortunately, a vast number of those on disability could contribute if we redid the system. Currently, if you are on full SS disability (which also doesn't really provide for ones needs) you have the choice or receiving it or working, you cannot do both. If you work to supplement what they give you, you lose your benefits, permanently, if you actually earn more than a small amount. (this is why I have not, to date, applied for SS Disability even though I could get it, I am holding out hope that a fix can be found for some of my conditions and allow me to do something, but then I have this option as my retirement and VA disability covers things that others don't have, like medical). The "less" intelligent can be useful and productive in low skill jobs. If they are so low in intelligence that they cannot function, then yeah, go ahead and give them some help.

I understand where I went wrong in my statement and why some misunderstand it. I didn't specifically type out the exceptions. I was referring to those who can, but won't, the welfare recipients that won't take available jobs. Those who choose to screw themselves up with drugs and alcohol. Those who choose to take jobs lower than what they could of and then demand ridiculous salaries and benefits for unskilled labor then bitch and whine when that job is outsourced. All of these and probably more could have a better life if they would make better decisions, I have no problem with letting them get what they have earned, even if that is nothing. If someone, of average or above intelligence, chooses not to get a better education or a skill and instead works at low skill labor and his/her job gets outsourced because it cost too much to employ them and you get low quality labor/products from them, then I have no problem at all allowing them to starve in the streets. Put their kids in a properly run orphanage/group home, but nothing for the adults, let them live, or die, with the results of their choices.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

The old should of made arrangements for their retirement while they could. SS was supposed to provide this, but it has been so grossly mismanaged and pilfered that it doesn't work anymore.

There is no such thing as "should of". One can say "should have" or "should've", but not "should of". Meanwhile, you are apparently just as out of touch with the workings of Social Security. Have you ever heard of the Ticket to Work program? It's tailored to the needs of the disabled who want to return to work. You don't lose benefits simply by participating in the program (in fact, you receive some new ones in terms of job training and placement services), and if you do take a job that ends up simply being too much for you due to your condition, you can return to full benefits, in most cases without needing to reapply.

The rest of your anti-social rant continues to be based upon having swallowed a whole bunch of worthless stereotype and propaganda.

 

[presluc]

Perhaps what we need are some predators picking off the weakest and slowest of the herd and thus improving the gene pool of the survivors.

If the very young, the very old, the lame, the less intelligent can't survive, then that's better for the rest of us, right?

Predators don't care how strong you were in the past , they strike at your weakest point.
If predators would have existed what would have become of Bear Sterns, AIG, GMC, ect.?

I'm just wandering without the free trade, the foriegn aid, the research grants what would the prey be?

Real estate, manufacturing, electronics is crippled the working class is weak and slow, but without the working class, no consumers, without consumers no retail sales the predator would turn it's eyes to not only the weakest but the fatest, the rich.eace

 

[presluc]

No predator needed. Many would eliminate themselves as the result of their own actions and choices. The young will be protected by their parents, or society if the parents are no longer available. The old should of made arrangements for their retirement while they could. SS was supposed to provide this, but it has been so grossly mismanaged and pilfered that it doesn't work anymore. I have no problem with helping the truly disabled either, unfortunately, a vast number of those on disability could contribute if we redid the system. Currently, if you are on full SS disability (which also doesn't really provide for ones needs) you have the choice or receiving it or working, you cannot do both. If you work to supplement what they give you, you lose your benefits, permanently, if you actually earn more than a small amount. (this is why I have not, to date, applied for SS Disability even though I could get it, I am holding out hope that a fix can be found for some of my conditions and allow me to do something, but then I have this option as my retirement and VA disability covers things that others don't have, like medical). The "less" intelligent can be useful and productive in low skill jobs. If they are so low in intelligence that they cannot function, then yeah, go ahead and give them some help.

I understand where I went wrong in my statement and why some misunderstand it. I didn't specifically type out the exceptions. I was referring to those who can, but won't, the welfare recipients that won't take available jobs. Those who choose to screw themselves up with drugs and alcohol. Those who choose to take jobs lower than what they could of and then demand ridiculous salaries and benefits for unskilled labor then bitch and whine when that job is outsourced. All of these and probably more could have a better life if they would make better decisions, I have no problem with letting them get what they have earned, even if that is nothing. If someone, of average or above intelligence, chooses not to get a better education or a skill and instead works at low skill labor and his/her job gets outsourced because it cost too much to employ them and you get low quality labor/products from them, then I have no problem at all allowing them to starve in the streets. Put their kids in a properly run orphanage/group home, but nothing for the adults, let them live, or die, with the results of their choices.

"No predators needed, many would eliminate themselves as a result of their own actions and choices."
Your words are they not?Perhaps you should mention the word BAILOUTS in your post, since corporations with a subsisable amount of money on hand, recieves more from the taxpayers of America because of, shall we say actions and choices?

Oh, and I have no problem letting some CEO'S or Corporation's black ink turn to red and eventually going bankrupt there are many waiting in line to replace them; yet a human being as an individual can not be replaced only copied,eace

 

[DVSentinel]

"No predators needed, many would eliminate themselves as a result of their own actions and choices."
Your words are they not?Perhaps you should mention the word BAILOUTS in your post, since corporations with a subsisable amount of money on hand, recieves more from the taxpayers of America because of, shall we say actions and choices?

Oh, and I have no problem letting some CEO'S or Corporation's black ink turn to red and eventually going bankrupt there are many waiting in line to replace them; yet a human being as an individual can not be replaced only copied,eace

You have apparently missed my posts elsewhere that stated that I in no way supported the bailouts and have stated that we should of allowed failure. While certainly painful, I believe in the long run we would be much better off if we allowed the failures and build a new, stronger system rather than trying to shore one up that is built upon a bad foundation. Like Welfare, the bailouts allowed people to escape the consequences of their choices and actions.

 

[presluc]

You have apparently missed my posts elsewhere that stated that I in no way supported the bailouts and have stated that we should of allowed failure. While certainly painful, I believe in the long run we would be much better off if we allowed the failures and build a new, stronger system rather than trying to shore one up that is built upon a bad foundation. Like Welfare, the bailouts allowed people to escape the consequences of their choices and actions.

My bad, but it seems like everytime the word "Welfare" is mentioned people automaticly look to the poor and unemployed or the homeless, while forgetting the shall we say, higher up the food chain , research grants for private organizations payed for with taxpayer money, no bid contracts paid for with taxpayer money, special interest contracts payed for with taxpayer money.
And about those tax cuts for the rich the checks they get payed for with tax payer money.

People are always talking about government overspending , but where does the money go?

So it would seem that "WELFARE" has more than one face, it just goes by differant names.eace

 

[DVSentinel]

My bad, but it seems like everytime the word "Welfare" is mentioned people automaticly look to the poor and unemployed or the homeless, while forgetting the shall we say, higher up the food chain , research grants for private organizations payed for with taxpayer money, no bid contracts paid for with taxpayer money, special interest contracts payed for with taxpayer money.
And about those tax cuts for the rich the checks they get payed for with tax payer money.

People are always talking about government overspending , but where does the money go?

So it would seem that "WELFARE" has more than one face, it just goes by differant names.eace

I see welfare and medicaid as a freebie hand out that is not earned, I would much prefer a system that offers a means of earning it. Workfare. This of course could only apply to those who are unemployed and not to those who have low paying jobs or the disabled. Even those with low pay jobs may be required to perform some service or labor, depending on how much time they put in at their "paying" jobs.

 

[presluc]

I see welfare and medicaid as a freebie hand out that is not earned, I would much prefer a system that offers a means of earning it. Workfare. This of course could only apply to those who are unemployed and not to those who have low paying jobs or the disabled. Even those with low pay jobs may be required to perform some service or labor, depending on how much time they put in at their "paying" jobs.

So where does the money from welfare and medicade go ,see if these words sound familiar Humana,, no how about health insurance companies set up has Hmo's, the pharmicuticul ind. has been sued time after time yet profits keep going up.

How about closing the bank as you say, no more freebie handouts,but why stop at medicare and welfare for the poor why not either lose your government money or workforce across the board?
In short no more free trade deals, no more free rresearch grants, no more free tax cuts for the poor , middle or rich, bring back estsate tax, windfall tax, tarrif tax on every product coming into America from any foriegn nation.
Any immigrant applying for a Visa card will be charged a fee to get the card and a fee to keep it.
All government employees will pay the same amoiunt for inchurance as anybody else based on income of course.
No more no bid contracts, any politician supporting a bill must not take any money or favors from any company connected with said contract.
Any company or corporation wishing to have a contrract from the government must pay a fee to bid on such a contract non refundable of course.
No politician can accept any money from any corporation that might sway the progress of America and it's citizens
Any lobbyist wanting to get money from a politician must pay the tresurary before seeing the politician every time they see the politician a sum of say a hundred dollars that seems fair.
Foeign aid will only be distribted to those that like America and remain allies with America , the rest you are on your own.

So you see, I agree with you lets indeed cut out these freebie handouts.eace

 

[DVSentinel]

So where does the money from welfare and medicade go ,see if these words sound familiar Humana,, no how about health insurance companies set up has Hmo's, the pharmicuticul ind. has been sued time after time yet profits keep going up.

Interesting point, but I believe each state is different in their approach to Medicaid. Never heard of a private insurance handling it in Texas. A lot of Medicare's administration is contracted out, maybe the same is true for Medicaid. Since I don't like Medicaid, I don't really care how they handle it, it shouldn't exist.

As for the pharmaceutical companies, we should quit allowing them to overcharge us so they can sell at lower costs to other countries. Also, I think drug advertising should be stopped for prescription drugs.

How about closing the bank as you say, no more freebie handouts,but why stop at medicare and welfare for the poor why not either lose your government money or workforce across the board?

Not for sure what your even referring to here, please clarify.

In short no more free trade deals, no more free rresearch grants, no more free tax cuts for the poor , middle or rich, bring back estsate tax, windfall tax, tarrif tax on every product coming into America from any foriegn nation.

As for taxes, nope, wouldn't support that. I would support a flat percentage tax across the board with a maximum 5% deduction for charitable contributions.

Free trade agreements should only exist with countries that have an economy that can actually support reciprocal trade. Canada, our largest trading partner, I have no problem with free trade with them, Mexico on the other hand should never exist. One problem I see is a place like Japan. If a company builds or assembles enough products in the US, then tariffs are dropped by the US, however, Japan still slaps on high tariffs for US products. This is not fair or free trade. Many other countries do this also. As long as the trade can be fair and balanced, I have no trouble with free trade. If it is unbalanced because, frankly, the US makes a lot of suck ass products that even Americans don't want, too bad too sad, it is incumbent upon our manufactures to compete as long as the competition is fair.

As for outsourcing, don't really see a big problem with it. If the Unions were not so greedy, EPA and OSHA not so strong armed and stupid and if American workers actually built a product of high enough quality to be worth buying, then most of that outsourcing would never have happened.

Any immigrant applying for a Visa card will be charged a fee to get the card and a fee to keep it.

I thought they already did. As for a fee for keeping it, if you have ever had to deal with Immigration Services, you would know they already pay by putting up with some of the worse assholes ever created by mankind.

All government employees will pay the same amoiunt for inchurance as anybody else based on income of course.

Totally disagree. It is a benefit for working for the government. Also, you seem to have some inflated idea about how much government employees get paid. I know that most of the military doesn't get paid crap for what they do under the conditions they do it. Free medical is more than a just benefit for them.

No more no bid contracts, any politician supporting a bill must not take any money or favors from any company connected with said contract.

Actually, I support doing away with the vast majority of contracts. Most things that the government contracts out, they could hire directly to do. Even the military could build it's own manufacturies for their needs, not like they are going to compete against a civilian company. Unless of course you think tanks, war-ships and fighter/bomber aircraft should be offered up for sale to the public. This would get rid of a lot of extra costs for the government.

Any company or corporation wishing to have a contrract from the government must pay a fee to bid on such a contract non refundable of course.

Sure, nonrefundable, but they will just add the costs into the contract, thus increasing the cost of the contracts.

No politician can accept any money from any corporation that might sway the progress of America and it's citizens

Other than campaign funds, I don't believe they are able to accept anything from them now.

Any lobbyist wanting to get money from a politician must pay the tresurary before seeing the politician every time they see the politician a sum of say a hundred dollars that seems fair.

I agree that lobbying needs to be changed, however, I don't think a multi-billion dollar company or fund is going to worry about a $100 dollar fee. Doing this would only burden normal citizens seeking aid from their elected officials.

Foeign aid will only be distribted to those that like America and remain allies with America , the rest you are on your own.

I have to disagree, Foreign aide sometimes provides non monetary dividends in the end. If they are an "unfriendly" country, it helps us with public opinion and provides contacts that can be exploited as intelligence sources within that country. Besides, it's just a good thing to do, help people who cannot help themselves. It gives us a positive image if we do it correctly and don't turn around and do something stupid right afterwards.

So you see, I agree with you lets indeed cut out these freebie handouts.eace

Seems all of your ideas are ways to increase the monetary intake of the government without putting any restrictions or controls on their spending of said monies. We already take in far more than we need for legitimate government, we just need to spend and manage it better.

 

[head of joaquin]

. The old should of made arrangements for their retirement while they could. SS was supposed to provide this, but it has been so grossly mismanaged and pilfered that it doesn't work anymore.

The SS trust fund is the largest, most secure, most solvent fund in the world, indeed in history.

What are you talking about?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Yes, interesting to note that if we decided to give about 20% of the SS Trust Fund surplus to Greece, they would instantly become one of the few debt-free countries in the world.

 

[presluc]

Interesting point, but I believe each state is different in their approach to Medicaid. Never heard of a private insurance handling it in Texas. A lot of Medicare's administration is contracted out, maybe the same is true for Medicaid. Since I don't like Medicaid, I don't really care how they handle it, it shouldn't exist.

As for the pharmaceutical companies, we should quit allowing them to overcharge us so they can sell at lower costs to other countries. Also, I think drug advertising should be stopped for prescription drugs.



Not for sure what your even referring to here, please clarify.



As for taxes, nope, wouldn't support that. I would support a flat percentage tax across the board with a maximum 5% deduction for charitable contributions.

Free trade agreements should only exist with countries that have an economy that can actually support reciprocal trade. Canada, our largest trading partner, I have no problem with free trade with them, Mexico on the other hand should never exist. One problem I see is a place like Japan. If a company builds or assembles enough products in the US, then tariffs are dropped by the US, however, Japan still slaps on high tariffs for US products. This is not fair or free trade. Many other countries do this also. As long as the trade can be fair and balanced, I have no trouble with free trade. If it is unbalanced because, frankly, the US makes a lot of suck ass products that even Americans don't want, too bad too sad, it is incumbent upon our manufactures to compete as long as the competition is fair.

As for outsourcing, don't really see a big problem with it. If the Unions were not so greedy, EPA and OSHA not so strong armed and stupid and if American workers actually built a product of high enough quality to be worth buying, then most of that outsourcing would never have happened.



I thought they already did. As for a fee for keeping it, if you have ever had to deal with Immigration Services, you would know they already pay by putting up with some of the worse assholes ever created by mankind.



Totally disagree. It is a benefit for working for the government. Also, you seem to have some inflated idea about how much government employees get paid. I know that most of the military doesn't get paid crap for what they do under the conditions they do it. Free medical is more than a just benefit for them.



Actually, I support doing away with the vast majority of contracts. Most things that the government contracts out, they could hire directly to do. Even the military could build it's own manufacturies for their needs, not like they are going to compete against a civilian company. Unless of course you think tanks, war-ships and fighter/bomber aircraft should be offered up for sale to the public. This would get rid of a lot of extra costs for the government.



Sure, nonrefundable, but they will just add the costs into the contract, thus increasing the cost of the contracts.



Other than campaign funds, I don't believe they are able to accept anything from them now.



I agree that lobbying needs to be changed, however, I don't think a multi-billion dollar company or fund is going to worry about a $100 dollar fee. Doing this would only burden normal citizens seeking aid from their elected officials.



I have to disagree, Foreign aide sometimes provides non monetary dividends in the end. If they are an "unfriendly" country, it helps us with public opinion and provides contacts that can be exploited as intelligence sources within that country. Besides, it's just a good thing to do, help people who cannot help themselves. It gives us a positive image if we do it correctly and don't turn around and do something stupid right afterwards.



Seems all of your ideas are ways to increase the monetary intake of the government without putting any restrictions or controls on their spending of said monies. We already take in far more than we need for legitimate government, we just need to spend and manage it better.

Let me repeat the original question what does the government spend money on?
It can't be on the poor and unemployed, the middle class "an endangered class".

A short example Michigan a manufacturing state got hit hard by outsourcing , got hit harder by budget cuts on education, training schools, subsidiesed housing and after all the budget cuts on the poor working class unemployment homeless and another raise on property tax and state tax the Republican governor decides with all the money the state saved by budget cuts he wants to build another bridge to Canada, which Canada won't help pay for, the U.S.government won't help pay for that leaves the state of Michigan going right back into more debt. this is just one example.

I notice in the rest of your post you are saying well outsourcinng is ok , outsourcing started increaseing in 2000 it hasn't gone back , how's that working for America so far?

You mention taxes but new you want a flat % tax ,it seems the old tax system we had was working in the 50's and the 60's why not go back and try that again.
Question Would a flat tax across the board be enough to increase tax revenue enough to pay off the 16 trillion in debt ,or the 1.5 billion in IOU'S, PLUS OUTSOURCING MORE JOBS WITH PAYCHECKS THAT PAY TAXES?

I did not say military troops would pay for insurance just those cilvilians working for the government.
If you want to talk of military start with questions why did a soldier in a combat zone ask the Sec of Def, "WHY DO WE HAVE TO SCRONGE FOR PARTS?
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO KEEP WALTER REED "supposedly the best V.A. hospital in America" IN TIP TOP SHAPE,and why was there a scandal involving the conditions of said hospital.

Foreign aide would help us with what? The Japanese helped us on 12/7 41, the Alquida from Afganistan helped us on 9/11/2000
I think America has had enough help from questionable allies.
If a country is friendly America will be friendly , if a country is unfriendly they can step up or step off , but fair warning you lose a war to America there will be no momey coming from America to rebuild or no help rebuilding unless trust is earned.

Is America to become a strong nation, or is America to become a patsy paying protection money, and becoming dependant on foreign nations for products energy and new ideas.??/?

It would seem like you want to cut all this government spending , but only in certain areas of government spending.
You want more tax revenue but only in certain areas the others well no.
You want less spending by government so tax revenue can be increased but not through the working class and paychecks; after all outsourcxing must continue it's done so much for the American economy so far?
Why just look at real esta..NO DON'T LOOK THERE
Just look at the College job opportun.. NO DON'T LOOK THERE
Just look at America's surpl... NO DON'T LOOK THERE
Just look at the advancements made in NAS... NO DON'T LOOK THERE
Sorry I'm haveing tecnical dificulties finding something good that resulted in the outsoursing of jobs, the free trade , the tax cuts for millionairs and bailout of corporations by this United States Government?

As for the lobbyidst ok make it 1000 for each appointment paid up front non- refundable.eace

 

[presluc]

The SS trust fund is the largest, most secure, most solvent fund in the world, indeed in history.

What are you talking about?

Question; Who paid into the SS fund?eace

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Question; Who paid into the SS fund?eace

Everyone who has worked in a covered position since 1983. This includes a bunch of undocumented immigrants by the way, even though the law as it stands prohibits them from collecting any benefits.