|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 07:25 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 07:00 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 06:49 Plansix wrote:
I didn’t need Salon to tell me America’s are pretty dumb. Not much dumber than other countries, but we are not batting any higher. Trump being the front runner in the Republicans race is right in line with use electing Bush twice. The Don is the front runner for GOP is the prove that average Americans are smart enough to realize that socialism won't solve society's problems after the failure that is affirmative action. How exactly do affirmative action and socialism fit together? The democratic party are actively vouching for socialism (see Sanders asking for more taxes for the job providers). Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismAnd affirmative action forces employers to artificially creates quotas adjudicated by governments. Don't listen to that guy that calls people trolls because they've got a point and facts and he's got none. I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built.
On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields.
Cut away welfare and make them all work
Kinda sounds like you did say that.
|
On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 07:25 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 07:00 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 06:49 Plansix wrote:
I didn’t need Salon to tell me America’s are pretty dumb. Not much dumber than other countries, but we are not batting any higher. Trump being the front runner in the Republicans race is right in line with use electing Bush twice. The Don is the front runner for GOP is the prove that average Americans are smart enough to realize that socialism won't solve society's problems after the failure that is affirmative action. How exactly do affirmative action and socialism fit together? The democratic party are actively vouching for socialism (see Sanders asking for more taxes for the job providers). Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismAnd affirmative action forces employers to artificially creates quotas adjudicated by governments. Don't listen to that guy that calls people trolls because they've got a point and facts and he's got none. I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that.
I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested.
|
Congress is to consider two bills that would allow states to hand over vast tracts of federal land for mining, logging or other commercial activities – just weeks after the arrest of an armed militia that took over a wildlife refuge in Oregon in protest at federal oversight of public land.
The legislation, which will be presented to the House committee on natural resources on Thursday, would loosen federal authority over parts of the 600m acres (240m hectares), nearly one-third of the land mass of the US, it administers.
A bill put forward by Republican Don Young would allow any state to assume control of up to 2m acres of the national forest system to be “managed primarily for timber production” in order to address what Young claims is a decline in national logging rates.
A further bill, written by Republican Raúl Labrador, would allow state governors to assign up to 4m acres of land as “forest demonstration areas”, which would allow logging free from any federal water, air or endangered species restrictions.
The bills, which will be heard by a Republican-dominated committee, come just two weeks after the dramatic end to the armed militia occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge in Oregon. The 41-day occupation, which resulted in the fatal shooting of the militia’s spokesman before the arrest of the rest of the group, was sparked by the group’s anger at federal land use regulations.
Source
|
Canada11369 Posts
On February 26 2016 07:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 07:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A bill that allows children of all ages to handle guns passed Iowa’s house of representatives on Tuesday.
Approved by a 62-36 vote, the bill permits children under the age of 14 to have “a pistol, revolver or the ammunition” while under parental supervision. The bill will now head to the state senate.
“It’s our impression that most, and probably all, states allow minors to possess firearms with parental supervision,” Allison Anderman, staff attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said. “If there are age limitations on possession with parental supervision, they vary by state.”
State representative Kirsten Running-Marquardt, who opposes the bill, said it “allows for one-year-olds, two-year-olds, three-year-olds, four-year-olds to operate handguns”, according to CBS-affiliate KCCI. She added: “We do not need a militia of toddlers.”
Currently in Iowa, children can legally use long guns and shotguns under adult supervision but not handguns. This bill would change that, allowing the use of handguns as long as parents are 21 years old and maintain “visual and verbal contact at all times with the supervised person”. Children would still not be able to purchase firearms on their own.
State representative Jake Highfill told the Washington Post that the new law “gives the power back to parents”.
“Allowing people to learn at a young age the respect that a gun commands is one of the most important things you can do,” Highfill said.
The alternative, he added, is “turning 18 with no experience”.
But those opposing the bill were not convinced. State representative Mary Mascher argued that they “can’t legislate good parenting … but we can protect our children”. She cited seat belt, smoking and car seat laws. Source I am reminded of the story of an 11 year old shooting an 8y old girl who did not let him play with her puppy. Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 07:12 xDaunt wrote:
Good. This isn't something that needs to be criminalized. Why the fuck does a child need to use a lethal weapon?
Parents want to teach their children to hunt? Shooting clay pigeons with a shot gun is fun? I personally think the US gun culture is nuts (particularly the ones arming for a war against the government) and I think the power of the NRA is appalling. But I grew up in the country and while I didn't interact much with guns except on occasion, I think this is not the sort of thing to get mad at. Avid outdoorsmen like teaching their interested children and are really big on gun safety. I think if you're from the country then pellet guns, bows, 22's, and shotguns are something you learn how to use safely when growing up (more or less in that order, I suspect), and if you are less populated areas, higher powered rifles. It's a different sort of normal, but there's nothing wrong with it however baffling it may be to people whose only association with guns is gangs or something.
|
On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 07:25 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 07:00 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 06:49 Plansix wrote:
I didn’t need Salon to tell me America’s are pretty dumb. Not much dumber than other countries, but we are not batting any higher. Trump being the front runner in the Republicans race is right in line with use electing Bush twice. The Don is the front runner for GOP is the prove that average Americans are smart enough to realize that socialism won't solve society's problems after the failure that is affirmative action. How exactly do affirmative action and socialism fit together? The democratic party are actively vouching for socialism (see Sanders asking for more taxes for the job providers). Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismAnd affirmative action forces employers to artificially creates quotas adjudicated by governments. Don't listen to that guy that calls people trolls because they've got a point and facts and he's got none. I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested.
So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare?
|
On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 07:25 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 07:00 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
The Don is the front runner for GOP is the prove that average Americans are smart enough to realize that socialism won't solve society's problems after the failure that is affirmative action. How exactly do affirmative action and socialism fit together? The democratic party are actively vouching for socialism (see Sanders asking for more taxes for the job providers). Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismAnd affirmative action forces employers to artificially creates quotas adjudicated by governments. Don't listen to that guy that calls people trolls because they've got a point and facts and he's got none. I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare?
To clear up the confusion here: Zenith for some reason thinks that you mean 100% of all people (including 3 year olds and so on), not 100% of the grown-up population.
|
On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 07:25 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 07:00 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
The Don is the front runner for GOP is the prove that average Americans are smart enough to realize that socialism won't solve society's problems after the failure that is affirmative action. How exactly do affirmative action and socialism fit together? The democratic party are actively vouching for socialism (see Sanders asking for more taxes for the job providers). Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismAnd affirmative action forces employers to artificially creates quotas adjudicated by governments. Don't listen to that guy that calls people trolls because they've got a point and facts and he's got none. I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare?
You give them a loan to take classes in productive fields and/or money to start their own businesses.
This way it gives them useful skills/employ more people.
|
On February 26 2016 08:26 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 07:25 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:02 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
How exactly do affirmative action and socialism fit together? The democratic party are actively vouching for socialism (see Sanders asking for more taxes for the job providers). Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismAnd affirmative action forces employers to artificially creates quotas adjudicated by governments. Don't listen to that guy that calls people trolls because they've got a point and facts and he's got none. I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare? You give them a loan to take classes in productive fields and/or money to start their own businesses. This way it gives them useful skills/employ more people.
you want to give unemployed people money to start their own business?
isn't that a form of welfare in itself? i really don't understand your proposal
|
And if their business fails or they still can't find a job? Are you willing to let them starve to death? Because that is what will inevitably happen if you completely cut away welfare. A lot of people will turn to crime because it is their only way of surviving, some will starve. This leads to lots of societal problems.
We as a society have decided that it is not acceptable for people to starve on the streets, whatever the reason. I find it hard to see your argument as compelling, rather than just a teenagers "easy solution" to all of the worlds problems that lacks any real thought regarding the consequences of actions.
|
On February 26 2016 08:26 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 07:25 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:02 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
How exactly do affirmative action and socialism fit together? The democratic party are actively vouching for socialism (see Sanders asking for more taxes for the job providers). Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismAnd affirmative action forces employers to artificially creates quotas adjudicated by governments. Don't listen to that guy that calls people trolls because they've got a point and facts and he's got none. I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare? You give them a loan to take classes in productive fields and/or money to start their own businesses. This way it gives them useful skills/employ more people.
So instead of welfare you want to repeatedly give people money to start and fail businesses.
I think welfare is cheaper then your option.
|
Remember folks, STEM fields are the only field are the only fields that can make money. None of those humanities degrees where you can't get a job. Just look at all those clowns over at Marvel with their "art, writing and design" degrees. What are they doing? Just ask 4chan what degrees are best. And they will all tell you that Women's studies is clearly worthless.
And I have worked on the other end of giving unemployed people loans. They were called NINJ loans. No Income No Job. Didn't work out. Would not recommend.
|
On February 26 2016 08:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 08:26 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 07:25 ErectedZenith wrote:[quote] The democratic party are actively vouching for socialism (see Sanders asking for more taxes for the job providers). Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismAnd affirmative action forces employers to artificially creates quotas adjudicated by governments. Don't listen to that guy that calls people trolls because they've got a point and facts and he's got none. I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare? You give them a loan to take classes in productive fields and/or money to start their own businesses. This way it gives them useful skills/employ more people. So instead of welfare you want to repeatedly give people money to start and fail businesses. I think welfare is cheaper then your option.
You don't give them infinite chances.
Start Business -> failed -> go to school -> get a regular job -> productive member of society created.
The only welfare system needed are the EI if you are thinking of changing your job.
The point is that you have to make sure that your country have to have a system where people are given incentive to work instead of laying around or else the country's morale and diligence goes down.
And yes it is almost 100% more productive to the society if you go into a tech field rather than humanity field.
Not saying that humanitarian degrees can't do any good, they can but they are pretty much useless if you set up the law based upon meritocracy. The one humanitarian degree that is needed are the human right lawyers that you need if the law have been broken.
|
On February 26 2016 08:29 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 08:26 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 26 2016 07:25 ErectedZenith wrote:[quote] The democratic party are actively vouching for socialism (see Sanders asking for more taxes for the job providers). Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismAnd affirmative action forces employers to artificially creates quotas adjudicated by governments. Don't listen to that guy that calls people trolls because they've got a point and facts and he's got none. I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare? You give them a loan to take classes in productive fields and/or money to start their own businesses. This way it gives them useful skills/employ more people. you want to give unemployed people money to start their own business? isn't that a form of welfare in itself? i really don't understand your proposal
Sounds like a version of welfare reform. Requirements for education and provisions for job training were a part of the '96 welfare reform.
|
On February 26 2016 09:29 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 08:36 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 08:26 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
[quote]
I am that guy that harps on the definition of socialism and your post is legit triggering me. The USA has had taxes since the founding. We have had a tax system comparable to what we have now since the great 1986 tax reform act. Moving the rates around, say back up to what they were in the 90s before the Gingrich capital side tax cuts, would not make the USA socialist. Check the definition you quoted. Going up to 35% on capital gains or reforming the corporate profit tax so that the actual collected amount is closer to the listed 35% will not in any way result in "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it. The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low. What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare? You give them a loan to take classes in productive fields and/or money to start their own businesses. This way it gives them useful skills/employ more people. So instead of welfare you want to repeatedly give people money to start and fail businesses. I think welfare is cheaper then your option. You don't give them infinite chances. Start Business -> failed -> go to school -> get a regular job -> productive member of society created. The only welfare system needed are the EI if you are thinking of changing your job. The point is that you have to make sure that your country have to have a system where people are given incentive to work instead of laying around or else the country's morale and diligence goes down. And yes it is almost 100% more productive to the society if you go into a tech field rather than humanity field. Not saying that humanitarian degrees can't do any good, they can but they are pretty much useless if you set up the law based upon meritocracy. The one humanitarian degree that is needed are the human right lawyers that you need if the law have been broken.
And so we are back to the myth of 100% employment.
Sigh
|
On February 26 2016 09:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 09:29 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 08:36 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 08:26 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
Nobody is saying that we should get rid of taxes but not raising it.
The point is that money is a company's blood. Raising taxes doesn't help anybody except for the government and who knows if the government will ACTUALLY put those money into good use. The trust in government is at all time low.
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all). As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare? You give them a loan to take classes in productive fields and/or money to start their own businesses. This way it gives them useful skills/employ more people. So instead of welfare you want to repeatedly give people money to start and fail businesses. I think welfare is cheaper then your option. You don't give them infinite chances. Start Business -> failed -> go to school -> get a regular job -> productive member of society created. The only welfare system needed are the EI if you are thinking of changing your job. The point is that you have to make sure that your country have to have a system where people are given incentive to work instead of laying around or else the country's morale and diligence goes down. And yes it is almost 100% more productive to the society if you go into a tech field rather than humanity field. Not saying that humanitarian degrees can't do any good, they can but they are pretty much useless if you set up the law based upon meritocracy. The one humanitarian degree that is needed are the human right lawyers that you need if the law have been broken. And so we are back to the myth of 100% employment. Sigh
So what's wrong with trying to get people into productive work?
|
Christie: 'Stupid' mandatory school recess bill deserved my veto
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday said he vetoed legislation that would have guaranteed daily recess to New Jersey's youngest elementary school children "because part of my job as governor is to veto the stupid bills. That was a stupid bill and I vetoed it."
The bill would have required a 20-minute daily recess period for grades K-5.
Appearing on Fox News, Christie — a Republican presidential candidate — said it represented "crazy government run amok," because, he claimed, the bill required that children play outdoors, even on cold days or during inclement weather.
The bill's language allowed for the recess to be held indoors or outdoors, though it expressed a "preference" for outdoor play, "if feasible."
On Tuesday, the bill's primary sponsor, state Sen. Shirley Turner (D- Mercer) called her bipartisan proposal a "no-brainer." It passed both the state Senate and Assembly without opposition.
The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States identified as "obese" increased from 7 percent in 1980 to nearly 18 percent in 2012, according to the Centers for Disease Control. According to the CDC, more than one-third of U.S. children are considered overweight.
On Tuesday, the governor's office gave no specific reason for not approving the bill, with a spokeswoman instead blaming the Legislature for dumping 158 bills onto Christie's desk in last week's final days of the two-year session.
Christie on Wednesday gave an explanation, telling Fox host Neil Cavuto: "With all the other problems we have to deal with, my Legislature is worried about recess for kids from kindergarten to fifth grade?" http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/christie_stupid_law_assuring_kids_recess_deserved.html
This is what happens when politicians are in charge of schools and education. Any educator- especially elementary school teachers- will tell you that students need breaks from all-day classes, and little kids need to run around and burn off their energy. People are worried about overdiagnosing ADD in kids who can't sit still, and this is one of the simplest and healthiest ways for kids to actually deal with bouncing off the walls. They cannot sit still for 6 straight hours, nor should they have to. Physical education and recess are absolutely vital for kids. Especially when fighting against obesity too. This is the millionth reason for New Jerseyans to tell Christie to go fuck himself.
|
On February 26 2016 09:39 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 09:31 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 09:29 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 08:36 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 08:26 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that big businesses are making record profits while barely paying taxes (if they pay any at all).
As for your other idea. 100% employment is an impossible myth. Any system that relies on it is doomed to fail. Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes. ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud. 100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?). But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society. That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare? You give them a loan to take classes in productive fields and/or money to start their own businesses. This way it gives them useful skills/employ more people. So instead of welfare you want to repeatedly give people money to start and fail businesses. I think welfare is cheaper then your option. You don't give them infinite chances. Start Business -> failed -> go to school -> get a regular job -> productive member of society created. The only welfare system needed are the EI if you are thinking of changing your job. The point is that you have to make sure that your country have to have a system where people are given incentive to work instead of laying around or else the country's morale and diligence goes down. And yes it is almost 100% more productive to the society if you go into a tech field rather than humanity field. Not saying that humanitarian degrees can't do any good, they can but they are pretty much useless if you set up the law based upon meritocracy. The one humanitarian degree that is needed are the human right lawyers that you need if the law have been broken. And so we are back to the myth of 100% employment. Sigh So what's wrong with trying to get people into productive work?
there is no work to be done...
you dont seem to grasp the concept of "demand"
|
On February 26 2016 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Christie: 'Stupid' mandatory school recess bill deserved my veto
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday said he vetoed legislation that would have guaranteed daily recess to New Jersey's youngest elementary school children "because part of my job as governor is to veto the stupid bills. That was a stupid bill and I vetoed it."
The bill would have required a 20-minute daily recess period for grades K-5.
Appearing on Fox News, Christie — a Republican presidential candidate — said it represented "crazy government run amok," because, he claimed, the bill required that children play outdoors, even on cold days or during inclement weather.
The bill's language allowed for the recess to be held indoors or outdoors, though it expressed a "preference" for outdoor play, "if feasible."
On Tuesday, the bill's primary sponsor, state Sen. Shirley Turner (D- Mercer) called her bipartisan proposal a "no-brainer." It passed both the state Senate and Assembly without opposition.
The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States identified as "obese" increased from 7 percent in 1980 to nearly 18 percent in 2012, according to the Centers for Disease Control. According to the CDC, more than one-third of U.S. children are considered overweight.
On Tuesday, the governor's office gave no specific reason for not approving the bill, with a spokeswoman instead blaming the Legislature for dumping 158 bills onto Christie's desk in last week's final days of the two-year session.
Christie on Wednesday gave an explanation, telling Fox host Neil Cavuto: "With all the other problems we have to deal with, my Legislature is worried about recess for kids from kindergarten to fifth grade?" http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/christie_stupid_law_assuring_kids_recess_deserved.html This is what happens when politicians are in charge of schools and education. Any educator- especially elementary school teachers- will tell you that students need breaks from all-day classes, and little kids need to run around and burn off their energy. People are worried about overdiagnosing ADD in kids who can't sit still, and this is one of the simplest and healthiest ways for kids to actually deal with bouncing off the walls. They cannot sit still for 6 straight hours, nor should they have to. Physical education and recess are absolutely vital for kids. Especially when fighting against obesity too. This is the millionth reason for New Jerseyans to tell Christie to go fuck himself.
Aren't school principals in charge of deciding to have recess or not? Is this really an issue that has to be solved through legislation?
|
On February 26 2016 09:50 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 09:39 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 09:31 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 09:29 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 08:36 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 08:26 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On February 26 2016 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 26 2016 07:46 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
Then get rid of their mechanism to escape taxes.
ACTUALLY have white collar crimes to be charged for abusing the tax system by giving harsher punishment for fraud.
100% employment is ofc impossible, kids shouldn't be forced to work. Nobody is saying that here though (are you putting words in my mouth?).
But it is something that we should strive for, giving people the necessary tools to work productively in the society.
That's how trust between humans are built. On February 26 2016 07:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
What you want the system to do is to cut away the social welfare system and introduce a better way of utilizing the current taxes by giving people money to start their own business or make it a loan to support them into going into STEM fields. Cut away welfare and make them all work Kinda sounds like you did say that. I didn't say 100% of the people which is what you've suggested. So what are those people who cannot (or cannot find) work going to do after you cut away welfare? You give them a loan to take classes in productive fields and/or money to start their own businesses. This way it gives them useful skills/employ more people. So instead of welfare you want to repeatedly give people money to start and fail businesses. I think welfare is cheaper then your option. You don't give them infinite chances. Start Business -> failed -> go to school -> get a regular job -> productive member of society created. The only welfare system needed are the EI if you are thinking of changing your job. The point is that you have to make sure that your country have to have a system where people are given incentive to work instead of laying around or else the country's morale and diligence goes down. And yes it is almost 100% more productive to the society if you go into a tech field rather than humanity field. Not saying that humanitarian degrees can't do any good, they can but they are pretty much useless if you set up the law based upon meritocracy. The one humanitarian degree that is needed are the human right lawyers that you need if the law have been broken. And so we are back to the myth of 100% employment. Sigh So what's wrong with trying to get people into productive work? there is no work to be done... you dont seem to grasp the concept of "demand"
But the subject we are trying to relate to is that even though it is impossible to get 100% of the people into productive work, we should do our best to do that.
There are no free lunches.
|
On February 26 2016 09:53 ErectedZenith wrote:
But the subject we are trying to relate to is that even though it is impossible to get 100% of the people into productive work, we should do our best to do that.
There are no free lunches.
looking at productivity per person in advanced economies compared to average living costs, there certainly is enough room for free lunches and then some....
we dont have a "not enough work is done" problem, but a distribution problem
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
