This post has been a success for my goals. By writing it and declaring I will spend less time on the forum I have actually spent less time on this forum. I believe this is the 3rd comment I have made since its creation. Thanks jooniFLORisploo for your support. I think your comment really helped.
Another success proved my point that some people are so deluded by their preconceived political biases that you can never have a reasonable discussion with them. Unless you fully 100% agree with their stance you are evil and there is no seeing the issue from every angle. Golden1 and DeanHedlund proved my point exactly. Just because what I learned doesn't agree with you does not mean I learned nothing. One thing I learned is that having a discussion with someone so polarized is a complete waste of my time because all they see is left vs right, good vs evil, republican vs democrat and the world is far more nuanced than that.
Scantee, there are plenty of amazing hard working public servants who are hired and paid for by government. My derogatory statements are geared towards career elected officials who will cater to those funding their next election as opposed to the people. Here is a recent example if you don't mind. My parents live in a town outside of a big city. Most people will commute by a railroad to the city for work. In their town the parking situation outside of the rail system is atrocious and becoming a real problem for the commuters. My parents being engineers came to the mayor and showed him plans for a very inexpensive solution to the problem which they were willing to provide free to the town. The Mayor's response was "what is in it for me?" That is an exact quote by that dirtbag. Oh and 2 years later the problem is getting worse.
rbuck, I really agree with you. It reminds me a little of communist countries where they have elections but your are voting for a communist or another communist. No matter what they pontificate when they campaign the final result is usually a person with the interest of their lobbyists and themselves in mind. You either get someone who caters towards military spending, favoritism for the banking system and then some other big business vs someone who caters to increased military spending, favoritism to the banking industry and a different group of big business. Both sound pretty similar to me.
Scandium, I'm not sure what the right percentage of taxation is. Can we accept another 1% more or should we all pay an extra 10%. I do know at some point it is too much. Currently the wealthy in California, NY, NJ, Connecticut and Illinios pay close to 50% on their income after a certain income level. Is that enough? BTW, those states are some of the worst off fiscally in the country.
https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings So yes, we in America are pretty well off. Even the poor in this country are better off compared to most of the population in the world. And yes, we spend way too much on Military. I would be more than happy to cut our defense budget drastically and use that money to help pay down our debt so that in the long run we wouldn't need to raise taxes and maybe even lower some taxes on the middle class.
Bucksandreds, I guess we are friends now despite all those rude comments before. Don't worry, I'm cool with it ;)
The only way this will ever change is by changing the voting system to one where multiple parties are viable, but since such a change would require the cooperation of the people who directly benefit from the status quo it will never happen (just like campaign finance reform or congressional term limits). I am at the point where I am mostly checked out on political issues, I have pretty much given up hope that the system can ever be changed. I think the politicians will continue to loot and pillage until they finally kill the country, it seems unstoppable at this point. The most I can do is try to move from the labor class to the capital class so I can at least reap some of the benefits that Congress gives business.
I had to quote this because it is so perfect. The system is so corrupt I just don't see much future in it. I hoped that social media through transparency would force some honesty unto our politicians but they have figured out how to manipulate that as well. I really want to check out as well, but I keep getting sucked in.
Eludia, I am no macro economist, but economics is something I find very interesting and a bit of a hobby of mine. I can tell you for a fact that money is not infinite. Yes money is created out of thin air by the Fed. Money is also created out of thin our by our banking system via fractional reserve lending. But, the value of money is based on how much is in circulation. If we put too much money into circulation we will have hyperinflation and the value of the money you have saved will disappear. The reason why we did not have hyperinflation from the trillions the federal reserve printed after the financial crisis is because there was no increase in the money supply. Much of the new money that was printed was used to buy government debt which did not enter circulation. Then all the money that was created through mortgage lending disappeared in bankruptcy decreasing cash in circulation. Therefor the actual money supply remained relatively constant and we have had minimal inflation over the last 8 years. What some extremely fiscally conservative people don't understand is that spending money on the poor actually benefits themselves. If the poor are desperate many will turn to crime to by food and shelter and who could blame them. Those who are better off financially should spend some of their money on making sure the poor are not destitute. Revolutions occur when the people are starving. As for single payer. I am not totally against it but I am a little skeptical of it being successful in the US based on the already expensive cost of providing healthcare on top of a system that I don't see as very efficient. I would love to see a state adopt single payer and prove me wrong. It looks like California set out on that path only to realize it will be too expensive and appears to have scuttled it.
Fuzzy Math, You are correct I am self employed and choose to be self employed because of the massive tax advantages I get through owning my own business. Company 401k $18k per year max vs Solo 401k $54k max is just one example. Also, I have no problem providing free care to those who do not abuse the system. I figure it is the least I can do. I hate providing free care for drug seekers, and demanding people who think I owe them something.
Vivian, very nice comment about the differences in perspective. I agree with much of what you said. Helping those less fortunate to have the basics is a good idea. The question I ask you and everyone else; how much should we provide and what are the basics that everyone should have? As jeninco posted and I paraphrase "food, shelter, basic education, and basic healthcare needs." I do not think we should be providing cell phones and big screen TVs. I think basic health care does not mean using the newest and most expensive drugs, it doesn't mean private rooms in the hospital, and it doesn't mean immediate treatment unless life threatening. In the hospital we tend to get very biased views. We see some people (not everyone) on Medicaid drive in relatively nice cars using the latest iPhone or Samsung phones. We wonder if our taxes are subsidizing those luxuries.
One big problem with cutting Medicaid is that it provides the funds for the majority of people in nursing homes and long term care facilities (about 70% of those people rely on Medicaid). So far, half the aging relatives in my family ended up relying on it.
I'm going to say it and it will be unpopular. There are too many people with no quality of life, bedridden with almost no brain function living in nursing homes who should stop getting medical procedures and medical care to sustain that horrible existence. Maybe cutting that out of medicaid is a good idea so that we can use those funds to expand funding for the poor that actually can benefit from it.
I think most people in the US outside of a few diehard anarchists believe that government is necessary to provide certain functions in society. A capitalist government should provide an infrastructure so that we can exchange in commerce and be able to achieve prosperity. That includes roads, bridges, sewer system, etc. Lets just ignore military, environment, and reproductive rights for just a moment. I think we can agree that most people want the same thing and yes republicans included would also agree that as a society we should not let people starve in the streets and should have some way of helping those that can't help themselves. I see the big disagreement really is how much? How much should we tax to fund those social programs? How much should we spend on them? What should be given for free and what needs to be paid for? Who deserves those tax funded services? This is the gray area that needs elucidating and the point of most contention between the left and the right. Those who are far left think tax everyone who makes more than them and give it to everybody else and there is no talking sense into them. Like money grows on trees and we can just spend spend spend. Those on the far right will say no more taxes, most people are moochers and taxation is theft and there is no talking sense into them either. Everyone else is right there in the middle having a real discussion about it and would love to see the best possible solution for everybody. I just wish our elected politicians were like that also.
