Obama Allows Holder to Assert Executive Privilege on Fast and Furious

a reply to: Aazadan

You say you want conservatives from any party. My assertion is that limiting it to just conservatives means you actually want a 1 party system so give me a counterpoint and explain the substantive difference in the stance on gun control between hypothetical conservative members of the Green, Democrat, Republican, Constitution, and Libertarian parties?

That would be an interesting opinion proffered by all of those parties, I myself am somewhat of a constitutional kind of a person, it is there to protect the citizen and in todays world we need all the protections we can get.I tend to look at things from a personal level, and from the founders point of view. They were profoundly intelligent people, and created documents of immense proportions. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what they all thought about gun control. Everytime I think I understand their thinking something like Fast & Furious comes along and it is all thrown out the window. Most of all gun control issues stem from an emotional based stance by liberal thinking people with an ulterior motives.Which of course spawns an entirely different conversation.

But I will offer my opinion. I have no issues with background checks, I wouldn't even mind required training. I say use a gun during a crime go to jail and it wouldn't be a short trip. Useless you have serious mental issues, or are criminal you should have the right to own a gun, any gun. I have more experience with firearms than most people would get in 5 lifetimes. It is incredibly rare for a honest citizen to commit a crime with a gun, statistics prove that, and to think legislating the honest citizen is going to stop the criminal is pure fantasy. To blame firearms for crime is to blame car crashes on cars.

While I'm enjoying this, these replies are getting too long so I'm going to start paraphrasing, we shouldn't need two posts to contain a reply.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
No I was referring to current protest and tiananmen square. They have no hope of success with protesting but yet the endure

Is that the system you want though? One party in control with a bunch of ineffectual protest?

is conservatism not a character trait?

I think it's more of a political classification like Republican or Democrat or Liberal. If it's something you can identify with and vote party line based on that I think it's a problem. For example do you agree with every single conservative stance without question? Reagans stance was to raise taxes 7 times, that's not a very conservative line but it's what he took and what the party ultimately allowed.

Reagan less conservative than Obama? Reagan was much more conservative than Obama on social issues, and hugely more conservative on economic issues.

The first number is their position on the left/right spectrum the second number is authoritarian/libertarian. Going by that compass Obama is equally conservative to Reagan and slightly more of an Authoritarian. There is an alternative number for Reagan (people can't seem to agree) that places him at 7, 7 which makes him more Authoritarian than Obama and slightly more conservative (equal to Romney). What you're seeing is that the country has moved very far to the right, our left is to the right of most countries right wingers... they are hardly liberal (minus the MSNBC crowd). Even Romney was considered one of the more leftist Republicans and was chosen because it was felt he was close enough to center to unite the moderates. By these definitions center is at Reagan or to the right of Reagan (depending on which score you want to use). We lean very far right already, it's hardly a leftist paradise.

All I see from Obama is the standard left approach to everything.

I don't. I see a president who has been very kind to banks, greatly expanded domestic security, used a very pro industry health care bill that guarantees corporate customers (incidentally, it's basically the Heritage plan which even McCain promoted in his presidential bid in 2008), a president who has implemented virtually everything Romney said he would do as president, a lack in implementing social safety nets, and he has even lowered taxes on the so called job creators. Is he as far right as the Tea Party? No, but they are extreme right and as I pointed out above even Reagan looks left to them by policy.

He has created a economic dichotomy of immense proportion in the US trying to level a playing field that will never be level.

I don't think he has done this at all, education costs to better yourself are spiraling out of control, welfare programs are considerably less generous per person than under Bush (or anyone before him), the super rich pay the lowest tax rate they've ever paid, and the wealth gap has done nothing but grow under Obama's reign of terror. The wealth gap alone proves that he is not leveling the playing field.

My definition of a "low information voter" is someone who requires the media to determine their opinion.

I think of it as someone who picks a political team and follows their policy much the same way people follow a sports team they're a fan of. It's someone to root for and to support in order for them to win. The truth of the matter in ability means very little. These people tend to limit themselves to the one viewpoint/solution of their particular party and don't weigh the merits of alternative ideas, being close minded. A true low information situation.

That would be an interesting opinion proffered by all of those parties, I myself am somewhat of a constitutional kind of a person, it is there to protect the citizen and in todays world we need all the protections we can get.I tend to look at things from a personal level, and from the founders point of view. They were profoundly intelligent people, and created documents of immense proportions. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what they all thought about gun control. Everytime I think I understand their thinking something like Fast & Furious comes along and it is all thrown out the window. Most of all gun control issues stem from an emotional based stance by liberal thinking people with an ulterior motives.Which of course spawns an entirely different conversation.

My take on guns would even have the NRA saying I'm crazy with what I believe we should have access to. I take the second amendment to mean that the arms gap between the citizen and the state is to be kept as minimal as possible. Such a thing hasn't been the case since the early 50's however. But what I'm asking is what would the difference in those groups opinions be? I think that because they're all conservative they would all agree on the issue having few if any differences, which means that conservative is the only effective party there on that issue. You can then extrapolate this to other issues and see that if everyone is conservative all of their opinions are the same, regardless of party. I don't see that as a diverse political environment where ideas can be debated and multiple viewpoints can have representation.

a reply to: Aazadan

I think it's more of a political classification like Republican or Democrat or Liberal. If it's something you can identify with and vote party line based on that I think it's a problem. For example do you agree with every single conservative stance without question? Reagan's stance was to raise taxes 7 times, that's not a very conservative line but it's what he took and what the party ultimately allowed.

Reagan knew where the money was he lowered the capital gains rate allowing investment to grow creating jobs. I was around for this it worked, I made good money in my company then, never after. Out of the 7 times he raised taxes only two were for income on the highest earners the rest were gas, booze, cigs, telephone, etc.

lol..now your testing this old mans memory. Not currently no. The current stance on immigration is completely ridiculous. Amnesty, dream act, all done at the expense of hard working Americans. Just look at the mess we have going now. Immigration has been placed on the front burner by the administration and the MSM, when it shouldn't even be on the stove with the VA scandal present. Why don't we quit trying to help the world and help our own. I have a lot of issues with republicans, for me this isn't party based, it is people based. As I said I want the concept regardless of party. For some reason republican party on the surface appears to be more conservative but it frustrates me. I don't get the lie perpetuated by the republicans that the president over spends while they have the checkbook. It could be the problem in part because the MSM feeds the public a bad impression of congress not willing to work with the POTUS. But they should hold their ground and not let us go into such debt. They need to do whats right instead of what their perception is based on what the MSM says. When you dance to that fiddle the song never changes. I don't see Obama wanting to work with republicans unless you count his speeches claiming the republicans aren't willing to work with him. Instead of golfing, go to the house, invite them over, work it out create a plan, instead of whining.

Reagan less conservative than Obama? Reagan was much more conservative than Obama on social issues, and hugely more conservative on economic issues.

The first number is their position on the left/right spectrum the second number is authoritarian/libertarian. Going by that compass Obama is equally conservative to Reagan and slightly more of an Authoritarian. There is an alternative number for Reagan (people can't seem to agree) that places him at 7, 7 which makes him more Authoritarian than Obama and slightly more conservative (equal to Romney). What you're seeing is that the country has moved very far to the right, our left is to the right of most countries right wingers... they are hardly liberal (minus the MSNBC crowd). Even Romney was considered one of the more leftist Republicans and was chosen because it was felt he was close enough to center to unite the moderates. By these definitions center is at Reagan or to the right of Reagan (depending on which score you want to use). We lean very far right already, it's hardly a leftist paradise.

I am not sure I agree with who created this numbering system.

It seems we really need to separate the economic and social to better describe the two. Do you think Reagan would have resigned the Patriot act, supported the NSA monitoring at today's levels, ignored due process, and changed ACA 40 times without congressional involvement? I think Obama is more of an Authoritarian than Reagan, threatening to use pen and phone, all fall under liberal philosophy because to do these things requires a much larger government. JUst look at Obama Care, how many IRS people are required?

Pg 1

a reply to: MarlinGrace

All I see from Obama is the standard left approach to everything.

I don't. I see a president who has been very kind to banks, greatly expanded domestic security, used a very pro industry health care bill that guarantees corporate customers (incidentally, it's basically the Heritage plan which even McCain promoted in his presidential bid in 2008), a president who has implemented virtually everything Romney said he would do as president, a lack in implementing social safety nets, and he has even lowered taxes on the so called job creators. Is he as far right as the Tea Party? No, but they are extreme right and as I pointed out above even Reagan looks left to them by policy.

I was never a McCain or Romney fan, neither is really conservative, only posers. Unfortunately most politicians talk a good game, get into office then do something different leaving the constituents wondering where the candidate went. In the beginning I took the stance since everyone was ticked off at Obama Care including insurance companies, maybe it was a good thing, but now with its implementation I have yet to meet someone that isn't getting screwed. I said in a post the other day even my housekeepers insurance for her and her son has tripled the look on her face is hurt not anger. It's a hard life she has chosen for a single mom at 28. I think she is going to go without.

I am not a Tea Party member but you're are pushing me in that direction. Have you looked at there platform page?
Tea Party Platform
I didn't realize there are so many Tea Parties. How could you argue with that? Specifically #9. Again anytime you take from one person and give to another this ruins incentive, and productivity. I realize there are some that genuinely need the help, but we are so far past common sense in terms of money spent and wasted it is insane and has only gotten worse under Obama. Maybe not on per person as you claim I haven't checked the numbers but total we are very far ahead. When your government runs ads for food stamps WIC and snap along with other free things that is as they say over the top. Since when does a government advertise to give away money? Maybe we should ask in spanish.

He has created a economic dichotomy of immense proportion in the US trying to level a playing field that will never be level.

I don't think he has done this at all, education costs to better yourself are spiraling out of control, welfare programs are considerably less generous per person than under Bush (or anyone before him), the super rich pay the lowest tax rate they've ever paid, and the wealth gap has done nothing but grow under Obama's reign of terror. The wealth gap alone proves that he is not leveling the playing field.

In simpler terms how do you tell one group of earners we want to take more, but keep working and investing to build the economy? For what, so they can give it that away to?

Education cost, now theres something we are getting the shaft on. The useless son in law took all these classes, money to the tune of 45K, mom cosigned and he only went for 3 weeks. Now guess who makes the payments? Our(her) huge mistake, and government help is non existent at her level of income. Getting this monkey off our soon to retired neck will cost us some serious money. While the whole time he claims parents should pay for their childrens education. We have fallen in between the cracks for all of the new loan programs that have become available. This is what pisses of the worker bees in the US, every program, subsidy, tax break, program, never includes the ones that make it all possible.

It is amazing the the "Super Rich" pay lass in terms or rates but continue to pay the most into the system. We have a very skewed system however, most of the time the rate everyone expounds is the capitol Gains rate which is much different than the highest rate with AGI. But it is ironic Obama makes speeches about the wealthy not paying their fair share and apparently is doing nothing about it. The worker bees in this house paid just over 1/3 of their income in taxes. Just under 48K. Now if you include property, fuel, food, clothing, transportation, taxes etc. etc. Easily 1/2 to 60%. We definitely pay our fair share and then some. Both parties are at fault. There doesn't appear to be any conservatives in DC when it comes to taxes.


My definition of a "low information voter" is someone who requires the media to determine their opinion.

I think of it as someone who picks a political team and follows their policy much the same way people follow a sports team they're a fan of. It's someone to root for and to support in order for them to win. The truth of the matter in ability means very little. These people tend to limit themselves to the one viewpoint/solution of their particular party and don't weigh the merits of alternative ideas, being close minded. A true low information situation.

It takes involvement to be a sports fan, and little intelligence at the same time to discern if the team is properly playing or not. You have to be able to recognise a proper play. Instead we see cheerleaders standing on the sideline cheering over something they know nothing about perpetuating the same lie over and over again.

My take on guns would even have the NRA saying I'm crazy with what I believe we should have access to. I take the second amendment to mean that the arms gap between the citizen and the state is to be kept as minimal as possible. Such a thing hasn't been the case since the early 50's however. But what I'm asking is what would the difference in those groups opinions be? I think that because they're all conservative they would all agree on the issue having few if any differences, which means that conservative is the only effective party there on that issue. You can then extrapolate this to other issues and see that if everyone is conservative all of their opinions are the same, regardless of party. I don't see that as a diverse political environment where ideas can be debated and multiple viewpoints can have representation.

Who cares what anyones opinion is either republican or democrat. The 2nd amendment isn't negoticable. Instead they do underhanded things like deciding a certain gun is now illegal and if you dont as an honest citizen register it then you now meet the requirements to be a felon. CT is a great example they now have 300,000 honest citizens now considered felons, and not a one ever did anything wrong. Do this sound conservative to you?

The number one thing that pissed me off about reagan was the Brady Bill.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

I was never a McCain or Romney fan, neither is really conservative, only posers. Unfortunately most politicians talk a good game, get into office then do something different leaving the constituents wondering where the candidate went.

McCain I'll give you, 4 years prior to him being the nomination people wanted to kick him out of the party or make him a Democrat. 4 years prior to that he was again nearly the president. Currently McCain is to the right... in the end though the man is primarily a centrist who just moves where the political winds blow. Partisianship is so high lately that he can't do what he's good at which is reaching across the aisle and instead he repeats far right mantras. In the past 6 years he has become everything he spent a career fighting against. Romney though is very conservative, if Romney looks center or left to you I have to ask... what is your view of conservative? I get the impression that you're super far to the right.

I said in a post the other day even my housekeepers insurance for her and her son has tripled the look on her face is hurt not anger. It's a hard life she has chosen for a single mom at 28. I think she is going to go without.

Originally I supported Obamacare because it's better than the previous system... now I'm not so sure. Costs have gone up which ultimately makes health care less affordable but the idea itself is still solid. We have seen the system work, ultimately I agree with the attempt even if it ends in failure because the previous system was not viable.

I am not a Tea Party member but you're are pushing me in that direction. Have you looked at there platform page?

I have, and I disagree with much of it. I don't think Tea Party members are bad people or anything but I think they're the quintessential low information voter these days. They campaign for certain policies without understanding the underlying mechanics behind them and why things work the way they do. For example wanting to eliminate the national debt. This is very bad fiscal policy. I think they have some good points in other areas like securing the border and eliminating the deficit, and I support them saying whatever they want, but I ultimately disagree with their platform.

Specifically #9. Again anytime you take from one person and give to another this ruins incentive, and productivity. I realize there are some that genuinely need the help, but we are so far past common sense in terms of money spent and wasted it is insane and has only gotten worse under Obama.

Welfare is a weird thing, if you give a person only subsistence level help they can never really get off the system, but if you give them too much they have no incentive to work. What I would prefer is more help given per person but a time limit placed on that help based on local economic conditions. I would also place a requirement that if you're laid off you either get assistance to relocate to where the jobs are or you get assistance with a retraining program for local work. The ultimate goal of all of these programs should be to get someone back into the work force but it shouldn't necessarily be unpleasant while you do so of course it shouldn't pay for many luxuries either. Corporate welfare simply needs to go, and that ultimately means cutting benefits for people that are already working (can shift them from rental and food assistance subsidizing wages to job retraining).

Maybe not on per person as you claim I haven't checked the numbers but total we are very far ahead. When your government runs ads for food stamps WIC and snap along with other free things that is as they say over the top. Since when does a government advertise to give away money? Maybe we should ask in spanish.

A large part of the increase is due to the economy never recovering. We're more or less in the great depression economically. More people keep entering welfare programs and the amount per person has gone down. I myself am on these programs for what I hope is temporary and in the time I've been on them I've seen food stamps decline from $250/month to $125/month with no change in income, and those food stamps buy less. Advertising to illegals to come get their welfare may be distasteful but ultimately it's a good move. Food stamps reduce crime by more than they cost. If the illegals are here it's in our interest for them to be more docile than for them to break into homes so they don't go hungry.

In general however our welfare system is woefully inadequete. Unless you get disability the only way to cover housing is to pop out kids. If you don't have children the only thing you can get is food assistance, which doesn't exactly help you get a job and become productive again.

In simpler terms how do you tell one group of earners we want to take more, but keep working and investing to build the economy? For what, so they can give it that away to?

The idea is that under progressive tax systems, those that have more disposable income pay higher taxes. The opposite is a regressive system where everyone pays equally. On one hand you can look at it as taking money from those who have the most to invest but at the same time those people aren't larger consumers by any significant amount. They buy the same number of pillows, sheets, clothes, and everything else. Simultaneously their investment dollars are being sought in worldwide competition so they're not even guaranteed to reinvest into the US. The best investors in a poor economy are those on the bottom because everything they get is respent into the economy creating activity/profit/taxes. The best people to actually grow the economy are the middle class because they have the collateral for business loans but are still in the spend most of the money phase. Catering to the wealthy only harms the economy.

Education cost, now theres something we are getting the shaft on. The useless son in law took all these classes, money to the tune of 45K, mom cosigned and he only went for 3 weeks. Now guess who makes the payments?

Part of this is the cost of college is going out of control. We never should have created government loans, especially loans that ANYONE qualifies for. It has only increased the cost of college. On top of that, many people simply pick the wrong schools. The school I'm attending right now so that I can hopefully be productive in the future only costs me $6500/year (conveniently exactly what my Pell Grant covers) and has the 4th best program of it's type in the country. Attending a major university is a massive mistake and the loan situation is awful. In just this year I've been offered over $70,000 in unsecured loans with very little income, and no real projected income for the next few years. The system is busted, no responsible entity should be doing that, and because they do colleges raise tuition to capture that money.

This is what pisses of the worker bees in the US, every program, subsidy, tax break, program, never includes the ones that make it all possible.

The point of a subsidy is for those who can't afford it on the backs of those who can... usually with the goal of making more who can afford it in the future (think of it as giving back for being successful). Tax breaks are largely our own fault, we have this mentality in the country of giving the tax breaks to the super wealthy yet they're the ones who least need them. The middle class is where tax breaks should be focused.

It is amazing the the "Super Rich" pay lass in terms or rates but continue to pay the most into the system.

That's because they own so much more than everyone else. If you own 50% of the wealth and pay a tax rate of 10%, 5% of the wealth is confiscated in taxes. If your percentage of the wealth increases to 75% however but your tax rate drops to 7% 5.25% of total wealth is confiscated in taxes. Similarly in order to match that 5.25% taken from the remaining 25% their taxes must be 21%... 4x higher. The total wealth numbers are off but that's generally what we're seeing in the economy today. The tax rates on the wealthy continue to decline while their share of the total increases which creates a huge gap.

But it is ironic Obama makes speeches about the wealthy not paying their fair share and apparently is doing nothing about it.

He can't do anything about it, he can try and direct conversation and policy in that direction but ultimately any legislation of this nature needs to come from the House which is owned by a party where every member has taken a pledge to never increase taxes on anybody for any reason, ever and will even veto a proposed tax decrease if it's not from their party just to make sure nothing gets done. That said, this is just an excuse I don't think Obama would do anything about it even if he were in a position to do so, he's a fan of trickle down economics which is the cause of this mess in the first place.

The worker bees in this house paid just over 1/3 of their income in taxes. Just under 48K. Now if you include property, fuel, food, clothing, transportation, taxes etc. etc. Easily 1/2 to 60%. We definitely pay our fair share and then some.

Everyone pays a lot, I would love to only pay 60%. I currently get disability, one of the neat facts about disability is $1 gets taken from me for every $2 I earn, essentially a 50% tax rate. On top of that I pay the typical 25% in state/local/federal taxes, but I pay that on the full value before anything is taken. What this works out to is that when I earn $1 from work I pay 25 cents in taxes and have an additional 50 cents taken. So I only get 25 cents of every dollar earned. From that 25 cents I then pay regressive taxes like sales tax and gas tax. Fortunately I'm too poor to pay property tax.

It takes involvement to be a sports fan, and little intelligence at the same time to discern if the team is properly playing or not. You have to be able to recognise a proper play. Instead we see cheerleaders standing on the sideline cheering over something they know nothing about perpetuating the same lie over and over again.

It takes the same involvement to be a sports fan or a political fan. Just listen to the TV that's showing the appropriate program. The announcers will point important plays out to you, just like the TV hosts will let you know when to get offended politically.

Who cares what anyones opinion is either republican or democrat.

Because it goes back to the whole point of this exchange there's one or at best two conservative solutions to any issue. A party is defined by the scope of liberal/conservative/authoritarian/libertarian stances it takes across a myriad of issues. An all conservative government is a 1 party government.

CT is a great example they now have 300,000 honest citizens now considered felons, and not a one ever did anything wrong. Do this sound conservative to you?

If your cell phone seeks out and connects to open wifi you're also a felon.

a reply to: Aazadan

I have to tell you I am enjoying the hell out of this education, but I am sorry I can't be as fast. I have construction going here, and running two separate businesses as well, thats why it takes a couple of days sometimes.

I will get back though. You have given me a lot to digest.

a reply to: Aazadan

McCain I'll give you, 4 years prior to him being the nomination people wanted to kick him out of the party or make him a Democrat. 4 years prior to that he was again nearly the president. Currently McCain is to the right... in the end though the man is primarily a centrist who just moves where the political winds blow. Partisianship is so high lately that he can't do what he's good at which is reaching across the aisle and instead he repeats far right mantras. In the past 6 years he has become everything he spent a career fighting against. Romney though is very conservative, if

Romney looks center or left to you I have to ask... what is your view of conservative? I get the impression that you're super far to the right.

I don't know if I am far right or not, conservative isn't a label for me presay it's really a common sense idea that I judge things by, the problem becomes when you judge things in life by your lifes experiences. Mine have been great, filled with hard work, successes along the way, and setbacks as well. But I never let anything the government was doing or saying influence the things I did work wise or business wise. I remained flexible and was still always able to make a buck. As I have said in another post I have seen many people from other countries come here and make it, and make it big. I started turning a deaf ear to the poor me people who were the first ones the media trotted out to say I need more. I know people that have walked 100's of miles to escape their communist countries, came here penniless worked for tips and now own a business like they started at. Amazing stories, really no BS. I was always
interested in the how and why, their views, history, and their countries of origin.
What I could learn for the cost of lunch.


Originally I supported Obamacare because it's better than the previous system... now I'm not so sure. Costs have gone up which ultimately makes health care less affordable but the idea itself is still solid. We have seen the system work,
ultimately I agree with the attempt even if it ends in failure because the previous system was not viable.

I never supported Obama Care and thats why I thought Romney was left of center for his health care plan. I have yet to meet anyone where the system works. I don't agree with the idea that if it fails it was worth the attempt. We are already at 2 billion in Government advertising, and a horrible website. Government Advertising!! If the frigg'in health care plan is so great no advertising is necessary. They take our money pass very bad legislation, then take more of our money and advertise the same legislation to back us. Anyone see anything wrong with that? And I am a right winger?

This right or left kind of stupid can only be elected.

I have yet to see the government successful at anything they get their hands on. From local DMV's to to Federal anything programs or depart of this or that. They take 10 times more than they need and provide 10 times less in service. I got married last new years and the wife had to change her last name, which required a trip to the SS
office, 1st trip was search, take name and projected 2 hours. After an hour a Security knucklehead came out and rifled her purse to find the smallest swiss Army knife I bought her for the toothpick and tweezers. They kicked her back to the car losing her place and starting over. The knife has to be 2 inches in length. We have lost our minds. Between the IRS and SS we just got it straightened out after 7 months. If the VA isn't a shining example of what to expect nothing is. BTW there was no signs about any of this at the SS office.


I am not a Tea Party member but you're are pushing me in that direction. Have youlooked at there platform page?

I have, and I disagree with much of it. I don't think Tea Party members are bad people or anything but I think they're the quintessential low information voter these days. They campaign for certain policies without understanding the underlying mechanics behind them and why things work the way they do. For example wanting to eliminate the national debt. This is very bad fiscal policy. I think they have some good points in other areas like securing the border and eliminating the deficit, and I support them saying whatever they want, but I ultimately disagree with their
platform.

This is one of those places where I use the common sense, why is it we don't expect the government of the people and by the people etc. etc. to have to operate they way we do? Could you or I operate if our spending habits were anywhere remotely close to the way Federal Government spends money? I not saying to those levels just the concept. The point being they have no concept isn't that obvious with 17 trillion dollar debt? I don't think 17 trillion is something anyone can really grasp even with all of those clever things added up we recognize, don't work. What does 1 trillion dollars end to end add up to? 380 trips around the world at the equator. Does anyone really get that?

Pg 1

a reply to: MarlinGrace

We will never agree on eliminating the debt and that being bad policy. What's the worst that could happen, we can't offer bonds anymore? Bonds are our investment hedge against SS cost etc. It's laughable. The same people over spending our money extravagantly are the ones using paper as a note for anyone to buy/borrow against. Again I ask does anyone see anything wrong with this? With their spending habits we have never been out of debt since the inception of the Fed. That was the year 1913. The major problem is the left uses the money for programs and giveaways that buy votes, both sides do it. The public is held hostage to either the dependency of free money of voting favors purchased through programs, and business favors.


Welfare is a weird thing, if you give a person only subsistence level help they can never really get off the system, but if you give them too much they have no incentive to work. What I would prefer is more help given per person but a time limit placed on that help based on local economic conditions. I would also place a requirement that if you're laid off you either get assistance to relocate to where the jobs are or you get assistance with a retraining program for local work. The ultimate goal of all of these programs should be to get someone back into the work force but it shouldn't necessarily be unpleasant while you do so of course it shouldn't pay for many luxuries either. Corporate welfare simply needs to go, and that ultimately means cutting benefits for people that are already working (can shift them from rental and food assistance subsidizing wages to job retraining).

I have been very lucky my entire life never really needed any government assistance in any way. The longest I was ever unemployed was 2 weeks when a call came through to come down and talk with the owner of a company that manufacture machines. After that I have been self employed for the rest of my life, over 35 years.


Maybe not on per person as you claim I haven't checked the numbers but total we are very far ahead. When your government runs ads for food stamps WIC and snap along with other free things that is as they say over the top. Since when does a government advertise to give away money? Maybe we should ask in spanish.


A large part of the increase is due to the economy never recovering. We're more or less in the great depression economically. More people keep entering welfare programs and the amount per person has gone down. I myself am on these programs for what I hope is temporary and in the time I've been on them I've seen food stamps decline from $250/month to $125/month with no change in income, and those food stamps buy less. Advertising to illegals to come get their welfare may be distasteful but ultimately it's a good move. Food stamps reduce crime by more than they cost. If the illegals are here it's in our interest for them to be more docile than for them to break into homes so they don't go hungry.

What you're describing is extortion, we advertise to come here illegally, and then we should give them money so they don't become criminal or violent. Why not just give drug dealers, and bank robbers money. The crime rate should drop to nothing. This is skewed thinking to me. I say send them back out of the country. But you're the one who loses more than I do. They don't pull that large of a percentage out of my income pool. The more that illegals that come in, the smaller then entitlement programs become per person. Interesting you would prefer advertising to illegals and having them come here to dilute money to the people here who need it most.

In general however our welfare system is woefully inadequate. Unless you get disability the only way to cover housing is to pop out kids. If you don't have children the only thing you can get is food assistance, which doesn't exactly help you get a job and become productive again.

Wonder how many octo moms there are out there. Funny thing about greed it is never enough. I see she is back in the news again.

The idea is that under progressive tax systems, those that have more disposable income pay higher taxes. The opposite is a regressive system where everyone pays equally. On one hand you can look at it as taking money from those who have the most to invest but at the same time those people aren't larger consumers by any significant amount. They buy the same number of pillows, sheets, clothes, and everything else. Simultaneously their investment dollars are being sought in worldwide competition so they're not even guaranteed to reinvest into the US. The best investors in a poor economy are those on the bottom because everything they get is spent into the economy creating activity/profit/taxes. The best people to actually grow the economy are the middle class because they have the collateral for business loans but are still in the spend most of the money phase. Catering to the wealthy only harms the economy.

You really think the wealthy buy sheets, pillows, clothes etc. like anyone else? I have a few rich peoples houses you need to go to. You are very much mistaken, I know some that have walkin closets as large as a house. They buy more cars, planes, boats, houses, apartments, toys, businesses, than any segment of the population. Who employs the middle class? Let me teach you something else about the rich, they have a saying, the rich uses OPM when investing, constructing, building, even among themselves. OPM (Other Peoples Money) The middle class is struggling like everyone else, if you are trying to create jobs they have to be courted. The middle class is to busy working to make a buck. But this is what I mean by incentives, what incentives do the government offer the middle class to make the step up? None they discourage growth a through taxation burden greater than any other class, the government knows where the greatest source of taxable income comes from. In other words we want you to make money but just enough to pay for the majority of everything in the country.

pg2

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Part of this is the cost of college is going out of control. We never should have created government loans, especially loans that ANYONE qualifies for. It has only increased the cost of college. On top of that, many people simply pick the wrong schools. The school I'm attending right now so that I can hopefully be productive in the future only costs me $6500/year (conveniently exactly what my Pell Grant covers) and has the 4th best program of it's type in the country. Attending a major university is a massive mistake and the loan situation is awful. In just this year I've been offered over $70,000 in unsecured loans with very little income, and no real projected income for the next few years. The system is busted, no responsible entity should be doing that, and because they do colleges raise tuition to capture that money.

I appreciate your honesty but how long is a economy supposed to last when someone gets everything from food to a college education gratis? No wonder the system is woefully inadequate.

The point of a subsidy is for those who can't afford it on the backs of those who can... usually with the goal of making more who can afford it in the future (think of it as giving back for being successful). Tax breaks are largely our own fault, we have this mentality in the country of giving the tax breaks to the super wealthy yet they're the ones who least need them. The middle class is where tax breaks should be focused.

So how much should a person work per week, month, or year to pay for the people on this much assistance?

That's because they own so much more than everyone else. If you own 50% of the wealth and pay a tax rate of 10%, 5% of the wealth is confiscated in taxes. If your percentage of the wealth increases to 75% however but your tax rate drops to 7% 5.25% of total wealth is confiscated in taxes. Similarly in order to match that 5.25% taken from the remaining 25% their taxes must be 21%... 4x higher. The total wealth numbers are off but that's generally what we're seeing in the economy today. The tax rates on the wealthy continue to decline while their share of the total increases which creates a huge gap.

This is what I was trying to say earlier, their highest tax rate is the same for anyone.

This from Wiki..

If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is: of the amount over--
$0 $17,850 10% $0
$17,850 $72,500 $ 1,785.00 + 15% $17,850
$72,500 $146,400 $9,982.50 + 25% $72,500
$146,400 $223,050 $28,457.50 + 28% $146,400
$223,050 $398,350 $49,919.50 + 33% $223,050
$398,350 $450,000 $107,768.50 + 35% $398,350
$450,000 $125,846.00 + 39.6% 450,000

This issue is capital Gains. 15%

He can't do anything about it, he can try and direct conversation and policy in that direction but ultimately any legislation of this nature needs to come from the House which is owned by a party where every member has taken a pledge to never increase taxes on anybody for any reason, ever and will even veto a proposed tax decrease if it's not from their party just to make sure nothing gets done. That said, this is just an excuse I don't think Obama would do anything about it even if he were in a position to do so, he's a fan of trickle down economics which is the cause of this mess in the first place.

Really if it has to come from the house how come Reagan raised taxes? He had Tip Oneal and a democrat congress. And what happened to pen and phone? He has said and proven if congress won't help he will do it on his own. Never mind separation of powers.

Everyone pays a lot, I would love to only pay 60%. I currently get disability, one of the neat facts about disability is $1 gets taken from me for every $2 I earn, essentially a 50% tax rate. On top of that I pay the typical 25% in state/local/federal taxes, but I pay that on the full value before anything is taken. What this works out to is that when I earn $1 from work I pay 25 cents in taxes and have an additional 50 cents taken. So I only get 25 cents of every dollar earned. From that 25 cents I then pay regressive taxes like sales tax and gas tax. Fortunately I'm too poor to pay property tax.

So if I understand it you work, get assistance, and a educational grant? And I thought I was busy.

It takes the same involvement to be a sports fan or a political fan. Just listen to the TV that's showing the appropriate program. The announcers will point important plays out to you, just like the TV hosts will let you know when to get offended politically.

Sports are way to simple compared to politics, everyone knows what a homerun is, how many now what sequestration is? Then you have the idiots like Bob Costas trying to do both.

Who cares what anyones opinion is either republican or democrat.

But this was said in the context of what all of these parties would say about gun control. It doesn't matter what they say, it's in the constitution. That was the point. How many times have I heard Obama Care is the Law get over it. Like they want to rub your nose in it. While we are at it lets ignore the 40 times Obama has changed it without congress. So what they are saying is you have nothing to say about Obama care get over it.

If your cell phone seeks out and connects to open wifi you're also a felon.

Explain please. This sounds interesting.

pg3

I don't know if I am far right or not, conservative isn't a label for me presay it's really a common sense idea that I judge things by, the problem becomes when you judge things in life by your lifes experiences. Mine have been great, filled with hard work, successes along the way, and setbacks as well.

That's great but not everyone has the same experience and sometimes what works for one person doesn't work for another. Trades are a great place to be for example when it comes to employment, they don't require college, pay well, and provide a career path. Not everyone can be in a trade though, and not everyone gets great opportunities. Being able to help out those who have bad luck or make bad decisions is an important part of society in my opinion. The other thing is that society needs people to run cash registers, coffee shops, fast food restaurants, and everything else. If we desire these services we should also see to it that these people have a reasonable life. If we're unwilling to do that, maybe we don't really need those services.

But I never let anything the government was doing or saying influence the things I did work wise or business wise. I remained flexible and was still always able to make a buck.

I'm between jobs right now, I've actually been trying the self employment route lately. Flexability is important, I happen to be a bit of a computer person... I can do virtually anything involving one hardware or software wise but sadly those skills aren't desirable in my area. Recently though I came to the realization that I can sell code snippets, 3d models, and so on online and have been working towards building up a fairly decent sized library of such assets to provide an income.

What I could learn for the cost of lunch.

I'll put it this way, no one in America has it rough when you look at countries like Rwanda, North Korea, and so on things could be so much worse than they are. Perspective is always important on these matters but when you compare us to other developed nations things don't look so good. I'm not for a massive welfare system, like I said before I favor the substantial but temporary route but I don't think the current system does a very good job.

I don't agree with the idea that if it fails it was worth the attempt.

Sometimes we will get things wrong, and sometimes they should be tried because no one has put forward a better idea. Obamacare has ended up being a massive waste of money but it was clearly the popular choice among the population based on just how long it had been proposed for (20 years and successful implementation in one state).

I have yet to see the government successful at anything they get their hands on.

For one, the Post Office. It has absolutely crushed the private sector in efficiency and is overcoming legislation that was specifically designed to kill it (their whole financial crisis). The biggest problem with government offices comes in how we fund them. Budgets operate on a use it or lose it system which encourages annual increases in spending. There are no rewards for coming in under budget only penalties, and there is a real lack of oversight in making things efficient. Note that the Post Office actually has an incentive to manage it's finances and run efficiently.

The point being they have no concept isn't that obvious with 17 trillion dollar debt? I don't think 17 trillion is something anyone can really grasp even with all of those clever things added up we recognize, don't work. What does 1 trillion dollars end to end add up to? 380 trips around the world at the equator. Does anyone really get that?

I do grasp how much 17 trillion is but I happen to be a very mathematical person. Our politicians don't though, even a billion is well beyond casual comprehension to human beings and in government right now a billion dollars is tipping money.

We will never agree on eliminating the debt and that being bad policy. What's the worst that could happen, we can't offer bonds anymore?

It's much worse than that actually. Eliminating the debt would crash the dollar. To governments and banks debt isn't a liability, it's an asset. $17 trillion of debt actually represents faith in the currency, if no one had faith in the dollar they wouldn't buy our bonds and we wouldn't be able to finance that debt. Uncontrolled exponential expansion of the debt like we've had for the past 14 years or so is unquestionably bad but shrinking the debt is bad too. Keeping it stable with a slight annual increase to keep pace with inflation is what we should be doing. Besides that, dollars are debt notes created at interest, for every dollar we pay off of the debt we take $1 permanently out of circulation. According to the most recent M2 figures there is only $11 trillion dollars out there. If we could somehow confiscate every dollar from every bank account on the planet we would still be $6 trillion in debt but no one would have any money to pay the rest of it off.

What you're describing is extortion, we advertise to come here illegally, and then we should give them money so they don't become criminal or violent. Why not just give drug dealers, and bank robbers money. The crime rate should drop to nothing.

I can see how things can look that way but it's basically the cost of public safety. When people have some basic comforts they're much more docile. You know the saying that any country is only 9 meals away from revolution? That scales down to the individual level too... when you can't afford food or shelter crime dramatically increases. As far as the crime rate dropping down to nothing goes, have a look at Norway they practice this and their crime rate is practically nothing. Their prisons are better than the typical low income lifestyle in the US too, of course their tax rate is also stifling. I think there's some sort of happy medium between the two.

I say send them back out of the country. But you're the one who loses more than I do. They don't pull that large of a percentage out of my income pool. The more that illegals that come in, the smaller then entitlement programs become per person. Interesting you would prefer advertising to illegals and having them come here to dilute money to the people here who need it most.

I wholly agree that as things stand right now, we should deport illegals when we find them. I think that long term amnesty of some form is the only solution as distasteful as it is due to the scale of the problem and to eliminate an underclass of worker that only lowers the wages of honest citizens but before such a thing can even be in the conversation we need to put an end to the flow of illegals which means securing the border.

Wonder how many octo moms there are out there. Funny thing about greed it is never enough. I see she is back in the news again.

I think we take the wrong approach here. Studies and real world examples show that the more upward mobility people have the fewer children they have, and they're in better positions in life when they do have them. Our current system gives people just enough to put a roof over their heads but it doesn't really give them a way to build themselves up and join the middle class. Instead the only option left is to have more children because that's just what people do for a myriad of reasons. Beyond the job training programs that I've said I support I think we should cut welfare off after 3 kids, and put diminishing returns on welfare after the second plus the benefits should be temporary, just enough time for the parents to get better skills. Popping out children to collect welfare should not be a lifestyle and we should not allow people to have children and then hold the quality of life of the child against us. That is real extortion.

You really think the wealthy buy sheets, pillows, clothes etc. like anyone else? I have a few rich peoples houses you need to go to. You are very much mistaken, I know some that have walkin closets as large as a house. They buy more cars, planes, boats, houses, apartments, toys, businesses, than any segment of the population.

They consume more but they don't consume proportionally to their income. Compare the consumption of 200 people making $50,000, 100 people making $100,000, 10 people making $1,000,000 and 1 person making $10,000,000. The 200 people making $50,000 all combine to be a much larger consumer as a group despite the total volume of money being the same in all instances. To put it another way the person making 10 million dollars might be buying 20x the clothes, cars, boats, and so on but they certainly aren't consuming 200x more goods.

Who employs the middle class?

The people who goto the business they work at and purchase their goods and services. Namely, the poor and other middle class. Without those people spending their money, the volume of work rapidly diminishes.

I appreciate your honesty but how long is a economy supposed to last when someone gets everything from food to a college education gratis? No wonder the system is woefully inadequate.

People currently don't. I get my education fully covered provided I keep my educational costs quite low but I'm also in the bottom 0.5% of income in the US and perhaps even lower than that. The ones that get federal education assistance these days are the ones who are more or less dirt poor, to put things in perspective if my income doubled I would still be under 15k/year but I would gain enough to cover all of my education out of pocket with modest living, which there's nothing wrong with. If you have an income above the poverty line you're expected to instead take loans.

The whole problem here arises from the fact that college loans are predatory, by federal law they are illegal due to oppressive terms but because the government hands them out, they gave themselves an exception. The loans have created a system designed to make the recipients default and they've also created a culture where people don't look at the cost of their education... people should shop around for better college deals but the system of “free” money for college has caused people to not care about education costs much like the system of insurance (for those that have it) has caused people to not care about billing rates for doctors and hospitals.

So how much should a person work per week, month, or year to pay for the people on this much assistance?

Good question, I don't really know to be honest. I do know however that benefits need to scale by region. I live in a low cost of living area, the financial needs of people around here are not the same as people in NYC for example.

This issue is capital Gains. 15%

Correct, capital gains are the entire problem. In theory they're a good idea as it makes sense to not tax already earned money a second time. In practice however we've created loopholes that allow for capital gains to be the primary method of compensation and even income generation.

Really if it has to come from the house how come Reagan raised taxes? He had Tip Oneal and a democrat congress. And what happened to pen and phone? He has said and proven if congress won't help he will do it on his own. Never mind separation of powers.

Reagan also had blue dog Democrats, people were much more willing to reach across the aisle and work together. Things weren't perfect but Reagan had a much more moderate political climate, or so I've read.

So if I understand it you work, get assistance, and a educational grant? And I thought I was busy.

Correct, although I don't work too many hours, I'm unable to. Besides my disability which limits how much I can physically work the current system actually punishes you for attempting any work at all (any work can kick you off of disability) so attempting to work harder and be productive actually threatens the roof over my head. In the past to avoid Pell Grants and other help I even went homeless so I could put what would be rent money towards tuition but I gave in after homelessness was criminalized in my town as an arrest record will only hurt me in the long run. That former lifestyle isn't something I really enjoy the thought of going back to either.

Because of this I wouldn't really call myself busy... I have to focus on having fewer higher productivity hours, I'm a full time student and work 10-15 hours per week plus my attempt at self employment which I'm able to roll into my studies (but it also means I earn no income for it yet). I maintain a 4.0 GPA and do additional work outside of class plus a part time job but I certainly don't think of myself as busy. Busy people don't have the time to sit and read forums like this or think about politics nearly as much as I do. My goal is to be self employed before I graduate. Who knows how that will work out though, the job market being what it is I could end up at the cash register of a McDonalds... work is certainly not guaranteed in my field, it's actually one of the most competitive fields there is, which is a big part of why I'm still in school.

Explain please. This sounds interesting.

It has to do with the network access laws in the country, accessing an open network without the permission of the owner is still considered unauthorized network access which is a felony just the same as it's still a crime to enter a residence that has an unlocked or open door. At a coffee shop where wifi is provided for customers you're probably safe even though the owners intent is for it to be customer only but if you for example go on a walk around the neighborhood and your phone connects to a persons unprotected wifi network you're committing a crime.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Wonder how many octo moms there are out there. Funny thing about greed it is never enough. I see she is back in the news again.

Studies and real world examples show that the more upward mobility people have the fewer children they have, and they're in better positions in life when they do have them. Our current system gives people just enough to put a roof over their heads but it doesn't really give them a way to build themselves up and join the middle class. Instead the only option left is to have more children because that's just what people do for a myriad of reasons. Beyond the job training programs that I've said I support I think we should cut welfare off after 3 kids, and put diminishing returns on welfare after the second plus the benefits should be temporary, just enough time for the parents to get better skills. Popping out children to collect welfare should not be a lifestyle and we should not allow people to have children and then hold the quality of life of the child against us. That is real extortion.

This we agree on 100%

You really think the wealthy buy sheets, pillows, clothes etc. like anyone else? I have a few rich peoples houses you need to go to. You are very much mistaken, I know some that have walkin closets as large as a house. They buy more cars, planes, boats, houses, apartments, toys, businesses, than any segment of the population.

They consume more but they don't consume proportionally to their income. Compare the consumption of 200 people making $50,000, 100 people making $100,000, 10 people making $1,000,000 and 1 person making $10,000,000. The 200 people making $50,000 all combine to be a much larger consumer as a group despite the total volume of money being the same in all instances. To put it another way the person making 10 million dollars might be buying 20x the clothes, cars, boats, and so on but they certainly aren't consuming 200x more goods.

I guess we just know different rich people. The ones I know go out on a wednesday afternoon and spend 4k shopping because they have nothing better to do. The husband decides to go to the races the same night and drops 8k in an evening feeding his friends and providing tickets to the best section. The 8 year old calls the chef from bed in the morning to order breakfast, before the chauffeur takes him to the $1800.00 mth. private school. This is only 3 family members of 6. They have two homes in this state and still stay in hotels close to their business so they don't have to drive after drinking or partying. They just spent 150K doing a simple remodel at the beach house in two weeks. They both bought new cars last month 1K worth of lease each month. It is nuts these people, but if you have it, its not my business how you spend it.

Who employs the middle class?

The people who goto the business they work at and purchase their goods and services. Namely, the poor and other middle class. Without those people spending their money, the volume of work rapidly diminishes.

This is part of the issue, it really isn't their money. Explain how you can take money from one person give it to another, they spend it at your place of business to provide a job for the person you took it from. This doesn't seem like pretzel logic to you? Look at it like this in personal terms, I take $3.00 from you go and buy a gallon of milk come back pour you 1/2 of it and say see I am keeping you in milk. Of course these numbers don't reflect actual percentages or values but you get the point.

I appreciate your honesty but how long is a economy supposed to last when someone gets everything from food to a college education gratis? No wonder the system is woefully inadequate.

People currently don't. I get my education fully covered provided I keep my educational costs quite low but I'm also in the bottom 0.5% of income in the US and perhaps even lower than that. The ones that get federal education assistance these days are the ones who are more or less dirt poor, to put things in perspective if my income doubled I would still be under 15k/year but I would gain enough to cover all of my education out of pocket with modest living, which there's nothing wrong with. If you have an income above the poverty line you're expected to instead take loans.

The whole problem here arises from the fact that college loans are predatory, by federal law they are illegal due to oppressive terms but because the government hands them out, they gave themselves an exception. The loans have created a system designed to make the recipients default and they've also created a culture where people don't look at the cost of their education... people should shop around for better college deals but the system of “free” money for college has caused people to not care about education costs much like the system of insurance (for those that have it) has caused people to not care about billing rates for doctors and hospitals.

Again this is about taking money from one person to pay for an education of another person. Then what your telling me is the government makes it so easy you don't even have to shop around. Where is there any personal responsibility in any of this?

So how much should a person work per week, month, or year to pay for the people on this much assistance?

Good question, I don't really know to be honest. I do know however that benefits need to scale by region. I live in a low cost of living area, the financial needs of people around here are not the same as people in NYC for example.

Then you would have people living at the beach claiming they need more for the area they are in.

This issue is capital Gains. 15%

Correct, capital gains are the entire problem. In theory they're a good idea as it makes sense to not tax already earned money a second time. In practice however we've created loopholes that allow for capital gains to be the primary method of compensation and even income generation.

This is incorrect it isn't taxed a second time, you are only taxed on the profit made from the investment. If you go and buy a rental home for 200K and three years later you sell it making 50K you pay 15% on 50K not on 250K. Plus if you made money all year on the rental you pay income tax on that.

Really if it has to come from the house how come Reagan raised taxes? He had Tip Oneal and a democrat congress. And what happened to pen and phone? He has said and proven if congress won't help he will do it on his own. Never mind separation of powers.

Reagan also had blue dog Democrats, people were much more willing to reach across the aisle and work together. Things weren't perfect but Reagan had a much more moderate political climate, or so I've read.

Reagan and O'neal were always at it. But in general civility was much different. Civility in the general population was different, the government has worked very hard at dividing people, by any means possible, race, sex, sexuality, income. This allows them to create a problem and offer a fix to garner votes. When it wasn't necessary in the first place. My personal favorite example of this is the make believe war on women. This administration cries the loudest with the worst record.

a reply to: Aazadan


So if I understand it you work, get assistance, and a educational grant? And I thought I was busy.


Correct, although I don't work too many hours, I'm unable to. Besides my disability which limits how much I can physically work the current system actually punishes you for attempting any work at all (any work can kick you off of disability) so attempting to work harder and be productive actually threatens the roof over my head. In the past to avoid Pell Grants and other help I even went homeless so I could put what would be rent money towards tuition but I gave in after homelessness was criminalized in my town as an arrest record will only hurt me in the long run. That former lifestyle isn't something I really enjoy the thought of going back to either.

Because of this I wouldn't really call myself busy... I have to focus on having fewer higher productivity hours, I'm a full time student and work 10-15 hours per week plus my attempt at self employment which I'm able to roll into my studies (but it also means I earn no income for it yet). I maintain a 4.0 GPA and do additional work outside of class plus a part time job but I certainly don't think of myself as busy. Busy people don't have the time to sit and read forums like this or think about politics nearly as much as I do. My goal is to be self employed before I graduate. Who knows how that will work out though, the job market being what it is I could end up at the cash register of a McDonalds... work is certainly not guaranteed in my field, it's actually one of the most competitive fields there is, which is a big part of why I'm still in school.

The way I made self employment work is found something I liked doing, was very good at it and, look for that niche that hardly anyone was doing and I could charge more. If I can offer one bit of advice on being self employed is pay attention to the business end of the business. You will already be very good at whatever you want to do through education real world practice or experience. This part many, many people can do, want many can't do is be responsible, do what you say, do it when you say you will do it, be on time for appointments it shows the client how important they are. And whatever you do never say no. Even if you don't know how to do something someone wants you can find someone and hire them as a subcontractor, make a buck and still provide a service. The idea is you solve their problems, they can come to you for anything and you will take care of it.


Explain please. This sounds interesting.


It has to do with the network access laws in the country, accessing an open network without the permission of the owner is still considered unauthorized network access which is a felony just the same as it's still a crime to enter a residence that has an unlocked or open door. At a coffee shop where wifi is provided for customers you're probably safe even though the owners intent is for it to be customer only but if you for example go on a walk around the neighborhood and your phone connects to a persons unprotected wifi network you're committing a crime.

Tough to prosecute, kinda like leaving your keys in the car, the car thief usually gets off.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
I guess we just know different rich people. The ones I know go out on a wednesday afternoon and spend 4k shopping because they have nothing better to do. The husband decides to go to the races the same night and drops 8k in an evening feeding his friends and providing tickets to the best section. The 8 year old calls the chef from bed in the morning to order breakfast, before the chauffeur takes him to the $1800.00 mth. private school. This is only 3 family members of 6. They have two homes in this state and still stay in hotels close to their business so they don't have to drive after drinking or partying. They just spent 150K doing a simple remodel at the beach house in two weeks. They both bought new cars last month 1K worth of lease each month. It is nuts these people, but if you have it, its not my business how you spend it.

I don't know many rich people, some close family members that are easily 1%'ers but even 400k/year is 1%, and that is a long way off from say $10,000,000/year. In general though it's not about the raw dollars spent it's about volume. I remember a story about Oprah buying a $40,000 handbag or something. Did that single handbag involve 2000x more work than a $20 handbag would? That's why we can't simply cater to the wealthy and expect their consumption to fuel everything. They buy nicer things and they create tax revenue on those larger purchases but they're not buying enough additional things to create the jobs the entire economy relies on. For example, take that $4k shopping trip how many actual items were purchased? Was it enough to fuel 20x the work created by middle class people dropping $200 in a shopping trip?

The private school is another example, I happened to goto a private school myself growing up so I'm well aware what it's like in them. You get class sizes in the 10 kids/teacher range rather than 30, but the students themselves still only have 6-8 teachers. With the smaller student:teacher ratios that's still only 3x the teaching jobs created. Unless more than 1/3 of the population is using schools like that public schooling is still providing a higher job rate and if you're comparing the $10 million person to the 50k person, just to break even their schooling (and everything else) needs to generate 200x the work... not a mere 3x the work.

This is part of the issue, it really isn't their money. Explain how you can take money from one person give it to another, they spend it at your place of business to provide a job for the person you took it from. This doesn't seem like pretzel logic to you? Look at it like this in personal terms, I take $3.00 from you go and buy a gallon of milk come back pour you 1/2 of it and say see I am keeping you in milk. Of course these numbers don't reflect actual percentages or values but you get the point.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by poor and middle class I was referring to the people who are self sufficient, not those spending assistance money. The people in the 20k-50k range basically. The very poor collectively have no assets. They don't even own 1% of the wealth in the country, as far as economic impact goes they're irrelevant. The people that matter are the people who live paycheck to paycheck spending most of what they have, but make enough that they're actually earning what they're spending.

Again this is about taking money from one person to pay for an education of another person. Then what your telling me is the government makes it so easy you don't even have to shop around. Where is there any personal responsibility in any of this?

I don't know if easy is the word I would use to describe it... accessible is probably a better term. But in essence yes. They have removed the concept of shopping around and have taken the idea of personal responsibility and said don't worry about it, that's something that won't even matter for 6 years (6 years being a huge amount of time to an 18 or 20 year old). I agree that college should be accessible but the government has royally screwed it up, everything from the federal funding system to loans. The government either needs to dictate to colleges what they are going to be paid and stick to it fully funding schools with this method (think what they do with public school) or colleges need to finance loans themselves so that every school is in competition with each other. The loan system currently is an absolute mess and is going to cause our next financial crisis if the derivitives market doesn't get us first.

Then you would have people living at the beach claiming they need more for the area they are in.

There's easy ways to determine that, look at the income distribution of different municipalities and then look at the cost of food+housing+utilities for the bottom 10% of income earners and base it from there. Even in a place like Santa Barbara there's areas of town that cost substantially less than beachfront property. And even if you do take beachfront property I remember on my recent trip to LA (I end up going there about once a year for E3 or some freelance work... this time was for E3) that there were shacks on the beach full of surf bums who would rent out a house with 10 people in it, and they could live on the beach for low individual cost.

This is incorrect it isn't taxed a second time, you are only taxed on the profit made from the investment. If you go and buy a rental home for 200K and three years later you sell it making 50K you pay 15% on 50K not on 250K. Plus if you made money all year on the rental you pay income tax on that.

I see, I thought you paid 15% on the full 250k. That makes it an even bigger problem.

Reagan and O'neal were always at it. But in general civility was much different. Civility in the general population was different, the government has worked very hard at dividing people, by any means possible, race, sex, sexuality, income. This allows them to create a problem and offer a fix to garner votes. When it wasn't necessary in the first place. My personal favorite example of this is the make believe war on women. This administration cries the loudest with the worst record.

Politicians are always going to be at each others throats, that's just a part of politics especially when it's defined by parties. If two parties agree, how will they ever brand themselves as different in order to compete for votes? I was referring more to the civility which you brought up, the general population is very divided right now and the politicians react to that. We have less compromise than ever when compromise is the nation was built on, just look at our constitution for a great example of what can happen when different sides are willing to compromise. Interestingly, when the constitution was written everyone that signed it believed it would fail precisely due to those compromises.

The way I made self employment work is found something I liked doing, was very good at it and, look for that niche that hardly anyone was doing and I could charge more. If I can offer one bit of advice on being self employed is pay attention to the business end of the business. You will already be very good at whatever you want to do through education real world practice or experience. This part many, many people can do, want many can't do is be responsible, do what you say, do it when you say you will do it, be on time for appointments it shows the client how important they are. And whatever you do never say no. Even if you don't know how to do something someone wants you can find someone and hire them as a subcontractor, make a buck and still provide a service. The idea is you solve their problems, they can come to you for anything and you will take care of it.

I appreciate the advice. I'm pretty good with deadlines and being punctual. Subcontracting is very common in what will hopefully be my profession which is game design but it's not something I'm overly concerned with at the moment because I'm more of a jack of all trades type of person. I can write code, provide my own artwork, objectively view game balance, design a database, maintain a website, and so on. The tradeoff being that I don't get the time to specialize in any of it but for what I'm doing specialization isn't something that's required because I'm not going for photorealistic looks and can often spare a few cpu cycles for less than fully efficient code. I've also been trying out a website I recently found called shapeways designing things like jewelery and office toys which are then made to order with 3d printing.

Tough to prosecute, kinda like leaving your keys in the car, the car thief usually gets off.

It's easier to prosecute than you would think. Your local ISP has a database which shows the MAC address of every device which connects to the network and the location of the access point it connected from. This routinely gets turned over to the NSA as part of their data sharing. From there it's easy to find places the person was more likely to have an unauthorized connection at and ask the owners if they knew about it. So far it hasn't been used to arrest people and I imagine there would be protests if it ever became widespread (intent is certainly an issue here) but if someone were already to be under investigation for something it's an easy way to arrest them and create probable cause for further investigation. It's also an additional charge that can be slapped onto someone in an attempt to force a plea bargain.