Election over...

**Blakeman** · 10-15-08, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by MaBell37

Originally Posted by Consultant

In another thread you said you spent an hour explaining where gov't gets it's money - I surely hope you didn't take an hour to type this post here.

I should have thought of seizures, you got me on that one.

The UN bit confuses me though, I must admit.

We don't pay dues to the UN because we give them our soldiers and materials and when we ship troops to peace keeping missions, they pay those soldiers salaries and associated costs. I guess I understand the theory, but how much money are we talking about here on an annual basis?

The Budget is a few thousand pages long each year, so I obviously over-simplified when i said "All the money..." but my point still stands - Capitalism is a good thing and capitalism helps fund our government.

I also still think I can spend my money better than Uncle Sam can.

If you disagree, go vote Obama.

Well, the UN is actually, probably, the simplest of schemes. The dues that the US is supposed to pay, is waived, in lieu of the support that the US provides the UN. Seeing as how the UN is NOT a country, it does not have its own infrastructure. Each member country IS it's infrastructure. Having said that, each country is given the option to pay a dues (read LARGE sums of money, maybe not the equivalent of the US national deficit, but definitely not something to sneeze at either) OR, they can "donate" troops, materiels and/or services. The US is probably one of maybe five countries that is big enough to avoid paying the dues. In turn, for peoples LIVES, the UN pays all the costs of maintaining an "Army" in hotspots around the world. That money is PAID to the US Government, which then reimburses the respective units that were deployed. Each unit has it's own budget, the funds for that budget coming down the pike from on high. For example, the US Government says, ok, DoD, you get x amount of dollars. Then, DoD decides who gets how much, Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard. (c'mon, I know you're dying to ask)

Each branch then divies the monies up among the Major Commands (MC's). Then the MC's divy up the monies amongst the subordinate commands, and them to their subordinates, and so on, and so on.

So, while the UN doesn't really have it's own standing "Army", the member nations make up that army. A few examples would be, the US, Great Britain, Germany, France, and other minor contributors from around the globe. The major players being the US and Great Britain. What this does is, save the amount of the dues, AND get monies for the troops deployed, equipment donated, etc. Now, in and of itself, the money the UN pays the US for these assets is not very impressive, especially given what it costs to maintain a viable fighting force thousands of miles away from friendly shores. But, between the dues not paid and the monies from the UN for use of US troops and equipment, weapons, ammo, food, logistics, etc, etc, etc. The US actually MAKES money off the deal. Not to mention, if there are new weapon systems to be tested, American companies, just like other countries companies do all their field testing of equipment in actual combat conditions, guess where. The standard equipment that is donated won't typically be top of the line gear either, it will be new as far as when it was actually rolled off the assembly line, but, by American standards, it's usually several generations old. By the way, I don't know how much you know about that so let me explain that too. When the Abrahms main battle tank came out, it was an M1 Abrahms main battle tank. They made improvements and the M1A1 was born. That makes it second generation. Then more improvements, and the M1A2 came out, that's third generation. Improvements can be categorized as major design changes to the most recent plans for constructing said piece of equipment.

As for how much money annually, you have to figure the dues itself (since it's not being paid and is considered loss until qualified), plus whatever monies are derived by the shipment of troops and/or materiels to wherever for however long. I couldn't give you exact numbers, but, rest assured we're talking about hundreds of millions, if not more. Compared to the national deficit, this may not seem like a lot, but, when you add it to all the other places that the US Governments money comes from - and I didn't tell you about all of them, just some of the really big ones - it all adds up.

Does that clear it up a little for you?

The amount of US troops serving for the UN is very, very small.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co...07/jul07_1.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping

Less than 1%.

The US has a lot more troops in peacekeeping missions of its own that are not involved in UN operations, but these are not under UN control nor do they wear the blue berets or helmets.

**SonicDogfart** · 10-15-08, 02:00 PM

Relative to mankinds desire/ability to govern itself:

Capitalism on the way up

Socialism on the way down

Communism at the bottom

It's really not that complicated or new....

**rock_lobster** · 10-15-08, 02:24 PM

So because someone is born into a bad situation we should just deem them poor and incapable forever? Hogwash. I'm all about helping people who are born into a bad situation to their feet. But once these jokers have been on welfare for years at a time and they are still at square one (ie: they've made no effort to get themselves out of the mess their in), then it's over, they shouldn't be helped. Give the money to someone who will use it properly. My dad had a huge drinking problem all my life, leaving my mom, my 2 sisters and I paying for it. We lived in a crappy house, had no money and had no car for the longest time. My mom worked 2 jobs by herself to pay for our school tuition (public school system here is shot all to hell), and at one point even homeschooled my 2 sisters while I went to school. My dad was on and off with the drinking and worked a shitty job at a Steel Mill making 10 bucks an hour working 70+ hrs a week. I've seen bad times, times when we weren't sure if we would be living in a house the next month. But we persevered, worked our ass off and made it through. I made good grades, worked a bum job forever, and got my money for college. We took ourselves out of a bad position and put ourselves in a manageable one. Now, my parents are financially stable, and each of us (all 5 members of my family) have our own cars, and pay for them ourselves (mine's paid for).

Mabell your born into a poor situation excuse is lame ass bullshit. Some people have to suffer because of the decisions of their parents and that's unfortunate, but this country allows people to succeed even from the depths of poverty, SO LONG AS YOU WORK FOR IT!!!

The government has been giving out so many handouts, people have become reliant on them to survive. Kids are born into families who live on foodstamps and welfare for years at a time, so naturally they think that's normal and they grow up doing it too. Endless cycle until one individual stands up and makes a CHOICE to make sure their family isn't in the same position.

.99 cent burgers are good for everyone. Cheap for the consumer, and the company still makes a profit. I don't think we should be paying a highschool student double digit dollar amounts per hour just to ask me if I want fries with my meal. A company isn't going to pay you more than what you can make for them

**MaBell37** · 10-15-08, 02:33 PM

Mabell your born into a poor situation excuse is lame ass bullshit. Some people have to suffer because of the decisions of their parents and that's unfortunate, but this country allows people to succeed even from the depths of poverty, SO LONG AS YOU WORK FOR IT!!!

Wow, such a passionate response with close ties to idealistic thinking. Don't get me wrong. I wish the world were more better too.

Lemme know when you're done in fantasyland.

I'm here with real people who have a real grasp on what is REALLY going on in this country, while you are off making kissy poo with your invisible friend.

Oh, and by the way, you seem to have this problem thinking that everyone that disagrees with you must think that we all want the government to hand shit out for free. Maybe you need a therapist for that problem...?

**Consultant** · 10-15-08, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Well, so far the arguments against minimum wage increases are not complete. I personally am not in favor of minmimum wage hikes, except at specific intervals in accordance with inflation and cost of living projections. Outright increases of minimum wage will "mess up" the balance in afew ways.

And while we are discussing people making minimum wage, I would point out again, that I tend to include people who make a little more than minimum wage in the poverty category (as does the census). 8 or 9 dollars an hour is a far cry from 20 or 30, and hell of a lot different than 200 or 300, but is still "above minimum wage."

The solution, as MaBell said, lies not in increasing minimum wage, but in making certain utilities less expensive and balancing top paying jobs with the rest of the spectrum. Food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. are necessities, the latter two often being left out completely and the former three faltering in many cases. Sure McDonalds or BK makes a piece of sh!t infarction burger for a buck, and poor people tend to gobble that crap up (hence their increased rate of cardiovascular disease), but we need to make quality utilities affordable for those people, and the rest of Americans.

No one needs a frikkin Hummer, but they do need to get that lump looked at before they go to the emergency room and end up costing me more tax dollars.

Interesting note according to my research from the who.org. Canada has an overall healthier population that lives healthier, longer. They also spend LESS as a percentage of their national budget on healthcare than the US does. That is an example of the "crappy and expensive" socialized healthcare mechanisms. More for less? Sounds bad to me, I love to fork out tax dollars for people to go to the ER for something could have been prevented for a fragment of the cost.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Well, so far the arguments against minimum wage increases are not complete. I personally am not in favor of minmimum wage hikes, except at specific intervals in accordance with inflation and cost of living projections. Outright increases of minimum wage will "mess up" the balance in afew ways.

And while we are discussing people making minimum wage, I would point out again, that I tend to include people who make a little more than minimum wage in the poverty category (as does the census). 8 or 9 dollars an hour is a far cry from 20 or 30, and hell of a lot different than 200 or 300, but is still "above minimum wage."

The solution, as MaBell said, lies not in increasing minimum wage, but in making certain utilities less expensive and balancing top paying jobs with the rest of the spectrum. Food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. are necessities, the latter two often being left out completely and the former three faltering in many cases. Sure McDonalds or BK makes a piece of sh!t infarction burger for a buck, and poor people tend to gobble that crap up (hence their increased rate of cardiovascular disease), but we need to make quality utilities affordable for those people, and the rest of Americans.

No one needs a frikkin Hummer, but they do need to get that lump looked at before they go to the emergency room and end up costing me more tax dollars.

Interesting note according to my research from the who.org. Canada has an overall healthier population that lives healthier, longer. They also spend LESS as a percentage of their national budget on healthcare than the US does. That is an example of the "crappy and expensive" socialized healthcare mechanisms. More for less? Sounds bad to me, I love to fork out tax dollars for people to go to the ER for something could have been prevented for a fragment of the cost.

Canadians probably smoke fewer ciggarettes and eat less fast food than we do - that's half the problem right there.

And if you don't count Molson Canadian as beer, then they probably drink less too!

What do you mean by "Quality utilities"? Like, electricity and water?

And what do you mean when you say "balancing top paying jobs with the rest of the spectrum."? Wealth redistribution, like socialism? That shit does not work! Until ALL money goes away and EVERYTHING is free, there will be people who are smarter and better who earn more. What they choose to do with the money they earn is their business.

The government's job is not to regulate whether or not somebody buys a Hummer they don't need. I didn't need the LCD TV I bought last week - what business is it of anybody?

We need to reward exceptionalism and excellence MORE - not punish it by taking it's proceeds.

Thank God for for-profit companies who were motivated to create something we all needed by the promise of financial gain. Drug companies are motivated by profit - and they make medicine that helps millions of people. Do they not have a right to earn a profit doing so? Did you ever start a lemonade stand as a kid? Why? Were you motivated by the growing thirst needs of your neighbors and passers-by or were you saving money for a new nintendo game and wanted to make a quick buck?

On one hand people say that oil companies shouldnt get tax breaks - but what if one of those companies is BP or Exxon Mobil - who is investing part of it's profits in alternative energy like wind and solar? The tax breaks and profits they earn are the source of that investment capital. Right? Or do they generate the money out of thin air?

All the money being spent on these alternatives is coming from some profitable venture, somewhere. Including tax dollars! Every nickle of the federal budget came from citizens (I can't back that up, but it seems logical - not counting admission fees to parks or stuff like that - even those come from citizens - I don't know)

So then I come off as greedy to some, an evil capitalist!

I give between 15 and 30 percent of my income away every year, because I can afford to and because I think it's the right thing to do. It gets used to feed poor people, cloth homeless people, and provide healthcare to indigent people. I know, because I spend it where, when, and how I choose. That's the control I have over my own charitable giving that I think we all should have.

If the Government is saying that they think they can spend that 15-30 percent better and smarter than I can, I have to laugh. You should too.

I want YOU to keep more of YOUR paycheck so you can help the people YOU want to help. It's your money, folks! Never forget that!

A) Utility: my "benefit" from my dollar. Not specfically water & electricity, but anything I need (or want).

B) There is not, and has never been a true socialism. Further, the more government controlled economies and systems in the world are now doing quite well; the euro is worth more than the dollar, the EU and other countries are outinnovating the US in terms of sustainable technology. We were the economic and scientific dynamo, but that is changing. So to say that "socialism does not work" has little basis; most of the worlds industrialized countries that have more government intervention are doing just fine, have lower crime rates, increasing currency values, longer life spans, etc. We are declining in positive quality on all those fronts.

C) I do not think the government should regulate whether or not someone should own a Hummer, but I do think they should pay a big damn luxury tax. They are ruining my air and destroying my roads faster than my feet or bicycle do. Since we all chip in on infrastructure, why am I paying for them to ruin it much faster with their excessive weight and knobby tires? Make 'em pay more I say. If you get a cheap charlie econobox and prepare most of your own food and thus save resources and ultimately those pesky externalities our less controlled system generates, you pay less luxury tax. Now if you have enough freakin' money to get a hummer, you can probably afford a luxury tax; if you can just barely afford a hummer, why the hell are you even considering getting one?

I am in support of high luxury taxes because our market system does not account for externalities. We rely on the government, if they were not trying to deal with all our externalities perhaps they could spend money more wisely. I have said I agree people should be rewarded, but the people at the bottom are way too far from the top right now. We need government intervention and regulation to have a healthy and productive society.

We used to be on top of the world, but that is now changing. And we are now relying on how things have always been and how our capitalism used to put us on top. We have gotten too comfortable and now the world has developed a more regulated system that actually works; and we are sidelining ourselves.

I think what it boils down to is people do not realize just how many externalities their actions generate, and how easy it should be for us to keep everyone as healthy, happy, and productive as possible. We have a lot of poor, and they are becoming more numerous and more poor, meanwhile the very wealthy are making it unduly hard on the guys at the bottom. We all have our place, and hard work should be rewarded, but the overwhlemingly vast majority of our society do not deserve to live in poverty, but our system is not helping them.

http://www.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp?indicators=[Indicator].Members <--- awesome DB tool at who.org.

And as far as their smoking and drinking habits: it looks like canada and the US have very similar rates of alcahol and tobbaco use. 7.8 vs 8.61 liters per capita year for pure alcahol and 21.6% vs 23.9% of adults using tobacco. Perhaps since they have a stake in the citizens health the government is better about educating people there, they do have a higher literacy rate after all.

ok, how's this for a compromise?

Scrap all income taxes, and start a consumption tax.

Calling it a "Luxury" tax puts a bad taste in some mouths. I like "Consumption Tax".

You, with your bike and feet, CONSUME less - so you pay little.

The douche in his $80,000 Hummer, CONSUME's more, so he pays more. He pays whatever % rate on that $80,000 and you pay the same % rate on your $800 bike? Sound fair?

Alternatively - it is called the Fair Tax - www.fairtax.org

**~~hawgballs~~** · 10-15-08, 05:04 PM

Since when is a minimum wage a handout?

Originally Posted by Blakeman

The reason we are not 'on top' has less to do with who is gaining and more to do with how the lower end is adapting. India and China have low wage workers by the millions, which means that industry that is curtailed by regulation here moved over there.Because there are tax incentives or lack of tax penalties to move said jobs overseas. Folks over there will work for pennies whereas folks in the US and Europe demand certain standards for their workers.And demanding certain standards is bad how?

We used to be a manufacturing dynamo, but now it is too expensive to set up shop here compared to the countries where there are no unions and no mandatory standards.So don't you think it might be a good idea to re-negotiate our trade agreements with these countries to ensure that they enforce a living wage and good standards in thier shops, so our workforce shouldn't have to lower thier standards in order to compete? I think you should realize that if we were to capitulate and lower our standards and pay scale to match thiers(India, China), our economical landscape might mirror theirs as well. I don't think that would be a good thing.

**SonicDogfart** · 10-16-08, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Well, so far the arguments against minimum wage increases are not complete. I personally am not in favor of minmimum wage hikes, except at specific intervals in accordance with inflation and cost of living projections. Outright increases of minimum wage will "mess up" the balance in afew ways.

And while we are discussing people making minimum wage, I would point out again, that I tend to include people who make a little more than minimum wage in the poverty category (as does the census). 8 or 9 dollars an hour is a far cry from 20 or 30, and hell of a lot different than 200 or 300, but is still "above minimum wage."

The solution, as MaBell said, lies not in increasing minimum wage, but in making certain utilities less expensive and balancing top paying jobs with the rest of the spectrum. Food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. are necessities, the latter two often being left out completely and the former three faltering in many cases. Sure McDonalds or BK makes a piece of sh!t infarction burger for a buck, and poor people tend to gobble that crap up (hence their increased rate of cardiovascular disease), but we need to make quality utilities affordable for those people, and the rest of Americans.

No one needs a frikkin Hummer, but they do need to get that lump looked at before they go to the emergency room and end up costing me more tax dollars.

Interesting note according to my research from the who.org. Canada has an overall healthier population that lives healthier, longer. They also spend LESS as a percentage of their national budget on healthcare than the US does. That is an example of the "crappy and expensive" socialized healthcare mechanisms. More for less? Sounds bad to me, I love to fork out tax dollars for people to go to the ER for something could have been prevented for a fragment of the cost.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Well, so far the arguments against minimum wage increases are not complete. I personally am not in favor of minmimum wage hikes, except at specific intervals in accordance with inflation and cost of living projections. Outright increases of minimum wage will "mess up" the balance in afew ways.

And while we are discussing people making minimum wage, I would point out again, that I tend to include people who make a little more than minimum wage in the poverty category (as does the census). 8 or 9 dollars an hour is a far cry from 20 or 30, and hell of a lot different than 200 or 300, but is still "above minimum wage."

The solution, as MaBell said, lies not in increasing minimum wage, but in making certain utilities less expensive and balancing top paying jobs with the rest of the spectrum. Food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. are necessities, the latter two often being left out completely and the former three faltering in many cases. Sure McDonalds or BK makes a piece of sh!t infarction burger for a buck, and poor people tend to gobble that crap up (hence their increased rate of cardiovascular disease), but we need to make quality utilities affordable for those people, and the rest of Americans.

No one needs a frikkin Hummer, but they do need to get that lump looked at before they go to the emergency room and end up costing me more tax dollars.

Interesting note according to my research from the who.org. Canada has an overall healthier population that lives healthier, longer. They also spend LESS as a percentage of their national budget on healthcare than the US does. That is an example of the "crappy and expensive" socialized healthcare mechanisms. More for less? Sounds bad to me, I love to fork out tax dollars for people to go to the ER for something could have been prevented for a fragment of the cost.

Canadians probably smoke fewer ciggarettes and eat less fast food than we do - that's half the problem right there.

And if you don't count Molson Canadian as beer, then they probably drink less too!

What do you mean by "Quality utilities"? Like, electricity and water?

And what do you mean when you say "balancing top paying jobs with the rest of the spectrum."? Wealth redistribution, like socialism? That shit does not work! Until ALL money goes away and EVERYTHING is free, there will be people who are smarter and better who earn more. What they choose to do with the money they earn is their business.

The government's job is not to regulate whether or not somebody buys a Hummer they don't need. I didn't need the LCD TV I bought last week - what business is it of anybody?

We need to reward exceptionalism and excellence MORE - not punish it by taking it's proceeds.

Thank God for for-profit companies who were motivated to create something we all needed by the promise of financial gain. Drug companies are motivated by profit - and they make medicine that helps millions of people. Do they not have a right to earn a profit doing so? Did you ever start a lemonade stand as a kid? Why? Were you motivated by the growing thirst needs of your neighbors and passers-by or were you saving money for a new nintendo game and wanted to make a quick buck?

On one hand people say that oil companies shouldnt get tax breaks - but what if one of those companies is BP or Exxon Mobil - who is investing part of it's profits in alternative energy like wind and solar? The tax breaks and profits they earn are the source of that investment capital. Right? Or do they generate the money out of thin air?

All the money being spent on these alternatives is coming from some profitable venture, somewhere. Including tax dollars! Every nickle of the federal budget came from citizens (I can't back that up, but it seems logical - not counting admission fees to parks or stuff like that - even those come from citizens - I don't know)

So then I come off as greedy to some, an evil capitalist!

I give between 15 and 30 percent of my income away every year, because I can afford to and because I think it's the right thing to do. It gets used to feed poor people, cloth homeless people, and provide healthcare to indigent people. I know, because I spend it where, when, and how I choose. That's the control I have over my own charitable giving that I think we all should have.

If the Government is saying that they think they can spend that 15-30 percent better and smarter than I can, I have to laugh. You should too.

I want YOU to keep more of YOUR paycheck so you can help the people YOU want to help. It's your money, folks! Never forget that!

A) Utility: my "benefit" from my dollar. Not specfically water & electricity, but anything I need (or want).

B) There is not, and has never been a true socialism. Further, the more government controlled economies and systems in the world are now doing quite well; the euro is worth more than the dollar, the EU and other countries are outinnovating the US in terms of sustainable technology. We were the economic and scientific dynamo, but that is changing. So to say that "socialism does not work" has little basis; most of the worlds industrialized countries that have more government intervention are doing just fine, have lower crime rates, increasing currency values, longer life spans, etc. We are declining in positive quality on all those fronts.

C) I do not think the government should regulate whether or not someone should own a Hummer, but I do think they should pay a big damn luxury tax. They are ruining my air and destroying my roads faster than my feet or bicycle do. Since we all chip in on infrastructure, why am I paying for them to ruin it much faster with their excessive weight and knobby tires? Make 'em pay more I say. If you get a cheap charlie econobox and prepare most of your own food and thus save resources and ultimately those pesky externalities our less controlled system generates, you pay less luxury tax. Now if you have enough freakin' money to get a hummer, you can probably afford a luxury tax; if you can just barely afford a hummer, why the hell are you even considering getting one?

I am in support of high luxury taxes because our market system does not account for externalities. We rely on the government, if they were not trying to deal with all our externalities perhaps they could spend money more wisely. I have said I agree people should be rewarded, but the people at the bottom are way too far from the top right now. We need government intervention and regulation to have a healthy and productive society.

We used to be on top of the world, but that is now changing. And we are now relying on how things have always been and how our capitalism used to put us on top. We have gotten too comfortable and now the world has developed a more regulated system that actually works; and we are sidelining ourselves.

I think what it boils down to is people do not realize just how many externalities their actions generate, and how easy it should be for us to keep everyone as healthy, happy, and productive as possible. We have a lot of poor, and they are becoming more numerous and more poor, meanwhile the very wealthy are making it unduly hard on the guys at the bottom. We all have our place, and hard work should be rewarded, but the overwhlemingly vast majority of our society do not deserve to live in poverty, but our system is not helping them.

http://www.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp?indicators=[Indicator].Members <--- awesome DB tool at who.org.

And as far as their smoking and drinking habits: it looks like canada and the US have very similar rates of alcahol and tobbaco use. 7.8 vs 8.61 liters per capita year for pure alcahol and 21.6% vs 23.9% of adults using tobacco. Perhaps since they have a stake in the citizens health the government is better about educating people there, they do have a higher literacy rate after all.

ok, how's this for a compromise?

Scrap all income taxes, and start a consumption tax.

Calling it a "Luxury" tax puts a bad taste in some mouths. I like "Consumption Tax".

You, with your bike and feet, CONSUME less - so you pay little.

The douche in his $80,000 Hummer, CONSUME's more, so he pays more. He pays whatever % rate on that $80,000 and you pay the same % rate on your $800 bike? Sound fair?

Alternatively - it is called the Fair Tax - www.fairtax.org

The problem with the fair tax is this:

1) Political will- To overhaul the tax code like that you'd need a Constitutional Amendment and that requires ratification of 2/3rd's of the States. To be successful it would have to be a massive grass-roots effort from the ground up. Ask Steve Forbes...he'll give you 33 million reasons why this is true.

2) Collection and Enforcement: The fair tax effectively turns everyone into IRS agents and tax collectors. Who's going to enforce the enforcers? Ultimately, one helluva cash economy will bloom but at some point we still need to build us an aircraft carrier or two.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea or couldn't be done. But anyone serious about making it happen will have to be committed, well funded and ready for some ass-breaking heavy lifting.

**Consultant** · 10-16-08, 01:47 PM

You mean, like a public servant is supposed to do when called to high office?

I swear - I'm about 4 years from being 35...maybe I should run.

From Citizen to President - the Common Sense Express!