It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Tax Plan will be Devestating to Seniors and Poor People

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


It's not the wealthy who create jobs, they merely centralize the capital. The demand for labor comes from a population that wants a service and can afford to buy it.

Yep, definitely not a Business Major...

Capital comes from investment. People have to have places to work at, and those places require money (capital) to build. The demand for workers does depend on the demand for the product, but without capital there would be no product. Taxes are included in the cost of doing business and as such are overhead which adds to the cost of the products. Higher cost = lower demand = less workers.

Conversely, lower cost = lower overhead = lower prices = more demand = more workers needed.

'Trickle-down' has one limiting factor: the targeted companies. Mature companies do not respond well, because they already have market saturation. Smaller companies respond very well,because they want market saturation and have to hire and capitalize to achieve that. That's why the financial bailouts did very little to improve the economy; they were targeted exclusively at mature companies.

Younger companies will indeed invest in growth, leading to more direct jobs, more equipment (meaning more jobs to produce the equipment), more jobs in sales, marketing, across the board. Those jobs will produce expendable capital for the workers, who will buy homes, cars, eat out, and generally increase the demand for all goods, resulting in even more jobs. That works, and will continue to work.

Conversely, tax rebates will stimulate the economy one time and one time only. They will not create new jobs, because businesses are smart enough to know the demand is temporary. At best, they might generate a little overtime. Once the initial boost runs out, nothing has changed except that this time we did lose the revenue we gave out with no hope of recouping it.


If you want to make your donors richer, you give them millions/billions of dollars worth of tax cuts.

And if you want to be poor, you spend your time worrying about what someone else has instead of what you have.


There are already countries that offer 0% tax rates. Some offer negative tax rates.

Oh, really?

The Tax Foundation just called that statement pure BS. They list the lowest corporate tax rate (among countries with corporate tax rates) as Uzbekistan at 7.5%. Of the countries without corporate tax rates, none are major economies.

I wish we would cut our corporate tax rate to 0% actually. Every dime of tax paid by a corporation is double taxation. Every dime of profit is owned by an investor who owns stock in that corporation, and who pays tax on it when it is disbursed. But that's a different thread.

TheRedneck




posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Spurring the economy doesn't work that way. The tax cuts will over 10 years create $169 billion in revenue, while costing $1500 billion.

Deficit spending to create jobs is not capitalist, it's socialist.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Such offsets, if counted as income, were already counted as income. In the case of scholarships, the deduction equaled the value of the scholarship, so it was simply not included in taxable income. This bill does change that; instead of being 100% deductible, it is partly deductible to offset the lowered tax rates.


Previously only excess financial aid was counted as income. If you got a rebate check it would be taxable. This is taxing money that you're never given and can never touch.

www.cnbc.com...

Pay attention to the grad student part, because that's the one that bothers me most. It essentially prices most people out of higher education.



Please show me where that is going away. C lick this link to get the full official text of the House bill.


time.com...

They're shrinking the credit. Granted, it's just a couple hundred dollars in the first place but this is an example of where I find the concept of tax deductions to do more harm than good. In an ideal world this would come out of the school budget, and there wouldn't be a tax deduction for it. But as long as we're not forcing schools to pay for their own office supplies, the deduction should probably remain.



Yes, there's a war on education going on right now, but not the war you describe. Colleges have nothing to do with home-schooling; home schooling replaces public school, mostly due to the fact that kids finishing public schools are woefully unprepared for college. Private schools typically produce better-equipped students for college-level studies, as do many home schools. The problem colleges are having is trying to help students make the transition from poor-quality public schools to an actual academic environment.


The war is on at all levels of education. And ignorance is winning.


Graduate majors are also waning, but that is due to the fact that many industries have lost faith in college degrees and are not as anxious to hire based on that alone, as well as the fact that graduate costs are steadily rising. I am well aware of this as a graduate student myself (MSA Electrical Engineering, Control Theory / Communications), forced to take a semester sabbatical due to financial issues.

I worked for a few years as a mathematics tutor at my two-year college, and am intimately familiar with the issues students graduating from public school have.


I'm aware of many public school issues. It's pretty complicated so I wasn't going to rehash it, but the tl;dr is effectively that most schools are currently in the situation where they just have to pass everyone.

Graduate majors are interesting, I think they're going through some evolution right now. For example, the major I would like to one day get is still too new to have good time tested programs made, we're still a few years out from VR/AR development specific majors existing, most that do currently exist aren't even in US or are focused on broader applications like rendering. I would like a phd one day as well, but at the moment in order to get one in a field that I want... I would basically have to invent the field.



Trump University was a specialized school dedicated to teaching people how to operate in real estate. It was not a typical University. I also attended a truck driving school years ago... it wasn't a real school either, but it did teach a specialized field.


I'm aware of what it was, calling it a specialized school is being pretty generous (though to be fair I don't think there's a scandal here, I consider that business unethical but probably not criminal). It was basically some marketing talks on real estate. However, my point was... that's what Trump thinks education is supposed to be. The guy isn't an academic so he doesn't know any better, but the people writing these bills think the same thing.

I don't consider truck driving school to be school either. On the one hand it teaches you how to do something, but on the other it doesn't really give you the tools to advance, only to stagnate. Then again, I also recognize it as a flaw in myself that I think people should be over qualified for most jobs.



Cop-out.

If the federal government wanted to take over responsibility for health care, they should have made provisions for states that did not choose to participate actively. They abdicated that responsibility. It's on them. Poor planning on their part does not necessarily constitute a mandate on Alabama's part.


I disagree. If the states choose not to cooperate, then it's not the federal government that should be blamed. You're not being denied health care due to the ACA. You're being denied by your state. The solution isn't to dismantle the ACA, it's to force or convince the states to cooperate.



Taxes are absolutely a major factor in deciding where to locate a new plant; cities have been negotiating tax deals for companies to get them to locate there for ages. he Dow, a leading indicator of economic outlook,has been in a record 23,000 range for some time since Trump began talking lower taxes. I think those investors know more than you do.


A high stock market doesn't really mean much, that's referring to investor return. That's not the metric that indicates jobs. If the entire world ran on the labor of a single Australian man (sorry, Futurama reference), the stock market would be great because businesses would lose all their labor costs. The stock market and employment markets have little to nothing to do with each other.
edit on 21-11-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Wrong. Not giving your money to the govt doesn't create a deficit. The govt spending more then it takes in creates a deficit.

Govt spending is and always has been the problem!!



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Capital comes from investment. People have to have places to work at, and those places require money (capital) to build. The demand for workers does depend on the demand for the product, but without capital there would be no product. Taxes are included in the cost of doing business and as such are overhead which adds to the cost of the products. Higher cost = lower demand = less workers.


All the investment in the world doesn't create workers who can purchase your products though, and we live in such a system right now (and this is really weird to think about) but we produce more goods than we can possibly afford or use. We create 10 widgets, but society can only afford to buy 5 of them. Creating tax cuts so that there's the capital to create 12 widgets is usually a matter of efficiency, more product rarely takes more people, or when it does it doesn't require proportionally more, so a 20% increase in productivity to 12 widgets doesn't correspond to 6 of them being bought.

Your scenario only works when the workers own stock in the company, and therefore see reinvestment in the company in the form of higher wages to themselves. Most companies are shareholder owned, not employee owned. Employee owned companies are typically very small businesses, and those businesses aren't the ones that actually create anything. They buy their product from manufacturers and resell it. They're just middlemen. And middlemen are something we need fewer of.


'Trickle-down' has one limiting factor: the targeted companies. Mature companies do not respond well, because they already have market saturation. Smaller companies respond very well,because they want market saturation and have to hire and capitalize to achieve that. That's why the financial bailouts did very little to improve the economy; they were targeted exclusively at mature companies.


Small companies produce very little. It's very rare that a small company is building something unique, it happens, and I could provide examples if you wish (interestingly enough, they're computer hardware based so you may be interested) but it's the exception. Most small businesses are franchies or retailers. Industrial manufacturing by it's very nature almost completely excluses the concept of a small company where just 2-3 people are producing goods and selling them in any meaningful numbers.


Younger companies will indeed invest in growth, leading to more direct jobs, more equipment (meaning more jobs to produce the equipment), more jobs in sales, marketing, across the board. Those jobs will produce expendable capital for the workers, who will buy homes, cars, eat out, and generally increase the demand for all goods, resulting in even more jobs. That works, and will continue to work.


Do you know what else does that? Tax rebates. You can even make them repeatable by just modifying the standard deduction to leave more money in peoples pockets but not changing the brackets much. They almost did that this time, but the higher percentages people will pay offset the larger deduction, so we won't get that benefit.

If all we did in this tax plan was double the standard deduction, remove a bunch of other deductions (basically, what was done), and leave the brackets as they were with perhaps a small boost above 250k to offset the deduction increase, and not touch the corporate rate. It would have been a great start to untangling the mess of our tax code.


And if you want to be poor, you spend your time worrying about what someone else has instead of what you have.


Why? I think it's a perfectly reasonable request to keep track of what other people are getting. It keeps things fair. Do you do the same thing at work and ignore what other people are making? In our office I know the wage of every person in my division as well as the two layers of management above me. It has helped all involved, because we all know what the company will pay and can negotiate contracts with more information, and therefore get better deals.


There are already countries that offer 0% tax rates. Some offer negative tax rates.

Oh, really?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

You missed the Cayman Islands for one. Two, it's pretty easy to circumvent individual rates. Set of a corporate account, and pay for all of your expenses out of that. The company covers it, and when local laws say they can't, you can pay yourself out of stock compensation you sell as capital gains and still get a very low rate.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Wrong. Not giving your money to the govt doesn't create a deficit. The govt spending more then it takes in creates a deficit.

Govt spending is and always has been the problem!!


Government spending cannot responsibly be cut any further than it already has been.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Previously only excess financial aid was counted as income.

CNBC is not the arbiter of the tax bill.


They're shrinking the credit.

Time-Warner is not the arbiter of the tax bill.

Are you capable of reading the law itself? Or can you only read propaganda?

I swear, I feel like Sid in Ice Age...
... I show you what the plan says, you read CNN... I show you what the bill says, you check NBC... I show you what the bill says, you reference Time-Warner.

This ain't Yahoo... how about some actual individual research instead of regurgitated propaganda?


Graduate majors are interesting, I think they're going through some evolution right now. For example, the major I would like to one day get is still too new to have good time tested programs made, we're still a few years out from VR/AR development specific majors existing, most that do currently exist aren't even in US or are focused on broader applications like rendering. I would like a phd one day as well, but at the moment in order to get one in a field that I want... I would basically have to invent the field.

You seem to be confused.

Post-graduate studies are not like undergraduate studies. One can get a Bachelors without contributing a single original thought. If you can regurgitate the textbooks and use a calculator, you can pass. Post-graduate gets more tricky. You have to actually contribute something new to your field. The classes are less about learning the text and more about understanding where the industry is. That's why professors are always PhDs and are always active in research. To get a PhD requires a dissertation, which means you have made a significant contribution to your field.

My Grad-level classes often do not even require a textbook (Sliding Mode Controls did, but that was because the professor wrote it). They usually have a reading list, but the whole point of the class is to understand and advance a subject, not to memorize text. If you want to do well in a doctoral program, stump the professors. Just getting all the answers right is not enough.


I'm aware of what it was, calling it a specialized school is being pretty generous (though to be fair I don't think there's a scandal here, I consider that business unethical but probably not criminal). It was basically some marketing talks on real estate. However, my point was... that's what Trump thinks education is supposed to be. The guy isn't an academic so he doesn't know any better, but the people writing these bills think the same thing.

Actually, Donald J. Trump holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from Wharton. He also attended Fordham University.


I don't consider truck driving school to be school either. On the one hand it teaches you how to do something, but on the other it doesn't really give you the tools to advance, only to stagnate.

That school gave me the ability to make a good living for 8 years. I consider it a school, because it teaches a skill.

There is a movement among academia that tends to look down on any school that is not a full University. I vehemently disagree with that attitude. There is nothing dishonorable about being a plumber, a welder, a truck driver, or a mechanic. To think thusly is elitist, uninformed, and indicates a serious lack of logical reasoning skills.


If the states choose not to cooperate, then it's not the federal government that should be blamed.

The states are not the minions of the Federal government.


A high stock market doesn't really mean much, that's referring to investor return.

Return is linked to income, which is linked to production, which is linked to employment. If you held a BS in Economics like our President you would know that.

It is possible for the stock market to show misleading information under two circumstances: a market bubble, which soon bursts, or through foreign investment. The former was the trigger for the 2008 recession. The latter was used after that to indicate falsely to the country that the recession had ended.

This time, the unemployment rate is down, people are seeing actual job creation and advancement (although we need much more), and government assistance is down. Those contributing indicators show that the stock market is now accurately reflecting the economic mood of the country.

a reply to: Aazadan


All the investment in the world doesn't create workers who can purchase your products though, and we live in such a system right now (and this is really weird to think about) but we produce more goods than we can possibly afford or use.

Actually, no we don't. Other countries produce more goods than we can possibly afford or use; we have become a net importer of goods, not a net exporter. Walk through a Wal-Mart sometime and just look at where the products are made. Hong Kong, Japan, China, Mexico, India... very few are produced in the United States. Now look at how many people are walking by you with a buggy full of those foreign-made goods.

The reason is simple: we have the 4th highest corporate tax rate in the world. People do not usually purchase the more expensive of two identical products; they purchase the less expensive. So if we want to have more jobs, we have to produce quality products at a competitive price, and that is hard to accomplish when the cost to produce the products is so much higher here.

Trump's overall plan is more than tax cuts. It is also better trade deals which open foreign markets up to our products. That expands the marketplace. The corporate tax cuts balance the marketplace so we can compete. Both parts are critical; one without the other will only accomplish so much. Both together will return us to an era of prosperity.


Small companies produce very little.

That is so wrong I don't even know how to respond to it. What's next, the sky is pink? Gravity is repulsive?


Do you know what else does that? Tax rebates.

No. Tax rebates are temporary illusions that only produce a temporary surge in purchasing. I already explained that.

Most people will simply bank a temporary windfall, while an increase in regular income will result in more purchasing on a continual basis. Companies will pocket the rebates, while a sustained increase in market demand will cause them to expand.


? I think it's a perfectly reasonable request to keep track of what other people are getting. It keeps things fair. Do you do the same thing at work and ignore what other people are making?

Life ain't fair. Keep on trying to make it fair and see where that gets you.

And yes, I ignore what co-workers make. I care what I make.


You missed the Cayman Islands for one.

Really? That's your idea of an economic powerhouse?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
CNBC is not the arbiter of the tax bill.


I'm not going to read a 450 page document full of a bunch of legalize where 80% of the bill is changing the wording of previous sections, and that is guaranteed to change in reconciliation if it gets to that point. I have better things to do with my time. I linked you to articles which in turn linked to sections of the bill.


You seem to be confused.

Post-graduate studies are not like undergraduate studies. One can get a Bachelors without contributing a single original thought. If you can regurgitate the textbooks and use a calculator, you can pass. Post-graduate gets more tricky. You have to actually contribute something new to your field. The classes are less about learning the text and more about understanding where the industry is. That's why professors are always PhDs and are always active in research. To get a PhD requires a dissertation, which means you have made a significant contribution to your field.


I'm not confused at all. Bachelors degrees are worthless precisely because they don't require original thought. A Bachelors can basically be thought of as a person being aware of a field. Masters degrees are effectively the bare minimum to be considered competent. PhD's mean you can actually advance your field. When a company hires someone, are they hiring someone to do the bare minimum or to blaze new ground and improve the company? My experience has been the latter in anything that's not working a drive through fast food window. Also, you only need a Masters to teach most undergrad. Even some grad programs will be taught by someone holding a Masters.


Actually, Donald J. Trump holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from Wharton. He also attended Fordham University.


As we both just agreed, bachelors degrees are barely worth the paper they're printed on.


That school gave me the ability to make a good living for 8 years. I consider it a school, because it teaches a skill.


I don't consider truck driving a skill. It's part of a skill. Skills are exclusive, if anyone, or most can learn it, especially with minimal time commitment... then it's not a valuable ability. Let me expand on this a bit. I very much have a gamer mentality, and largely because of my field approach everything from the standpoint of it being a game. There's the rules of a game which is knowing how to play it. But knowing how to play something doesn't convey skill, it conveys a surface level understanding of the rules. That's driving a truck. A skill is solving a game. Being able to take the optimal action at all times. Most truck drivers do not have this ability, because if they did they would have been capable of building a machine to automate their job, or at a minimum they would have been able to perfectly revamp their shipping companies logistics. A truck driving school does not teach one to solve that particular puzzle. Therefore it is not teaching a skill, and thus not an education. It's only teaching the rules of the system.

I also have a pretty broad view of what people should be able to do. To borrow a quote
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.

Specialization is for insects.”

― Robert A. Heinlein


The states are not the minions of the Federal government.


That's precisely why you should be able to assign blame to your state. The feds aren't forcing them to screw you over.


That is so wrong I don't even know how to respond to it. What's next, the sky is pink? Gravity is repulsive?


Really, what new things does the mom and pop down the street create in any quantity that impacts the town, country, or world?



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


I'm not going to read a 450 page document full of a bunch of legalize...

Then your opinions are nothing more than what others want them to be. If I want to hear what the Creative News Network has to say, I have a TV.

All this talk about education and you won't even scan over a document to see if it says what someone else said it does.


Bachelors degrees are worthless precisely because they don't require original thought.

I wouldn't say worthless. I would say more easily attained. In engineering, for example, a Bachelors is the minimum required to get an opportunity to enter the industry. Once you have entered that industry, how you advance is more about what you can do than what letters are beside your name. Masters and Doctorate degrees are typically used for teaching or research work... they are more a recognition of one's ability than an acknowledgement that one has passed certain requirements.


As we both just agreed, bachelors degrees are barely worth the paper they're printed on.

I did not agree with that.


I don't consider truck driving a skill.

Try driving one sometime. There's a very good reason why the law requires advanced licenses.


Really, what new things does the mom and pop down the street create in any quantity that impacts the town, country, or world?

Jobs.

You seem to think that 'small business' only refers to the little store with old Miss Becky running the cash register while Mr. Bob stocks the shelves. Sorry, but you're wrong on that, too (which seems to be a recurring theme in this discussion). Every major corporation was once a small business: McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Dodge, Chevrolet, Ford, Caterpillar, K-Mart, Sears, Uber, Microsoft... and every one of them grew into what we know them as today. In the process, they created JOBS!

Let's wrap this up with a little scorekeeping... You've so far been shown to be wrong on
  • The new tax bill removes educational deductions/credits.
  • The new tax bill makes sweeping changes to what is and is not considered taxable income.
  • Teachers get educational tax breaks for purchasing classroom supplies.
  • Private and home schools are inferior to public schools.
  • Schools are not schools unless they teach pure academia.
  • Bachelor degrees are worthless.
  • Graduate studies require a developed field of study.
  • A Masters degree is sufficient to teach graduate studies.
  • Tax rebates provide as much economic stimulation as a growing economy.
  • The USA is a net exporter of goods because we over-produce.
  • Other economically-significant countries have negative corporate tax rates.
  • The Cayman Islands is a major economic power.
  • Small business does not contribute significantly to the economy.
  • Companies do not stimulate the economy when they grow.
  • We cannot compete with other nations on tax rates.
  • States are responsible for fixing problems created by the Federal government.

I probably missed quite a few, but I think I have made my point. I hope you are young enough to grow out of the illusions you have created and come to grips with reality as you age.

Oh, and incidentally... that VR/AR reference, if it means virtual reality... you will need a CPE (Computer/Programming Engineering) degree to get anywhere. Expect to need a PhD, actually. The only thing holding up virtual reality is processing power, and there are physical constraints that are holding that field up. Pesky little things like propagation delay, microwave radiation characteristics, thermal dissipation...

Just having an idea of a better way does not make one a prime candidate for a field.

TheRedneck

edit on 11/21/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Eliminating deductions for medical bills, student loans, property taxes and a whole host of things will have a big negative impact.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Wrong. Not giving your money to the govt doesn't create a deficit. The govt spending more then it takes in creates a deficit.

Govt spending is and always has been the problem!!


Government spending cannot responsibly be cut any further than it already has been.


That's wrong. We could trim Billions if not Trillions from the Federal Government. And that's precisely what we need to do. Ask yourself two questions right off the bat. Do we need almost 800 military bases around the world? and Why do we need a dozen agencies to do what two used to do perfectly fine. CIA and FBI. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of areas in the federal government that we can cut spending and shrink government without ever touching medicaid, medicare, social security etc.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Just like everything the GOP does... it's always for the rich. You don't like it, stop voting for them



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Try driving one sometime. There's a very good reason why the law requires advanced licenses.


Where I used to live, a CDL was a two week course. I assume they're the same where I am now.


You seem to think that 'small business' only refers to the little store with old Miss Becky running the cash register while Mr. Bob stocks the shelves. Sorry, but you're wrong on that, too (which seems to be a recurring theme in this discussion). Every major corporation was once a small business: McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Dodge, Chevrolet, Ford, Caterpillar, K-Mart, Sears, Uber, Microsoft... and every one of them grew into what we know them as today. In the process, they created JOBS!


And as a small business they didn't create anything in substantial numbers. Most of the small businesses you just mentioned were never actually small. They started midsized at best. Uber started with over 100 employees, Microsoft had 13, WalMart had enough to run a store, Ford started with many on an assembly line. Yes, they eventually grew and created more jobs, but last I checked they did all that with higher tax rates than we have now.


Oh, and incidentally... that VR/AR reference, if it means virtual reality... you will need a CPE (Computer/Programming Engineering) degree to get anywhere. Expect to need a PhD, actually. The only thing holding up virtual reality is processing power, and there are physical constraints that are holding that field up. Pesky little things like propagation delay, microwave radiation characteristics, thermal dissipation...


Correct, virtual and augmented reality. On the software side though, not the hardware side. We had this discussion before and it even ended with me offering to teach you OOP, which is an offer that still stands.

I currently work as the lead dev at a fortune 500 company, in a small division where we're developing AR/VR applications. My degrees are AS's in interactive technology, computer graphics, and web programming. BS's in Computer Science, and come May Simulation/Game Engineering. When a good Masters program working in AR/VR comes out, I'll likely attend it... there's nothing I'm really interested in yet. My work experience mostly involves creating virtual environments... lots of 3d/vector math, object tracking, quite a bit of algorithms, and a whole lot of project management. I actually was just given my first junior dev (previously I was the only programmer) the other day. So I'm pretty excited, that means I'll be coordinating a team of 4 now... still small, but growing.



Just having an idea of a better way does not make one a prime candidate for a field.


I agree completely. You have to try your ideas to figure out if they'll fail or not, but before you ever try you should understand the content well enough to know what the potential problems are and why, before they possibly appear. As I said before, solving games is a hobby of mine. I've been stumped on a particular game for 5 years now, only solving general problems. I'll be making another attempt on it soon. I think this one will be the one that does it. I just have to figure out a working grammer for this language to implement natural language processing first.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
That's wrong. We could trim Billions if not Trillions from the Federal Government. And that's precisely what we need to do. Ask yourself two questions right off the bat. Do we need almost 800 military bases around the world? and Why do we need a dozen agencies to do what two used to do perfectly fine. CIA and FBI. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of areas in the federal government that we can cut spending and shrink government without ever touching medicaid, medicare, social security etc.


We do need those bases, it gives our military reach around the world. The growth in intelligence agencies doesn't cost significant amounts of money. Cutting them doesn't represent any real savings. I wouldn't mind seeing the security state dismantled a bit, but finances have nothing to do with it.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Where I used to live, a CDL was a two week course. I assume they're the same where I am now.

Mine was three weeks, with classes/training 12 hours a day. That allows you to get the CDL. Then it's out for driver training for another 3-4 months, then another 6 months or so of a probationary period, depending on which company you are hired to. Oh, yes, and there are regular driving safety courses throughout your career.

A semi is harder to operate than most people think. You have to react to traffic much more precisely than with a personal vehicle; you cannot stop fast, you cannot turn fast (without rolling over), and you are assumed at fault in any incident unless there is proof to the contrary. Be careful about denigrating abilities you do not understand.


And as a small business they didn't create anything in substantial numbers. Most of the small businesses you just mentioned were never actually small. They started midsized at best. Uber started with over 100 employees, Microsoft had 13, WalMart had enough to run a store, Ford started with many on an assembly line.

A few assembly lines and 100 employees is literally the definition of a small business.


Correct, virtual and augmented reality. On the software side though, not the hardware side. We had this discussion before and it even ended with me offering to teach you OOP, which is an offer that still stands.

Thank you. I just recently had a collaborative project dropped into my lap. The next step is going to involve an Android app to connect to and control the project via Bluetooth. Android is a JAVA environment, completely OOP... so keep checking your inbox. I might take you up on that offer if I hit a snag.

That is an impressive resume. I only wish you had the same desire for knowledge when it comes to other subjects. Specialization is great, but I do agree with your earlier quote. I can raise a child, build a house, drive a truck, design and build a project, develop a theory, fix a car, program a microprocessor, plumb, wire, roof, grow a garden, and a host of other things. I learned all that by doing it... and by keeping a mind open to what others had to say.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Giving more and more money to the ultra wealthy has yet to create an economic surge, it has created outsourcing and a destruction on the American middle class. The other thing is has done is create such power that our government has been effectively seized by the wealthy. The GOP in policy is decidedly against the middle-class or true economic populism.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 04:52 AM
link   
I'm on SS Disability. The health insurance is more important to me then the money. I have medicaid and medicare. If something happens and I can't get my medication I'm screwed. If I can't afford my medication or can't get it I'm a dead man.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
A few assembly lines and 100 employees is literally the definition of a small business.


In the US yes, but that's because our small business definition is insane and covers anything with under 500 to 5000 (depending on sector) which is a reaction to our tax policy so that no one pays the official 35% rate, it's a twisting of the definition. In most of the rest of the world, in particular western areas it's much less. In Australia it's 15 or fewer, in the EU it's 50 or less. I'm going by the actual definition of small, not some absurd notion that a 5000 employee company with 100 million in revenue is a small business.


That is an impressive resume. I only wish you had the same desire for knowledge when it comes to other subjects. Specialization is great, but I do agree with your earlier quote. I can raise a child, build a house, drive a truck, design and build a project, develop a theory, fix a car, program a microprocessor, plumb, wire, roof, grow a garden, and a host of other things. I learned all that by doing it... and by keeping a mind open to what others had to say.


It's not really that impressive. And I have plenty of desire for knowledge. I just don't see the point in constantly digging into a 450 page document, that's written for precision rather than ease of understanding, when that document is guaranteed to change. I've brought up my issues with the bill, but it's gone through the House at this point. If/when the Senate passes something we can see what they wind up with, and get an idea of what a reconciliation bill is going to look like. Passing something in the House is easy, getting it through the Senate right now is harder because the Republicans are fractured and hold only a tiny majority.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
That's wrong. We could trim Billions if not Trillions from the Federal Government. And that's precisely what we need to do. Ask yourself two questions right off the bat. Do we need almost 800 military bases around the world? and Why do we need a dozen agencies to do what two used to do perfectly fine. CIA and FBI. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of areas in the federal government that we can cut spending and shrink government without ever touching medicaid, medicare, social security etc.


We do need those bases, it gives our military reach around the world. The growth in intelligence agencies doesn't cost significant amounts of money. Cutting them doesn't represent any real savings. I wouldn't mind seeing the security state dismantled a bit, but finances have nothing to do with it.


But ask yourself this. How many bases do we need to be safe? Especially when you consider our close allies that would defend us in any mass attack, like Israel, Canada, France, UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea. Then consider our NATO allies. Then consider those countries that just want to be peaceful, like Switzerland, Iceland, Japan etc etc. There really is no reason to have that many bases. And who are our enemies? Iran-We literally have them surrounde by military bases. North Korea-China won't let war happen because they dont' want millions of north korean refugees. Russia-China-They make too much money off of us. They want world peace. They aren't our enemies. We're safe. Let's trim those basses to say 100 and save Billions of dollars. Also cutting out all the alphabet agencies that we dont' need would literally save us billions of dollars a year. Then let's stop paying our congressmen more than 40k per year and stop their retirement for life again, we'd save billions upon billions of dollars and that's just the tip of the iceberg.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

If military bases were costing us $100 billion per year (they aren't) and congress pensions were costing us $100 billion per year (they actually only cost us about 200 million). You're still talking about $200 billion.

Do you realize our annual budget is 5000 billion per year? Taking 200 billion out of it is less than 1/2 of 1% of our expenses. There is basically nothing left to cut in any substantial amounts, and even if you were to take all of the insubstantial things and add it together, you wouldn't even get to a 5% cut in spending.
edit on 22-11-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join