Guest Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: Well, comparatively to most on these boards I am EXCESSIVELY Liberal. Probably considered to the FAR Left...which I will point out in many situations so people won't make any mistakes in that... Nope. I'm very well aware that I'm FAR right wing as well as FAR libertarian. Everyone is centrist compared to me. You might call me a "Charter Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Edited January 9, 2018 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: Well, comparatively to most on these boards I am EXCESSIVELY Liberal. Probably considered to the FAR Left...which I will point out in many situations so people won't make any mistakes in that. All of us who aren't on the extreme left or extreme right deal with that, and it's not just here. It's called "life". What I noticed is that people have their pet issues where if you disagree with them, you must be extreme left/right. If you are pro choice, you are obviously extreme left. Even if you are pro gun, pro death penalty, anti tax, anti gay marriage etc. If you are pro gun, then you are obviously extreme right even if you are pro choice, anti gay marriage, anti death penalty, etc. The best line about it comes from the Newsroom, the Aaron Sorkin drama. "“I'm a registered Republican, I only seem liberal because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage.” Edited January 9, 2018 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 15 hours ago, Traveler said: When Paul Ryan or any other public official will publicly declare that military black ops cannot or should not be funded with Social Security funds (or any other spending of the funds for programs other than SS – I will believe you that Paul Ryan really intends to save SS or actually cares. No one is stopping the robbery and lies associated with Social Security. Yes, that includes Paul Ryan. One man in the House of Representatives cannot change the entire government that has been acting stupid before he was even born. The only thing he can do is criticize and persuade and try to re-align the giant boat as best he can knowing what the other 534 members of Congress will vote for. And he has. Here's just one excerpt from the first day of his appointment as Speaker: "Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees introduced the Fiscal Year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act on December 15, 2015. The bill combines the 12 separate appropriations bills into a single bill and provides funding for the whole government through September 30, 2016. This $1.1 trillion appropriations bill is the product of a process that I have long criticized, a process that is too closed and driven by crisis and brinksmanship instead of by collaboration and big ideas. That said, as speaker, I had a duty to take ownership of the process that I inherited and, in doing so, I worked hard with my colleagues to make the best of the situation in order to produce a bill that will allow the House to return to regular order. It is worthwhile to note that $1.4 billion was authorized for Program Integrity activities within the Social Security Administration. This is a $30 million increase from the enacted FY 2015 level. These programs include activities to ensure that disability and SSI benefits are properly paid. The consolidated appropriations bill, H.R. 2029, was passed in the House on December 18, 2015—with my support—by a vote of 316 to 113. Later that same day, it was passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Obama." - Paul Ryan 15 hours ago, Traveler said: Exactly what I am talking about and trying to point out – this is not one of the 4 major reasons for the increase costs in health care. This is a reason for increases in health care insurance cost. Nice try. It is time to cut the rhetorical political talking points and deal with the actual issue that are hurting (devastating) the middle class. Hint what has happening since 1973? Ha hah. America got old in 1973. If you expect the government to do something about old people then you must be a liberal. Oh wait. Are you? Healthcare cost in the US today is super high because of 4 main things - More old people, government regulations sitting over the entire industry, federalization of health insurance, and malpractice litigation. Trump is working on 2 and 3. 15 hours ago, Traveler said: You have it wrong – Congress is more concerned with lobbyists and campaign financing than they are helping citizens. Again, every law passed since 1973 has help the insurance companies – there is not one law to protect the middle-class health care. NOT ONE!!! And no one cares – at least they do not say anything during any campaign. Middle-class healthcare protection. That's liberal. Healthcare is not about class it is about principle. Conservatives do not want the government to "fix" healthcare. They want the government OUT of healthcare. That would be Jim Jordan (HOR, R-OH) and the rest of the Freedom Caucus (36 HOR members all R's) and Rand Paul (Sen R-KY) and Ted Cruz (Sen R-TX). Liberals, on the other hand (and that's all of the Democrats plus some Republicans), want Canadian style government-run health care. Two ideologies on opposing ends of the spectrum with a wide ocean in the middle. And that's why that healthcare bill crashed and burned last year. The Freedom Caucus fighting to pull the bill to the conservative side with the rest of Congress trying to pull it to the liberal side. And speaking of campaigns. That was a major policy wedge between Cruz and Trump. Cruz wants Repeal and get govt out of healthcare, Trump wants Repeal and Replace ("because we can't have people dying on the streets"). That's one major campaign where healthcare was debated without regard for what it does to insurance companies or any healthcare lobbyist. Yes, a lot of Congress has become a swamp. It is WRONG to lump ALL Congressmen as swamp creatures. You need to learn to identify, acknowledge, and praise the good people so America will vote more of them in. It is interesting that a lot of Americans keep on saying - Congress is beholden to lobbyists - yet they keep electing them over and over (hello, McCain). I guess they think everybody else are swamp creatures except their own swamp creature of a representative. 15 hours ago, Traveler said: I have worked most of my life in corporate. True de-regulating corporate can, in some cases help the economy – but I have yet to see that trickle down to the middle class. Oh wait, I forgot the upper management of corporate need someone to take care of all their stuff that they buy with their bonus profits and stock options that creates a lot of lower end jobs that really help the middle class? Tricke-down. Another liberal jargon. There's no such thing as "trickle down economy" in economic theory. That is jargon created by Democrats to malign the Reagan economy and like the lemmings that Republicans are, they accept the bad premise and try to use the jargon to make it look good in the media instead of rightfully attacking the bad premise in the first place and fight the media with it! Trump is showing them now how it is done. Hopefully, they learn from it. But, oh no, that's... that's... that's... un-Presidential! Lemmings. First of all, Trickle-down has nothing to do with de-regulation. Trickle-down is about tax cuts. This STUPID (capitalized because I wanted to use a stronger word but can't come up with one that is mormonhub appropriate) premise that tax cuts on the "rich" is supposed to "trickle down" to the poor. What a CROCK! Talk about Class Warfare! The rich pays the most tax so of course they get the most tax CUTS. But no, the poor - who pay little to no taxes - can't have lesser tax cuts than the rich! WHY THE HECK NOT? You pay $1 in taxes you shouldn't get $100 in tax cuts! "But the rich gets $1 million in tax cuts!" - well, they paid $1 billion in taxes! So... instead of arguing THAT premise to the media (who are just as happy to paint Republicans as poor-hating heartless white supremacists)... the Republicans push this idea that the $1 million in tax cuts are supposed to end up in the pockets of the poor... like the poor is gonna get $100 trickling-down out of the million. They think that will make it more palatable to "the poor" (which is most everybody because for most people, somebody is richer than they are so they are poor even if they're making $100K a year). Morons. No. The guy who paid $1 in taxes may get 10 cents tax cut. Not get $100 trickling-down to him from the guy who paid $1B in taxes. Tax Cuts do ONE THING - move money out of the public sector and inject it back into the private sector where the money came from. It has the same effect as Keynesian economics like the Bush-Obama "stimulus". The difference between a tax-cut and a stimulus is that with tax-cuts, the free market decides where the money goes whereas in a stimulus the government decides where the money goes. And now you, Traveler, thinks de-regulation is supposed to "trickle-down" to the middle class? I haven't heard "tricke-down" tied to de-regulation by either Democrats or Republicans. At least they know it's garbage to do so. Corporations and businesses in general exist for one reason - to make a profit. If it can't make a profit in the US, it will close down or go else-where. Profits = Revenue minus Expenditure. Excessive Regulations do either one of two things - reduce Revenue or increase Expenditure. Either one will reduce Profits which causes businesses to close or go elsewhere. This has nothing to do with the middle class. This has everything to do with attracting businesses to stay in the US or move to the US or open in the US. And this idea of "the upper management" versus the "workers"... another ammo in the liberal tactic of Class Warfare. That's how you get Bernie Sanders - a blooming socialist - become relevant in elections. I sat on the plane last weekend seated in the middle of two twenty-something year-olds who both think socialism is great. That's how you get young people to think socialism is great - pit "upper management" against the "workers" and paint "upper management" as evil people. The salary of "upper management" is just as much an expenditure as the salary of "workers". "Upper management" answer to somebody. In Corporations - the CEO answers to the board of directors who answer to the majority stockholders (the owners). In other businesses - the highest level manager answers to the business owner. The owners (including the stockholders/board of directors in a corporation) decide how much management gets paid because it cuts into their profits. They are usually not stupid (if they were, the business will not survive). And just like the free-market dictates how much a programmer makes, it also dictates how much a CEO makes. The board will not cut a contract to a CEO who costs more than he is capable of making in corporate profits or a CEO who asks more money than another CEO of the same quality down the street. This holds true for measley programmers. The business will not hire programmers who are more expensive than another programmer down the street. If they can hire a programmer from India for 25 cents an hour who can produce the same quality of work, they will pay 25 cents an hour. Now, let's just say a business can garner $1M revenue by just spending $1K in expenditures. Nothing wrong with that. You might think - the business owner should give that profit to the workers! Forcing that scenario is what's called socialism. No, that's the business owners' money and he can do whatever he wants to do with it. If he wants to give it to the workers, great. If not, then great. The only way that money doesn't benefit somebody in the economy is if the business owner hides the money under his bed or something. If he puts it in the bank - it gets used by somebody else in the economy. If he buys a yacht with it - it transfers to somebody else in the economy. So sure, if you're his worker you would complain - but, but, but, it should have gone to ME. Well, you're gonna force a business owner to give you his money? That's pretty much the same as making him pay exorbitantly higher taxes while you pay no taxes! Oh wait... In any case... de-regulation attracts more businesses. More business -> more jobs. More jobs -> more competition for workers. More competition -> higher wages. Higher wages -> more market demand. More market demand -> more businesses. Capitalism in action. 15 hours ago, Traveler said: The big problem (elephant in the room) is spending pork. Did you know that the richest and fasting counties in the USA border Washington DC? It will take a bloody civil war to dislodge that corruption. Yes. Elephant in the room. That's why you push for Tax Cuts. Tax Cuts reduces the money in the public sector. Of course, that also requires you put the lid back on the ability of Congress to borrow money from the taxes of future generations. We accomplished Tax Cuts. Let's see how Congress do with debt ceilings. Then let's see what they do with the money they have left over. Like I said - the people controls who goes to Congress. They don't get there unless you put them there. 15 hours ago, Traveler said: If Trump gets close to any real change that would actually benefit the middle class – the Russian collusion thing (the whole investigation) will look like a Young Woman fundraising project for camp in comparison to what will happen. Not sure what you mean by this. And here it is again - middle class. Class Warfare. A policy that is good for the middle class but bad for everybody else is STILL a bad policy. Trump has accomplished in just 1 year a ginormous change in government that is not just affecting the US for the better but also worldwide. Yes, these are short-term gains. Let's see if it sticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, MormonGator said: All of us who aren't on the extreme left or extreme right deal with that, and it's not just here. It's called "life". What I noticed is that people have their pet issues where if you disagree with them, you must be extreme left/right. If you are pro choice, you are obviously extreme left. Even if you are pro gun, pro death penalty, anti tax, anti gay marriage etc. If you are pro gun, then you are obviously extreme right even if you are pro choice, anti gay marriage, pro death penalty, etc. The best line about it comes from the Newsroom, the Aaron Sorkin drama. "“I'm a registered Republican, I only seem liberal because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage.” Well, actually, it's LOW barometric pressure, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: Have you seen what people get with SS these days? People who try to live only on their SS ARE in the poor house already. Why do you think someone who should be in their retirement (though I also admit I was very UNWISE with money when I was younger and spent it all rather than investing like I should have) is still working when they should be enjoying their "golden" years (also, I tend to enjoy it, which I suppose may also be part of why I am still a historian. Also to be honest, there are OTHER reasons that I am still doing the stuff I do which have nothing to do with money, but additional money definitely helps. If I was to try to live ONLY on what SS would bring in, my quality of life would be greatly decreased). Yep! And that's why Paul Ryan spent his entire career before becoming Speaker working on trying to save Social Security. Anyway, you can do what a lot of Americans are doing. Take their SS money and live like kings in the Philippines. Edited January 9, 2018 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eVa Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 I have 0 stock in Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Well, actually, it's LOW barometric pressure, so... I'd expect such scientific ignorance from a right winger like yourself. You probably think there are only two genders you ignoramus! (Just playing everybody. Nothing but huge love and respect for @Carborendum!) Edited January 9, 2018 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, MormonGator said: You probably think there are only two genders you ignoramus! Unless we're talking Alien Nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Carborendum said: Well, actually, it's LOW barometric pressure, so... Maybe his hurricanes swing that way, barometrically speaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, mordorbund said: Maybe his hurricanes swing that way, barometrically speaking. Hey pal, keep my private life out of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: Well, comparatively to most on these boards I am EXCESSIVELY Liberal. Probably considered to the FAR Left...which I will point out in many situations so people won't make any mistakes in that. However, I view myself more as a centrist, neither really left nor right, neither truly liberal or conservative. I might even say I probably lean a little more conservative than liberal, but comparative to the politics many Mormons seem to have these days, I'm probably decidedly Liberal in comparison. Ugh. I'll have to go with the long-winded response. There are good things in both classic liberal and classic conservative ideologies. The US Constitution is designed to keep both in balance. You are actually in a good position. But that depends on what you're liberal in and what you're conservative about. So, here goes... hope this doesn't go poof! this time! By the way - full disclosure - in the US I'm conservative. But I'm actually a classic liberal - and that's because the Philippine Constitution is not as great as the US Constitution. Contrary to what most Americans impressions about Liberalism, it is actually for very small government - and that is because the smaller the government, the more the people have Liberty. Conservatism is for stronger government - to preserve traditions and mores. In the US, the US Constitution shifts this paradigm because the US Constitution LIMITS the government. So being conservative in the US strengthens State governments. But the States are confined within the limitations of the US Constitution - so conservatism is limited by virtue of the Founding Ideals. On the other hand, being liberal in the US is to limit the power of the State governments. Unfortunately, the Democrat Party (the professed party for liberalism) uses the Federal Government to limit the power of the State government so even as the State governments get weaker, the Federal Government becomes stronger. But, similarly, the US Constitution still limits what the Federal Government can do... so the Democrat Party tries to expand the interpretation of the US Constitution to give the Fed Govt more room to work with while the conservatives are strict Constitutionalists to limit the power of the Feds and give more power to the States. The classic liberals are the Libertarians - they want both State and Fed govts to leave them alone. Gah. Took me all those words just for the full disclosure? Gee whiz! I got time. I can write a lot. Hope you have time to read a lot... On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: Well, I took a look at my taxes in several of the sites. It appears that I will lose somewhere between $180 and $1800 on a general estimate. I'm not one that's going to get any "new money", but the biggest campaign promise stated by Trump that he broke in regards to the new taxes is that he would not benefit from it. Turns out, it appears he is one of the BIGGEST beneficiaries of it. Whether you get tax cut/no-tax-cut doesn't matter as much as why you didn't get reduced taxes. There are only 4 ways you may end up without a tax cut. 1.) You have a high paycheck income. 2.) You have high itemized deductions (e.g. a lot of kids, a lot of property, etc.) 3.) You live in one of those high-tax States. 4.) You don't pay taxes or you get EIC. Out of those 6, only #1 is a bad reason. If you have a high income, you SHOULD GET A BIG TAX CUT. This is the problem I have with the Tax Cut Bill. Trump and the Republicans still buy into this STUPID idea that the "Rich" who pay the most taxes should not get a tax cut. Class Warfare is a political tactic to weaponize Greed. Couple this with weaponized Compassion and you got the platform of a political party that can stay in power for generations regardless of the unrighteousness of their principles. Now, Trump states that he is not going to benefit from it. That's what he wanted. It is stupid as I already stated on the paragraph above. And because it is stupid, the last remaining stronghold of sensible people in Congress rejected that idea. So, you should be happy that Trump did not get what he wanted there. So, how could Trump be the biggest beneficiary of the bill? Well, Trump's Tax Return released by Rachel Maddow shows Trump makes taxable money 3 major ways: 1.) Pass-through income 2.) business income. 3.) capital gains. So, are you saying we shouldn't cut taxes on pass-through income, business income, and capital gains because Trump would benefit from it? Or are you saying only the poor businessmen should get a tax cut? Well... the conservatives didn't get everything they want... Pass-through tax-break got capped at $315K and it sunsets in 2025. So, Trump who passed through tens of millions of dollars every year before becoming POTUS don't get that cut. But, of course, he still gets the 2.6% reduction of the highest income bracket from 39.6% to 37%. 2.6% reduction for the people responsible for 50% of income tax revenue. BUT... Trump paid only 25% of his income as shown by Rachel Maddow in his 2005 return. Why? Itemized Deductions - the same itemized deductions that made you not get a tax cut. Yep. So, chances are, Trump is going to end up having to pay closer to 37% than the 25% unless he is very charitable. So, is he REALLY the biggest beneficiary of the bill? There's one answer... Only those engaged in Class Warfare cares. On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: Republican Senators have broken several promises with the new taxes...that of reducing the budget deficit and everything that they said in conjunction with that. From all appearances, this is going to make it balloon bigger than anything that Obama ever did. Funny that when one gets into power, they take the same positions as those they attacked rather than keeping to their promises. You're mixing things up here. You don't reduce deficit by reducing taxes. That's silly. You reduce deficit by slashing the size of government. Yes, Congress still has not passed a budget bill. They just keep funding the govt through "kicking the can down the road". But Trump's executive branch is a whole lot smaller than Bush or Obama's. Lots of unfilled positions (will probably remain unfilled) and lots of reductions in major departments like the EPA and the State Dept. But, the power of the purse remains in Congress so we don't know if the reduced size of the Executive Branch will matter in the whole scheme of things. Anyway, Obama increased the deficit by $9T. The projected cost of the final tax bill is $1.3T. Big difference. If a Tax Cut doesn't reduce Federal Revenues then there was never a tax cut. It was merely a tax transfer. That is - one individual gets a tax cut that another individual is paying for. Like a game of hide the stone in the shell... A Tax Cut stops the movement of money from the private sector to the public sector. This accomplishes the same thing as the Keynesian stimulus - where the government moves money out of the public sector into the private sector. The difference is - in a Tax Cut, the individual taxpayer gets to decide what to do with the money. In a stimulus, the government decides what to do with the money (like, use it to invest in green energy or the car industry or bail out banks). Obama's stimulus programs combined cost $2.8T. On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: The ACA has not been repealed (something they had almost unanimous republican support for almost every time they voted, and that was a LOT of times previously to Trump taking office), and the new ideas don't do away with it, they just take away a tax penalty which, once again will affect the US Budget adversely and is predicted to make rates rise even more than they have been already. Yep. Unfortunately, once you give people welfare benefits, it is very difficult to take it away. Weaponized Compassion. Trump passed an EO to open competition in the health insurance markets across state lines and to remove restrictions on policies so that insurance companies can once again provide more health-care options that are cheaper that doesn't have to cover things like birth control, or pre-existing conditions for those who don't need it. On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: That wall...oh yes...that wall still hasn't been built. Instead of worrying about Sanctuary cities now...the entire STATE OF CALIFORNIA has become a Sanctuary state. Oh yeah...good job with that...Trump and Republican congress. California basically just went nuclear on that entire topic. Now it's not just cities, it's states that are going into sanctuary status. The lesson we get from the Reagan years is... Amnesty only makes 13 million more illegal aliens if you don't control the borders first. California's willingness to sacrifice Kate Steinle for Weaponized Compassion is no one's fault but California's and the stupid Democrat's desire to plump up their voter rolls by any means necessary. To put that mess on the heads of Trump and the Republicans who are trying to solve the problem is like Obama blaming people who identifies Islamic Terrorists for the rise of Islamic Terrorism. Nonsense. On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: Coal hasn't gained any new jobs...still losing a few even from what I hear. Of course not! It's coal! There are much better and efficient ways to provide energy than clean coal! It's like saying - CD manufacturing hasn't gained any new jobs. Well, duh. The new jobs are making mp3s! But, regardless of coal's clunky technology, you can't get rid of coal. Because coal is not only used in power plants. It is also used in other things like making steel. Clinton vs. Trump on coal was a debate on shutting down coal production in the US to be replaced by imported coal (or imported steel) versus keeping coal production right here in the US for Americans. On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: Corporations, despite having record profits (and this, along with the disaster in Kansas is why many are saying these tax cuts do nothing to inspire them to reinvest, they already have more money than they have in over a decade and they are still NOT reinvesting...if they are not reinvesting after having over 2x the money they used to, why is anymore going to inspire them...it should have had targeted tax cuts where they get reductions for salary increases or job creation...etc), have NOT created more jobs (in fact, more have gone overseas under Trump...though it MAY be at a slightly reduced rate). This doesn't make sense. Job participation rate is the highest in 17 years. Black and hispanic communities are showing historic low unemployment rates. This has more to do with the massive reduction of regulations than anything else and a confidence in economy. Record profits doesn't equal increased investments. Increased investments is a product of confidence in a projected higher rate of return of investments made. Tax-cuts targetting salary increases or job creation is not a Tax-cut. That's a stimulus - the government deciding where the money injected to the private sector is spent. Personally, I don't trust the government THAT much to make them decide what to do with people's money. On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: I see Trump having done ONE and only really ONE big thing which is to create a more conservative judiciary with his Supreme court justice and the various judges he's installed. Other than that...not a whole lot I think that is good is going on from him or his Congress. Okay, stop watching MSM. That's what they would say. For us over in the Philippines, Trump is a MAJOR game changer in the world stage. His most notable achievement is gaining back Iraq and Syria out of the hands of ISIS. It helped the Philippines retake Marawi out of the hands of ISIS too. Another major game changer is the pushback on the anti-semitic trend in the UN. Another major game changer is the pushback to the globalist corruption of major UN members including their reneging of their financial contibutions and their use of Climate Change as a means to usurp economic and strategic power out of the US. In the Pacific theater, the coalition of Southeast Asian countries to mitigate the threat of the DPRK is a major achievement led by the Trump Administration. Oh yeah, Trump's big and working nuclear button managed to stomp on Rocketmans' little button... and now we got the DPRK opening channels with the RoK. Who needs diplomacy when you can just tweet? (Just kidding. of course, lots of diplomacy and threats and sanctions, etc. is working towards that fateful event). And then, here are all the bills that Trump signed into law in 2017 (the ones shaded in green): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_in_the_115th_United_States_Congress There's at least 60 of them about 20 of which is just rolling back Obama-era bad policies. If you like Obama, you're not gonna like these, of course. The Obama legacy is hanging on a thread. Anyway, that's a lot going on... most notable of those is the removal of Fed restrictions to States defunding Planned Parenthood, VA Accountability, the reinstitution of NASA, the expanded benefits for LEOs killed in the line of duty, sanctions on DPRK, Iran, and Russia, the tax bill that you don't like, etc. etc. Personally for me though (besides the Foreign policy stuff I mentioned) - my favorite achievements are the 70% reduction of illegal immigration and the constant mockery of the MSM as Fake News. These are Yuge. Okay, ran out of time... I'll finish this later. Edited January 9, 2018 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 I'm retaining my skeptical optimism, but will be referring to POTUS as our VSG (Very Stable Genius) from now until at least 2020. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 10, 2018 Report Share Posted January 10, 2018 7 hours ago, anatess2 said: One man in the House of Representatives cannot change the entire government that has been acting stupid before he was even born. The only thing he can do is criticize and persuade and try to re-align the giant boat as best he can knowing what the other 534 members of Congress will vote for. ... - Paul Ryan Social Security is a governmentmoney laundering scheme. Less than 40% of the money collected through Social Security taxes ever make it back to any citizen SS recipient. All Paul Ryan would have to do is publish an official document of where the money is going. The only way I know that about the 40% mark is because 60% is spent by the SS administration. At least that is what accounting claims – if you think you can even believe that. Quote Ha hah. America got old in 1973. If you expect the government to do something about old people then you must be a liberal. Oh wait. Are you? Obviously, you do not know what happened in 1973. Actually, there were several things leading up to 1973 that began with the 1960 census. Here is a hint – The war on poverty. Quote Healthcare cost in the US today is super high because of 4 main things - More old people, government regulations sitting over the entire industry, federalization of health insurance, and malpractice litigation. Trump is working on 2 and 3. Health care (you got some right) costs increases because of: #1. Increasing numbers of individuals receiving health care and paying nothing. (including includes those not having health insurance to help pay). #2. Malpractice costs – even for doctors that have never paid out a claim – sometimes for line items that are not part of their practice. #3. (related to #’s 1 & 2) Unnecessary and unhelpful health care, products and procedures – often to avoid law suits but also because patents request it. #4. Non-health or health treatment related paper work. Mostly insurance and government required paperwork that is not directly necessary for the patient’s care. Please note that insurance paperwork is not all because of government regulations. I estimate that those that pay for health care – pay about 6 times the cost of their care to cover other stuff the industry charges. I recently posted I could was able to get my medication for eye surgery if I just paid out of pocket – rather than use my insurance and pay my co-payment???? Quote Middle-class healthcare protection. ... Tricke-down. Another liberal jargon. There's no such thing as "trickle down economy" in economic theory. ... Trickle-down is about tax cuts. ..... This country is built on and funded by the middle class – it is the middle class that makes this economy and country great not political leaders and certainly not president Trump. Any law or regulation that does not benefit the middle class will harm the economy and the country. I see no other purpose of government than to protect it citizens and regulate business activity harmful to it citizens – especially the middle class. How about this for a regulation – any company or business that has a layoff cannot provide any bonus or stock incentives or any other incentives to management, employees or stockholders for 3 years. I understand companies sometimes have to have layoff to stay in business but I believe a layoff to achieve bonuses (especially for the rich and not the middle class) is class warfare and likely to initiate other class warfare activity. I also believe every citizen should pay taxes – no exceptions – no deductions. If someone cannot pay taxes they should be declared incompetent, deprived of their citizenship and place under government oversite and protection – especially from things like drugs, alcohol, lotteries and other social vises. Of course, minors under the care and protection of parents would be an exception – but until they are on their own and paying taxes – they should not have the right to vote. Voting age makes no sense. I see no reason for non-citizens of “incompetent” individuals being given the power to vote. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 10, 2018 Report Share Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: I think this is going to have major reverberations against them in the coming elections and in 2020 and probably far after that. I did not like what Democrats did when they were in power, but at least they didn't turn around and say they wanted a balanced budget and then do the exact opposite of that. They already were for a budget explosion. Thus far, I'm not liking what the Republicans have done while in office even more than disliking what the Democrats did when they were in office. That's not a good sign for Republicans I think. You really need to get more varied in your news sources. Conservatives are fine with the way things are going - i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, et. al. It is headed in the right direction. Republicans minus the Never Trumpers are fine with the way things are going - I was just listening to today's DACA pow-wow at the Oval Office and Lindsey Graham and Trump were having a bromance there. Social Liberals (i.e., Reagan Democrats are what the pundits like to call them.) are very happy with the way things are going. Dave Rubin (he's actuallly a classic liberal and not just a social liberal) and his following are very vocal about it. TPP was just one hurray item for them. And another market record hit today. What's it now... 85 times since inauguration? Progressives and Democrats are still hanging on to their Resist signs and their Democratic Socialism flavor of the day. That's not gonna change until a Democrat takes over the Oval Office. Never Trumpers favor a Republican Congress. They just want Trump and anybody associated with him out of office. In any case, we are in a super majority scenario. History has shown that the mid-terms following a super-majority tends to balance the powers out. So, in this mid-term election, history favors the Democrats. After all, it is a natural flow of the design of the US Constitution. But here's the thing... Democrats have been winning elections through minority votes. This might become harder to do as it becomes harder to suppress the progress made in the inner cities. Jeff Sessions doesn't splash on the news cycles. But he has made giant progress in inner cities on the crackdown of drug trafficking, hard crime, and a massive sweep of pedophile and child trafficking rings. All you hear on the news about inner cities is the murders in Chicago, the loss of LEOs in Baltimore causing an increase in crime and the BLM movement. The major progress in the inner cities are being made without much fanfare. So yeah... the biggest obstacle against the Republicans remains the Media. Your entire post is proof of it. Trump trolls the media hard but in the end, it is up to the people to realize what is going on despite the obfuscation of the mainstream news cycles. On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: Alabama was a trick from the Democrats in my opinion. From what we see of the lawsuits against Roy Moore today, it seems clear to me it was a political ploy rather than any REAL situation, at least that's what it appears now. If that's the Democrat playbook, to push slander on any republican candidate like that, it's not going to take too long (or so I hope) that the independents catch on and basically vote the exact opposite of what the Democrats want...basically have it backfire in the Democrats faces. In that light, Alabama is not showing any thing in regards to Democrats being able to win in my opinion, except via lies and slander. Democrats ALWAYS use the sexual misconduct, or racism, or sexism, or homophobia, etc. etc. tactic to destroy Republicans. It's easy. It's nothing new. If Luther Strange would have prevailed in the Primaries, these rape allegations will be made against him. Alabama Republicans are "on" to it. Jeff Sessions has been painted a racist homophobe, etc. Doesn't change anything. Alabama remains dark red. What's new this time is the Bannon factor. Bannon went against Trump and succeeded in putting Roy Moore on the ballot. RNC pulled support once allegations started floating (they don't want to be tainted by any of that scandal regardless of its validity). Roy Moore was on his own. Then Romney and Flake went full-on Doug Jones support even donating to his campaign. And then you got more Democrats voting for Jones than who voted for Obama. In Alabama! Moore sued Alabama for voter fraud - irrelevant now. If a Republican can't overcome voter fraud in Alabama, he's not good enough - Alabama is not going to risk a Constitutional crisis for that. Anyway, that's a unique happening in political campaigns. Well... Bannon is toast now. That Wolff book is actually a boon for Trump and the Republicans (Democrats suck at fighting Trump - you can't use dirt to hurt a guy who won an election neck deep in dirt!). So, it's another shift in the winds of change here. On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: On the otherhand, Tennessee and Virginia are far more telling. It could be VERY rough for Republican in the mid terms and just as rough if not worse in the next presidential election. They HAD their chance as the majority party and instead of doing something like they were trying to do under Obama, they basically acted like the Democrats x 200. If they wanted to do things then do the major actions we all wanted from Conservatives...balance the budget and repeal the ACA. No one cared about a tax "reduction" during this time period, but they do care when the deficit is going to increase primarily due to tax cuts for the wealthy, not a good way to draw attention to a supposed tax reform. Super majority scenario. Trends favor Democrats. It's an uphill battle regardless. But you are wrong on the Republicans. I don't even know what basis you have with your conclusions. The normal design of Congress is that opposing ideologies battle it out on the Congress floor until they reach a compromise which usually ends up somewhere in the middle. That's the natural consequence of the limits imposed by the US Constitution. This was working fine when Bush was President. Bipartisan support was achieved even with a Republican majority - Patriot Act, Iraq War. And even after they lost majority - NCLB, Medicare D. But, as you can see by these examples, government was moving Leftward with conservatives losing every battle. Obama Presidency got Democrat majority and debate stopped. It all became a wide partisan divide and major bills squeak through by the skin of its teeth with only one party voting yea. The Obama Democrat majority rammed super progressive bills out of Congress without much debate - including ACA (Pelosi's famous "vote for the bill then you'll know what's in it", remember?). Conservative backlash swept the country in all levels of government and the Republicans got Congress but it doesn't matter much when the President is expected to veto so no debate was happening there either. They know it's not going anywhere so it's nothing but a token gesture for election purposes. In reality, Conservatives (represented by the Tea Party) were still trying to wrest control of the left-leaning Republican Party. But that has changed. This is what 2017 Congress looks like -2017 is markedly different. Here, you got the Democrats being irrelevant to the debate - not enough votes to win and no desire to give up key policy positions. So you're left with the Republicans. The Republicans are now working how Congress is supposed to work - opposing ideologies (big govt Republicans versus Conservatives) clashing on the Congress debate floor. All Republicans have to agree on controversial bills before anything can get passed because Democrats are sidelining. So, what you're saying about the Republicans is actually the opposite - this is the healthier Republican Party than the Obama-era Republicans. As a Centrist - your problem is not the Republicans. Your problem is the Democrats. When they become relevant again, government is going to pull hard left because there are not enough conservative Republicans to combat them. Tax Reform was a major topic in 2017 with both Clinton and Trump proposing policy changes. It was part of the #1 issue of the campaign season - the Economy. Even Immigration Reform sat behind it with it being part of the #2 major campaign issue - Terrorism. "Tax cuts on the wealthy" is not a conservative concern. Conservatives want tax cuts for everybody who pays taxes - rich poor and everybody in-between. Class Warfare is not a conservative policy. Class Warfare should be run out of the arena of political discussion period. It serves ZERO purpose but to pit groups of people against another group to form voting blocs - a tactic used by the Democrats in the same manner that they pit racial groups against each other and gender groups against each other. It is the fodder by which Socialism thrives as a relevant political movement in a country that has spent a century fighting Communists. Pit the money-makers against the working-class by telling working-class people the money-makers deserve to be punished! I hate this crap! On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: And I know of almost no one that really wanted Net Neutrality repealed. The nations that don't have net neutrality are places like China and North Korea. Yeah...great company there that we've joined. Portugal is one of the few free nations that does not have Net Neutrality and what's happened there due to it has NOT been pretty. There are some that may celebrate it, but overall that was NOT a popular move. Ugh. You REALLY are not paying attention. There is net neutrality and there is Net Neutrality. They are completely different things. The same way that AntiFa are more fascists than not and Feminists are more sexists than not... Net Neutrality is more non-neutral than neutral. The internet is the last bastion of capitalist enterprise that is for the most part free of government interference. Net Neutrality puts the big butt of government sitting on top of the internet. THAT is EXACTLY China, Iran, North Korea and any other country where Free Speech is not Constitutionally protected. "What happened there has NOT been pretty"? I think you are talking about something here you do not understand. You think it's not a popular move because - the party of big government controls the media, the universities, hollywood, etc. etc. The majority, as always, remains silent... unless you go to the non-Democrat-controlled internet. Pro-tip: Google and most of silicon valley is Democrat-controlled. This is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the ejection of James Damore. Good thing Google does not control the internet. Yet. On 1/6/2018 at 5:33 AM, JohnsonJones said: I see the tide turning strongly against the Republicans but it is NOT because of the normal political tides, it's because they are sabotaging themselves and shooting themselves rather than any normal political tide. I'll agree with that. But not in the ways you are talking about in this entire post. Edited January 10, 2018 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 10, 2018 Report Share Posted January 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Traveler said: Social Security is a governmentmoney laundering scheme. Less than 40% of the money collected through Social Security taxes ever make it back to any citizen SS recipient. All Paul Ryan would have to do is publish an official document of where the money is going. The only way I know that about the 40% mark is because 60% is spent by the SS administration. At least that is what accounting claims – if you think you can even believe that. Okay, I will need to see what source you're using for this. Social Security is a Trust Fund. It has always been a Trust Fund... even during the Johnson Administration through the Reagan Administration when the Trust Fund was accounted as part of the Fed Budget. SSA publishes that today, 85 cents of every dollar put into SS goes out to pay current beneficiaries (see page 3). Baby Boomers are collecting now. 15 cents goes to the Trust Fund. SS Administration overhead is taken out of the Trust Fund as well as SSI payments (given to people regardless of whether they contributed to SS or not). Yes, the Trust Fund actually has no real assets because the Trust Fund is held as Govt Special Issue Bonds or Govt IOU's. But this is the same problem with any other Govt issued Bonds that a lot of investors hold. We are trusting that the Govt will make good on the IOU. That's why Paul Ryan wanted to diversify the Trust Fund money to private sector investment instead of Govt Bonds. But this is not the main problem of SS solvency. The main problem is the combination of the weak economy in the 15 or so years before 2017 combined with the aging population that will leave the Trust Fund empty. 2 hours ago, Traveler said: Obviously, you do not know what happened in 1973. Actually, there were several things leading up to 1973 that began with the 1960 census. Here is a hint – The war on poverty. Health care (you got some right) costs increases because of: #1. Increasing numbers of individuals receiving health care and paying nothing. (including includes those not having health insurance to help pay). #2. Malpractice costs – even for doctors that have never paid out a claim – sometimes for line items that are not part of their practice. #3. (related to #’s 1 & 2) Unnecessary and unhelpful health care, products and procedures – often to avoid law suits but also because patents request it. #4. Non-health or health treatment related paper work. Mostly insurance and government required paperwork that is not directly necessary for the patient’s care. Please note that insurance paperwork is not all because of government regulations. I understand 1973 just fine. Your list is all in my list. Here, let me itemize them for you: #1. Increasing numbers of individuals receiving health care and paying nothing. (including includes those not having health insurance to help pay). That's a by-product of Fed Regulation that requires doctors and hospitals to provide care regardless of ability to pay. #2 on my list. #2. Malpractice costs – even for doctors that have never paid out a claim – sometimes for line items that are not part of their practice. That's #4 on my list. #3. (related to #’s 1 & 2) Unnecessary and unhelpful health care, products and procedures – often to avoid law suits but also because patents request it. This is actually a by-product of Health Insurance rather than "avoidance of law suits". Healthcare providers do not give care according to what they think is needed. Rather, they provide care according to the Health Insurance protocols of the symptoms. Regardless of its need. I was self-pay before ACA. My OB practice got discombobulated when I told them I have no health insurance coverage and I want the doctor to come up with his own protocol instead of using the health insurance protocols. They can only get sued if the patient can prove malpractice. They can't be sued for malpractice if they followed widely accepted protocols. Health Insurance protocols are pretty much medical Bible. Med school is taught around these protocols. If patients request it and it is not in the protocol (i.e., not covered by insurance), healthcare providers can demand payment before service. #3 on my list. #4. Non-health or health treatment related paper work. Mostly insurance and government required paperwork that is not directly necessary for the patient’s care. Please note that insurance paperwork is not all because of government regulations. Fed Regs is #2 on my list. Health Insurance is #3 on my list. Health Insurance has been heavily Fed Reg'd well before ACA. And State Reg'd under that. 2 hours ago, Traveler said: I estimate that those that pay for health care – pay about 6 times the cost of their care to cover other stuff the industry charges. I recently posted I could was able to get my medication for eye surgery if I just paid out of pocket – rather than use my insurance and pay my co-payment???? Most people go to the doctor and do not care how much anything costs. They only care that it is paid by somebody else (usually health insurance or the government). Health Insurance and Government fee schedules are bottom dollar. They don't want to pay more than is necessary for such things. Health insurance premiums cost a lot of money because health insurance is not treated as Insurance but rather a piggy bank that has to pay for every measley medical thing. You get the common colds - insurance pays. You get a headache - insurance pays. So, even as the health insurance only paid the doctor $1 for your headache, you still pay a lot of premium because it still has to pay for if you get cancer. 2 hours ago, Traveler said: This country is built on and funded by the middle class – it is the middle class that makes this economy and country great not political leaders and certainly not president Trump. Any law or regulation that does not benefit the middle class will harm the economy and the country. I see no other purpose of government than to protect it citizens and regulate business activity harmful to it citizens – especially the middle class. How about this for a regulation – any company or business that has a layoff cannot provide any bonus or stock incentives or any other incentives to management, employees or stockholders for 3 years. I understand companies sometimes have to have layoff to stay in business but I believe a layoff to achieve bonuses (especially for the rich and not the middle class) is class warfare and likely to initiate other class warfare activity. Class Warfare. So, I guess rich people do not fund this economy nor do they not make the country great. Now. Tell me. How much do you have to make before you become "the guy that built and funded this country"? How much more do you have to make before you stop being "the guy that built and funded this country"? I call BS on any of that. Any government regulation that interferes with a private Company's decision to spend its money where it sees fit is government overreach. It is the exact same thing as a government who tells you, Traveler, how to spend your earnings. Once again... a business does not exist for the purpose of giving people jobs. A job does not exist as a business-provided welfare system. A business who can still make a profit after a lay-off had too many workers. A business owner who successfully streamlined its company to be more efficient and profitable through a lay-off has every right to route its profits to anybody he sees fit. Any worker who accepted a job for the paycheck he was promised and then wages class warfare because somebody else got more money than he got needs to reflect on the unrighteousness of Greed and Envy. 2 hours ago, Traveler said: I also believe every citizen should pay taxes – no exceptions – no deductions. If someone cannot pay taxes they should be declared incompetent, deprived of their citizenship and place under government oversite and protection – especially from things like drugs, alcohol, lotteries and other social vises. Of course, minors under the care and protection of parents would be an exception – but until they are on their own and paying taxes – they should not have the right to vote. Voting age makes no sense. I see no reason for non-citizens of “incompetent” individuals being given the power to vote. The Traveler Now you go to the other extreme. If I decided to be a stay-at-home mother, I wouldn't have taxable income. If I decided to spend my entire life working in a Charity, I wouldn't have taxable income. If I decided to live off of the product of my father's hard work for the rest of my life and spend all my time serving instead I wouldn't have taxable income. If an Apostle decided to divest of all his property and live off of the good will of the Church instead, he wouldn't have taxable income. If somebody lost everything he had in a Florida hurricane or a debilitating illness, he wouldn't have taxable income. None of these are signs of incompetence nor should this cause a loss of citizenship. All citizens should be given the opportunity to vote regardless of his/her tax contributions. Florida exists as a State without having to require everybody to pay state taxes. Citizens of the USA did not have to pay income taxes until 1913. Obviously, tax contributions do not dictate the value of a person. Every single government measure that BUYS the votes of a majority sector by punishing a minority sector should be run out of government in a quickness. After all, in a society of 5 wolves and 2 sheep, democracy is great, unless you're the sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 10, 2018 Report Share Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, anatess2 said: Okay, I will need to see what source you're using for this. Social Security is a Trust Fund. It has always been a Trust Fund... even during the Johnson Administration through the Reagan Administration when the Trust Fund was accounted as part of the Fed Budget. SSA publishes that today, 85 cents of every dollar put into SS goes out to pay current beneficiaries (see page 3). Baby Boomers are collecting now. 15 cents goes to the Trust Fund. SS Administration overhead is taken out of the Trust Fund as well as SSI payments (given to people regardless of whether they contributed to SS or not). Yes, the Trust Fund actually has no real assets because the Trust Fund is held as Govt Special Issue Bonds or Govt IOU's. But this is the same problem with any other Govt issued Bonds that a lot of investors hold. We are trusting that the Govt will make good on the IOU. That's why Paul Ryan wanted to diversify the Trust Fund money to private sector investment instead of Govt Bonds. But this is not the main problem of SS solvency. The main problem is the combination of the weak economy in the 15 or so years before 2017 combined with the aging population that will leave the Trust Fund empty. I understand 1973 just fine. Your list is all in my list. Here, let me itemize them for you: #1. Increasing numbers of individuals receiving health care and paying nothing. (including includes those not having health insurance to help pay). That's a by-product of Fed Regulation that requires doctors and hospitals to provide care regardless of ability to pay. #2 on my list. #2. Malpractice costs – even for doctors that have never paid out a claim – sometimes for line items that are not part of their practice. That's #4 on my list. #3. (related to #’s 1 & 2) Unnecessary and unhelpful health care, products and procedures – often to avoid law suits but also because patents request it. This is actually a by-product of Health Insurance rather than "avoidance of law suits". Healthcare providers do not give care according to what they think is needed. Rather, they provide care according to the Health Insurance protocols of the symptoms. Regardless of its need. I was self-pay before ACA. My OB practice got discombobulated when I told them I have no health insurance coverage and I want the doctor to come up with his own protocol instead of using the health insurance protocols. They can only get sued if the patient can prove malpractice. They can't be sued for malpractice if they followed widely accepted protocols. Health Insurance protocols are pretty much medical Bible. Med school is taught around these protocols. If patients request it and it is not in the protocol (i.e., not covered by insurance), healthcare providers can demand payment before service. #3 on my list. #4. Non-health or health treatment related paper work. Mostly insurance and government required paperwork that is not directly necessary for the patient’s care. Please note that insurance paperwork is not all because of government regulations. Fed Regs is #2 on my list. Health Insurance is #3 on my list. Health Insurance has been heavily Fed Reg'd well before ACA. And State Reg'd under that. Most people go to the doctor and do not care how much anything costs. They only care that it is paid by somebody else (usually health insurance or the government). Health Insurance and Government fee schedules are bottom dollar. They don't want to pay more than is necessary for such things. Health insurance premiums cost a lot of money because health insurance is not treated as Insurance but rather a piggy bank that has to pay for every measley medical thing. You get the common colds - insurance pays. You get a headache - insurance pays. So, even as the health insurance only paid the doctor $1 for your headache, you still pay a lot of premium because it still has to pay for if you get cancer. Class Warfare. So, I guess rich people do not fund this economy nor do they not make the country great. Now. Tell me. How much do you have to make before you become "the guy that built and funded this country"? How much more do you have to make before you stop being "the guy that built and funded this country"? I call BS on any of that. Any government regulation that interferes with a private Company's decision to spend its money where it sees fit is government overreach. It is the exact same thing as a government who tells you, Traveler, how to spend your earnings. Once again... a business does not exist for the purpose of giving people jobs. A job does not exist as a business-provided welfare system. A business who can still make a profit after a lay-off had too many workers. A business owner who successfully streamlined its company to be more efficient and profitable through a lay-off has every right to route its profits to anybody he sees fit. Any worker who accepted a job for the paycheck he was promised and then wages class warfare because somebody else got more money than he got needs to reflect on the unrighteousness of Greed and Envy. Now you go to the other extreme. If I decided to be a stay-at-home mother, I wouldn't have taxable income. If I decided to spend my entire life working in a Charity, I wouldn't have taxable income. If I decided to live off of the product of my father's hard work for the rest of my life and spend all my time serving instead I wouldn't have taxable income. If an Apostle decided to divest of all his property and live off of the good will of the Church instead, he wouldn't have taxable income. If somebody lost everything he had in a Florida hurricane or a debilitating illness, he wouldn't have taxable income. None of these are signs of incompetence nor should this cause a loss of citizenship. All citizens should be given the opportunity to vote regardless of his/her tax contributions. Florida exists as a State without having to require everybody to pay state taxes. Citizens of the USA did not have to pay income taxes until 1913. Obviously, tax contributions do not dictate the value of a person. Every single government measure that BUYS the votes of a majority sector by punishing a minority sector should be run out of government in a quickness. After all, in a society of 5 wolves and 2 sheep, democracy is great, unless you're the sheep. My source is the Milton Freeman independent audit of SS under the Ragan administration. The only independent audit ever of SS. I have a friend that is a paramedic with and ambulance company in a downtown area in a major US city. They tell me that over half the calls are by various sectors of our economy (lower) that repeatedly are getting a “free ride” to somewhere they want to go. The law requires that services are provided - no questions asked. I also talked to a border agent that told me that daily – emergency vehicles cross the border from Mexico with Mexican citizens getting free health care in the USA (not poor but upper-class citizens that get better health care and for free in the USA). One last case – I talked with an immunologist that works at the University of Utah medical center – His greatest health care concern – homeless that are given antibiotics that do not complete their treatment and he claims are creating resistant infectious strains that cannot be treated. Everyone should be required to contribute to their health care needs and costs. You complain about class Warfare – I was raised in a wealthy family. My father did not pay taxes. I consider myself part of the wealthy class and I pay less than 10% taxes (that is excluding FICA – which is interesting – I am over 70, self-employed and pay about half of what I get back???). Romney pays about 15% taxes but I do not believe that is the whole story. Bottom line is that the wealthy do not pay taxes – they never have and they never will. We have accountants that we pay to find every possible deduction. I tell my accountant to maintain my deductions with no doubt of legal qualification. I know many others that push the boundaries of what is “acceptable” to “extremes”. It is true that we pay a lot of $$$$$ in taxes – but I am also aware that there are some that spend more $$$$ to qualify for deductions than they pay in taxes. I will say something about the privately wealthy that most people do not seem to understand – with rare exception wealthy people work much harder and longer than most. Often to get their businesses started they will work (as I have) for fractions of the minimum wage and for much longer (hours per week) than the laws in many states allow for employees. I believe wealth is defined as someone that works to accomplish and the $$$$ are not a consideration – except that a wealthy person never spends more than they earn. Our government is creating poverty not wealth. I see corporate as the exception to everything – The wealthy in corporate hurt the economy more than they help – I could provide many examples. Privately owned companies and business create wealth. Prior to the great depression over 90% of property and businesses in the USA were privately held. Now after the great depression and the great recession (under Bush) over 95% of property and businesses in the USA are owned by big banks with foreign interest and international corporations. And now corporations (and the corporate wealthy) just got another really nifty way to hide their $$$$$ from taxes. But it is class warfare to mention such things. BTW – anyone that pays tithing or offerings can pay taxes. Edited January 10, 2018 by Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 10, 2018 Report Share Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Traveler said: My source is the Milton Freeman independent audit of SS under the Ragan administration. The only independent audit ever of SS. Your source is ancient. If you remember, Reagan took SS Trust Fund out of the general fund of the Fed Budget before he left office. He moved it back where it was before Johnson put it in the general fund. This was to ensure proper accounting and transparency. I'm not sure if this was the same bill that required the independent audit of SS yearly or if that was tacked on by Clinton or Bush. But the OIG runs an audit by an independent auditor for SS every year ever since I've been paying into the system. 1 hour ago, Traveler said: I have a friend that is a paramedic with and ambulance company in a downtown area in a major US city. They tell me that over half the calls are by various sectors of our economy (lower) that repeatedly are getting a “free ride” to somewhere they want to go. The law requires that services are provided - no questions asked. I also talked to a border agent that told me that daily – emergency vehicles cross the border from Mexico with Mexican citizens getting free health care in the USA (not poor but upper-class citizens that get better health care and for free in the USA). One last case – I talked with an immunologist that works at the University of Utah medical center – His greatest health care concern – homeless that are given antibiotics that do not complete their treatment and he claims are creating resistant infectious strains that cannot be treated. Everyone should be required to contribute to their health care needs and costs. Yes. This is a by-product of Fed Regs. These Fed Regs is why healthcare is a campaign issue since at least the 90's. They eventually managed to pass a bill to fix it... the ACA. As usual, the government causes a problem and in the process of fixing it, makes it worse all to the tune of billions of tax dollars... so they continue to campaign to fix it. Nobody should be required by anybody to contribute anything. The Government should extract its claws out of healthcare period - except for the necessary checks and balances of the free market. 1 hour ago, Traveler said: You complain about class Warfare – I was raised in a wealthy family. My father did not pay taxes. I consider myself part of the wealthy class and I pay less than 10% taxes (that is excluding FICA – which is interesting – I am over 70, self-employed and pay about half of what I get back???). Romney pays about 15% taxes but I do not believe that is the whole story. Bottom line is that the wealthy do not pay taxes – they never have and they never will. We have accountants that we pay to find every possible deduction. I tell my accountant to maintain my deductions with no doubt of legal qualification. I know many others that push the boundaries of what is “acceptable” to “extremes”. It is true that we pay a lot of $$$$$ in taxes – but I am also aware that there are some that spend more $$$$ to qualify for deductions than they pay in taxes. Nobody needs to pay more than what they are legally required to do so in taxes. If you can use every legal means necessary to bring your taxable income down to 0, I encourage you to do so. Class Warfare is when you use the rule of law to force a class of people to pay more taxes, give more money, take their resources, etc. simply because they belong to that class. Saying "but they hire accountants to avoid the tax" is irrelevant. Just the fact that people support the principle that they should be forced to give their money to the government because they are rich while other people don't have to because they are not rich - is Class Warfare. Of course nobody is stopping anybody from paying more taxes than what is legally required just out of the goodness of their hearts. But personally, I prefer to manage my charity myself instead of letting the government do it for me. 1 hour ago, Traveler said: I will say something about the privately wealthy that most people do not seem to understand – with rare exception wealthy people work much harder and longer than most. Often to get their businesses started they will work (as I have) for fractions of the minimum wage and for much longer (hours per week) than the laws in many states allow for employees. I believe wealth is defined as someone that works to accomplish and the $$$$ are not a consideration – except that a wealthy person never spends more than they earn. Our government is creating poverty not wealth. I see corporate as the exception to everything – The wealthy in corporate hurt the economy more than they help – I could provide many examples. Privately owned companies and business create wealth. Prior to the great depression over 90% of property and businesses in the USA were privately held. Now after the great depression and the great recession (under Bush) over 95% of property and businesses in the USA are owned by big banks with foreign interest and international corporations. And now corporations (and the corporate wealthy) just got another really nifty way to hide their $$$$$ from taxes. But it is class warfare to mention such things. Corporations are nothing more than big businesses. The free market principle is the same, the difference is instead of having one or two owners, corporations have thousands or millions of owners. Corporations are not "owned by big banks". Banks simply loan money to Corporations. Corporations are owned by their shareholders. Anybody can be an owner/shareholder if the corporation is publicly traded. You just need the money to buy the stock. Just like there are bad individuals, there are also bad business players, and bad corporate players. They're not exempt from the fall. Corporations are not "more evil" than other businesses. There's no "design flaw" that makes corporate members more greedy than other businesses. And "another nifty way to hide $$$ from taxes"? How do corporations hide $$$ from taxes? Corporations, just like businesses, don't pay taxes. Corporate and business taxes are simply expenditures on the Ledger that is then paid for by the consumer as part of the price of goods/services. How do shareholders hide $$$ from taxes? Capital gains is taxed. How do CEO's hide $$$ from taxes? Income is taxed. In any case, painting corporations as "the evil wealthy" is an ammo in Class Warfare that Democrats use to make "poor people" vote to force them to pay more taxes simply because they are "wealthy and evil". 1 hour ago, Traveler said: BTW – anyone that pays tithing or offerings can pay taxes. People whose 10% of their gains amount to 0 are not incompetent that need their membership to the church and their privilege to sustain their leaders revoked. Edited January 10, 2018 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 11, 2018 Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 @anatess2 I will put it this way – I believe that when Jesus returns and those on earth live for 1,000 years in peace - there will be no corporations. If you honestly do not understand why or if you believe otherwise – we may not have much of any common ground to explorer why we see things so differently. But I will say this – all the problems of big powerful government are the same problems of big powerful business. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2018 Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 43 minutes ago, Traveler said: I will put it this way – I believe that when Jesus returns and those on earth live for 1,000 years in peace - there will be no corporations. If you honestly do not understand why or if you believe otherwise – we may not have much of any common ground to explorer why we see things so differently. But I will say this – all the problems of big powerful government are the same problems of big powerful business. To be a little pedantic... You are absolutely correct because "corporations" as we know them are government created entities that are made to absolve those at the top of any responsibility for their actions. To make a point about your argument in general, the lack of responsibility is exactly what causes problems in big business that you speak of. There is nothing wrong with a business being big as long as there is accountability for people's actions. There is nothing wrong with the idea of some form of medium of exchange being used for goods and services as long as everyone is honest about it. I believe it to be a great lie that capitalism at its core is an evil process. We have accountability in the Church for all actions of everyone in every calling. That is why the Church (as a corporation) will not become corrupt. Responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 11, 2018 Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Traveler said: @anatess2 I will put it this way – I believe that when Jesus returns and those on earth live for 1,000 years in peace - there will be no corporations. If you honestly do not understand why or if you believe otherwise – we may not have much of any common ground to explorer why we see things so differently. But I will say this – all the problems of big powerful government are the same problems of big powerful business. The Traveler Ugh. This is exactly my Mother-in-Law: "Why are you buying investment properties? You can't take that into heaven and when Jesus returns you won't need investment properties." So, why do you think that Corporations are the only things that will not be here in the millineum? If you're a Partnership you'll be here in the millenium? How about LLC's? Will they be here? Single Proprietorship, still here? ONLY Corporations? What makes them especially evil that every other form of business survives the millenium but not them? Do you see how silly this sounds? Let me say this - unrighteous people exists whether you're a single proprietor or a cooperative. There is no problem if unrighteous people do not exist. So yes, if such things as Trade survives the millenium, then there's no reason corporations won't exist. After all, it doesn't matter how big the group of people if righteousness prevails among them - and that includes big government. Edited January 11, 2018 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 11, 2018 Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 This is about the best article I've seen on immediate, meaningful, positive impacts to the lives of millions of people as a result of Trump's tax changes. The word "Trump" does not appear once in the article. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42646899 Quote Walmart plans to start paying its one million US workers at least $11 an hour and give them a one-off cash bonus. The move follows last month's US tax code overhaul that cut the corporate rate from 35% to a flat 21%. [...] It is the latest in a line of US giants that have promised to pass on some of the cash unleashed to staff. Others, including Wells Fargo and AT&T have promised wage rises or bonuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 11, 2018 Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: This is about the best article I've seen on immediate, meaningful, positive impacts to the lives of millions of people as a result of Trump's tax changes. The word "Trump" does not appear once in the article. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42646899 And that's from ultra-left-wing bbc.. So expanding on that... higher wages lead to consumer confidence. Consumer confidence leads to increased demand. Increased demand leads to increased production... and that's how the wheel of a capitalist economy turns. It turns through the individual choices of a free people and not through government-driven actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 11, 2018 Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 @Carborendum – you are close, really close; - @anatess2 You are looking directly at the forest and cannot see any trees. The problem with big government and big business is the concentration of power with the few at the top. Even the Church has this problem (see D&C 121) and the Church is founded on principles of charity and the intent to prevent lusts of power – yet the concentration of power is still a temptation. Sadly, the more successful business and governments are (also the more successful a business man or politician) the greater is the temptation to take advantage of the power that comes with that success – even for good; at first. This also plays with the people whose shoulders the powerful stand on – the more “popular” a CEO or politician (or political party) the more likely we will excuse them for “littles” abuses of power. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 11, 2018 Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Traveler said: @Carborendum – you are close, really close; - @anatess2 You are looking directly at the forest and cannot see any trees. The problem with big government and big business is the concentration of power with the few at the top. Even the Church has this problem (see D&C 121) and the Church is founded on principles of charity and the intent to prevent lusts of power – yet the concentration of power is still a temptation. Sadly, the more successful business and governments are (also the more successful a business man or politician) the greater is the temptation to take advantage of the power that comes with that success – even for good; at first. This also plays with the people whose shoulders the powerful stand on – the more “popular” a CEO or politician (or political party) the more likely we will excuse them for “littles” abuses of power. The Traveler This is the cynical point of view. The non-cynical point of view is to recognize the checks and balances present in that power. The capitalist structure of the US with the US Constitution sitting on top of it puts boundaries on that power. If you're talking about the Philippines, then the boundaries are different. In any case - making blanket statements that all Corporations are evil and do evil things with their money is just as unrighteous as making blanket statements that all politicians are evil and would sacrifice righteousness for their puppetmasters. It is especially bad when you use this prejudice to decide that "upper management" don't deserve their earnings but all "workers" do. Edited January 11, 2018 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 11, 2018 Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Traveler said: The problem with big government and big business is the concentration of power with the few at the top. Even the Church has this problem (see D&C 121) and the Church is founded on principles of charity and the intent to prevent lusts of power – yet the concentration of power is still a temptation. Something to consider - the problem with big government, big business, little government, small business, any kind of government, any kind of methods of exchange - they are all run by humans. Fallible, error-prone, fallen, sinful humans. There are zero ways to have a perfect arrangement as long as humans are calling the shots. Looking forward to when Christ returns, judges everyone, kills all the bad people, and sets up his throne as undisputed and unchallenged king over all the earth. And even then, with satan bound and the Son of God Himself running things, a perfectly just government, no death, world peace, and humans knowing all things - even with 1000 years of all that, we humans will still figure out a way to screw things up and will still form opposition armies and have one last big fight, one last bunch of killing and death. Humans are the issue, not any particular way we organize ourselves to accomplish various things. Edited January 11, 2018 by NeuroTypical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.