5-point guide to the "fiscal cliff"

Post Reply New Topic

Walmart keeps people under full-time in order to give out lower wages... I don't care for Walmart's business practices, but then I don't shop at Walmart anyways. If people have problems with Walmart's business practices, then why are you people shopping at Walmart? Part of why they keep their prices low is due to those business practices, so people are still making a choice to shop there.



I'm not preaching for anarchy, but you have to understand that power corrupts visagrunt. The more power you give government, ultimately the more corrupt it becomes. The founding fathers understood this, which is why the Constitution puts in place limits on the power of government.



While government may set rules, often government doesn't follow their own rules. If a private charity is in reality a scam, there is such a thing as prosecuting people for fraud. There are also such things as prosecuting people for embezzlement that can be brought to bear. However, most private charities are working under a higher standard accountability than government charities or entitlement programs. Not bringing religion into this, just pointing out how power corrupts.



Would you trust your government if you found out that it was selling guns to drug cartels and blaming innocent gun dealerships in an attempt to undermine your second amendment rights? That's the only logical explanation for Fast & Furious, based on the known facts, that is the only logical conclusion considering the only people fired have been whistleblowers, the ones arguably responsible still have their jobs or have been promoted.



Or your proposal could just make things even more of a mess than they are now.



Considering it is actually illegal for private companies to deliver mail to letter boxes and personal mailboxes, there isn't any private company allowed to deliver letters, so quite frankly I really don't see where you are going with that statement...

The USPS employs over 574,000 workers and operates over 218,000 vehicles.[4] The USPS is the operator of the largest vehicle fleet in the world.[5] The USPS is legally obligated to serve all Americans, regardless of geography, at uniform price and quality. The USPS has exclusive access to letter boxes marked "U.S. Mail" and personal letterboxes in the United States, but still competes against private package delivery services, such as UPS and FedEx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... al_Service



Doesn't change the fact that would technically work...



Actually all you're doing is making it harder to detect the virus in a person's blood stream and with all due respect, the fact that in your example the person can still spread the disease (cause they have it in their bloodstream), I don't find that to be a negligible risk, let alone 4%...

Early treatment of HIV-infected people with antiretrovirals protected 96% of partners from infection.[93][94]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS



HIV is transmitted primarily via unprotected sexual intercourse (including anal and even oral sex), contaminated blood transfusions and hypodermic needles, and from mother to child during pregnancy, delivery, or breastfeeding.[2] Some bodily fluids, such as saliva and tears, do not transmit HIV.[3] Prevention of HIV infection, primarily through safe sex and needle-exchange programs, is a key strategy to control the spread of the disease. There is no cure or vaccine; however, antiretroviral treatment can slow the course of the disease and may lead to a near-normal life expectancy. While antiretroviral treatment reduces the risk of death and complications from the disease, these medications are expensive and may be associated with side effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS

The fact it can't be spread via simple touch or through the air, makes it much easier to stop the spread of than say the common cold... Btw, "safe sex" doesn't eliminate the risk, it only lessens it.



visagrunt, the problem with the HiV virus, and I actually did do some reading concerning the virus is the fact it rapidly mutates, people often end up with more than one strain of HiV in their bodies. It's kinda hard to eliminate the virus once in someone's body when you have to deal with multiple strains of it.



Very little was known about the disease visagrunt, people react with a panic when it comes to deadly diseases, they have throughout history. This government being "too cowardly" is factually incorrect, you can't legislate people not be afraid of a disease. Furthermore, considering AIDS totally wrecks a person's immune system, I don't think businesses would appreciate being set up to be sued because someone with AIDS got sick and died from the common cold cause their immune system no longer worked!

I think you grossly underestimated my depth of knowledge visagrunt, you're talking to someone that was reading college level textbooks for fun, when they were only in middle school. While wikipedia is a good quick reference site, I used to check out whole shelves of nonfiction science books for fun when I was in 3rd grade, and was reading well above my age level. While what I'm saying my not be politically correct, doesn't change the fact that what I'm saying is factually correct.



You would have the same scenario if they were legalized visagrunt, so I don't see your point...



I actually think you are misguided in your beliefs concerning news sources. You do realize that these days most news agencies do not have the same number or quality of investigative reporters that they had ten years ago.



visagrunt, the problem with that statement is that I have presented sources outside of Fox New/WSJ and still get the same response from people. Btw, if the other news agencies were such good sources, why did the John Edwards affair end up being brought to light by the National Enquirer?



I don't know if Canadian Provinces can tax their residents, but in the United States both state and local governments also tax people in addition to what the Federal Government taxes...



I actually want a balanced budget Constitutional Amendment, part of the problem is the debt that was ran up by both parties. The disagreement between us stems from the fact there are some things that I don't believe government should be involved with at all.



The fact we now have more people needing government assistance than net taxpayers means we are on the road to ruin, period. It makes it so people are going to vote for more and more entitlements on the back of an ever-shrinking group of taxpayers, sorry but by definition that actually is a road to ruin.



You want to know the year that had the highest intake of revenue for the United States Federal Government (with inflation taken into account):
For fiscal year 2010 -- the last year for which final numbers are available -- federal revenue totaled $2.16 trillion. The figure for fiscal year 2011, which is a projection, is $2.17 trillion.

But neither is the highest in U.S. history. Three other years exceeded both years’ figures -- 2006 (with $2.41 trillion in receipts), 2007 (with $2.57 trillion) and 2008 (with $2.52 trillion).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... re-revenu/

So if the Bush tax cuts wrecked the revenue intake for the Government, how come the three biggest years for government revenue were during the Bush Administration with those tax policies having been in place for several years? (rhetorical question)

visagrunt, the fact contradict your position on the subject.



Dox47 is more of a libertarian, and in any event he doesn't normally debate things anymore.



You'd see that more when I'm debating conservatives.



visagrunt, you have actually demonstrated more conservative leanings compared to only a few months ago. As far as being in the political center, this is actually the closest to being a centrist I've ever seen you be.



Perhaps, perhaps not.



That would have then fallen under people not obeying the law though, not it being a bad idea...



Yeah the Obama White House has a track record of trying to run over people's religious liberty every chance they get.



Has to do with the topics in question, not fanatism.



Uh considering for the past few years where downtown Baghdad had less violence than in Chicago, I highly doubt that. In all honesty, Québec based on what you are saying really can't hold a candle to Illinois in general (let alone Chicago)..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Illinois

Just the politicians in Illinois are generally better at not getting caught at it than the politicians where you live.



Inviting him to a speech and then bashing him while he was in the front row... Sorry but one side has actually been way more malicious than the other.



Yeah let's wreck the economy even more... A value added tax is cumulative, so the end result is a lot more than a 5% tax...



No, it wouldn't, coupled with all the new regulations, the economy is falling apart. The lower unemployment numbers recently were due to the fact that certain states (California for example) weren't counted in the released numbers.



Yes and no, the problem is the only other option is let oneself be demonized without fighting back. So yeah, one side can be held responsible.

How to deal with WalMart.

1. Don't buy there.

2. Don't work there.

Problem solved.

ruveyn

Sorry, but it is one of the best places to shop. Black Friday was amazing.

living in yahooville where the local wallyworld is all there is, it is not practical to drive over an hour into the next county to shop at any other place. living in yahooland is all some of us non-high-functioning types can afford, living close to civilization costs too damned much $$$$$$.


nothing is solved, jobs for average folk are very hard to come by, especially out in the sticks, where wallyworld is the only place with deep enough pockets to sell stuff to us yokels. it is for the most part the main employer here. unless one is comfortably middle-cla$$$$$$, one has relatively few options other than wallyworld.

The Deficit is a tax on the future, as are unfunded government pension funds. Reagan shifted tax to user fees, like higher Patent costs, much higher, that are not reported as tax, just fees that directly support a government function.

By your numbers, the deficit is 6% of the GDP, so adding just that back the TETR is 33.4%. There is the Unfunded Liability for Government Pensions, Privarte Pensions that the government backs, plus what they left an IOU for at Social Security. All a tax by some other name.

My point is, most of the wealth, is passing tax free, as unrealized Capital Gains, and has for generations.

The Net Worth of of the top is up 400%, but they are only taxed on income, and they have Tax Free Bonds for spending money.

The Net Worth of the mean, is at 1968 levels.

All income should be taxed the same, a flat tax on Net Worth.

The Net Worth of the bottom third is Zero or less.

The top made more, the middle slid, the lowest lost the largest percentage.

They are also the least likely to recover, as they have nothing to work with, and high unemployment. They are sinking deeper and deeper, and that is not good for our future.

This increases the cost of government, unemployment that will not last forever, Food Stamps, and gives their children the view they are excluded from the economy, and education and hard work will not produce a decent living.

They may not be big spenders, but they spend it all and are part of the consumer base of most of our economy.

Just as SSI was a floor of income for those not fully vested in Social Security, we need a floor under the economic disabled, giving them the stability to raise their children to add to the economy. Most of it is already funded through a maze of government programs.

At a third of the population, they are not all minorities, and most were workers until recently, when the top few percent took over government, and vastly increased their Net Worth at everyone else's expense.

Reality is this current situation will not last, and the only path is to pay off the debt, support the people, by taxing the Net Worth of America, at a rate that provides an income floor, which reduces the cost of government as whole existing programs would no longer be needed.

The government can be further reduced. For all it has spent on war we lost the last three, and are in worse shape now. That has not worked out for us, or the people we bombed.

Poverty and neglect produce disease both medical and social. We cannot afford the result of a third of the population becoming unemployed in poverty, the result will cost more than the cure.

Paying off the debt will hurt. But once paid, both money and assets will be worth more, likely more than the debt paid. Inflation is another tax, reducing it a worthwhile venture.

A strong dollar, a healthy and educated population, and we have a task before us of rebuilding America, where cities like Detroit need the blight removed, that can provide employment, for slightly more than the cost of an income floor.

In the final view, we are preparing the place for the new tenents, the next generation, who are the ones who we will depend on in old age.

It grieves me to know my grandchildren will grow up to be beasts of burden who will carry the baggage left by the stupid and short-sighted folks who lived in the past and are currently living in the present.

In order to prevent our folly from becoming an eternal mort maine we should revise our laws and make sure our corporations and institutions are no longer legally immortal. The subsequent generation has a right to repudiate burdens placed on them by the current generation. They should say --- Hell no! I ain't paying!

ruveyn

And part of the reason that they can keep their prices low is their exploitative labour practices, which is facilitated by a government that: 1) refuses to regulate against these practices; and 2) provides income assistance for the working poor, which enables Walmart to continue in these practices.

One of my big objections to the "incentives to work" approach to social programs is that they act as a subsidy for employers' malpractice.



And rightly so. But that does not mean that government should be shut out of those spheres of activity in which it has a proper role to play. And ensuring the relief of poverty is, I suggest, most assuredly one of them.

If the concern is corruption, then take steps to deal with corruption. Getting government out of the business of relief of poverty is not going to do thing one about corruption. But it seems to me that the small-government movement is spending all of its time trying to starve government to death, while doing nothing about campaign finance or lobbying, which are by far the more obvious vehicles for corruption.



Do you have any evidence for such a claim? I find it hard to credit that any charity is subject to the same level of scrutiny as government. And as to working to a higher standard, when the executive director of one branch of the Salvation Army's is implicated in the embezzlement of $240,000 and other loses over $2,000,000 in donated toys, one has trouble seeing evidence of such a higher standard. (In good news, though, the toys were found. They weren't stolen, they were just misplaced. More higher standard at work.)

I believe in private charity. I serve on the boards of two registered charities and I give to others. But I do not believe that private charity can or should attempt to stand in the shoes of government.



Yes, as a matter of fact I would. Precisely because I would have found that out.

That is the essential difference between government and private enterprise. Government is subject to ongoing scrutiny, both from within and without. Private enterprise, private charity and private individuals are all much freer to act immune from scrutiny. I can bring an access to information request and seek disclosure of just about any information held by government in this country.

But I cannot do the same thing to businesses--even businesses of which I am a shareholder. I cannot do the same thing to a charity--even a charity of which I am a member or a donor. How much misconduct in the private sector only comes to light when the courts get involved? How much misconduct is swept under the rug by interests who would rather let an embezzler get away with their crime than bring their company's name into disrepute?

I can't help wondering how much crime, misconduct and sheer, bloody incompetence would come to light if the private sector was subject to the same level of scrutiny as the public sector. How many little Enron's and Lehman Brothers fly under the radar, because they are too small to merit notice? And how would you feel about the private sector if that was the case?



Which is, of course, the standard reason never to change anything.

Conservatives present an important challenge function to new ideas and new ways of doing business. But at some point, conservativism stops being a challenge function and becomes an impediment to innovation.



My point is that you are comparing apples and oranges. Limit your comparison to Priority and Express Mail and see if your comparison still holds true,



Here's the problem. None of what you post is relevant. It's factually accurate--the problem is not with your knowledge, but how you apply that knowledge.

You are still posting from a position of behavioural determinism where you imply that HIV infection is a product of improper behaviour. You cannot mask your offensiveness behind clinical language. I know full well how HIV is tramsitted--far better than you. But I don't turn around and use that information as a basis on which to cast moral aspersions on people who have become infected. Holding up Ryan White as an unfortunate victim merely underlines your hateful attitudes.

All people infected with HIV are innocent victims of infectious disease. There is no moral standard which makes neonatal or transfusion infection more worthy of sympathy than tranmission through sexual contact or intravenous drug use. All patients are worthy of sympathy, and the sooner you get that into your head, the sooner you will be fit to participate in a civil society.



My point is that the "law and order" agenda regarding illegal immigration fails to look at the consequences that result from their policy. The simple and elegant solutions like "deport all the illegals" and "contitutional balanced budget amendment" are as likely to create more problems than they solve.



But it is not I that am trying to justify the credence that I offer to news sources. You are trying to shore up your defences in your adherence to Fox News. Since I'm not defending any news organ, the question of whether or not I am misguided in my beliefs doesn't arise.

As for your presentation of other sources, you know full well that it is occasional at best--and is never presented in mitigation of the editorial position of News Corp. Your reliance on Fox News/WSJ is well documented in your posting history.



Yes, Canadian provinces levy income, sales and excise taxes, and munipalities levy property taxes and user fees. But the federal spending power outstrips that of the subordinate levels of government.



Be careful what you wish for. A constitutional obligation to balance the budget incentivizes--perhaps even necessitates--a number of improper practices. Like borrowing from the Social Security fund, and currency devaluation. There are times that deficit financing is not only necessary, it's also appropriate. The problem isn't with periodic deficits, it's with deficit financing as a way of life. And even ongoing deficts are viable, provided that they can be financed internally.

By plumping for the simple, elegant solution, you may invite more problems than you solve.



That didn't happen in the 30's, it didn't happen when your poverty rate hit 19% in the 60's, and I see no reason to believe that it will happen now. Economies are cyclical things, and the number of people needing government assistance will run with that cycle.



I have never suggested that tax cuts ruined intake--but the intake would have been even higher without them. You have been languishing in economic recession, and since government revenue is largely a function of the size of the economy, it stands to reason that in periods of economic malaise, government revenue will fall. Which isn't relevant to the issue that Congress has been financing its deficts on the backs of foreign buyers of dollars; or the fact that you have assets that far outweigh your debts.

You need to get a handle on distribution of wealth. You need to start paying workers a living wage, and you need to disincentivize the approach to investment that says, "rip out the profit and bugger the future" by never looking farther ahead than the next quarter. Making a quick buck is good for equity speculators, but it doesn't serve your long term economic health.



Nonetheless, when he did, he was better at advocating for his position than you for yours. Consider that.







You'd see that more when I'm debating progressives.





Nonetheless, if people are not going to give civil unions recognition, then the people who are forced to accept them as an alternative to marriage are still left out in the cold.



Nonsense. I rather think that people are trying to play the "religious liberty" card in places that it doesn't belong.

You don't get to administer a government program according to religious principles. You don't get to participate in the commercial marketplace, and avoid laws that you don't like. Neither of those things are legtimately the subject of a "religious liberty" argument.

Religious activity includes: preaching doctrine, administering sacraments, teaching scripture and conducting worship service. That's it. Healing the sick, teaching secular curriculum in schools, giving food, clothing and shelter to the poor--none of these are religious activities. Your religion may teach that you are compelled to do these things to be a virtuous person, but that does not make them religious activities.

So within that context, a congregation gets certain rights:

It gets to decide its doctrine.
It gets to decide who's in the congregation and who is excluded.
It gets to decide who is entitled to preach doctrine and administer sacraments.
It gets to set the wages and working conditions of its employees who are exclusively engaged in religious activity.
It gets to restrict the activities that take place on property that is held exclusively for the purpose of religious activity.

But outside of these rights, religious institutions are not any more privileged than any other charitable institution.



Well, we can leave that for another day, then.



Shall we agree that they are both bad enough without starting any contests?



Look at the invective that has been heaped on the president for the last four years. If you can possibly imagine that one side is more blameworthy than the other, then you are delusional.



You're thinking of a sales tax. Value added taxes are not cumulative--they tax only the incremental value of the transaction by the use of input tax credits.

Look at Canada's GST for an example.



Chicken Little running around saying, "The Sky is Falling!"

Your economy is still hampered, but the suggestion that it is "falling apart" is hyperbole. You have a major issue to resolve by year end to avoid a catastrophic reduction in the size of your economy. If you can solve that, then there is no reason to believe that you cannot emerge from this just as you have every downturn (and some of them much greater) that has gone before.



So? Be demonized. Surely the important thing is to do what's best for the country. If someone can't suck it up and take it, then why be in the political arena at all? There is a job to be done, and both sides are wasting time campaigning for the 2014 midterms. Any sensible American should be saying, "A plague a' both your houses!" But so long as people like you, and your counterparts on the left are content to play the partisan game, then the parties are incentivized to fiddle while Rome burns.

I don't shop at walmart for a reason, if enough people actually held to principle, then Walmart would probably change their employment practices. The work requirements for welfare is actually a good thing, the walmart issue has more to do with the fact customers seem to be okay with shopping there despite it, when it could easily be changed if people stopped shopping there.



Only agree with you if the assistance is short-term, there is a very big danger with government assistance, when it starts making people dependent on government to survive, it ceases being helpful and becomes harmful to the people you want helped.



Problem with campaign finance laws is they are letting some groups give money but not other groups. If big business shouldn't be allowed to give campaign money, then neither should Unions in my view. The problem is that when these laws were enacted, it exempted certain special interests from the campaign finance laws (Big Unions like SEIU were exempt, but Ford Motors for instance were restricted from giving donations). The Supreme Court correctly ruled that some of the restrictions were a violation of the Constitution, it was a violation of the 1st Amendment, and I will add the fact that it was selectively suppressing Free Speech.



visagrunt, if someone steals money from a private charity they go to jail, Government wastes money to the scale that makes $10,000,000,000 dollars look like chump change.



No, you wouldn't have. If not for the Gun Dealerships taping their conversations with DoJ and whistleblowers (many of whom have lost their jobs as a result, in violation of Federal Law); Fast & Furious would be active to this day, most of the media largely tried to sweep this under the rug. Then we had the media accusing Congressional Investigators of being racist for continuing to investigate Fast & Furious. I'm sorry but there comes a point when it is incredibly stupid to trust one's government.



Private enterprise is subject to significantly more scrutiny than you realize. In fact private enterprise is often held to a higher standard than government. If the media was actually doing their jobs (like they did when Bush was President), you would actually have a point visagrunt, however with the media basically being in the tank for Obama, you actually don't have the accountability you are referring to.



Uh it often takes the courts to get information out of government as well, otherwise a bunch of groups wouldn't have to sue Government under the "Freedom of Information Act," on a routine basis.

Also there is such thing as insider trading laws, which is why it can be difficult for you to get the information from private enterprise, it's actually intended to protect you from being charged with insider trading.



You do realize many of the government agencies that were supposed to investigate and regulate were too busy watching internet porn to do their jobs... I would honestly in a case like Enron and some other cases that the public would have been more safe without those regulatory agencies because people were given a false sense of security.



Changing things just for the sake of change is equally bad though visagrunt, and in your case the suggestions you are suggesting would actually damage the economy even more. Punishing people because they are successful simply encourages people not to bother trying and thus we see at best mediocrity, and failure is actually encouraged.



Actually UPS and Fed Ex are significantly more efficient in every area that they are allowed to compete with the US postal service on. Trying to haul up services that by Federal law Fed Ex and UPS are not allowed to provide is a faulty argument.



I bring up Ryan White because he was a fellow Hoosier if I remember correctly and he got HiV from a tainted blood transfusion. I'm not condemning anyone, I'm simply looking at the facts.



The only way someone can get AIDs from intravenous drug use to my knowledge is through using illegal substances. Hospitals and Doctors offices in the United States are required to dispose of any needle that has been used on a patient, they are not allowed to re-use needles.

Again, I'm not casting moral judgements here, just pointing out the facts and the fact that HiV could easily be stopped if people didn't practice certain patterns of behavior (or at least made sure that the people participating in said behavior aren't carrying the virus). I'm not suggesting people aren't worthy of sympathy, I'm pointing out that it would be fairly easy to stop the virus from spreading and eliminating it in the United States due to its inability to spread via the air or simple contact.

Pointing out the Virus's limitations as a way to combat it is not passing a moral judgement.



Blanket amnesty which attracts even more people to enter the country illegally would also be failing to look at the consequences of policy, unless the intent is to undermine this country's sovereignty.



Well considering Fox News is about the only major news organization that hasn't accused me of being a racist simply because I don't agree with Obama's political ideology, I think I'm entirely justified in thinking Fox News has more credibility than other "news organizations."



Creating multiple new taxes on items would simply make it even harder for manufacturers in the US to compete with manufacturers overseas, which would cripple the economy even further.



The social security fund has already been raided, it is simply a bunch of IOUs, as for currency devaluation, if the Federal Reserve wasn't pulling all of the shannigans with currency, that option would also be nonexistent for the government. The Federal Reserve is supposed to be in place to prevent that kind of rampant devaluation of currency.



Perhaps not, if social security was not accessible to Congress for funds, and the Federal Reserve was working to fight inflation (which it is supposed to do) rather than print money irresponsibly, then the scenarios you're referring to can't happen.






We're probably well past 20% for unemployment atm, just a lot of people are no longer being counted.



Short-term you'd be correct, but you'd probably be incorrect in the long-term, investments carry with it a risk, you are risking your money to get a return on the investment. If you make it so you get less of a reward for taking the same or potentially a greater risk, then you are less inclined to invest.



How do you decide what is a fair distribution of wealth? Seriously visagrunt, I don't think government has any right to do that, nor should they. You are essentially punishing people for working hard and being successful why rewarding people for not trying. Also as to your "make a quick buck," analogy, that's primarily because some idiot didn't keep the majority of the shares which opened the company up to being gutted like that. One reason I like privately owned companies is due to the fact they tend to think long term and aren't beholden to greedy idiots out to make a quick buck.



No, he was actually treated the same way I'm currently treated, he's just treated better now because he doesn't publicly disagree with people nearly as often.



If you are your definition of a centrist, to be quite honest I'm scared to see whom you would consider a far-left progressive.



Except they will do it anyways due to religious beliefs regardless only they'll be charged with discrimination or hate crimes due to religious objections.



Trying to tell a religious institution whom they can't fire someone when that person is doing something that is considered immoral under that religion is a perfect example of trying to run over people's religious liberty...
The Supreme Court has rejected the Obama administration’s argument that it can dictate who churches hire as ministers or clergy in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Obama administration unsuccessfully argued that the government can dictate who churches hire, as long as it also subjects secular employers to the same dictates regarding who they hire (so-called rules of general applicability). Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument would allow the government to ban a church or synagogue from hiring based on religion (defeating the whole purpose of religious freedom, which is to allow churches to promote their own religion) or sex (preventing the Catholic Church from having a male priesthood). No Supreme Court justice bought the administration’s argument, made on behalf of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Supreme Court unanimously found that such government control over who churches can hire would violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment.
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/01/11/su ... or-v-eeoc/



visagrunt as I pointed out above, the Obama White House actually has been trying to undercut people's religious freedom and a Supreme Court Case in which the Justices ruled unanimously, the the Obama White House had overstepped as I pointed out earlier in this post.



Fair enough...



If you look at President George W. Bush as a comparison despite all the invective hurled at him for 6 to 8 years, he never pulled a stunt like that. I don't think any President in my lifetime has behaved like that.

So actually, I can hold one side to be more blameworthy, because his predecessors never stooped to that level.



Had to look it up you were more correct on it than I was, but you oversimplified it to an extent (as does wikipedia for that matter) because when you look into it, a VAT turns into a nightmare of paperwork that arguably costs consumers far more than a sales tax because of all the paperwork. and in all honesty I'm kinda against both Sales Taxes and VATs because it is a hidden tax (which makes it easier for government to get away with raising it) and also a highly regressive tax.

Additionally the United States has neither a Federal Sales Tax nor a Value Added Tax currently, all Sales Taxes are at state level.



Raising taxes have a negative impact on the economy as well visagrunt. The reason the Clinton economy worked was due to the dot com bubble, not his tax rates. Additionally complying with regulations costs money, as the number of regulations increase so does the cost of running a business.



So you're suggesting Republicans should just roll over and give up and let Obama and the Democrats spend this country into oblivion just like how Greece and other European countries spent themselves into oblivion?

But the blame still lies on conservative approaches to social programs that offer a subsidy to exploitive employment practices. I though conservatives were opposed to subsidy and market distortion.



Poverty is poverty--whether it last 2 weeks, 2 years or 2 decades. You are quite right when you say that dependency is an unwanted feature of income support--but you can only withdraw it if there is another option available. And if that only other option is exploitative working conditions that keep you on social assistance, anyway, then it's a bit of a hollow claim that welfare is creating a cycle of dependency.



That's not the problem with campaign finance laws--that's the problem with the particular attempt at campaign finance law that you embarked on. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater--get it right for once.



Yet more claims made without a scintilla of evidence.

How much theft from the private sector goes unprosecuted? How many people have gone to jail as a result of criminal manipulation of the liquidity market in the leadup to 2008? How much destruction was wreaked on the United States economy by people who have never been held to account for it.

All you are succeeding is doing is painting a portait of a nation that succeeds in spite of widespread incompetence the permeates all aspects of its society. Do you truly believe that you life in such a failure? For my part, I don't. Many, many mistakes are made by many, many people. But that does not fundamentally invalidate the strength, resiliancy and competence of either the public or the private sector in your country.



How dare you presume to know what I would or would not trust?

Nowhere--ever--is private industry ever held up to the same level of scrutiny as government. And while you are quite correct that it often takes courts to get information, the fact remains that the courts will force government to make disclosure. But there is no law comparable to the "Freedom of Information Act" that applies to the private sector. Your insider trading example is a canard--comparable exemptions apply to government. Access to Information will exempt, for example, Cabinet deliberations and information that might prejudice the government's negotiation position with other public or private parties.

The fact remains, I know vastly more about government's plans and activities than I do about industry's plans and activities. For every "Fast and Furious" that you can point at in government, I can point at a criminal conspiracy or an anti-trust combine perpetrated in the private sector. And those are just the ones that have been discovered.



So when the thief steals your car, it's the fault of the police that they weren't standing at your driveway? And your answer is that you are better off without any police at all?



No one is punishing anyone for success. It never hurts you to earn an extra dollar--and your previous claims to the contrary were the product of either arithmetic incompetence or mendacity.



USPS, UPS and FedEx compete directly with each other in the courier market and USPS offers a comparable, competitive product. I'm not including postal services in my comparison--just the courier products.



You are passing moral judgements and you certainly are condemning people. If you cannot see how hurtful and hateful your posts on this subject are, then I urge you to seek help from someone who can dispassionately show this to you. I can't be objective on this subject, but there must be someone that you know and trust who will be able to read what you have written and show you how hurtful it is.

I don't call you out as hurtful or hateful on your views on abortion or same-sex marriage--but I have done so here. Please consider that never before have I told you that what you have said has hurt me personally. I may resort to inappropriate remarks in responding to some of your posts--but this is different. I have told you in plain, respectful language that I am hurt by what you have said. And you have not even had the common decency to acknowledge that you have hurt me--let alone apologize. And you continue to defend what I consider to be indefensible.

If you are incapable of apology are you at least capable of dropping it?



Who said anything about blanket amnesty? How about creating a category of non-immigrant visa to facilitate these types of workers? If you create a legal mechanism, you make it big enough to serve employers' needs, and make it easy for employers and employees to use, then you can be as hardline as you like about the people who exist outside those rules.



Of course you are. But you are not entitled to project that opinion onto other people, and you must accept that people will draw conclusions based on your presentation of that opinion. You cannot claim to be objective and unbiased when you exercise subjectivity and bias in your selection of information.



Utterly ridiculous. It is entirely possible to structure value added taxes so that goods and services intended for export are zero-rated or exempted for the purposes of tax implementation.



But what's to stop further raids on the social security fund? The Federal Reserve is, indeed, what stands in the way of devaluation. But the Federal Reserve was created by Act of Congress, and can be uncreated just as easily. The Social Security fund could be protected. But again, that would be by Act of Congress that could just as easily be repealed. If a Congress is confronted with a constituional obligation to balance the budget and a Federal Reserve unwilling to bend monetary policy, then what's to stand in the way of disestablishing the federal reserve; wiping out a trillion dollars of national debt, and pulling all currency responsibilities into the Department of the Treasury? And the social security fund could be dropped into the government's operating funds, and the payment obligations turned into program obligations on a going forward basis.

It's stupid--but it's perfectly legal. And it gets around a balanced budget amendment.



I'm not counting unemployment. I'm talking about your census figures for poverty from 2011.



But you are never disinclined to invest. Given the choice between an after-tax return on investment of, say, 4% (which is pretty much the income performance that I'm getting from my investments, not even considering capital gains), and a risk-free after tax return on investment of 0%, I'm still going to take 4%.

Tax does affect how attractive an investment looks to the capital holder, to be sure. But all that means is that businesses that are looking for equity and debt financing in the marketplace have to structure their investment vehicles to accommodate the tax system. And, frankly, they do that already, so we're talking about marginal adjustment, not wholesale restructuring.

At the end of the day, it never hurts you to earn an extra dollar; and investment income and capital growth will always be superior to putting your money in a mattress--so long you aren't in a period of deflation.



Oh, I think that government is the only body with any right to look into distribution of wealth. And while a singular, monolithic "fair distribution" doesn't exist, there is still the relatively accessible concept of a "living wage." The idea that people who are employed full-time will earn enough money from that employment to provide for their basic needs, and those who are dependent upon them.

The quick buck analogy, as you put it, is a practice of fund managers which is independent of the size of their stake. As soon as a business goes to the equity markets for capital, it exposes itself predatory investment practices. So are you suggesting that publicly traded stocks should no long exist? Are we to enter a secret world in which pension funds, mutual funds and insurance companies (who together hold over 60% of publicly traded equities on the planet) enter into secret deals that neither their unit holders nor other shareholders of private companies are privileged to know?

Private companies cease to be private the moment they list themselves on stock exchanges with publicly traded shares. This is the backbone of all investment in the industrialized world. So while you may prefer privately owned companies, your thinking would have prevented the Industrial Revolution and all of the economic expansion that followed.



He's treated better not because he doesn't disagree as much as you--but because his behaviour is much less strident than yours.



Well, since you are given to ascribing beliefs to people with a wanton disregard for their own statements, it strikes me that you don't actually recognize any variations in point of view. If points of view do not align with yours, they are all lumped together as "The Left" to which a singular set of beliefs are ascribed. All of which suggests that you wouldn't be able to distinguish between a centrist and a far-left progressive if the two of them were placed in front of you.



"They?" To which "they" are you referring?
"Do it anyways?" Do what?

I think you are saying that bigots are going to disregard the law anyway, so what's the point in changing the law. If that is, indeed, what you're saying, then my response is simple. A great deal of that failure has come from the ambiguity that is created when law or policy refers to the privileges of a "spouse" and two people attempting to benefit from that policy hold the status of "civil union." A bigot in a hospital can easily say, "Our policy only allows spouses to authorize care. You aren't a spouse, you're only in a civil union." But when a same-sex spouse makes the claim to authorize care, then that easy objection holds no water.



visagrunt as I pointed out above, the Obama White House actually has been trying to undercut people's religious freedom and a Supreme Court Case in which the Justices ruled unanimously, the the Obama White House had overstepped as I pointed out earlier in this post.[/quote]

And if you actually bothered to read my post, you would see that this is precisely an area in which I believe that government overstepped. The Supreme Court's ruling was limited to "religious workers," and that falls clearly within the framework of religious liberty that I set out.

But when the Roman Catholic Church decides to erect a University, then its secular employees within that University are entitled to all of the same benefits and protections as workers in any other University. The Roman Catholic Church is free to hold whatever views on contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, unmarried cohabitants and any other subject as it chooses.

But it is not free to impose those views on its employees who are not religious workers.





Seems like a petty point to me. I'll concede it. The Obama's childish behaviour exceeds Bush's childish behaviour. Let's move on.



Actually, GST involves less paperwork than almost any other tax. Depending upon the size of your business, the remittance may be made, monthly, quarterly, or annually. Many small businesses are only on quarterly remittances, and most non-profits only report annually (and non-profits with less than $250,000 in annual sales, and any business with less than $30,000 doesn't have to register, collect or remit at all). When I was in private practice, my accounting software produced a quarterly GST remittance report with a click of the mouse--which could be filed electronically, and the remittance was made through my online banking. Even had I done a physical remittance with a cheque, the form was less than a page.

Sales taxes and Value Added Taxes are the least hidden taxes. It's right there on the till. You pick up a $2 newspaper, and you pay $2.10--you know precisely how much tax you have remitted. You see it there each and every time you spend money on anything. There is no tax more visible.

As for regressiveness, I agree with you if we are looking at an unmodified value-added tax--which is why our GST has two important features. First, rent, groceries, tuition, medical and dental expenses, insurance premiums and bank charges are all either "zero-rated" or exempt. Secondly, any household earning less than a threshold amount (that varies by family size) receives a quarterly rebate. The first factor means that a great deal of spending by low income families doesn't attract GST in the first place, that the second very specifically rebates GST that has been spent by low income families on non-exempt goods and services.

Finally, the jurisdictional issue is irrelevant. The United States has the jurisdiction to levy a value added tax--it has simply chosen not to occupy that jurisdiction. It is perfectly free to implement a value added tax at point of sale any time that it likes.



But look at how tax rates have coincided with economic downturns. Marginal tax rates plunged in the 20's--and that ended with the Great Depression. Marginal tax rates fell in the 60's--and that ended with Stagflation. Marginal tax rates fell in the '00s--and here we are.

Manipulating tax rates is a mug's game--by spending "tax expenditures" in fat times, government ties its hands and cannot readily stop those expenditures in lean times. The far better approach is to hold marginal tax rates relatively steady, and to use surpluses to create a financial cushion. Study after study has demonstrated that tax expenditures are the least productive way of stimulating economic activity. Targetted expenditures frequently "reward" behaviour that individuals and businesses will undertake, anyway, and blanket expenditures (such as marginal rate cuts) create no obligation on the part of the beneficiary to use the increase in effective income for any productive purpose.

Bush chose to spend surpluses on tax expenditures--and that was his call to make. But he could have spent those surpluses replenishing the Social Security fund, or paying down debt. Had he done that, government might have had much more flexibility to respond to circumstances at the end of the decade. But he chose political gain over prudent policy--as almost any politician likely would. That makes it a predictable decision--but not necessarily a correct one.



No, I'm suggesting that both sides should shut up and get on with the job.

How exactly are conservatives responsible? The programs are not in place to subsidize Walmart they are in place because the workers' income is below the poverty line. If you don't like Walmart, don't shop there, we are not a fascist country visagrunt. Furthermore, jobs at Walmart should be for people that are High School kids over the summer, or a job while you're in college, an interm job. It is unskilled labor and thus someone shouldn't be making as much as a Doctor whom just got out of med school!



In this case government is creating the environment by making things too expensive to actually do any business, which in effect is making it easier for Walmart to conduct business in the manner they like.



Problem is you run into dangerous territory, at what point does it become suppression of free speech?



Actually Government's wasteful spending on hammers, toilet seats, etc. when they could have gotten the same product at any Home Depot for substancially cheaper, is common knowledge.



If you look into the housing bubble, that was the result of the Community Re-investment Act, where banks were forced to make loans to people that couldn't afford them.



You're missing the point, if a business is ran by a bunch of incompetitents they're going to go out of business, end of story. Businesses have to keep a balanced budget, government spends more than it takes in. There is actually a level of accountability in the private sector that isn't seen in the public sector.



Well you had this quote after my initial Fast & Furious comments:



Also visagrunt, insider trading is illegal, but that hasn't stopped people in government from doing it, however people like Martha Stewart went to jail over it.



Government is PUBLIC SECTOR, they are supposed to be working for the people, not them lording over the people.

Businesses are PRIVATE SECTOR, unless there is evidence that the business is doing something unlawful, you start to get into a situation where the 4th Amendment comes into play.



I could probably respond by bringing up incidents where government targetted businesses with predatory audits for political reasons, visagrunt; not going to go tit for tat though.

If you look at the Federal and State Governments within the United States, you have a total of 51 entities to keep track of. The people in government are employees of the American People. There are thousands of private businesses in the United States, with millions of employees, unless you own shares in said business, you actually don't have a right to snoop through everything, especially if they aren't doing anything illegal.

As to why you have trouble getting information from private companies, it's actually to protect you from being charged with "Insider Trading," when you get information that is not public knowledge, you may potentially sell off your stock or buy stock before information is public knowledge allowing you an unfair advantage. The company's reluctence to provide you with information stems from that.



Not what I'm saying, people actually tried to get the relevent agencies to investigate Enron, and the Agencies simply ignored it. It would be like you reporting someone breaking into your neighbors house to 911, and the police never bothering to show up.



Actually, you are suggesting people be punished for success. When you hike taxes, you cut someone's reward for hard work in the case of income or the return on their investiment. You lessen the value of the reward for the effort because they get to keep less of said reward.

Example:
A little kid gets a candy bar because they completed a task that their parent gave them (let's say cleaning their room).

Then next time the kid completes the task as ordered but then when they get the candy bar suddenly half of it gets taken away from them (as a tax).

Then next time the kid only gets 1/4 of a candy bar with 3/4s being taken away as a tax.

At some point the kid is no longer going to do the task because what little they get for the reward isn't worth the effort it takes to complete the task.



They can only compete concerning certain services, and Fed Ex and UPS both get things to their destination quicker (generally), and charge the customer less money for delivering the package.



I'm not suggesting people be rounded up or anything, I'm suggesting that people get tested and if they do have the virus, that they make sure they be responsible and don't do any of the behavior that would result in it being spread. I think everyone should be tested at this point not to condemn people, but instead to try to stop it from being spread because someone didn't realize they had HIV.

I seriously do hope they find a cure, but I'm not confident that will happen anytime soon because the virus mutates so fast and the targetting of the immune system further complicates matters. Now the virus can be stopped from spreading due to its limitations, and if we can't find a cure, then at least we'll have kept it from spreading further.



I'm sorry that what I said was misunderstood, but I'm not going to apologize for pointing out the facts.

I don't harbor ill will towards people that have HIV unless they are deliberately trying to spread it (and there have been incidents of this happening so I'm not speaking hypothetically), I don't think they should be quarentined or locked up in isolation. HIV can't spread via the air or casual contact, that means that it is a fairly easy virus to stop. We're not exactly talking about Tuberculosis (sp?) here...



That was actually suggested by people like Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary...



I'm not claiming to be objective, I'm well aware of my bias, however I'm also a big history buff, and the fact that you have most media outlets fawning all over Obama, it sets off a lot of proverbial warning bells in my head.

When you have the media showing a lack of interest over a scandel that is arguably worse than Watergate (which President Nixon had to resign over), I'm sorry but that doesn't speak well of the other media outlets' credibility.



Have you seen the size of our Federal Tax Code? While you are correct in theory visagrunt, it probably wouldn't work in practice. Additionally, a VAT is a regressive tax, just like the sales tax.



If you're going to put through a Constitutional Amendment, it's fairly likely that the scenario you are mentioned would have been thought of. Additionally if social security is excluded from the budget, then they can't raid it. Also inflation wouldn't work to bypass a balanced budget amendment. Cause the net spending can't exceed the intake of revenue, a devaluation of the currency actually wouldn't be able to make the intake of revenue appear larger than it really was.



You aren't taking into account that if people haven't been able to find anything for X number of months, they no longer get counted in the unemployment statistics...



There is no such think as a risk-free investment.



Raising taxes will actually damage the economy, the size of the economy is not a constant, the reason Clinton's economy was booming had to do with the dot com bubble, not his tax rates.



Wrong, there is no such thing as a risk-free investment, where you can potentially gain money, you can also end up losing it too. While generally you see an increase in assets over the long term, these past few years have demonstrated that isn't always the case.



So if government said that the guy bagging groceries should be paid the same amount per year as a brain surgeon, you'd be okay with that?

Government absolutely should not be allowed to determine this, because it would be too much of a temptation for politicians and corruption would run rampant. We would see politicians giving people more pay in one area to reward supporters, while surpressing how much another group makes because they didn't vote for said politician or donate to their campaign.



Not at all, I'm suggesting that companies not spread around so many shares that they put themselves in those kinds of situations.



Maybe, maybe not. There are quite a few companies out there that are still private companies, and it is possible for a company to buy back stock.



Actually, I know that is in fact not the case visagrunt. If you would like more detail on the subject you can send me a private message.



That is plausible, however many people on the left, actually don't realize they are liberal, they think that their beliefs are the norm and everyone else that doesn't believe as they do have something wrong with them.

I'm not claiming to be a centrist, I know I'm a Conservative, Rush Limbaugh knows he's a Conservative. There are plenty of prominent liberals that think they are centrists when they are actually left wing progressives.



What's to stop them from saying their "spouse?" The fact that some person ignores the law doesn't mean you need another law, it means you file a lawsuit for them not following the existing law.

The problem with calling it marriage is you then run into the religious issue and it turns into a 1st Amendment issue at that point.



There is where we disagree, if it is supposed to uphold the moral stances of the church, since it still has a religious element to it, then actually I would say the government is still overreaching.



An employee of an institution is still a representative of said institution and therefore should uphold the values of the institution.





It is also a regressive tax, that generally gets jacked up.



It isn't one that people will readily look down at the receipt at the amount taken by taxes. People generally don't sit down and study their receipts when purchasing products.



Which means you're effectively charging some people more for a product than other people for the same product, sounds to me like it's government sponsored discrimination.



Except that would add to the state sales taxes which are already in effect...



Correlation does not equal causation, if you look at the stock market crash, one of the contributing factors had to do with loans not being repaid, there were numerous factors that contributed to the depression.

The Bush tax cuts, actually caused enormous economic growth, where if spending had been kept under control (and actually the wars weren't the biggest spending driver), we would have been able to pay down some of the debt.

What caused the economy to go downhill actually had to do with those mortgages that people couldn't afford but banks were forced to provide anyways.



The thing is we were heading towards recession when Bush cut taxes and the economy took off as a result.



The tax cuts were not government spending, it was government taking less of the people's money. Furthermore, considering 2006, 2007, 2008 saw the highest intake of revenue in US history, your argument falls flat on its face.



But only one side has shown any willingness to concede on anything, the Republicans have agreed to go along with ways to increase revenue and possibly some tax hikes, but the Democrats have not provided a single real spending cut, instead they are counting things that had been cut already as cuts in spending when the money wouldn't have been spent on those items anyways.

It was perfectly understood.

Your attitude is hateful and despicable, and you are beneath contempt.

You refuse to do the honourable thing, so I am done with you.

Inuyasha - i have a direct question (as a moderator), and i want a direct and short answer. how EXACTLY are you proposing that the spread of AIDS should be prevented 100% (you proposed that this is possible). be specific.

please not that you have already eliminated "safe sex" as a possibility as you yourself stated that it is not 100% effective.

During the time of Feudalism (The Middle Ages, roughly) in Europe, Serfs were produce taxed 25 percent. During the time Joseph was viceroy of Egypt the peasants were taxed 20 percent and Joseph was considered wicked for imposing that high a tax. God Himself only required ten percent.

ruveyn

It is fairly simple actually:

1. everyone get tested to see if they have the virus, it would take more than one test if I remember correctly to make sure people don't have the virus.

2. People whom test positive should refrain from having sexual intercourse with people that do not also have HIV.

3. Blood donations should be continually tested, as should blood donors so it is less likely of a tainted blood transfusion giving someone the virus.

While I want a cure to be found, I don't exactly have high hopes considering the virus mutates so rapidly, I don't expect people to practice abstenence (since it has historically fallen on deaf ears), so the next best option would be everyone get tested, so it isn't unknowingly transmitted to other people by a person that doesn't know they have the virus.

I don't see any reason to quarentine anyone, unless they knowingly go around infecting people.

Ever since the great AIDS flap in the 1980s and some unfortunate cases of blood transfusions spreading the disease the Red Cross and other blood services (like the New York Blood Service) test their donations very carefully. First there is a length question sheet to identify people who are risky and most be deferred and even then the blood is tested.

There is now a very small chance of getting HIV from a blood transfusion collected by one of the top of the line blood service.

ruveyn

I'm well aware of that ruveyn, I'm merely saying that this process should not be discontinued.

Considering Ryan White was from Kokomo, Indiana (while I don't live in Kokomo, I have been to Kokomo, and do live in Indiana), I am well aware of all the flack various organizations received back in the 1980s.

If people want to read more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White