The Trump Presidency

jpx7 said:
My answer is simply that the state should generate more revenue—but I likewise take issue with the assertion that a lot these services are functions the state "has no business doing." I want the state to make it a lot harder to be poor in this country, and I have no qualms about that meaning it's also harder to be very wealthy.
Click to expand...

+1

Best way to handle the tension between economic growth and massive inequality.
 
The issue with this logic is that the only people impacted by these policies are the middle class. The weathy are still going to make their money.
 
thethe said:
Not saying it's real. Just saying this action, if true, adds more fuel to that speculation.
Click to expand...

Reporter from IJR who wrote a "story" about this now has an email circulating wherein he apologizes to his colleagues for embellishing an "already dubious" story that was "not based on fact."

I mean, good for him, and that's more than infowars or Breitbart would do, but I think it kinda settles the "if true" part of your post.
 
Julio3000 said:
Just as a f'rinstance, I'd be curious to know where you came down on, for example, Legal Services Corp. I think I know, but I'd like to hear you say it.
Click to expand...

If you're intent on changing the subject - that is fine.

I'm much more OK with LSC as I believe it's very important to protect people's individual liberty and that should be guaranteed by our government.
 
sturg33 said:
If you're intent on changing the subject - that is fine.

I'm much more OK with LSC as I believe it's very important to protect people's individual liberty and that should be guaranteed by our government.
Click to expand...

Changing the subject from what?
 
jpx7 said:
My answer is simply that the state should generate more revenue—but I likewise take issue with the assertion that a lot these services are functions the state "has no business doing." I want the state to make it a lot harder to be poor in this country, and I have no qualms about that meaning it's also harder to be very wealthy.
Click to expand...

Yes - and you are consistent generally across the board.

I don't agree. I don't think a bureaucrat has the right to determine that more of my money should be confiscated in order to fund a program that is not specifically constitutional.
 
57Brave said:
Did you see the post above that the money spent on securing Trump Tower so his boy doesn't have to change schools is in fact $4M more than the contribution to Meals on Wheels

you were saying something about the budget and emotions.

i got distracted

/////////////////////////

"...taking money for functions ..." there was a breakdown today == Meals on Wheels cost you $0.28 a year

Military --- you defend them taking money from humanitarian purposes but I have yet to hear you ( or any of your other Ayn Randian buddies) offer as many opinions as you do defending stripping not only Meals on Wheels but Habitat for Humanity

Ever stop to wonder how / why the government is/got involved in those endeavors in the first place ?
Click to expand...

Yeah - I don't support using tax payer money to fly the President and his family around the globe. I didn't support sending Obama's family to Hawaii either but was mocked for that one.

The rest of your post is your usual incoherence. I'm still waiting on you to answer my very direct question from the other thread. Goldy too.
 
sturg33 said:
Rather than address my point - you tried to say "but what about this!"

That's fine. I'm used to it. My favorite is the one about who would build the roads
Click to expand...

No, I was just curious to know what you thought about LSC. I wasn't engaged in a general conversation with you about the budget that I was aware of.

As for emotion vis a vis the budgetary process, since you asked, I think that a lot of the programs that are on the block have demonstrable benefits that can be objectively proven. In many cases, you may say it's an emotional appeal, and I say it's a rational appeal for public investment.
 
But since you mentioned unaddressed questions, I was wondering if you'd come up with a health care system without public subsidies yet.
 
Julio3000 said:
But since you mentioned unaddressed questions, I was wondering if you'd come up with a health care system without public subsidies yet.
Click to expand...

I absolutely addressed your question. I said I didn't know of any.

If you want my idea of a good system, I'd have a completely private, pay-as-you-go system, with only catastrophic health insurance.
 
sturg33 said:
From a purely moral standpoint, how is it justified to forcefully take someone's money to benefit someone else?
Click to expand...

Social contract. Utility. What are we, 2500 years and counting on that? With some tweaks and fiddles, those concepts have served western society reasonably well for a few centuries.

Honestly, a state whose worst problem is a limited redistribution of wealth is probably pretty....pretty....prett-ay ok, all things considered.
 
Julio3000 said:
But since you mentioned unaddressed questions, I was wondering if you'd come up with a health care system without public subsidies yet.
Click to expand...

As far as I know the US pre-1965 was healthcare without subsidies - but I could be wrong of course. Dr. Paul referenced it frequently
 
Julio3000 said:
Social contract. Utility. What are we, 2500 years and counting on that? With some tweaks and fiddles, those concepts have served western society reasonably well for a few centuries.

Honestly, a state whose worst problem is a limited redistribution of wealth is probably pretty....pretty....prett-ay ok, all things considered.
Click to expand...

Yeah - but I said morally.

You wouldn't approve me robbing a rich bank in order to feed the poor. But we do approve of the government doing precisely the same thing - via a legal avenue.

The government does have some functions and can be useful. But ours has become an albatross that has its hand in everything. And the minute you suggest scaling back - the 57's of the world copy/paste a tweet saying you are heartless bastard who hates poor people
 
sturg33 said:
Yeah - but I said morally.

You wouldn't approve me robbing a rich bank in order to feed the poor. But we do approve of the government doing precisely the same thing - via a legal avenue.

The government does have some functions and can be useful. But ours has become an albatross that has its hand in everything. And the minute you suggest scaling back - the 57's of the world copy/paste a tweet saying you are heartless bastard who hates poor people
Click to expand...

Um, I'm perfectly comfortable with the moral ramifications of taxation in service of a social safety net. In fact, I think it's way more morally defensible than the days of less burdensome regulations when robber barons stacked money while kids worked in the mines and their parents died of silicosis.
 
Julio3000 said:
Um, I'm perfectly comfortable with the moral ramifications of taxation in service of a social safety net. In fact, I think it's way more morally defensible than the days of less burdensome regulations when robber barons stacked money while kids worked in the mines and their parents died of silicosis.
Click to expand...

Is there no limit to your comfort? If we get a Venezuelan style government who decides that taxing everything for the greater good, are you comfortable with that?

Is there no limit to the amount you're OK with the feds confiscating? Or is there a line?

I'm very curious. Because your argument can absolutely be applied to the well-intentioned actions of the Venezuelan government
 
There's a lawmaker in Texas who wants to fine people for masturbating.

I'm certain julio would object to this - because it's a dumb lawmaker trying to dictate a citizen's life in order to improve the overall good (in his opinion).

But when it comes to taxes and what they're used for - by all means, let the lawmakers run wild. You know - for the overall good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
sturg33 said:
Is there no limit to your comfort? If we get a Venezuelan style government who decides that taxing everything for the greater good, are you comfortable with that?

Is there no limit to the amount you're OK with the feds confiscating? Or is there a line?

I'm very curious. Because your argument can absolutely be applied to the well-intentioned actions of the Venezuelan government
Click to expand...

Hmm. Those sound like the kind of questions best answered by free people voting in free and fair elections!

Not exactly something Venezuela is known for, FWIW.

You act like this is either a hard question or some kind of steel trap gotcha. It's neither. It's the opposite. Seems to me there is always tension around taxation and social services, economic freedom vs. freedom from want, etc. I expect, in America, there always will be.

So how much? Unlike you, I'm not comforted by assuming I have the answers. Probably more than you'd be happy with, and probably less than your bolshier Scandinavians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top