We're a Nation of Flippin' Idiots--Or "I'm Tired of Working My Ass Off"

[Matts_12GS]

I always thought a perfect way to do that would be to let government entities market themselves to the public and have taxes broken out like a united way pledge drive wherein you can denote that x% of your taxes goes to Y charity. I want 75% to go to national defense you might want 90% to go to new technologies.

 

We perceive value we cannot enforce, but it would get people more engaged in HOW large organizations are spending and might cause them to take congress more seriously.

 

Admittedly, it's whimsical.

 

While you and I would disagree on the fulcrum's position, there is a balance between income and outflow of tax monies and return. Your use of national defense is as nonsensical as my position of telling the government where to spend your payments. Somethings cannot be so neatly placed in silos, and as such make good targets for those of us in the "Spend Less" category. The larger problem here is one of human nature.

 

Whereas social security was designed as a safety net and to provide for those unable to provide for themselves, it gave millions of people the option to take no responsibility at all and has thusly become a retirement plan for all. Same thing with state's receiving federal money for certain things like roads and schools. They have made those temporary subsidies permanent parts of their budgets and shifted monies elsewhere.

 

Budgets are zero sum items, economies are not. It's time to make governments at all levels spend what they have and prioritize it on the will of their represented constituencies.

[Bill_Walker]

At first blush; I have a tendency to agree. Consumption taxes or maybe a better term is User Fees are a better, more equitable, more efficient scheme. You pay school taxes/fees while you have kids in school, when you don’t you don’t. More (all?) roads should be toll roads, etc. (But be ready for the fees for the things you DO use to be much higher when the subsidy by those who don’t use them goes away.)...

 

But even if you're not a direct user of those services, you still benefit from them. An educated populace is less likely to vote for stupid things/people, and provides a workforce for both business and government. The goods you buy travel over those roads, etc., etc.

[Harry_Wilshusen]

MODERATOR EDIT: Post deleted because of provocative political insinuation.

 

Harry

[Selden]

With each passing day, I become more skeptical that we have an "educated populace."

[steve.foote]

From a business perspective, the trick today is figuring out where your CODB is going to be in the next twelve months. Estimating the financial cost of government/societal choices is not easy to calculate, but it is very important to not underestimate. Once your true cost of doing business is determined, it's pretty straight forward to set your prices accordingly and move on with life.

 

It's a changed world, which requires a changed perspective.

[11101110]

In the newspaper this morning, an article noted that Iraq is running a budget surplus. A question was raised as to whether they could use a part of that surplus to help pay for part of the costs of the security we're providing. The response was that Iraq needs the money to rebuild their infrastructure, and can't afford to contribute to those costs at this point in time. We can afford it, of course.

 

There is a reason they have a surplus. they have no budget. They have no budget because they have no government. But yeah I agree. What happened to Iraq can pay for their own rebuilding?

 

Now if we can only get people to stop saying "the government should spend less!!" and start telling us what the government either gives them now or has promised to give THEM later that they are willing to give up. Many, many fewer takers on that one.

+1

I keep hearing people at the local level complain about their taxes being too high but anytime I've asked them what services that our local government provides that they'd be willing to give up - all I get back is silence. As a corollary to that, people say we need more tax-revenue generating businesses in our community - but not in their neighborhoods. I guess it's human nature to want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

Or they say to cut the poor people services. Interestingly enough our city had some "work sessions" where a number citizens were to come up with suggestions regarding ways to balance the budget in light of the revenue fall due to the recession. No one wanted to raise taxes and no one wanted to cut services :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap: :dopeslap:

 

sorry got carried away.

 

Another interesting fact is that job postings are seriously on the rise. Companies want to hire but because so many are under water on their mortgages or are otherwise unable to sell their current home, or for lack of qualified candidates those positions are going unfilled. Getting our health care cost more inline with other industrial countries will free up one trillion dollars for the economy per year. Getting the cost of higher education under control will put another big chunk of change into the economy.

 

I doubt a family of four will see their tax bill go up by 4500 next year if the Bush tax cut expires for all. That example does not take into account ANY of the tax breaks still on the book. There is a difference between your tax and your liability. As a single person I have a much higher liability than my coworkers who have children. Personally I think Obama needs to pull a Reagan: Lower the tax rates but close the loopholes and remove deductions which will quietly increase revenue.

 

[/rant]

[bayoubengal]

Agreed.

 

I don’t think it’s about how much the government spends it all. “The government spends too much money!” “Do away with taxes!” choruses are just sound bites designed to elicit an emotional ‘we’re mad at something, we don’t know what, but something’ responses. If you whip people into enough of a frenzy you can get them to do just about anything.

 

The real issue is that we don’t think we’re getting enough value for our money in what the government does. Few people I don’t think honestly could say (or at least they haven’t thought it through) that, taken to its logical extreme, a government that spends nothing would be a better alternative. As you say, we all benefit in a multitude of ways from our respective governments. We just want what it does to cost less.

 

I think part of the problem too is governments (at all levels) don’t really do a good job of selling/promoting what they are doing well. Part of the result then is everyone answers – “Nothing.” Which if we were to be even halfway objective about it; really isn’t true.

I find this a bit condescending. To me this reads those against big governemnt aren't smart enough to form these opinions and don't think for themselves. I respectfully disagree. The typical conservative's beliefs are not about sound bites and "frenzies". We believe big government is part of the problem, not the solution. We recognize a place for government in our lives but also recognize that the scope must be limited. We are not ignorant of the facts, we just think the free market offers better solutions and the more you pay people not to produce...the more they won't produce. I'l stop here so we don't make this political and get the thread shut down.

[beemerman2k]

The typical conservative's beliefs...

 

I think it wise to discuss ones own perspective, not the perspective of a given ideology or political party. Wars over personal differences of opinion are fine, political ideological wars are not.

[philbytx]

What about Libertarians !!!!!!

[beemerman2k]

What about Libertarians !!!!!!

 

***LAST TIME I'LL SAY THIS***

*** Future violations will result in a political warning ***

I think it wise to discuss ones own perspective, not the perspective of a given ideology or political party. Wars over personal differences of opinion are fine, political ideological wars are not.

[Whip]

From a business perspective, the trick today is figuring out where your CODB is going to be in the next twelve months. Estimating the financial cost of government/societal choices is not easy to calculate, but it is very important to not underestimate. Once your true cost of doing business is determined, it's pretty straight forward to set your prices accordingly and move on with life.

 

It's a changed world, which requires a changed perspective.

 

Much easier said than done.

 

 

[bayoubengal]

Understand beemerman.

[beemerman2k]

Thanks Hutch.

 

The last thing we want are political wars among the varying ideological camps. If I can promote my political ideology, then another can offer up counter arguments to my political ideology. Then, what results, are wars among the various ideological camps.

 

All that is so futile because I would argue that your (and by "your" I mean everyone in general, I am not addressing anyone in particular in this post) "ideological camp" is irrelevant. The only question that matters is this: how do YOU feel about a given topic? Can YOU defend YOUR position all by YOURSELF? Don't defer to another, don't forward your argument to a politician or a political ideology, argue YOUR position YOURSELF. YOUR views are the only ones in question on this forum, no one else. If one counter argues your position, that means only one thing: they disagree with YOU.

 

[steve.foote]

From a business perspective, the trick today is figuring out where your CODB is going to be in the next twelve months. Estimating the financial cost of government/societal choices is not easy to calculate, but it is very important to not underestimate. Once your true cost of doing business is determined, it's pretty straight forward to set your prices accordingly and move on with life.

 

It's a changed world, which requires a changed perspective.

 

Much easier said than done.

 

Absolutely, not much in business is easy.

 

I think that today a lot of people are caught up in an emotional whirlpool of not wanting to accept certain things for what they are. A lot of us don't want to have to shoulder the load for others, especially those we perceive to be gaming the safety net. But, that is the reality today and we individuals either have to figure a way to pull the extra weight, or hop in the wagon. As an entrepreneur, you have to adjust to the new reality or your not going to make it.

[Whip]

 

Absolutely, not much in business is easy.

 

I think that today a lot of people are caught up in an emotional whirlpool of not wanting to accept certain things for what they are. A lot of us don't want to have to shoulder the load for others, especially those we perceive to be gaming the safety net. But, that is the reality today and we individuals either have to figure a way to pull the extra weight, or hop in the wagon. As an entrepreneur, you have to adjust to the new reality or your not going to make it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am tired of having to "adjust to the new reality".

 

This will be the third or fourth time.

 

....enough already.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

I think that today a lot of people are caught up in an emotional whirlpool of not wanting to accept certain things for what they are.

 

While you didn't intend this meaning, I think your statement applies to the financial predicament in which many of the states and the federal government find themselves. Both major parties participate in passing budgets that allow continued spending without providing revenue sources to pay for the spending. Because government has ways of papering over this, it has continued for a number of years, but I think we all realize that it can't continue very much longer.

 

In a way, it surprises me that those on either the right or the left allow this to happen. Those on the right would prefer to cut spending to at least the level of tax collections, while those on the left would prefer to raise taxes to cover a higher level of spending. Since neither side is going to agree with the other, ever, it would seem reasonable to me that both sides would agree to cut spending to the level of tax collections. While this would seem to capitulate to the conservative view, what it really does is to realistically show the public what level of spending can be supported by the current level of taxes. If the public likes that reduced level of services, fine. If the public doesn't like that level of services, the public would be motivated to increase taxes to pay for the services it wants, if the public believed that was the only way the services would be provided.

[steve.foote]

You are correct, Dave. Neither side is prepared to compromise at this point. But, I believe the reason isn't that they don't recognize it needs to be done but rather that each side preceives an intransigence in the other side. Since neither is willing to 'unilaterally disarm' the standoff continues.

 

From a conservative's point of view, I've seen our leadership give ground in the past only to be left holding the pi$$ bucket. I recall a truce offered in the late 80's where a tax increase would be approved if $2 would be cut for every $1 of new tax revenue. The tax increase happened, but the spending cuts were reniged upon and GHWB became a one-term president because of it. I'm sure there are similary stories from the other side.

 

My point is, fiscal dicipline is in gridlock and it doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon. So, the reality is that we're going see continued reckless fiscal and social policy at the federal level which will increase the burden on those who pay the bills. That is important news for people planning their own financial future. Without a firm grasp of what is real, it is very difficult to make the necessary changes required to succeed. In other words, see the world for what it is and find the best path forward.

[Selden]

Occasionally, Steve and I agree on a political-economic issue.

 

Call me cynical, but I'm resigned to the situation having to get much worse before it gets better. A whole lot of people, including the vast, undefined "us" are going to have to be hit upside the head with a 2x4 before they get it, and agree to tighten their belts (fewer benefits/services, higher taxes). Even the so-called balanced budgets of the late 90's were illusory, based on creative bookkeeping using social security funds.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that individually, and as a country, we've been living beyond our means since 1980, if not earlier, and the bill is coming due.

[philbytx]

beemerman :

 

quote

The typical conservative's beliefs are not about sound bites and "frenzies". We believe big government is part of the problem, not the solution. We recognize a place for government in our lives but also recognize that the scope must be limited. We are not ignorant of the facts, we just think the free market offers better solutions and the more you pay people not to produce...the more they won't produce.

unquote

 

Err! I believe we have a misunderstanding here .

I was merely pointing out that those stated "typical conservative" beliefs (typical conservative usually = Republican) are also Libertarian beliefs. Of which I am one........

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Phil, the problem is this: as soon as you introduce an idea as being that from a political party or ideology, you have to be prepared to accept criticism of that political party or ideology. To use an example, if I were to post on here, "us 'pro-government coverup party' members don't buy into X because of Y", then I have to be open to the next post that will be critical of the 'pro-government coverup party' for not buying into Y! If I cannot take such criticism, then I should not have introduced the thought as coming from the 'pro-government coverup party'. Instead, I should have said, "I, ME, This poster right here, doesn't buy into X because of Y". Now, all I have to do is to defend *myself* from the coming counter-arguments.

 

As soon as someone attacks the position of a given group, all members of that group consider themselves under attack. If you introduce a perspective as being particularly conservative or liberal, now anyone who attacks said perspective is also attacking conservatives or liberals. Then the conversation goes down the drain from there as now everyone who identifies with the group being attacked feels compelled to weigh in and defend the position by attacking the implied group of the critic. That's what I am trying to avoid.

 

I would like to argue that the very thought of a "typical conservative" or "typical liberal" or "typical anyone" is also fuel for fire. These very generalizations are also the stuff of controversy as it now invites the gross generalizations outside critics of the ideology often hold of the other group. After all, if you can generalize about the holders of the ideological viewpoint, why can't I? I've seen these situations play out time and time again.

 

Just voice your own perspective; that's all anyone needs to know about. Your views can be challenged and debated and you are here to defend them. Your party's views, however, are outside the scope of anyone on this forum. No one here speaks for them and this is not the place to do so anyhow.

 

While I am on this topic, let me also give a hearty thanks to Ken H. Ken's viewpoints are often controversial and "different" than the mainstream thoughts on this forum. Yet Ken not only takes a bold stand on his position, but he claims complete ownership of his views. Ken says, "here's what *I* think", not "here's what the group I belong to thinks". Ken represents himself and I appreciate that. I'm only asking that we all do the same.

[philbytx]

Ah! I understand the "subtle distinctions" now .

I will be a little more "I" focussed regarding political matters from now on

 

 

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

I find this a bit condescending. To me this reads those against big governemnt aren't smart enough to form these opinions and don't think for themselves. I respectfully disagree.

Sorry, didn’t mean to sound condescending, I know there is thoughtful consideration being given on both sides of most any controversial subject. My comment was more targeted at certain high-profile people on the national scene (of various ideology perspectives) whose main method of operation seems to be trying to stir the people into a frenzy with ‘solutions lite.” And there are groups of people who do follow down that pied-piper path fueled mostly by anger rather than the search for real workable solutions.

 

I still maintain though that there are a lot of things government does right. Now whether or not those significantly offset what they do wrong; therein lays the discussion! Like several in this thread have mentions, when asked, “What services would you like cut?” the chorus sings, “None!” Those must be the ‘doing right’ things then, eh?

[bayoubengal]

I find this a bit condescending. To me this reads those against big governemnt aren't smart enough to form these opinions and don't think for themselves. I respectfully disagree.

Sorry, didn’t mean to sound condescending, I know there is thoughtful consideration being given on both sides of most any controversial subject. My comment was more targeted at certain high-profile people on the national scene (of various ideology perspectives) whose main method of operation seems to be trying to stir the people into a frenzy with ‘solutions lite.” And there are groups of people who do follow down that pied-piper path fueled mostly by anger rather than the search for real workable solutions.

 

I still maintain though that there are a lot of things government does right. Now whether or not those significantly offset what they do wrong; therein lays the discussion! Like several in this thread have mentions, when asked, “What services would you like cut?” the chorus sings, “None!” Those must be the ‘doing right’ things then, eh?

 

No harm no foul my friend. And after re-reading I can probably agree with you that some leaders do try to spin people up over challenges hoping they can be seen as the only anwser. And yes I do think for myself and although I sense we see things quite differently I respect the fact that you think for yourself also.

[tallman]

Geez James.

Isn't this just what people were decrying in the What's Wrong With Education thread?

Everybody has a POV and they are all OK.

2 + 2 = 5

Sigh...

Can't we just go back to the days of I'm right and you're wrong because I say so?

 

[notacop]

OPM, my hero's. Check in the bank every month even on Sunday when I'm out pissing away our natural resources.

God Bless America.

All the Have Not's are just jealous because they haven't figured a way getting a big piece of the pie or didn't qualify to be lawyers.

Sour grapes, poor sports and the like.

I am a little disappointed I didn't figure out how to double dip properly.

[Bill_Walker]

 

As an entrepreneur, you have to adjust to the new reality or your not going to make it.

 

I am tired of having to "adjust to the new reality".

 

This will be the third or fourth time.

 

....enough already.

 

 

The only constant in the world is change.

 

Hey, James, I contend that Steve's user name is a statement of political ideology and he should therefore be banned.

[steve.foote]

Hey, James, I contend that Steve's user name is a statement of political ideology and he should therefore be banned.

 

Boy! There's a broadside.

[steve.foote]

Occasionally, Steve and I agree on a political-economic issue.

 

Seldon, we probably agree on a lot more than we realize. While disagreement is healthy, we also need to tend to our similarities.

 

Back atcha.

[mbelectric]

Occasionally, Steve and I agree on a political-economic issue.

 

we also need to tend to our similarities.

 

 

OK guys, that's a bit too friendly..

 

Know what I'm sayin"?

 

MB>

[beemerman2k]

Hey, James, I contend that Steve's user name is a statement of political ideology and he should therefore be banned.

 

Boy! There's a broadside.

 

Good one, Bill

[Matts_12GS]

Hey, James, I contend that Steve's user name is a statement of political ideology and he should therefore be banned.

 

So then, would nerdy Jamie's member status...

 

See, it's never ending!

[VinnyR11]

Hey, James, I contend that Steve's user name is a statement of political ideology and he should therefore be banned.

 

Boy! There's a broadside.

 

I thought the "So. GA Mountains" line would have been enough alone.

[beemerman2k]

Hey, James, I contend that Steve's user name is a statement of political ideology and he should therefore be banned.

 

Boy! There's a broadside.

 

I thought the "So. GA Mountains" line would have been enough alone.

 

I think you guys are on to something. I mean, look at his avatar! What kind of society would even possess weapons like that

[Matts_12GS]

Speaking of GA...

[steve.foote]

I think you guys are on to something. I mean, look at his avatar! What kind of society would even possess weapons like that

 

What kind of society you ask, James? The kind that is determined to win, of course.

[beemerman2k]

What kind of society you ask, James? The kind that is determined to win, of course.

 

Ah yes, such quaint views. I remember them well.

 

Fortunately, we have long ago evolved past that point, and now we know that the world is a very nice place and that people are basically very friendly and that no one would ever attack us -- unless, of course, we made them do it because they were victims of our insensitive western policies :smirk:

 

Now, instead of those missile "thingys", we have flowers and doves to clearly let our would be enemies know that we are a friendly country who welcomes everyone with open doors and open arms

 

[Matts_12GS]

What kind of society you ask, James? The kind that is determined to win, of course.

 

Ah yes, such quaint views. I remember them well.

 

Fortunately, we have long ago evolved past that point, and now we know that the world is a very nice place and that people are basically very friendly and that no one would ever attack us -- unless, of course, we made them do it because they were victims of our insensitive western policies :smirk:

 

Now, instead of those missile "thingys", we have flowers and doves to clearly let our would be enemies know that we are a friendly country who welcomes everyone with open doors and open arms

 

Someone's cryin' nonspecificdeityofyourchoice;

kumbaya

 

O' nonspecificdeityofyourchoice;

kumbaya

[tallman]

I think you guys are on to something. I mean, look at his avatar! What kind of society would even possess weapons like that

 

What kind of society you ask, James? The kind that is determined to win, of course.

 

Sorry Steve, all I see is Bekdar Conehead.

But he is a winner.

[DavidEBSmith]

What kind of society you ask, James? The kind that is determined to win, of course.

 

Ah yes, such quaint views. I remember them well.

 

Fortunately, we have long ago evolved past that point, and now we know that the world is a very nice place and that people are basically very friendly and that no one would ever attack us -- unless, of course, we made them do it because they were victims of our insensitive western policies :smirk:

 

Now, instead of those missile "thingys", we have flowers and doves to clearly let our would be enemies know that we are a friendly country who welcomes everyone with open doors and open arms

 

Sounds like you're ridiculing a particular political position there. I think you need to ban yourself.

[beemerman2k]

Sounds like you're ridiculing a particular political position there. I think you need to ban yourself.

 

I'm just havin' some fun, that's all.

 

I hope I made my position clear in my earlier posts in this very thread: I speak my mind as an individual, I come here to learn, and I welcome voices from all on this forum. And I welcome the same from others.

[notacop]

Politically this web site forum is more My Little Pony than anything serial and cutting edge. Oh, don't run with the scissors and make sure they are the not the pointy ones.

 

Of course you are speaking for yourself. No one else who hold sacred your tenets.

 

But it's ok to poke fun at some guy from the south who some of you know and love to kid.

 

Personally I prefer to read the frothing mouth diatribes folks use to get their ideals across. Like AM talk radio. Pure entertainment. Alas here we are kept to purple dinosaur happiness.

Oh, look at the time, I must run, have a tea party to attend!

[philbytx]

Ah! So you ARE The Mad Hatter

[Bob Palin]

Ah! So you ARE The Mad Hatter

No, I'm the mad Hatter!

[Selden]

The only constant in the world is change.

A few days ago, talking about a likely library system software migration, my wife complained that she was tired of everything changing all the time. I tried to be as tactful as I could (better than some times, as she didn't burst into tears), and told her, "that's life." We all have our limits for change; mine is probably higher than hers. Even the Amish have to deal with change.

 

Some people are unemployed because of structural changes in the economy, and their skills no longer fit the needs of the 21st century workplace. While many can learn new skills, realistically, if I were looking for someone with computer skills, even if all things were equal, I'd probably tilt toward someone 20-30 than a 60-year old who has been working on an assembly line for 40 years.

[steve.foote]

Ah! So you ARE The Mad Hatter

No, I'm the mad Hatter!

 

I thought I was the Mad Hatter?

[beemerman2k]

Steve, I trust you know I was joking.

 

I was not poking fun at you in the slightest, I was poking fun -- using my own ficticious political perspective -- of the tendency among us to mix our ideals with our politics. I think that peace on all levels are ideals most of us share. We would love to not have to allocate tax dollars to fund a military with all the expensive weaponry necessary to ensure that military's effectiveness. Those are our shared ideals.

 

But like our founding fathers, I am well aware of human nature, too. And I know that humans are basically selfish beings and that if given the opportunity, we will not hesitate to conquor another for their own purposes. That's reality. So while my ideals are aimed at peace, my politics are aimed at life in the real world.

 

Thus I completely understand why we need the kind of missiles in your avatar -- to ensure we win

 

[steve.foote]

Steve, I trust you know I was joking.

 

Uh, yeah, James, I've been around here for a while. I definately got it.

 

I especially got a kick out of Bill's quip.

[bayoubengal]

I think you guys are on to something. I mean, look at his avatar! What kind of society would even possess weapons like that

 

What kind of society you ask, James? The kind that is determined to win, of course.

 

Peace, the old fashion way...

[notacop]

I thought KIller was the MAd Haired!

Phil, youse a quick study! Kudos!