Stargazer Posted May 21, 2016 Posted May 21, 2016 45 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I like Gary Johnson, he believes in ending the war on Drugs and he admits Global Warming is real and dangerous. And I don't agree with everything HE says, either. I wish I had the time to continue this very off-topic conversation, Skeptic. You've written some insightful and some clueless things in it, and I respect your viewpoint. But I said I was done, and so I am. I love you bro', so have a nice day!
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 8 hours ago, Stargazer said: And I don't agree with everything HE says, either. I wish I had the time to continue this very off-topic conversation, Skeptic. You've written some insightful and some clueless things in it, and I respect your viewpoint. But I said I was done, and so I am. I love you bro', so have a nice day! Thank You, and just a reminder, Mitt Romney said, "I think we’re nuts not to raise the minimum wage," I love you too bro, peace out!
Jim Stiles Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 On 5/9/2016 at 1:34 AM, The Nehor said: I was really hoping for a Trump vs. Sanders election as the political theater would have been beautiful. I guess I look like Nero fiddling while Rome burns except I don't think in this case that Rome is actually burning. Every election I have witnessed has been elevated by some saints to be an apocalyptic choice between good and evil and if we lose the nation was doomed. I don't know how they keep believing the same thing every election cycle. And you think this phenomenon is limited to the LDS church? Sorry to burst a bubble there.
mnn727 Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) Quote Do you believe in slavery? 7.25 is a slave wage, it is nothing, but the desperate are hungry. We've already discussed the fallacy of raising minimum wage bringing people out of poverty, yet you fall back on this? Edited May 22, 2016 by mnn727
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, mnn727 said: We've already discussed the fallacy of raising minimum wage bringing people out of poverty, yet you fall back on this? three points 1. When did I say raising the minimum wage will bring people out of poverty? Poverty and Starvation are not the same thing. 2. Why are you so sure that raising the minimum wage is a bad idea? I am not 100% certain, but you seem to be 3. So do you agree that other intelligent people disagree with you? There are economists and business owners that don't agree with you. Edited May 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
The Nehor Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 On 5/20/2016 at 6:24 PM, longview said: Neither do I. Cannot imagine why you would throw her name into the discussion? I consider myself to be deeply principled conservative (pretty close to Reagan's philosophy but much closer to Milton Friedman's economic ideals and wisdom). Did you derail because you did not have a good answer to this? No, I opposed that because your lollipops and rainbows view of capitalism is ridiculous. Socialism has more winners and losers then capitalism? Seriously? Coming from a nation with our growing wealth gap? Work as hard as you feel like? You work or you starve in capitalism (and most other economic systems). I have a friend who has been looking for a job for over a year. Can he work as hard as he wants? Idealistic drivel. I brought Ayn Rand in as a joke. I could have used Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity instead but I figured I would take the classical approach. I think capitalism is a workable system with the right controls and some basic social safety nets for the worst off but the idea that it is virtuous and encourages virtue makes me giggle. It is practical at best.
The Nehor Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 23 hours ago, Stargazer said: The only reason Big Money is in Politics is because of onerous government regulations. Don't confuse cause with effect. LOL Yeah, sure, the big businesses are just being defensive to prevent regulation. They aren't after our money. Wake up people! About $50 of the average American taxpayer goes to food stamps and other aids for the poor. Over $800 goes to direct subsidies and grants to corporations. That is money going directly from government coffers to businesses. It gets worth when you look at tax subsidies. Corporations who do it right get a profit off of buying politicians. What is insane is that their propaganda is so effective that they convince people the poor are the real problem.
The Nehor Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: And you think this phenomenon is limited to the LDS church? Sorry to burst a bubble there. No, it happens everywhere. I just happen to feel it more when it happens in a group I belong to.
The Nehor Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 3 hours ago, mnn727 said: We've already discussed the fallacy of raising minimum wage bringing people out of poverty, yet you fall back on this? It is attacking the problem from the wrong side. We need to raise the dignity of honest work and debase that of useless work. Fast-food workers, poultry processors, and coal miners should receive some honor for working at useful jobs and it should be a company scandal that costs them customers for them not to be paid a livable wage. Patent trolls, life coaches, market strategists, and the like should be paid nothing, it should be a scandal to employ one, and those practicing the professions should be pelted with mudballs any time they walk down the street. But like the people in Captain Moroni's time too many of us are kingmen and like the system as it is because we think we can win the game rather then freemen who just refuse to get sucked into that rubbish.
Stargazer Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 8 hours ago, The Nehor said: LOL Yeah, sure, the big businesses are just being defensive to prevent regulation. They aren't after our money. Wake up people! About $50 of the average American taxpayer goes to food stamps and other aids for the poor. Over $800 goes to direct subsidies and grants to corporations. That is money going directly from government coffers to businesses. It gets worth when you look at tax subsidies. Corporations who do it right get a profit off of buying politicians. What is insane is that their propaganda is so effective that they convince people the poor are the real problem. I wasn't going to contribute to this thread again, but your thoughtless comment compels me. Big businesses don't just try to defend themselves against onerous regulations, though some do it for that reason. Microsoft, for example, didn't have any lobbyists in Washington DC until the federal government started attacking them for being too big and too successful. Then they saw the light. Some big businesses take advantage of regulation in order to manipulate the markets, as well as lobby for changes that specifically advantage them, and disadvantage their competitors. And, as you say, lobby for subsidies and grants. But the only reason they CAN do all this is because the federal government makes it possible, by expanding its own power to regulate (past the boundaries of the Constitution, in my opinion). In other words, the government provides the strings which some big business pull to their own advantage! What is insane, The Nehor, is that their propaganda is so effective that it has convinced you that they are convincing everyone that the poor are the real problem! That's new to me, that the poor are the real problem. Did you just make this momentous discovery, or did you make it up, like 80% of most statistics, on the spot? And since we're slinging around dubious figures, here's a CFR for you: "About $50 of the average American taxpayer goes to food stamps and other aids for the poor. Over $800 goes to direct subsidies and grants to corporations." Prove it. If you can show from official figures that corporate welfare exceeds aid to the poor by 1600%, I shall be very surprised. Oh, and you might want to start with the 2016 budget. See this page: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016-Estimate Note that spending by program alone shows clearly that wherever you dug up that wildly marvelous comparison between aid to the poor and aid to corporations, it was from where the sun doesn't shine: Spending on Social Security, unemployment, and labor is estimated to be about 37% of all outlays in 2016. This is greater than average when compared to budgets from other years.(Average proportion = 35%) Medicare and general health spending is estimated to be about 28% of all outlays that year. This is one of the highest proportions spent when compared to budgets from other years.(Average proportion = 13%) From the page I referenced. Together, aid to the poor seems to comprise about 65% of federal spending. 1
The Nehor Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: I wasn't going to contribute to this thread again, but your thoughtless comment compels me. I am in no way conceding that my comment is thoughtless but if you feel compelled to respond to thoughtless comments on the internet you may want to give up any career or hobbies you may have. 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: Big businesses don't just try to defend themselves against onerous regulations, though some do it for that reason. Microsoft, for example, didn't have any lobbyists in Washington DC until the federal government started attacking them for being too big and too successful. Then they saw the light. Some big businesses take advantage of regulation in order to manipulate the markets, as well as lobby for changes that specifically advantage them, and disadvantage their competitors. And, as you say, lobby for subsidies and grants. But the only reason they CAN do all this is because the federal government makes it possible, by expanding its own power to regulate (past the boundaries of the Constitution, in my opinion). In other words, the government provides the strings which some big business pull to their own advantage! The Microsoft monopoly was a real possibility at the time Microsoft was dealing with problems. The threat has since diminished. You place all the blame for regulation on the government but I would argue that if businesses were universally honorable there would not be a regulation. It is like the Missionary white handbook. In there you will find chronicled lots of things you cannot do and most of them are there because some missionary did them. It is a chronicle of past errors. The EPA gets a bad rap and in some cases they deserve it. It was created because the air was yellow in many cities and other parts of the country and manufacturing plants were dumping their garbage into rivers or burying it in unsafe locations. Even if you do not believe in global warming the air was downright dangerous (and ugly) in many areas until the EPA was created and stepped in. So do regulations show that the government is made up of control freaks who like making enemies amongst potential donors and therefore act against their own self-interest? Or does it mean businesses need regulation because without them they would do egregious wrong with no check on that ability? In a few cases it might be the former but I think in most cases it is the latter. 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: What is insane, The Nehor, is that their propaganda is so effective that it has convinced you that they are convincing everyone that the poor are the real problem! That's new to me, that the poor are the real problem. Did you just make this momentous discovery, or did you make it up, like 80% of most statistics, on the spot? And since we're slinging around dubious figures, here's a CFR for you: "About $50 of the average American taxpayer goes to food stamps and other aids for the poor. Over $800 goes to direct subsidies and grants to corporations." Prove it. If you can show from official figures that corporate welfare exceeds aid to the poor by 1600%, I shall be very surprised. Oh, and you might want to start with the 2016 budget. See this page: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016-Estimate Note that spending by program alone shows clearly that wherever you dug up that wildly marvelous comparison between aid to the poor and aid to corporations, it was from where the sun doesn't shine: Spending on Social Security, unemployment, and labor is estimated to be about 37% of all outlays in 2016. This is greater than average when compared to budgets from other years.(Average proportion = 35%) Medicare and general health spending is estimated to be about 28% of all outlays that year. This is one of the highest proportions spent when compared to budgets from other years.(Average proportion = 13%) From the page I referenced. Together, aid to the poor seems to comprise about 65% of federal spending. That is a creative reading of the budget. Unfortunately Social Security, unemployment, Medicare, and general health spending do not all go to the poor. I have a decent net worth but if my terminated from my job tomorrow I could collect unemployment. I could also collect much more then someone who was just fired from McDonalds so that is definitely not all going to the poor. Medicare is generally available based on age and is available to rich and poor. The poor have a higher tendency to die younger so they are taking less of that chunk too. Same with Social Security. Medicaid is designed for the impoverished so that would help. That 37% also includes labor which I am pretty sure includes corporate subsidies. In other words your interpretation of the data is insane. If, as you suggest, 65% of the budget went to the poor there would be $2 trillion going to the poor every year in addition to whatever state and local governments contribute. That would be $6,289 a person. But it gets better. Only about 40 million Americans are below the poverty line. If they all divided that $2 trillion equally they would get, on average, $50,000 a year. The mean per capita income in the US is around $30,000 a year. In other words, the poor should all be living middle-class lifestyles better then the average working American. Add to that that most of the poor do work and they should be getting the equivalent of 60-65k a year. In other words, your interpretation is insane.
longview Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: Socialism has more winners and losers then capitalism? Seriously? Not what I said. I was saying Obama gave hundreds of millions to Solyndra (solar panel manufacturer) to make it a "winner" but it blew up in his face (example of Socialism failing). Also that Obama is making a loser out of the coal industry. Which is very easy to do when you put the weight of the Federal government against it. There is plenty of "cronyism" on both sides of the aisle. 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: Coming from a nation with our growing wealth gap? Leftist talking point. 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: Work as hard as you feel like? You work or you starve in capitalism (and most other economic systems). Conservative taking point. I would rather have churches and private foundations provide welfare than have government dole it out without personal interaction and sober assessment of diligence and accountability. 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: have a friend who has been looking for a job for over a year. Can he work as hard as he wants? Idealistic drivel. You hear stories about immigrants come into this country with pennies in their pockets and work hard and gain wonderful success. Such as Vietnamese and Koreans who buy food out in the country and sell them on street corners. They persist and eventually get to the point of opening their own small grocery store. Nothing too idealistic and certainly not impracticable. The sad truth is too many American "citizens" have grown very complacent and give in to the carnal security (narcotic) of government "safety nets." 12 hours ago, The Nehor said: I think capitalism is a workable system with the right controls and some basic social safety nets for the worst off but the idea that it is virtuous and encourages virtue makes me giggle. It is practical at best. I have already stated that Capitalism is NEITHER good or evil. But that self reliance, personal accountability, vigorous work ethic, etc, are worthy attributes. Yes, you should "giggle" with delight that you live in such an amazing country with its Constitution ("A Heavenly Banner") that enables greater prosperity than anything man has done in all of previous history. Keep in mind that Socialism is VERY incompatible with Constitutional precepts.
Stargazer Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I am in no way conceding that my comment is thoughtless but if you feel compelled to respond to thoughtless comments on the internet you may want to give up any career or hobbies you may have. The Microsoft monopoly was a real possibility at the time Microsoft was dealing with problems. The threat has since diminished. You place all the blame for regulation on the government but I would argue that if businesses were universally honorable there would not be a regulation. It is like the Missionary white handbook. In there you will find chronicled lots of things you cannot do and most of them are there because some missionary did them. It is a chronicle of past errors. The EPA gets a bad rap and in some cases they deserve it. It was created because the air was yellow in many cities and other parts of the country and manufacturing plants were dumping their garbage into rivers or burying it in unsafe locations. Even if you do not believe in global warming the air was downright dangerous (and ugly) in many areas until the EPA was created and stepped in. So do regulations show that the government is made up of control freaks who like making enemies amongst potential donors and therefore act against their own self-interest? Or does it mean businesses need regulation because without them they would do egregious wrong with no check on that ability? In a few cases it might be the former but I think in most cases it is the latter. That is a creative reading of the budget. Unfortunately Social Security, unemployment, Medicare, and general health spending do not all go to the poor. I have a decent net worth but if my terminated from my job tomorrow I could collect unemployment. I could also collect much more then someone who was just fired from McDonalds so that is definitely not all going to the poor. Medicare is generally available based on age and is available to rich and poor. The poor have a higher tendency to die younger so they are taking less of that chunk too. Same with Social Security. Medicaid is designed for the impoverished so that would help. That 37% also includes labor which I am pretty sure includes corporate subsidies. In other words your interpretation of the data is insane. If, as you suggest, 65% of the budget went to the poor there would be $2 trillion going to the poor every year in addition to whatever state and local governments contribute. That would be $6,289 a person. But it gets better. Only about 40 million Americans are below the poverty line. If they all divided that $2 trillion equally they would get, on average, $50,000 a year. The mean per capita income in the US is around $30,000 a year. In other words, the poor should all be living middle-class lifestyles better then the average working American. Add to that that most of the poor do work and they should be getting the equivalent of 60-65k a year. In other words, your interpretation is insane. OK, it wasn't thoughtless, it was wildly incorrect. You like that better? The fact that Microsoft was in a near monopoly does not erase the fact that they didn't feel inclined to start lobbying until the feds went after them. I will not argue that no regulations should exist, but I will argue that regulatory agencies become captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate, and the major players in those industries are the ones which benefit the most from the regulation in the end. For example, state and federal medical regulatory agencies are practically run by the American Medical Association. This may or may not be a good thing. All I am saying is that regulations are a significant factor in causation of lobbying, and why much corporate money is involved in politics. If you don't like this, then regulation needs to be curbed. Yes, you're right that not all SocSec, unemployment, Medicare and so on don't go to the poor, but do you know how much of it goes to corporations? You clearly don't know. My interpretation of the data is insane? What do you call your $50 vs $800 figure? It was so egregiously out of whack that I called CFR on it, and the CFR is still in effect. You haven't answered it, I notice, so I suspect you can't. Your "pretty sure includes corporate subsidies" doesn't qualify. The 37% in the budget does NOT mean that 65% of the federal budget goes to the poor. It means that 65% of federal money is spent on programs for the poor -- and coming up on age 65 like I am, you better believe that Social Security is for the poor, because due to my failure to provide better for my retirement means that I am going to be depending upon SS far more than I would like. What that 65% means is NOT that they take 2 trillion dollars and divide it up between 40 million people -- it means that they hire 100,000 federal bureaucrats (guessing) and pay them $80,000 per year to administer the programs, and what's left over after expenses goes to the poor.
mnn727 Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: three points 1. When did I say raising the minimum wage will bring people out of poverty? Poverty and Starvation are not the same thing. 2. Why are you so sure that raising the minimum wage is a bad idea? I am not 100% certain, but you seem to be 3. So do you agree that other intelligent people disagree with you? There are economists and business owners that don't agree with you. I've been through many raises of the minimum wage, there are more people in poverty now then when I started working and minimum wage was $1.65. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. 1
The Nehor Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 4 hours ago, longview said: Not what I said. I was saying Obama gave hundreds of millions to Solyndra (solar panel manufacturer) to make it a "winner" but it blew up in his face (example of Socialism failing). Also that Obama is making a loser out of the coal industry. Which is very easy to do when you put the weight of the Federal government against it. There is plenty of "cronyism" on both sides of the aisle. Giving government money to a corporation is not "socialism". If you think I imagine that the Democratic Party is some pristine example of pure beauty then you are wrong. 4 hours ago, longview said: Leftist talking point. Also factually correct and very dangerous. Last time it got this wide we got the Great Depression. 4 hours ago, longview said: Conservative taking point. I would rather have churches and private foundations provide welfare than have government dole it out without personal interaction and sober assessment of diligence and accountability. We have these people called "social workers". You might have heard of them. 4 hours ago, longview said: You hear stories about immigrants come into this country with pennies in their pockets and work hard and gain wonderful success. Such as Vietnamese and Koreans who buy food out in the country and sell them on street corners. They persist and eventually get to the point of opening their own small grocery store. Nothing too idealistic and certainly not impracticable. The sad truth is too many American "citizens" have grown very complacent and give in to the carnal security (narcotic) of government "safety nets." There are exceptional cases of rags to riches stories. They are relatively rare. Joseph in the Bible went from slave to royal vizier. Should we therefore assume that slaves in the United States were lazy and all had the opportunity to become Vice-President if they just tried harder. You also mentioned that you are going to have to rely on social security more then you should have. Does that make you part of the problem? 4 hours ago, longview said: I have already stated that Capitalism is NEITHER good or evil. But that self reliance, personal accountability, vigorous work ethic, etc, are worthy attributes. Yes, you should "giggle" with delight that you live in such an amazing country with its Constitution ("A Heavenly Banner") that enables greater prosperity than anything man has done in all of previous history. Keep in mind that Socialism is VERY incompatible with Constitutional precepts. You may want to check the numbers before you talk about greatest prosperity on earth whether you mean happiness or wealth per person. Social Security is a mild form of socialism. So is Medicare and Medicaid. Are you arguing they should be struck down in the Courts? 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: OK, it wasn't thoughtless, it was wildly incorrect. You like that better? Yes, even though you are still wrong. 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: The fact that Microsoft was in a near monopoly does not erase the fact that they didn't feel inclined to start lobbying until the feds went after them. True, but I think given the choice between monopolized industries and competing industries with lobbyists we are better off with the latter. Capitalists generally agree that monopolies are toxic. 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: I will not argue that no regulations should exist, but I will argue that regulatory agencies become captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate, and the major players in those industries are the ones which benefit the most from the regulation in the end. For example, state and federal medical regulatory agencies are practically run by the American Medical Association. This may or may not be a good thing. All I am saying is that regulations are a significant factor in causation of lobbying, and why much corporate money is involved in politics. If you don't like this, then regulation needs to be curbed. Neither are good. The lesser evil is lobbying businesses trying to control regulations because they are checked to a degree by the political process. Unregulated industries have no checks. 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: Yes, you're right that not all SocSec, unemployment, Medicare and so on don't go to the poor, but do you know how much of it goes to corporations? You clearly don't know. My interpretation of the data is insane? What do you call your $50 vs $800 figure? It was so egregiously out of whack that I called CFR on it, and the CFR is still in effect. You haven't answered it, I notice, so I suspect you can't. Your "pretty sure includes corporate subsidies" doesn't qualify. The 37% in the budget does NOT mean that 65% of the federal budget goes to the poor. It means that 65% of federal money is spent on programs for the poor -- and coming up on age 65 like I am, you better believe that Social Security is for the poor, because due to my failure to provide better for my retirement means that I am going to be depending upon SS far more than I would like. What that 65% means is NOT that they take 2 trillion dollars and divide it up between 40 million people -- it means that they hire 100,000 federal bureaucrats (guessing) and pay them $80,000 per year to administer the programs, and what's left over after expenses goes to the poor. No, I pointed out that all the money does not go to the poor nor even a substantial amount of it. You counter with the anecdote you are supposedly poor therefore it all goes to the poor. Logic this does not make. My conclusion was an estimate because that is all we have. The problem is that the number is very difficult to calculate because a lot of it is tax exemption where corporations pay less taxes due to Congress giving them this tax relief. It is very well hidden. For good reason. People on the Right and the Left would scream unholy hell if the problem got enough visibility. Good way for politicians and lobbyists to hide don't you think?
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 2 hours ago, mnn727 said: I've been through many raises of the minimum wage, there are more people in poverty now then when I started working and minimum wage was $1.65. LOL of course Here is a respected nonpartisan website http://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/romneys-poverty-points/ "Mitt Romney said that under President Obama “there are more people in poverty in America than ever before.” That’s true, but the poverty rate — which accounts for population changes — was higher under several former presidents than it is currently."
Stargazer Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: No, I pointed out that all the money does not go to the poor nor even a substantial amount of it. You counter with the anecdote you are supposedly poor therefore it all goes to the poor. Logic this does not make. I was joking, sort of. And I was pointing out the same thing, in case you missed the turn. I was trying to say that most of the money supposedly devoted to the poor is eaten up in administration. It appears you might agree. 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: My conclusion was an estimate because that is all we have. The problem is that the number is very difficult to calculate because a lot of it is tax exemption where corporations pay less taxes due to Congress giving them this tax relief. It is very well hidden. For good reason. People on the Right and the Left would scream unholy hell if the problem got enough visibility. Good way for politicians and lobbyists to hide don't you think? Well, your figures were quite certain and fairly exact. $50 vs $800 you said. Or were you just exaggerating for effect? It didn't sound like it. So, you can't meet the CFR, therefore I can consider this a retraction? You know, Nehor, sometimes you make a helluva lot of sense. But on this topic you're not making a lot of it. In my humble opinion.
The Nehor Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 42 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I was joking, sort of. And I was pointing out the same thing, in case you missed the turn. I was trying to say that most of the money supposedly devoted to the poor is eaten up in administration. It appears you might agree. Well, your figures were quite certain and fairly exact. $50 vs $800 you said. Or were you just exaggerating for effect? It didn't sound like it. So, you can't meet the CFR, therefore I can consider this a retraction? You know, Nehor, sometimes you make a helluva lot of sense. But on this topic you're not making a lot of it. In my humble opinion. The numbers came from basic calculations I ran. You can consider it a retraction if you want but it isn't. Of course without hard data being available I cannot substantiate it completely due to issues I already discussed but I am convinced it is close. In comparison to your unsubstantiated assertion that over half the US federal budget is spent on welfare for the poor and welfare administration costs everything I have said has been totally sane and reasonable. Can I demand a CFR on your lunacy too and force you to retract it?
Recommended Posts