Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:47:37 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
If your personal philosophy is all about what you feel like is a good value for your taxation,


Why would you think it was all about good value for taxation? I don't think anybody is that one-dimensional. Many factors can be taken into account when determining where to live. Capital flight occurred from large cities. Rather than fix the underlying irrationalities that caused that, collectivists added collectivist policies to state government and then when that resulted in capital flight, they still didn't fix the irrationalities but moved them instead to the federal level.

Quote:
then why would you hesitate to leave the country if it suits your best financial interests?


Since you started with a faulty premise, the rest of your question became moot. There are many US expat communities in foreign countries around the world. They hang onto US citizenship and come to the US for Medicare when necessary. I personally have contingency plans to leave the country if it gets bad enough.

Quote:
If you don't believe there's a sufficient argument for civic responsibility when it comes to taxation and sacrifice, then why would you believe in an innate sense of preservation of the nation itself?


Civic responsibility is a double-edged sword. It is also a civic responsibility to live within your means, to not be parasitical, to not overburden your society with wantiness. These are civic responsibilities that many people fail at. When you don't have local competition for governance minimizing the lucrativeness of being a parasite, you get a growing number of people taking that route.

To place all the burden of preservation of the nation on a few is to make the entire nation dependent on the largess of the few. They have the most options. They have the most control of their tax burden and the greatest ability to surmount the barriers imposed government. They are the most welcome in other nations. Parasites aren't. So when the 1 Percenters get fed up with federal control, the spending either has to stop or it goes to debt, with all the problems I've already mentioned about debt.

Quote:
If shit's out of whack, and taxation annoys you, just leave- right? That's the argument you make about states, so why wouldn't it apply logically to a nation as well?


It does apply to a nation. Haven't I been making that clear? That was the lesson of Europe. The best and brightest and most ambitious were leaving Europe and leaving behind the most parasitical, people who couldn't surmount the immigration barriers of other countries. The EU member states had to open their labor, consumer and capital markets in order to attract/retain productivity and repel/thwart runaway democracy.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:23:25 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Quote:
Why would you think it was all about good value for taxation?


Because that's the argument that you keep making, over and over, nearly until the point that these threads cease to be worth posting in. Your whole argument is about placating wealthy people sufficiently so that they don't strand the rest of us with no cash cow. It's becoming a bummer, not because of some mythical 'uncomfortable truth' in your personal theories, but because you repeat the same four or five points over and over, as if sheer repetition of catch phrases will sway others to your way of thinking.

Quote:

Civic responsibility is a double-edged sword. It is also a civic responsibility to live within your means, to not be parasitical, to not overburden your society with wantiness. These are civic responsibilities that many people fail at. When you don't have local competition for governance minimizing the lucrativeness of being a parasite, you get a growing number of people taking that route.


You're being selective about the validity of the concept of civic responsibility, my friend. And that's fine, it's those distinctions that define political differences. But you have previously and repeatedly claimed that "responsibility" (which you equated with the concept of "morality") is a baseless term that's really in the eye of the beholder and not to be foisted on society at large. Now, you're making a case that we as a populace do in fact owe certain responsibilities to society. Just so I understand you correctly, and if so, then it's just a matter of cherry-picking what one chooses to be sanctimonious about holding others to, morally.


1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:40:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Because that's the argument that you keep making, over and over, nearly until the point that these threads cease to be worth posting in. Your whole argument is about placating wealthy people sufficiently so that they don't strand the rest of us with no cash cow. It's becoming a bummer, not because of some mythical 'uncomfortable truth' in your personal theories, but because you repeat the same four or five points over and over, as if sheer repetition of catch phrases will sway others to your way of thinking.


When you start answering the questions that I've raised, that will tell me whether you've given serious consideration to anything I've said. As far as I can tell, you're just in denial about the validity of the concepts that I've offered and you're doing anything to cling to the belief that runaway democracy isn't already happening and won't reach a point where we'll regret not stopping it sooner. What will stop it? Will voters suddenly get wise enough to say, "Enough is enough!"? When will that happen? What happens when we run out of OPM? Why do we refuse to learn the lesson that other societies have learned? Why should we repeat the experiment that always fails?

Quote:
You're being selective about the validity of the concept of civic responsibility, my friend. And that's fine, it's those distinctions that define political differences. But you have previously and repeatedly claimed that "responsibility" (which you equated with the concept of "morality") is a baseless term that's really in the eye of the beholder and not to be foisted on society at large. Now, you're making a case that we as a populace do in fact owe certain responsibilities to society. Just so I understand you correctly, and if so, then it's just a matter of cherry-picking what one chooses to be sanctimonious about holding others to, morally.


Only if you want to have a viable society. If you don't, if you're comfortable with the consequences of having a society that is irrational, then the morality of civic responsibility becomes moot. Even with the top 10 (or so) percent of income earners paying the majority of income taxes, the total tax revenue is not keeping up with demand. Nothing is effective against the growth of demand. What next?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 4:39:12 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Okay, I'll answer your questions. It's only fair, you answered mine.

Quote:

What will stop(runaway democracy)?


What will stop this dastardly process we have whereby elected officials set policy? Is that your definition of "runaway democracy"? Your entire political and economic theory is contingent upon a belief that we're on the edge of some sort of armageddon situation. As far as I can tell, the closest to that we've actually come to anything really bad was when the Republicans threatened to drive the economy over a cliff by refusing to approve debt payments. I've briefly looked into the Constitution 2.0 movement, and am not sure if that's ultimately good or not, but either way I doubt it's even remotely likely to be considered.

Quote:
Will voters suddenly get wise enough to say, "Enough is enough!"? When will that happen?
Enough of what, "Runaway Democracy"? Which voters?

Quote:
What happens when we run out of OPM?


Who is "we" and who are the "other people" referenced in OPM (other people's money)? The top one-percent of our own citizenry? If so, how do our own people qualify as "other people"? Or are we talking about other nations that finance our debt?

Quote:
Why do we refuse to learn the lesson that other societies have learned? Why should we repeat the experiment that always fails?


You have complete devotion to your individualist doctrine, and I can respect that. But you also can't see it any other way, and especially can't fathom that anyone might disagree on their own accord. No, they must be in massive denial, or they must be naive. LOL. Perhaps, security in your own belief partially depends on that.

I read about these things when I find time to, which isn't as often as it used to be, but the one thing I've figured out is that neither "side" has a monopoly on truth, and that economics are too complex to reduce to one side being right and one side being a bald-face lie, throughout history. I don't buy that every intellectual heavyweight who disagrees with supply-side economics is willfully denying the lessons of history, as you seem to imply. If it was that cut-and-dry, we'd have a bigger consensus established, because ultimately it doesn't benefit huge swaths of experts from an academic or professional standpoint to be dead wrong. You can contend that they're in on it because they don't want to advocate an end to collectivism, but I just can't go down that conspiracy path with you. If that makes me wrong in your eyes, then I can live with that. :)

You've referenced Krugman: I've read a few of his columns. I don't agree with everything he says, nor do I disagree with all he advocates. I've read Sowell, too. He sounds a lot like you sometimes, which isn't surprising, and I neither disbelieve or believe all that he writes. We need some common sense from both economic perspectives. Nothing about life or society is absolute, yet you're an absolutist about this and everything else, based on what you've offered us in the way of responses.

I don't doubt that in extreme cases, extreme consequences happen. I don't doubt that we can't expect 60% tax rates for our wealthiest to be taken sitting down. I don't doubt that massive debt unchecked will cause something to reach a tipping point. But your dramatic outlook seems to think that moment is tomorrow, and that our democratic system is killing us, and everyone that's not advocating for a republican budget of immediate austerity is essentially a parasite, and we're now dooming ourselves to poverty. But I continue to assure you that you'll get full credit if this science-fictionesque scenario comes to pass.

-

Do you remember when we were talking about birth control, and you went off on one of your 30 or 40 separate but identical catch-phrase laden responses about supposed moochers like me wanting to suck the rich dry? And my response was "nobody's going broke by allowing insurance companies to provide birth control, as they already do," to which you accused me of minimalizing the issue. Well, birth control was the issue, it was the only issue discussed at the time, yet you conflagrated it to this mythic, perceived struggle between zombified sucklers of the national teat vs. the virtuous wealthy who only want to not be ransacked (and is that so wrong??). But, in the end, I was only talking about birth control. :) And to me, that's a microcosm of every exchange you have in the Think Tank, lately. It all gets shot through the very narrow and melodramatic prism of individualism, and anyone who doesn't agree fully with you, or fails to blow every issue into the meta-issue of wealth and taxation, is part of the problem, and probably a craven, whining, leech, dragging down the economy as well as the nation's psyche.

I don't see life that way, and neither do most people. We'll see what happens.

1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:43:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Okay, I'll answer your questions. It's only fair, you answered mine.


It's actually not just a matter of fairness. It's a matter of intellectual honesty. We'll see how you do.

Quote:
What will stop this dastardly process we have whereby elected officials set policy? Is that your definition of "runaway democracy"?


Are you just playing dumb? That's intellectually dishonest. Runaway democracy is endless pandering for votes by giving away subsidies. It's caused wars and bankrupted countries. We have SS, Medicare, SSI, Medicaid, SNAP, Obamacare, all kinds of lesser subsidies and no end in sight to how much voters will demand and get because that's how their reps get elected. So try again. Are you relying on voters to stop demanding more subsidies? Are you relying on politicians to stop approving more spending? Are you relying on politicians to tell you that you've reached the end of what you can safely demand from government?

Quote:
Enough of what, "Runaway Democracy"?


Power growth and rights violations via pandering to wantiness. Please answer the question (as you said you would).

Quote:
Who is "we" and who are the "other people" referenced in OPM (other people's money)? The top one-percent of our own citizenry? If so, how do our own people qualify as "other people"? Or are we talking about other nations that finance our debt?


We (the current consumers of government "services") are running up debt that will have to be paid or at least serviced by someone. OPM refers to the money of anybody who can avoid covering those debts. So please answer the question.

Quote: Why do we refuse to learn the lesson that other societies have learned? Why should we repeat the experiment that always fails?

Quote:
You have complete devotion to your individualist doctrine, and I can respect that. But you also can't see it any other way, and especially can't fathom that anyone might disagree on their own accord. No, they must be in massive denial, or they must be naive. LOL. Perhaps, security in your own belief partially depends on that.


If it isn't denial or naivete, what is it? Faith that some miracle will happen that will cause us to not experience what every other society that tried the strong central government with weak protection for individual rights model has experienced?

Quote:
I read about these things when I find time to, which isn't as often as it used to be, but the one thing I've figured out is that neither "side" has a monopoly on truth, and that economics are too complex to reduce to one side being right and one side being a bald-face lie, throughout history. I don't buy that every intellectual heavyweight who disagrees with supply-side economics is willfully denying the lessons of history, as you seem to imply. If it was that cut-and-dry, we'd have a bigger consensus established, because ultimately it doesn't benefit huge swaths of experts from an academic or professional standpoint to be dead wrong. You can contend that they're in on it because they don't want to advocate an end to collectivism, but I just can't go down that conspiracy path with you. If that makes me wrong in your eyes, then I can live with that. :)


LOL. Economics is called "the dismal science" for a reason. You can put 10 economists in a room and they'll come out with 11 different opinions. But this isn't about how much socialism this country can tolerate. It's about whether we have adequate control over how much we'll get. We've got a constitution that doesn't prevent entitlement mentality from growing endlessly. We've got elected officials who'll do anything to get elected, including selling our future to buy us goodies now, because they know they can pass the consequences on to future elected officials who can then blame past elected officials for the problems that they will pass on to future elected officials. We've got a voting populace that is so ignorant they actually believe "rich people" can be compelled to be cash cows with no negative consequences. You appear to be one of those who believes that a miracle will happen to make this irrational situation somehow become rational without pain to you. In the meantime, you intend to keep your head in the sand.

Quote:
I don't doubt that in extreme cases, extreme consequences happen. I don't doubt that we can't expect 60% tax rates for our wealthiest to be taken sitting down. I don't doubt that massive debt unchecked will cause something to reach a tipping point. But your dramatic outlook seems to think that moment is tomorrow, and that our democratic system is killing us, and everyone that's not advocating for a republican budget of immediate austerity is essentially a parasite, and we're now dooming ourselves to poverty. But I continue to assure you that you'll get full credit if this science-fictionesque scenario comes to pass.[quote]

Does it matter if it's tomorrow or next year or twenty years from now or forty? You're willing to take the risk that you'll still be alive to see your kid living a life that Haitians would consider worse than theirs? Knowing that it's preventable if people would show restraint and limit the amount of authority the central government can wield?

[quote]Do you remember when we were talking about birth control, and you went off on one of your 30 or 40 separate but identical catch-phrase laden responses about supposed moochers like me wanting to suck the rich dry?[quote]

Yes, I remember pointing out the irrationality of harboring a belief in the ability to safely ignore the effects of employing entitlement mentality.

[quote]I don't see life that way, and neither do most people.


Being in a majority that fails to see the signs of a growing problem is what lemmings do.

Quote:
We'll see what happens.


Almost certainly within your lifetime. I won't be expecting relevant answers to my questions. You seem to mostly just play dumb and answer questions by asking questions.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:55:13 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:


Almost certainly within your lifetime. I won't be expecting relevant answers to my questions. You seem to mostly just play dumb and answer questions by asking questions.


Hey, if it's good enough for Socrates, it's good enough for me. evil4

In order to answer the question, "What will stop our runaway democracy", one has to first believe that "runaway democracy" is, in fact, what we have. I do not. It's a loaded question, along the lines of "how soon do you plan on getting mental help?"

Don't miss your opportunity here to tell me it doesn't matter what I believe. I've almost made BINGO on my 1ball response card, and I wouldn't want to miss out because you were off your game.
HardNReady12
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:53:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 65
Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States
1ball wrote:


It's their money and you're trying to take it, making it too risky to invest here. You can't blame them for protecting their interests. They're not our slaves.

Right, I made it and I want to keep it. If Barry, and Princess Pelosi, and Dingy Harry are as stupid as they are, count me out. Hiding as much as I can, paying as little as I can, just like the Obama phone lady, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/04/word-cloud-obama-and-romney-at-the-first-presidential-debate/
groucho
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:01:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/29/2009
Posts: 233
Location: Nebraska, United States
just to break up the 1ball and LadyX Sword Fight duel i'll throw out this. this is a tight race, as was predicted even before the gop primary, and actually romney was the best choice being the most centrist of the candidates. presidential elections are not won by the party hardliners or bases but by the vast middle ground of voters.

mitt stumbled greatly in august and september...the ryan pick was a pander to the base, his obstinance on tax returns, the lackluster gop convention, and the 47% fiasco...even with all that obama could only just pull ahead slightly.

the right was saying that the first debate could be a game changer for romney...i was not really buying it and hoping that obama could solidify his slight leads with his performance. i will be voting for obama but give credit to mitt and his team they had him coming out swinging and obama came out like it had been four years since he had been in a debate.

romney clearly had the bettter performance. i happen to think much of what he said was based on lies and half truths that obama did not follow through on. i.e. mitt talked a lot about wanting to take care of the poor and obama did not come back to say that we really know how you feel about the poor, mitt kept saying he was not going to cut $5billion in taxes and obama didn't come back and say that if you do what you have proposed with your across the board tax cuts the math adds up to $5 billion! maybe obama is using ali's old rope-a-dope gambit but romney was 'winner' of this first debate and i suspect that the polls will reflect that in a couple of days.

so, yeah, romney/ryan could win this election and i personally believe that would mean that dark days would be ahead for the u.s.a.

g



"Women should be obscene and not heard."
Groucho Marx
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:11:50 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
I asked: Are you relying on voters to stop demanding more subsidies? Are you relying on politicians to stop approving more spending? Are you relying on politicians to tell you that you've reached the end of what you can safely demand from government?

LadyX wrote:
Hey, if it's good enough for Socrates, it's good enough for me.


And this represents the level of honesty offered by collectivism in this "Think Tank".


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:32:11 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:
I asked: Are you relying on voters to stop demanding more subsidies? Are you relying on politicians to stop approving more spending? Are you relying on politicians to tell you that you've reached the end of what you can safely demand from government?



And this represents the level of honesty offered by collectivism in this "Think Tank".


LOL. Whatever you say, buddy. I already told you I'm not drinking the "runaway democracy" koolaid, which your above questions assume to be the case.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:41:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I already told you I'm not drinking the "runaway democracy" koolaid, which your above questions assume to be the case.


How do you figure that? My questions only assume that we have debt, which we do, caused by spending above our means, which we have, with no plan in place to pay it off, which is the case. So please try again.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 11:03:05 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
And around and around we go.

This country's had debt for decades and, of course, it's worse than ever now. It does have to be dealt with, agreed. It's the whole mindset that welfare assistance and medicare are "goodies" and "freebies" that put you in a different mindset from me. Everything's gotta be managed, and the next term president, whether it's Obama or Romney, is going to be saddled with this issue. It's not been managed well lately by anybody, and It's how it's dealt with that forms the political differences. I'll even agree that Democrats are far from strong on this issue. They need Republican counter-weight, but the counter-weight isn't sensible. Not accepting 10 cuts for 1 revenue increase? Partisan politics are a separate issue really. My point, which you'll say is insane, or whatever, is that your dogma paints a picture of a runaway train approaching a cliff, against a backdrop of a couple hundred million parasites that are only concerned with robbing rich people, which is hyperbolic and only representative of your worldview, not objective reality.

I know your schtick well by now. Everyone's a moocher and a collectivist, anyone who disagrees is simply unwilling to face up to your "wisdom", followed by endless repetition of "what happens when we run out of other people's money", and our beliefs don't matter, etc. Got it. Really, I do. :)



Guest
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 11:28:18 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401



1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 11:38:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
My point, which you'll say is insane, or whatever, is that your dogma paints a picture of a runaway train approaching a cliff, against a backdrop of a couple hundred million parasites that are only concerned with robbing rich people, which is hyperbolic and only representative of your worldview, not objective reality.


And you believe you have a grasp of objective reality? The wave of retiring boomers aren't going to add many more years to the two years of SS insolvency that we've just completed? You've just advocated and achieved the addition of how many more wagon riders and increased their weight by how much? What's the reverse of hyperbole? Hypobole? evil4


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
tazznjazz
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:03:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:41:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
1ball wrote:
Zero in federal income and payroll tax. The damage that the level of socialism we have is doing to my investments more than covers a two-person share of the non-socialism expenses.


So you're paying nothing toward the defense of our country, yet you're still bitching about having to pay more than you receive in return? That's more than a little hypocritical, isn't it? And if you're paying nothing toward all these entitlement programs that you keep on ranting about, they why are you even qualified to have an opinion? Put up or shut up. When you start paying your fair share, then you'll have a right to bitch about how it's being spent.

1ball wrote:
Every individual does that individually. And everyone has a list of things they don't want to see their tax dollars spent on.


But I asked how YOU establish it. And you haven't answered. I'm interested to see exactly how you establish value for those Federal services you do receive, despite the fact that you get them for free... Is that what national security is worth to you? Nothing?

1ball wrote:
Sooner or later every collectivist starts blurring the whole local, state, federal taxation issue. You're no exception. I do pay local and state taxes. I pay for police and fire protection. Defense and all the other non-charity parts of the federal budget are mixed in with all kinds of coerced charity. It's the coerced charity I object to. SS, Medicare, Obamacare, Welfare, pretty much all kinds of federal subsidies. They should be handled at the state level or not at all. You've probably ignored the whole competition for governance issue, so perhaps you'll answer my questions. Why do these subsidies have to be at the federal level? Can't the people of California cover the people of California? Can't the people of Montana cover the people of Montana? How do we avoid "bread and circuses" democracy? What will we do when we run out of Other People's Money?


You obviously have no clue how Federal money is spent. Much of it goes toward local civic organizations like police and fire departments. Much more goes toward building roads and infrastructure that only benefits local jurisdictions. How could a road benefit anyone but local residents? Sure, sure, interstate commerce, blah, blah, blah. The vast majority of people traveling on any road in the nation are locals. Recall hearing about "The Bridge To Nowhere", some years ago? Federal dollars being spent. Should these expenditures be paid for on a local level? Perhaps. Would it do any good? Can the people of California cover the people of California? Obviously not. Seen how well California has been managing their money lately? And when California goes broke, which will inevitably happen, who gets to take care of the refugees fleeing economic despondency? Ask anyone from Houston how well they bore the weight of the Katrina refugees.

1ball wrote:
The point you're ignoring is that every individual decides whether he's getting his money's worth. He can be wrong, but he'll still act on his belief and when the federal government is chock full of coerced charity that he's not receiving, acting on his belief means reducing the value of the US society. A person can easily think, "I don't mind paying for federal highways on the other side of the country, because highways enable commerce, but I'm getting no benefit from these welfare programs." It doesn't matter if he's actually right about that. He'll act as if he's right. He'll decide against "the common good" because he thinks "the common good" decided to be parasitical.


Then why wouldn't he work within the system to get politicians elected whose values represent his own? Why wouldn't he lobby those politicians to get laws passed that right the inequities he sees in the country around him? Most people will choose to work within the system. If you would choose to work "against the common good", then you're in the rarefied minority who believes that laws and statutes passed by duly elected officials for "the common good" don't apply to them.

1ball wrote:
Here's a basic thought exercise for you. How many lives do each of us have? Hopefully you guessed correctly. The answer is one. Why would we charge one person more for all the defense entities you listed above than another person? They each have the same number of lives. Are we saying one person's life is worth more than another's so we can justify charging him more? How would that be determined? They each have the same number of votes and we wouldn't give more votes to the person whose life was worth more by the same method of determination, so why would we charge more for defense? We have plenty of people who pay no federal income tax and yet their lives are being defended. That means that without even considering social programs, they're being subsidized by other people. Which basically means they're receiving coerced charity by getting free defense. Correct? A common defense is one thing the federal government was created for. Why shouldn't we charge a poll tax for defense? The answer to that is not a moral answer. It's a pragmatic answer. Because you can't get money from someone who has none. So you're faced with a dilemma. Either live without defense or cover their defense bill. You don't have to do that for food, shelter, medical care, etc. So why again shouldn't those charities be covered at the local or state level, where, if they get too greedy, you can move away from them without having to leave the country?


So you're saying that each person should pay the same amount for the defense of their country, because each person -- man, woman, or child -- benefits equally from that defense. By your logic, wouldn't anyone who couldn't pay have to be put to death? After all, if they can't afford to pay, why should they be allowed to reap the benefit? Oh... wait. You don't pay. Damn, 1-B. I'll be sorry to see you go. We'll be sure to preserve your posts here for posterity.

1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 11:54:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
1ball wrote: Zero in federal income and payroll tax. The damage that the level of socialism we have is doing to my investments more than covers a two-person share of the non-socialism expenses.

MrNudiePants wrote:
So you're paying nothing toward the defense of our country, yet you're still bitching about having to pay more than you receive in return?


I figure I'm paying to the defense of this country by staying invested in this economy despite the damage the socialism is doing to my
ROI. But, I'm not bitching about having to pay more. Where did you get that idea? I'm pointing out that individuals, through acts of non-compliance and abandonment, can control the level of cooperation according to their beliefs on whether they're getting a good deal.

Quote:
That's more than a little hypocritical, isn't it?


I'm not working, therefore I have no income or payroll tax liability. I didn't make the system, I just play within the rules. If you want to kick me in the ass for not working, I'm at the back of the line. Both of your legs will be non-functional by the time you get to me.

Quote:
And if you're paying nothing toward all these entitlement programs that you keep on ranting about, they why are you even qualified to have an opinion?


Because I have a functioning brain. I made a conscious decision to quit working for a lot of reasons. Among them was the declining value of pulling a gravy train that had so many riders.

Quote:
Put up or shut up. When you start paying your fair share, then you'll have a right to bitch about how it's being spent.


Who gets to decide what my fair share is? Will the decision be applied equally to all non-employed people or only those who have assets to live on.

1ball wrote: Every individual does that individually. And everyone has a list of things they don't want to see their tax dollars spent on.

Quote:
But I asked how YOU establish it. And you haven't answered. I'm interested to see exactly how you establish value for those Federal services you do receive, despite the fact that you get them for free... Is that what national security is worth to you? Nothing?


I don't have to decide the value. I just have to not break the law. That's the system. There's no law that says a person has to keep working until he reaches a certain age. Correct?

1ball wrote: Sooner or later every collectivist starts blurring the whole local, state, federal taxation issue. You're no exception. I do pay local and state taxes. I pay for police and fire protection. Defense and all the other non-charity parts of the federal budget are mixed in with all kinds of coerced charity. It's the coerced charity I object to. SS, Medicare, Obamacare, Welfare, pretty much all kinds of federal subsidies. They should be handled at the state level or not at all. You've probably ignored the whole competition for governance issue, so perhaps you'll answer my questions. Why do these subsidies have to be at the federal level? Can't the people of California cover the people of California? Can't the people of Montana cover the people of Montana? How do we avoid "bread and circuses" democracy? What will we do when we run out of Other People's Money?

Quote:
You obviously have no clue how Federal money is spent. Much of it goes toward local civic organizations like police and fire departments.


That wouldn't have to happen if the federal government wouldn't grab so much power. Agreed?

Quote:
Much more goes toward building roads and infrastructure that only benefits local jurisdictions. How could a road benefit anyone but local residents? Sure, sure, interstate commerce, blah, blah, blah. The vast majority of people traveling on any road in the nation are locals.


You don't have to travel on a road to get a benefit from it. The price of goods and services is lower because the road exists so you get a benefit from it. Agreed?

Quote:
Recall hearing about "The Bridge To Nowhere", some years ago? Federal dollars being spent. Should these expenditures be paid for on a local level? Perhaps. Would it do any good?


As I recall, that was pork for the sake of pork, a very expensive bridge with no reasonable expectation of economic benefit worthy of the expense.

Quote:
Can the people of California cover the people of California? Obviously not.


Perhaps without the federal burden they could. And if not, then they would adjust, especially if they knew a federal bailout was not coming.

Quote:
Seen how well California has been managing their money lately?


Nothing a good bankruptcy judge couldn't rationalize.

Quote:
And when California goes broke, which will inevitably happen, who gets to take care of the refugees fleeing economic despondency? Ask anyone from Houston how well they bore the weight of the Katrina refugees.


The rest of the country has been absorbing economic refugees from blue states as their economies have become increasingly irrational. The failure of one state produces the skilled labor for the state that has a need for them.

1ball wrote:
The point you're ignoring is that every individual decides whether he's getting his money's worth. He can be wrong, but he'll still act on his belief and when the federal government is chock full of coerced charity that he's not receiving, acting on his belief means reducing the value of the US society. A person can easily think, "I don't mind paying for federal highways on the other side of the country, because highways enable commerce, but I'm getting no benefit from these welfare programs." It doesn't matter if he's actually right about that. He'll act as if he's right. He'll decide against "the common good" because he thinks "the common good" decided to be parasitical.

Quote:
Then why wouldn't he work within the system to get politicians elected whose values represent his own?


Is there some law that says he can't make economically rational decisions based on the conditions the government creates?

Quote:
Why wouldn't he lobby those politicians to get laws passed that right the inequities he sees in the country around him?


Are you under the impression that our checks on the system are limited to political activism? We're legally allowed to lower our economic output until we're comfortable with the level of burden we're bearing.

Quote:
Most people will choose to work within the system. If you would choose to work "against the common good", then you're in the rarefied minority who believes that laws and statutes passed by duly elected officials for "the common good" don't apply to them.


As long as you can work against the common good while staying within the law, isn't that working within the system? Is there a law that says every individual has to maximize economic output so they can maximize their tax liability?

1ball wrote:
Here's a basic thought exercise for you. How many lives do each of us have? Hopefully you guessed correctly. The answer is one. Why would we charge one person more for all the defense entities you listed above than another person? They each have the same number of lives. Are we saying one person's life is worth more than another's so we can justify charging him more? How would that be determined? They each have the same number of votes and we wouldn't give more votes to the person whose life was worth more by the same method of determination, so why would we charge more for defense? We have plenty of people who pay no federal income tax and yet their lives are being defended. That means that without even considering social programs, they're being subsidized by other people. Which basically means they're receiving coerced charity by getting free defense. Correct? A common defense is one thing the federal government was created for. Why shouldn't we charge a poll tax for defense? The answer to that is not a moral answer. It's a pragmatic answer. Because you can't get money from someone who has none. So you're faced with a dilemma. Either live without defense or cover their defense bill. You don't have to do that for food, shelter, medical care, etc. So why again shouldn't those charities be covered at the local or state level, where, if they get too greedy, you can move away from them without having to leave the country?

Quote:
So you're saying that each person should pay the same amount for the defense of their country, because each person -- man, woman, or child -- benefits equally from that defense.


I'm not the one who's taking the moral approach of "for the common good". That's your position. You're the one who thinks there's a "fair share" to consider. Can you justify charging a defense bill to children who are given no choice of where they live and can't be considered capable of informed consent? For adults, how can you justify anything other than an exactly equal price for equal benefit?

Quote:
By your logic, wouldn't anyone who couldn't pay have to be put to death?


It isn't my logic. It's your "for the common good" morality applied to everyone instead of just the unpopular minority known as rich people.

Quote:
After all, if they can't afford to pay, why should they be allowed to reap the benefit? Oh... wait. You don't pay. Damn, 1-B. I'll be sorry to see you go. We'll be sure to preserve your posts here for posterity.


It would not surprise me at all for a society that has decreasing respect for individual rights to adopt your might makes right approach to dealing with those who don't conform to your "common good" dogma, but as the saying goes, "Molon labe".



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:36:24 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:
Zero in federal income and payroll tax.


Think

So you're one of Mitt's 47-percenters, how unexpected. And ironic, to me at least, that I'm not in that 47-percent, yet I'm also not the one railing about millions of parasites sucking up my hard-earned tax dollars. Nor am I the drain on the system that you've repeatedly implied I am, but good try. It clearly makes you feel better about your arguments to label others and try to justify it with the Jr.High-level "shoe fits" rationale. Unless the shoe doesn't fit, but nevertheless, go ahead. As Sheryl Crow once sang, "if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad."

So you quit work because The Man just wouldn't stay out of your pocket, huh? Did Uncle Sam take every additional dollar you made and give it to a welfare queen? If so, I'd quit work too. Or, was your tax rate, in actuality, at least 60% short of that?

It's clear that your doom-and-gloom opinion of this country leaves much to be desired, so why are you even here? You make it sound beyond hope, so why wait for it to get worse, since you're so certain it will? Surely with our Might-Makes-Right Republic in full effect, there are places that would suit you better.

Might I suggest Somalia? Over 300 days of sunshine per year, long stretches of deep blue coastline, and- best of all for you- absolutely no semblence of a powerful national government. I think it's really your dream scenario. You can set up camp wherever, and if the local warlord's martial law doesn't suit you, then you can just pull up stakes and move over to the next one. The nomads there have been doing it for centuries, so to your credit, that system seems to be working for them.

And wait, there's more:

You can join a group of pirates and hijack ships. I'm not exactly sure- you know, economic flexibility between tribes and all, but I'm willing to be that your tribute percentage to the local chieftain is less of a burden than Obama's asking for here. Plus, with any luck, you'll be stealing from collectivists in the first place. 1Ball is even a good pirate name! Not sure what it translates to in Somali, but it's an idea at least.

What's not to like, really? Just give it some thought; it's all I ask.


WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 10:26:19 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
LadyX wrote:
So you're one of Mitt's 47-percenters, how unexpected.


Yeah, Scooter already lifted this rock and exposed the worm feces, a few weeks ago.

On a side note, word is, there's a GOP mole close to him, in his administration. Vegas odds are on Geithner.



This is what happens when you don't have an idea about who to appoint in your new administration in 2009, so you just go with people from the same failed previous administration's team.

If there is one thing I'm steamed at Obama about...it is that he didn't alter course from the Bush/Cheney administration in several critical and different areas (finance/treasury/security) - and he squandered 2 years trying to play nice nice with the same fucking assholes who wasted those same two years, doing everything they could to ensure Obama would be...a one trick pony administration.


If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
1ball
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 12:50:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Think

So you're one of Mitt's 47-percenters, how unexpected.


The only way to morally be a moocher is to vote against the policies that permit mooching. I'm helping to drag the gravy train to a halt because I'm morally opposed to it, not because I'm immorally supporting it. evil4

Quote:
And ironic, to me at least, that I'm not in that 47-percent, yet I'm also not the one railing about millions of parasites sucking up my hard-earned tax dollars.


You're advocating systemic mooching and the raiding of wealth for that purpose.

Quote:
Nor am I the drain on the system that you've repeatedly implied I am, but good try.


Actually, if your income is less than about $125K (per single adult in household) you're getting more than $1 of (theoretical) benefit per $1 of taxation. That's because the system is rigged that way.

Quote:
So you quit work because The Man just wouldn't stay out of your pocket, huh?


No, I quit work because I was willing to live with little earned income. Just like any other retired person, only without the SS handout. Are you going to require all other retired people who live on already earned wealth to pay wealth taxes? If say an athlete made $5 million after tax and retired at age 38 and lived a low consumption lifestyle in a modest paid-for house, he could live reasonably well with low enough earned income to owe no federal tax. He might still be reasonably concerned that irrational government policy would reduce the value of his wealth to nothing. Agreed? Anything immoral about his choice?

Quote:
It's clear that your doom-and-gloom opinion of this country leaves much to be desired, so why are you even here?


I like it here. I'm able to take advantage of the total package at a price I can live with.

Quote:
You make it sound beyond hope, so why wait for it to get worse, since you're so certain it will?


Why leave while I can still make it work to my advantage?

Quote:
Surely with our Might-Makes-Right Republic in full effect, there are places that would suit you better.


If/when I think that's the case, I'll go there

Quote:
Might I suggest Somalia?


No amount of sanctimony makes your support for coercing charity morally justifiable.

Quote:
You can join a group of pirates and hijack ships.


Since you like to compare me to Randians, I could even call myself Ragnar Danneskjold. evil4

He was one of the least understood heroes of her apocalyptic story. He repatriated the wealth that was immorally taken for the sake of moochers. There's a little bit of Ragnar in everyone (even you).

Quote:
What's not to like, really? Just give it some thought; it's all I ask.


I've clearly thought about it more than you. I'm sure you would love to deport all non-believers in collectivist dogma who turn your morality back against you. But y'all created this system and now you have to live with the consequences of non-compliance and abandonment.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 12:55:30 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,385
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


I've clearly thought about it more than you. I'm sure you would love to deport all non-believers in collectivist dogma who turn your morality back against you. But y'all created this system and now you have to live with the consequences of non-compliance and abandonment.



Where has LadyX ever said that she wanted to deport anyone? Also, what are you going to do when the gravy train stops running? Sleep under a bridge?
1ball
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:38:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


Where has LadyX ever said that she wanted to deport anyone?


She hasn't. We're friends. This is how we banter.

Quote:
Also, what are you going to do when the gravy train stops running? Sleep under a bridge?


Who knows? Maybe I'll hire starving liberals and pay them pennies per hour. evil4

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:15:24 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,385
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


Who knows? Maybe I'll hire starving liberals and pay them pennies per hour. evil4


Where do you plan to get the pennies? Odds are someone like me will be feeding you.
1ball
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:40:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


Where do you plan to get the pennies?


From the sale of assets to other starving liberals.

Quote:
Odds are someone like me will be feeding you.


That would be sweet irony, wouldn't it? evil4

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2012 3:37:36 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,385
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


That would be sweet irony, wouldn't it? evil4


I'll come visit you under your bridge and bring cookies.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 9:13:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
I'll come visit you under your bridge and bring cookies.


I don't know why you think I'll be there. I own land and unless you plan on confiscating it, I won't lack for a a place to live. If y'all sink the economy, where will you get the money to buy cookies? If you don't sink the economy, I won't need any handouts.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 9:38:34 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,385
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


I don't know why you think I'll be there. I own land and unless you plan on confiscating it, I won't lack for a a place to live. If y'all sink the economy, where will you get the money to buy cookies? If you don't sink the economy, I won't need any handouts.


Sorry, I assumed you lived under a bridge now.
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:21:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Sorry, I assumed you lived under a bridge now.


We live quite well now on very little (taxable) income. We've been retired over 10 years and have quite a nest egg earning more than enough to pay annual expenses. I take it you've never heard of the Retire Early or Voluntary Simplicity lifestyles. Save up while you're young, don't have more kids than you can afford to provide for, live simply, invest wisely, let the Joneses win and become financially independent much younger than normal. If the economy is going to be tanked by insane government policy, the hardship will be most felt by those with no nest egg and those with all their eggs in one basket.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 12:12:55 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,385
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


We live quite well now on very little (taxable) income. We've been retired over 10 years and have quite a nest egg earning more than enough to pay annual expenses. I take it you've never heard of the Retire Early or Voluntary Simplicity lifestyles. Save up while you're young, don't have more kids than you can afford to provide for, live simply, invest wisely, let the Joneses win and become financially independent much younger than normal. If the economy is going to be tanked by insane government policy, the hardship will be most felt by those with no nest egg and those with all their eggs in one basket.


I take it you've never heard of Billy Goat Gruff.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 12:18:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


I take it you've never heard of Billy Goat Gruff.


When I was a kid, I loved that story!





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.