Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

Rich10 August 8th, 2016 06:31 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2104973)
I am aware of the speaking fees and the Clinton foundation. It's one of the demerits on her slate, and one of the reasons I thought Sanders was appealing.

I was responding to your comment: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 1
My math brings me higher than 1. ;)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2104973)
As for taxes, I read recently that traditionally "blue" states tend to have (1) higher taxes and (2) higher standards of living. Or something like that. I don't need lower taxes, I need the taxes I pay to *do* something. I want the police to come when I call; I want my children and my neighbors' children to be taught by competent teachers. I want the Office of the Attorney General to have an effective Consumer Protection Division; I want public health services to combat infection. All those things contribute to my standard of living, and if my taxes are higher than those in Tennessee, I'm ok with that. I don't want to live in Tennessee.

I don't need lower taxes, I just don't want them to go higher. I've never been worried that the police would come, and really haven't thought of the Attorney General or public health services.
In my experience, Democrats seem to make my taxes go higher.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2104973)
Regardless of those speaking fees and the Clinton foundation, I believe that her career as a public servant indicates an intent to continue as a servant of the public.

I don't know what Hillary is thinking. I believe she shows poor judgment. I do agree that her judgment lapses are trivial compared with Trump's.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2104973)
And I didn't say that Trump does not have "business acumen." He does run a successful business. However, you can't do with the American government what he does with a business: bankruptcy, betrayal, racism, fraud. That's his legacy as a businessman, though if you're counting dollars you may still call it "successful." You can't, for instance, willy-nilly abandon your treaty partners, or insist minorities conform to your prejudices, as the Chief Executive of the company that is the United States of America.

Trump's business acumen is what he is running on. He has no other record. He has used bankruptcy. I'm not sure about betrayal, racism and fraud.

Trump's big problem is that he says so many stupid things and really doesn't seem to know the basics of current events. Even with my dislike of Clinton, I can't vote for Trump.

wriggz August 8th, 2016 07:11 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
As far as taxes go, it goes hand in hand with in equality.

Imagine you lived in a Anytown USA that has a population of 100 people. Now if one guy makes 34% of all the money, and the then 4 other guys make another 27%. This leaves 55 people to share 38%. Finally there are 40 people sharing less than 1%.

Lets ignore the terrible situations those last 40% are living in, We can call them lazy or useless or something. Instead lets focus on 55 who are doing okay. Now they are all working away, jobs and wealth distribution that is based on a more even distribuiton. Since those top 5 guys now only pay 30% instead of 70% taxes there is less money to pay for 2 Police officers, 4 street cleaners, and 2 teachers. The mayor being good friends with those 5 top guys doesn't raise taxes but instead cuts out the "waste".

Now you have only 2 street cleaners and 1 teacher, Lets also reduce the pay for those street cleaners or only make them part time. The streets are still clean, so what does it matter? The Mayor tells the old street cleaners, since the Rich guys have more money they will invest in them so they can open their own business's now that they have lots of free time. Now for some reason one of the rich guys decides to loan some money. Not sure why he would do this, I guess interest on the loan so he can make more money? Any way for my story he loans out some of the money, Now i doubt it is the 40% savings he got as a tax break, but I don't make the rules.

Anyhow the former street cleaner opens a business washing pets. Not a terrible idea, since everyone has a dirty dog. Now she does not make as much as she did as a street cleaner, but at least she has a dog. The problem is since everyone has been making less money (except those top 5 guys) they have less money to spend on extras like washing their dogs. At this point since so much money is tied up with those top 5 guys, there really aren't many customers for anything anymore.

Unfortunately there is no way to get that 50% of the money back into the economy since those 5 guys simply can't spend it fast enough (not that they seem to want to spend much of it anyway, and just end up giving most of it to their kids). If there was only a way for the government to create more Consumers for people who wash dogs. Oh, right there are those 40 people doing nothing since there are no jobs. Perhaps if the government started to make more jobs so there could be more consumers.

Or we could all gang up on those 5 guys and take their stuff and spread it around.

Dysole August 8th, 2016 10:04 PM

Mostly Writing This So I Can Get Notified To Lurk
 
My vote is not going to any of the candidates mentioned here but the reasons why are largely personal and I would likely be voting pragmatically for Clinton otherwise. (I was a Sanders fan)

I certainly don't fault anyone for wishing to vote third party, but I have yet to see a poll anywhere that makes me think Johnson or Stein has a prayer of winning electoral votes.

I have more opinions but I'm going to figure out how many of them are worth unpacking.

~Dysole, who really hated how early in the process it felt like her decision was basically decided for her

ollie August 8th, 2016 10:50 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I think a big thing for everyone disillusioned with the names at the top of the tickets is to make sure to get involved and vote for the candidates you want in the positions other than president. I'm with those who are hoping for a different system to emerge that means it's possible (or easier) to vote to get people whose values you share into office---one way to get closer to this is in future and is often possible now is down the ticket, where candidates often have even more direct power to affect your life in any case.

I don't know if tomorrow is a big day nationwide for state elections, or if it's just VT, but if it is then please do some research (quickly!) and get out there. Also, things are getting fruity here (I love that one of the candidates is commenting to accept blame for some aspects of what he said and double down on others; it only reinforces my belief that local politics is so much more accessible and an important step to the national stage).

Rich10 August 9th, 2016 11:21 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2104984)
Unfortunately there is no way to get that 50% of the money back into the economy since those 5 guys simply can't spend it fast enough (not that they seem to want to spend much of it anyway, and just end up giving most of it to their kids). If there was only a way for the government to create more Consumers for people who wash dogs. Oh, right there are those 40 people doing nothing since there are no jobs. Perhaps if the government started to make more jobs so there could be more consumers.

Will the top 5 guys "spend" this extra money? Probably not, but they will invest the money in new businesses that need employees who then become consumers. They aren't going to bury it in the ground. I'm not saying that the government can't spend the money to make new jobs, but the government doesn't seem to be particularly efficient in job creation. I would rather invest my money with people that have a profit incentive or the money can easily be wasted.


Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2104984)
Or we could all gang up on those 5 guys and take their stuff and spread it around.

Which has been done in Marxist forms of governments. The end result seems to be that some corrupt government officials end up with more and most of the people are no better off than before.

Dad_Scaper August 9th, 2016 11:34 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2105083)
Will the top 5 guys "spend" this extra money? Probably not, but they will invest the money in new businesses that need employees who then become consumers.

Ah, yes. As the first President Bush called it, voodoo economics. Why would they invest money in new businesses, when they could protect their wealth better by collecting and storing valuable pieces of art, or investing in businesses and governments far away, likely in other countries? Money does not know borders; there is no reason to think that a member of the .1% will invest in anything other than the accretion of his or her own wealth.

I did not read Wriggz' post to be advocating taking resources from the 5. I thought that line was tongue-in-cheek.

Regardless, I'm not advocating for higher taxes. I'm just pointing out that (1) some government services are *good* things, and need to be financed, and (2) irresponsible use of government money does not know party, and in fact appears to be the norm for the current, conservative U.S. House of Representatives.

Rich10 August 9th, 2016 01:25 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2105086)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2105083)
Will the top 5 guys "spend" this extra money? Probably not, but they will invest the money in new businesses that need employees who then become consumers.

Ah, yes. As the first President Bush called it, voodoo economics. Why would they invest money in new businesses, when they could protect their wealth better by collecting and storing valuable pieces of art, or investing in businesses and governments far away, likely in other countries? Money does not know borders; there is no reason to think that a member of the .1% will invest in anything other than the accretion of his or her own wealth.

I did not read Wriggz' post to be advocating taking resources from the 5. I thought that line was tongue-in-cheek.

Regardless, I'm not advocating for higher taxes. I'm just pointing out that (1) some government services are *good* things, and need to be financed, and (2) irresponsible use of government money does not know party, and in fact appears to be the norm for the current, conservative U.S. House of Representatives.

What you (or President Bush) call "Voodoo Economics", I call capitalism. Capitalism isn't perfect and as Winston Churchill said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Investing in art is typically for ego purposes, not for a reliable gain.

As you point out, money can leave the US. Lawyers have proven adept at skirting laws that try to limit companies and investments from leaving the US. I would prefer a lower (and simpler) corporate rate to limit this, even if it requires higher personal tax rates. It is in our best interests to limit jobs leaving the US and to keep investment here.

I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist. I want there to be a social safety net to help people when they fall, but I don't want people to live their lives in this safety net. I want a government that encourages jobs so that people can be gainfully employed.

Dad_Scaper August 9th, 2016 01:37 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I knew I should have provided a link to that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/ar...ence.html?_r=0

There must be taxes. The manner in which those taxes are structured will have a social impact. Reducing taxes in some ways encourages the growth of the middle class; in other ways it encourages the growth of the top 5, 1, or .1 percent. It's all "wealth redistribution," it's just a question of which direction. Me, I like the kind of tax system that favors a healthy middle class. I think that's good for the country.

wriggz August 9th, 2016 01:37 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I love how @Dad_Scaper puts it... It is what you are willing to pay for.

As a Canadian I know my taxes are higher than most (all?) of the US. However, I'm willing to pay them rather than moving since I feel I get a reasonable deal. I get Police protection, products I eat and use are tested for safety, I have Medical coverage, my election system is protected from government intervention, My mother-in-law can collect disability, my son will have a good school and my wife gets a year of maternity leave at 50% her normal pay.

What if I was unhappy? I only have two options: Move (expensive and maybe not feasible) or Vote for Change (limited options, no guarantees). I get why people hate all the government options, it is like cable companies or airline food - simply no real choice.

This is where your local government becomes important. If Americans (well any country really) invested the same time and effort into politics as they do to sports there might be a reason for change. Think of how we ring out Errors in sports, keep track of historical stats, and all around keep an eye on ever aspect of everything. I don't simply mean watching the three-ring circus that happens every 4 years, but in-depth participation that happens at every level.


Oh and about everyone showing up at that top 1% Houses and demand their share... your right there is always a "Cheater" waiting in the wings to snag more than their share, and really it would only likely lead to inflation.


Here's to hoping that the better angels of our nature one day rule our decisions.

Rich10 August 9th, 2016 02:28 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2105107)
I knew I should have provided a link to that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/ar...ence.html?_r=0

There must be taxes. The manner in which those taxes are structured will have a social impact. Reducing taxes in some ways encourages the growth of the middle class; in other ways it encourages the growth of the top 5, 1, or .1 percent. It's all "wealth redistribution," it's just a question of which direction. Me, I like the kind of tax system that favors a healthy middle class. I think that's good for the country.

Very interesting article. I wonder how much money is tied up in art held in ports?

There are deductions that target the middle class (mortgage, IRA/401K, dependents, EITC, etc.). I still think that jobs are the key to helping the middle class.

I have talked to a number of unskilled workers who support Trump on the basis of his immigration policies. While I'm not going to support a ban on Muslims, I understand their concern about illegal immigrants taking jobs.

Dad_Scaper August 9th, 2016 02:37 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
My point with the reference to art - and with the link to the article - is that there is no reason to think that the money spent by the wealthiest of the wealthy inures to the benefit of anyone but themselves.

Is there a rational connection between Trump's immigration policies and employment in this country? I certainly wouldn't assume that the answer to that question is "yes," or that the people with whom you've spoken are competent to analyze it. Employment has risen steadily under Obama; I don't know why that wouldn't continue under Clinton.

wriggz August 9th, 2016 02:55 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I would love to see two things:

1. Corporate taxes tied to the number of Middle Class Jobs you provide.
2. More money spent on infrastructure to get people working.

Oddly enough the solution is not to offer tax breaks to the middle class, the key is to raise up the lower class. You want a country where "Unskilled works" are rare due to robust training, apprenticeship (not internship) and education programs.

I don't know about you but I don't want the jobs that typically go to Illegal Immigrants. Instead of worrying about illegals I would focus on wage reduction, part-time, disappearance of benefits and outsourcing.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.