Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-25-2017, 08:07 PM   #1
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
this is great

universal income....in a commencement speech

what will they think of next???


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called on the need to consider universal basic income for Americans during his Harvard Commencement Speech.

Zuckerberg's comments reflect those of other Silicon Valley bigwigs, including Sam Altman, the president of venture capital firm Y Combinator.

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2017, 08:44 AM   #2
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 16,103
sorry to burst your bubble Mark, we are people not robots, this is America. Don't let these power hungry control freaks change our society to fit them. FU, make your choices, work hard and get paid for it. You have to earn it, and when you are done earning it, if you make a choice to share your good fortune with others who are less fortunate and in need of assistance, then fine. What is wrong with how it has been?

Don't fall asleep America

"A government that does not trust it's law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust" James Madison

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Regan
Slipknot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2017, 09:17 AM   #3
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
thinks about the possibilities though!!!


millions of Americans being paid by the government to sit around and think about "stuff"....if one or two come up with an idea ...it's a BIG win...and like... totally worth the "investment"

this must be very appealing to a kid graduating with 100k+ in student loan debt and a psychology degree
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2017, 04:07 AM   #4
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,577
He is a Billionaire Sounds like a page from the Trump Campaign Spew BS to those who you want to support you (now with FB and maybe later)

universal income has as much chance as coal and manufacturing jobs coming back and cheaper better health care

A populist message for separate demographic
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2017, 04:35 AM   #5
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
I don't know...sure sounds like a solid foundation for another democrat voter registration drive
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2017, 05:37 AM   #6
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,880
All that would promote is lazy unproductive fat couch potatoes.
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2017, 05:50 PM   #7
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
All that would promote is lazy unproductive fat couch potatoes.

Welfare Demographics

The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2017, 07:41 PM   #8
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 16,103
Who brought race into this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Slipknot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2017, 07:07 AM   #9
BigBo
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
BigBo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: RockVegas
Posts: 3,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
All that would promote is lazy unproductive fat couch potatoes.
Hey! I resemble that remark! No need to get personable Bob.
I've got lots of ideas. The problem is, Zuckerberg hasn't come up with my paycheck yet.


Why don't we just go full socialism while we're at it. This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard. What's wrong with folks working an honest job and earning an honest wage for their hard work and determination to better themselves?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The future ain't what it used to be. --Yogi Berra
BigBo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2017, 07:26 AM   #10
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot View Post
Who brought race into this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
just identifying the current crop of couch Potatoes
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2017, 06:00 PM   #11
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 31,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Welfare Demographics

The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%
Curious - who did you order sort?

A-B:

• Asian – 2.4%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• White – 38.8%

Numeric:

• Black – 39.8%
• White – 38.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• Asian – 2.4%

What other sorts can we use?

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2017, 07:20 PM   #12
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
Curious - who did you order sort?

A-B:

• Asian – 2.4%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• White – 38.8%

Numeric:

• Black – 39.8%
• White – 38.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• Asian – 2.4%

What other sorts can we use?
Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2017, 07:27 PM   #13
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income
Universal income exists for the wealthy. It's called dividends. 6% dividend returns on a million dollars invested will pay out 60 grand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2017, 07:30 PM   #14
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,544
But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 05:35 AM   #15
Raven
........
iTrader: (0)
 
Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,690
Blog Entries: 1
running for president 2020
Raven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 10:21 AM   #16
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What you say is interesting. But I wonder how you arrived at your picture of how it is.

As far as the GOP goes, I don't get from what it says that it is the "poor, illegal aliens, Muslims, and blacks" who are responsible for "this country going down the tubes." I hear arguments from the GOP, with which I agree, that the replacement of our Constitutionally limited government by a so-called "Progressive" system of government is the cause. I hear arguments from Trumpists that stupid politicians who promote stupid policies (especially economic and foreign policies) are the cause. And I hear the perpetual argument from establishment Republicans that the Democrat Party is the cause.

I do hear the same arguments from the Democrat party, but applied in reverse to the Republican party. As well, I hear from the Democrat Party, especially Bernie types, that the Republicans blame the "poor, illegal aliens, Muslims, and blacks" for being responsible for the country's downslide. Perhaps, it's from that and from Progressive media (like Salon, etc.) that you get your perspective?

"[T]he corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth" have been hanging around in this country from its inception. Even through all the great years of expansion and creation of wealth and power which the world had rarely, if ever, seen. Maybe it would have been even better if none of our politicians and bankers had not been crooked. Maybe it would have been better if we had never allowed anyone to garner great wealth (I doubt that)--but I don't hear many, if any, with great wealth blaming poor people for destroying the country. I don't hear much from wealthy people that the country is going down the tubes. They seem to be interested in getting more money rather than bitching about poor people.

At any rate, per the topic of this thread, on the one hand, universal income, as Zuckerberg proposes it, didn't exist all those "great" years so therefor didn't contribute to nor create great wealth or the "middle class." On the other hand, there has always been some sort of universal income in the form of welfare or transfer payments. A large segment of our population is, as of now, receiving some sort of sustained government distributed income. It seems that the number of such folks has steadily increased over the past 100 years, give or take. And the increase seems to have taken a sharp turn up in the latter part of that 100 years. And the much beloved and sought after "middle class" is said to have shrunk during that increase. Do you see any connection?

Or, as is the constant Progressive refrain, not enough transfer of wealth has occurred which is necessary to reach that massive number of those in the greatly desired and admired "middle class."

Would it stop the country from "going down the tubes" if the government guaranteed everyone a universal "middle class" income? That's an interesting question, to me. And I'd like to hear if and how that would work.

Probably, some factors would be one's definition of "going down the tubes." And one's definition of class structure, of "middle class," of "social justice," and of "great."

People forget how "Progressive" Nixon really was. No doubt, the Dems didn't want folks to see that. That would have created a formidable competition against their own desire for power. But Nixon did propose a universal income scheme. It was very attractive to the more socialist minded. Many Dems supported his proposal. But he was given a lesson in history in where it had been tried in England in the mid 19th century and miserably failed. So he watered the idea down. Of course, he was impeached and resigned, so the Progressives eliminated any threat he might have imposed as an opposition candidate.

Some, Marxist oriented folks, argue that the English experiment was not, actually, a failure.

Are you saying, however, that insuring there are none in poverty, and that allowing illegal aliens, would stop the country from "going down the tubes", then how explain the original creation of wealth and power? And if we say that it takes an oppressed lower class to create wealth, then what happens to wealth if there is no such class? And without wealth, what happens to the "lifestyle" that you think we should all have?

Could it be that wealth is created by free people who are not encumbered from doing so, regardless if there is poverty, or if there are some forms of the inevitable crookedness that lurks in human nature? And that "poverty" in a free society is usually better than being in the middle classes in dictatorial societies.

Could it be that individual freedom is the greatest reason for lifting the "lifestyle" of societies, and that the suppression of freedom causes a form of "going down the tubes"?

Last edited by detbuch; 05-29-2017 at 06:20 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 09:25 AM   #17
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
Curious - who did you order sort?


What other sorts can we use?
We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 09:30 AM   #18
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes"

Who is saying that, exactly? MSNBC likes to claim that the GOP is saying that, but who in the GOP is actually saying that? We think bad public policy is harming the country, not minorities.

Sorry to interrupt a good liberal rant.

Nebe, a sincere question...if the GOP dislikes blacks and the poor, why do we tend to support school choice? Why do we give similar (slightly more actually, but that's besides the point) to charity than liberals?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 09:35 AM   #19
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Universal income exists for the wealthy. It's called dividends. 6% dividend returns on a million dollars invested will pay out 60 grand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And you and I can invest $500 in the same dividend-generating stock, and earn the same 6%.

The wealthy have more extra income to invest, Nebe, that is true. But is it bad?

If Bill Gates earns a million dollars in dividend income today, how exactly does that harm you or me?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 10:09 AM   #20
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
All this talk about what 1 person proposed and will never happened and yet I don’t believe I have seen anything about Trumpcare and his budget.

Trump’s budget proposes billions of dollars in cuts to programs that fund research into new cures, protect the country from infectious diseases and bioterrorism and provide care to the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities. The mortgage interest deduction would be eliminated for any mortgage below (I thought I read) 680K. Meals on wheels, National Endowment for the arts, and humanities, NOAA all will take huge cuts.

The CBO analysis said that Trumpcare would rob 23 million people of health insurance while leaving millions of others with policies that offer little protection from major medical conditions. All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.

Medicaid provides health insurance to more than 75M Americans (and 60% of nursing home residents and millions of people with disabilities) would lose $834 billion over 10 years, according to the C.B.O. The president’s budget would take a further $610 billion from the program by “reforming it”. Taken together, this amounts to an estimated 45 percent reduction by 2026 compared with current law.

Trumpcare, would make it impossible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes to buy health insurance. That’s because the law would let states waive many of the requirements of Obamacare. It would also greatly increase the cost of insurance policies for older and poorer people. A 64-year-old earning $26,500 a year and living in a state not seeking waivers would have to pay $16,100 a year for coverage, nearly 10 times as much as she would under Obamacare (I guess they can hold off on purchasing an Iphone for the 1st months premium).

For Trumpcare alone estimates that almost all of the tax cuts in that legislation would flow to the rich: The top 1 percent would take home an average of $37,200 a year, while people with middle-class incomes would get a measly $300.

I have read some say this is a “good conservative budget”. Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class and benefits the rich -is that what Pres. Trump promised the struggling middle class? I wonder if the auto correct will even let me type compassionate conservative?
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 10:35 AM   #21
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
All this talk about what 1 person proposed and will never happened and yet I don’t believe I have seen anything about Trumpcare and his budget.

Trump’s budget proposes billions of dollars in cuts to programs that fund research into new cures, protect the country from infectious diseases and bioterrorism and provide care to the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities. The mortgage interest deduction would be eliminated for any mortgage below (I thought I read) 680K. Meals on wheels, National Endowment for the arts, and humanities, NOAA all will take huge cuts.

The CBO analysis said that Trumpcare would rob 23 million people of health insurance while leaving millions of others with policies that offer little protection from major medical conditions. All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.

Medicaid provides health insurance to more than 75M Americans (and 60% of nursing home residents and millions of people with disabilities) would lose $834 billion over 10 years, according to the C.B.O. The president’s budget would take a further $610 billion from the program by “reforming it”. Taken together, this amounts to an estimated 45 percent reduction by 2026 compared with current law.

Trumpcare, would make it impossible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes to buy health insurance. That’s because the law would let states waive many of the requirements of Obamacare. It would also greatly increase the cost of insurance policies for older and poorer people. A 64-year-old earning $26,500 a year and living in a state not seeking waivers would have to pay $16,100 a year for coverage, nearly 10 times as much as she would under Obamacare (I guess they can hold off on purchasing an Iphone for the 1st months premium).

For Trumpcare alone estimates that almost all of the tax cuts in that legislation would flow to the rich: The top 1 percent would take home an average of $37,200 a year, while people with middle-class incomes would get a measly $300.

I have read some say this is a “good conservative budget”. Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class and benefits the rich -is that what Pres. Trump promised the struggling middle class? I wonder if the auto correct will even let me type compassionate conservative?
A much better post, with things worth discussing. If Trump (or anyone in either party) proposes things that gut badly needed social programs for the benefit of the wealthy, that absolutely needs to be called out.

Trump is proposing to eliminate many federal income tax deductions. But you failed to point out that he is proposing tax rate decreases to offset this. So unless you know what the offsetting (presumably lower) tax rates are, you can't say who will see a net tax increase and who will see a tax decrease. If I lose my mortgage interest deduction, but my tax rate goes down by more than enough to offset that, I am happy. Right?

The National Endowment of the Arts - why the hell should a coal miner in west Virginia be subsidizing opera tickets for the swells in Manhattan? Let them pay for their own opera tickets. We love fishing the way many people love art (except in a much less pretentious way). So why aren't we entitled to federal subsidies to make it cheaper for us to pursue what we love? The NEA makes absolutely zero sense to me, I can't believe it still exists.

I don't want to see huge numbers of people lose insurance.

"All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations."

True., But what you failed to point out (again), is the flip side to that coin. Meaning, if corporations get a huge tax windfall, at least SOME of those corporations will invest in growth, which will create some jobs, which means more people will have insurance through work. Will it be 23 million? Beats me. But you can't judge a proposal based solely on what gets cut. You have to compare the pros and cons, not just look at the cons.

"Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class " When you focus on what's getting taken away, and completely ignore the extras that will be provided (like tax rate decreases and possibly more good jobs and more offshore money coming back to the US) sure it looks that way. But that's not the honest way to evaluate such things.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 10:53 AM   #22
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
A much better post, with things worth discussing. If Trump (or anyone in either party) proposes things that gut badly needed social programs for the benefit of the wealthy, that absolutely needs to be called out.All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that.

Trump is proposing to eliminate many federal income tax deductions. But you failed to point out that he is proposing tax rate decreases to offset this. So unless you know what the offsetting (presumably lower) tax rates are, you can't say who will see a net tax increase and who will see a tax decrease. If I lose my mortgage interest deduction, but my tax rate goes down by more than enough to offset that, I am happy. Right?Yes, but what about us who no longer have a mortgage bc we either took a less than normal term (like 15 or 20 years) or made extra payments to bring down the mortgage - housing expert say the average price of a house will fall 10% - 20%. The price of a house is where most of middle America has the majority of their wealth. Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? Those folks are not middle America. I actually don't think there sb a mortgage deduction.

The National Endowment of the Arts - why the hell should a coal miner in west Virginia be subsidizing opera tickets for the swells in Manhattan? Let them pay for their own opera tickets. We love fishing the way many people love art (except in a much less pretentious way). So why aren't we entitled to federal subsidies to make it cheaper for us to pursue what we love? The NEA makes absolutely zero sense to me, I can't believe it still exists.BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit. Like $ towards meals on wheels, WIC, fuel subsidies for the poor, etc. Otherwise we end up like Pakistan - The rich living in gated communities.

I don't want to see huge numbers of people lose insurance. I don't either but that is what the CBO says will happen W/Trumpcare - 23M while the top 1% benefit from decreased taxes.

"All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations."

True., But what you failed to point out (again), is the flip side to that coin. Meaning, if corporations get a huge tax windfall, at least SOME of those corporations will invest in growth, which will create some jobs, which means more people will have insurance through work. Will it be 23 million? Beats me. But you can't judge a proposal based solely on what gets cut. You have to compare the pros and cons, not just look at the cons.There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money. When taxes got cut in the past, much of the $ was given out as dividends so while I would benefit, the people that Pres Trump appealled to the most are prob. not going to get a dividend check.

"Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class " When you focus on what's getting taken away, and completely ignore the extras that will be provided (like tax rate decreases and possibly more good jobs and more offshore money coming back to the US) sure it looks that way. But that's not the honest way to evaluate such things.
Rather than say someone is not being honest, the honest way to look at his budget proposal and his health care proposal is to recognize that in total the poor will loose out and the rich will benefit.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 11:13 AM   #23
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Rather than say someone is not being honest, the honest way to look at his budget proposal and his health care proposal is to recognize that in total the poor will loose out and the rich will benefit.
"All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that"

And all of the media are reporting that Trump "shoved" a foreign leader when he barely put his hands on the guy. And every analysis of the election had Hilary winning in an electoral rout. I'm not saying that all of the criticism is unfounded, I'm saying that people have gone bonkers trying to make the guy look bad.

"Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? "

I agree. But you can't judge the effect of a tax plan when he hasn't released what the new tax rates will be. That's a critical part of assessing who gets helped and who gets hurt. Right?

"BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit"

Well, in the last post, you repeatedly said you were opposed to gutting the poor to help the rich. I'm not sure then, why you support an organization that takes money from the poor and uses it to provide discounted opera tickets to the uber wealthy at the Met. You're saying the ends justify the means?

"Like $ towards meals on wheels"

Oh, but of course. A program that takes money from coal miners and uses it to pay a guy in Manhattan to make a painting of Jesus drowning in urine, is the same as a program that takes money from the self-sufficient to feed the desperately poor. Gotcha.

"There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money."

I bet you didn't express that concern when Obama announced his stimulus plan. Paul, if you ran a business, and your corporate income tax rate got cut in half, would you propose to bury the money in your backyard?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 11:40 AM   #24
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that"That is what the CBO says. Until this year, everyone agreed while they would be wrong on some things they were the best non political budget forecaster, estimator of cost, etc.

And all of the media are reporting that Trump "shoved" a foreign leader when he barely put his hands on the guy. Come on, he shoved him aside. I wouldn't let someone do that to me. He has no decorum. I would think most parents would not let their child do that or let another child do that to their child. I think there were even assigned places to stand. I think JK Rowling said "You tiny, tiny, little man" And every analysis of the election had Hilary winning in an electoral rout. I'm not saying that all of the criticism is unfounded, I'm saying that people have gone bonkers trying to make the guy look bad.

"Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? "

I agree. But you can't judge the effect of a tax plan when he hasn't released what the new tax rates will be. That's a critical part of assessing who gets helped and who gets hurt. Right?Agreed - and why I thought the 1 page budget he originally released was a joke. In addition to no rates, there was nothing on the income levels for each tier.

"BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit"

Well, in the last post, you repeatedly said you were opposed to gutting the poor to help the rich. I'm not sure then, why you support an organization that takes money from the poor and uses it to provide discounted opera tickets to the uber wealthy at the Met. You're saying the ends justify the means? I'm saying that we can argue about how much $ NPR gets but the fact is that much of the discretionary budget benefits the poor and it is devestated by his budget.
"Like $ towards meals on wheels"

Oh, but of course. A program that takes money from coal miners and uses it to pay a guy in Manhattan to make a painting of Jesus drowning in urine, is the same as a program that takes money from the self-sufficient to feed the desperately poor. Gotcha.That is not a gotcha - the amount of money spend on the arts is a miniscule amount of the budget.

From a search
Trump reportedly wants to cut cultural programs that make up 0.02 percent of federal spending

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized,” the Hill's Alexander Bolton reports, “while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely

So let's look at the 2016 appropriations for the three programs identified in that quote above and compare them with the overall outlays of the federal government. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting received $445 million in 2016. (It gets additional funding from donors like you.) NEA got $148 million. NEH requested the same. The Congressional Budget Office figures that about $3.9 trillion was spent by the government during the fiscal year.

Put another way, if you make $50,000 a year, spending the equivalent of what the government spends on these three programs would be like spending less than $10.



"There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money."

I bet you didn't express that concern when Obama announced his stimulus plan. I was in favor of Bush's 2008 and Obama's stimulas plans bc the economy was in the dumps. not 4.4% unemployment.Paul, if you ran a business, and your corporate income tax rate got cut in half, would you propose to bury the money in your backyard?
What I propose to do w/my $ is different from what a large corp would do. To your point I might invest it.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 01:21 PM   #25
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
What I propose to do w/my $ is different from what a large corp would do. To your point I might invest it.
Which is why I asked what you would do if you ran a business.

"That is what the CBO says. Until this year, everyone agreed while they would be wrong on some things they were the best non political budget forecaster, estimator of cost, etc."

Did they say that Obamacare would decrease everyone's premiums by $2500 a year? But I agree, they are considered non-partisan.

"Come on, he shoved him aside."

Not from what I saw.

"He has no decorum"

On that we agree. He's not a good guy.

"much of the discretionary budget benefits the poor ". I'd say much of the discretionary budget "is aimed at helping the poor". When I look at most of the cities in America compared to what they looked like 25 years ago, I question whether or not the money is making anything better. I think it's a valid question. But I completely agree with you, I want badly needed social services to have adequate funding. But I think we spend tons of money on things that aren't helping.

"the amount of money spend on the arts is a miniscule amount of the budget."

Agreed, it's tiny. But it's no longer necessary, IMHO.

"Put another way, if you make $50,000 a year, spending the equivalent of what the government spends on these three programs would be like spending less than $10."

There's a lot more waste than that. Maybe Trump's budget doesn't get at it, but there's a lot more fat than $10 out of $50k.

Paul, I remember when Bush was in office, he vetoed some spending bill that provided for free school lunch for poor kids. The press, naturally, made him out to be a heartless monster. If one bothered to learn the truth, one learned that Bush didn't like the proposed bill because some middle class families would qualify for free lunch that they didn't need. He wanted to spend MORE money on the truly poor. But it wasn't framed that way. And the press is WAY more invested in destroying Trump, than they were invested in destroying Bush. So I am skeptical of most of what I hear that isn't demonstrable fact. I don't believe Paul Ryan would sign anything that would hurt large numbers of vulnerable people. Trump might.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 02:37 PM   #26
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
.

"Come on, he shoved him aside."

Not from what I saw.It was somewhere between a shove and a 1 arm maneuver to get it. I only saw it once and didn't pay that much attention. My brother (who doesn't like Trump) said the press are being too picky w/him. I agreed but said it is bc of his saying the press is evil and the enemy. They are pushing back.

"much of the discretionary budget benefits the poor ". I'd say much of the discretionary budget "is aimed at helping the poor". When I look at most of the cities in America compared to what they looked like 25 years ago, I question whether or not the money is making anything better. I think it's a valid question. But I completely agree with you, I want badly needed social services to have adequate funding. But I think we spend tons of money on things that aren't helping.Yes, prob. a lot of unnecessary spending.

I don't believe Paul Ryan would sign anything that would hurt large numbers of vulnerable people. Trump might.
It is Trump's budget and will be far different when it is passed.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 03:58 PM   #27
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit.

Yes we can
and by %0f population Black 1,448,636 on welfare and white would be % 7,519,079

feel better..
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 05:43 PM   #28
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 15,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Yes we can
and by %0f population Black 1,448,636 on welfare and white would be % 7,519,079

feel better..
12.2% of the us population is black, yet 39.8 % of welfare recipients are black, 63.7% of the population is white, but 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

I'm pretty sure that's where Jim was going with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 05:55 PM   #29
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
12.2% of the us population is black, yet 39.8 % of welfare recipients are black, 63.7% of the population is white, but 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

I'm pretty sure that's where Jim was going with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Bingo. Thanks TDF...

Last edited by Jim in CT; 05-30-2017 at 06:01 PM..
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 06:04 PM   #30
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
It is Trump's budget and will be far different when it is passed.
"press are being too picky w/him. I agreed but said it is bc of his saying the press is evil and the enemy. They are pushing back."

I completely disagree. They started it and he's pushing back. Everything he does is sinister.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com