Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.

Ummm.... because if the economic incentive is for no one to have kids, then very few people will have kids. Then guess what happens to your country?



Hint: It ceases to exist.

If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.

@Easy E: Oh, people will still have kids even if they are forced to pay their fair share for them.

 Easy E wrote:
Hint: It ceases to exist.

That and kids are incredibly expensive to raise.

 Ahtman wrote:
If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.

If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.

Why? Why would narrowing the process down to targeting the military spending specifically be undoable? That's just a variation on "we can't fix everything so why bother?".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why? Why would narrowing the process down to targeting the military spending specifically be undoable? That's just a variation on "we can't fix everything so why bother?".

Why not? That's just a variation of "don't touch my stuff" or "you go first".

Carly Fiorina has embraced the obvious, and nothing of value was lost.

 Ouze wrote:
Carly Fiorina has embraced the obvious, and nothing of value was lost.

Fans of angry, bitter aunts across America will be devastated.

I wonder when Sleepy McAmbien is gonna read the writing on the wall.

Long after the people who run his campaign have, apparently.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.

If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.

Because a 5% cut in military spending would save more money than a 5% cut in everything else combined. Not to excuse the other portions of spending, but if the goal is to cut back on dollars spent than looking at the military would be the most efficient option. And let's face it, we really couldn't expect the government to seriously evaluate more than one portion at a time anyway.

 Ouze wrote:
Carly Fiorina has embraced the obvious, and nothing of value was lost.

Good.

Christie and (Carson I think) has suspended it.

So, the next debate should only be:
Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Bush. (maybe Kasich, but why?)

Also, the Democrat side, THIS is why I think Clinton is going to win:
In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a supposedly narrow victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to *only* 42 for Sanders.

After all that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.

If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.

Because a 5% cut in military spending would save more money than a 5% cut in everything else combined. Not to excuse the other portions of spending, but if the goal is to cut back on dollars spent than looking at the military would be the most efficient option. And let's face it, we really couldn't expect the government to seriously evaluate more than one portion at a time anyway.

Actually, the military could save a feth ton if they prohibit R&D and procurment at the same time. (looking at the JSF as example).

 skyth wrote:
It does if you consider that human life has a value of its own. This represents the government rewarding you for being a good samaritan and taking care of another human being.

Human life on its own has no value. The state wants you to get children because it needs people to work. That's the sole reason. A government needs taxes to act. People pay taxes. More people = more taxes. More taxes = good.

 Easy E wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.

Ummm.... because if the economic incentive is for no one to have kids, then very few people will have kids. Then guess what happens to your country?

Hint: It ceases to exist.

Easy E has the basic right of it. It may be pat; but children are the future of a country, so a country that invests in families with children, invests in its future.

Think of it another way; those children are future tax payers. Any money spent on them by a government (via tax breaks or, say, an education system), will eventually make its way back. Not only that but when they are tax payers will also line up with when their parents are no-longer paying tax, so not only will the children's tax replace that paid by their parents but their tax will also help pay for any support the government has to pay to said retired parents. The 'non-breeders' on the other hand; they offer tax payments for only a single working life.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Easy E: Oh, people will still have kids even if they are forced to pay their fair share for them.

But who will be having them? If you make having kids too unattractive, then the only kids that will be had will be accidents or mistakes. I hate to think what a generation of accidents and mistakes would look like.

Plus making parents pay their 'fair share' just punishes children for being born to the wrong parents. It levels the playing field somewhat for the children.

Duplicate post.

 whembly wrote:

Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplified less progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?

Neither would be feasible, as both a flat tax and a less progressive tax structure are virtually guaranteed to reduce federal revenue; something which will need to increase in order to cover universal healthcare. Not by as much as many opponents like to claim, as it would basically subsume Medicare and Medicaid, but certainly by an appreciable amount.

 whembly wrote:

In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a supposedly narrow victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire.

Let's be honest, no one actually thought Clinton was going to win New Hampshire.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Carly Fiorina has embraced the obvious, and nothing of value was lost.

Good.

Christie and (Carson I think) has suspended it.

To confirm, Christie has. I have not seen that Carson has yet done so.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplified less progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?

Neither would be feasible, as both a flat tax and a less progressive tax structure are virtually guaranteed to reduce federal revenue; something which will need to increase in order to cover universal healthcare. Not by as much as many opponents like to claim, as it would basically subsume Medicare and Medicaid, but certainly by an appreciable amount.

That's an argument... but, it was just an idea.

What do *you* think it'd take to get the opposition to the table? What could the champions of Universal Healthcare put on the table to entice it's opponent to agree?

 whembly wrote:

In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a supposedly narrow victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire.

Let's be honest, no one actually thought Clinton was going to win New Hampshire.

Anyone who understands how the DNC's Superdelegates functions would know that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Carly Fiorina has embraced the obvious, and nothing of value was lost.

Good.

Christie and (Carson I think) has suspended it.

To confirm, Christie has. I have not seen that Carson has yet done so.

Ah... my mistake, I thought I saw something. In the next debate, I don't think he's in.

Texas is going against research again:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-texas-researchers-under-fire-planned-parenthood-study-172540185.html

Can't let facts stand in front of partisan bs!

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.

If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.

You use the basic Paretto principle that all businesses use, and you see why we start with the Military right?

I mean, I thought Conservatives wanted Government to run more like a business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

 whembly wrote:

What do *you* think it'd take to get the opposition to the table? What could the champions of Universal Healthcare put on the table to entice it's opponent to agree?

Essentially nothing. Most ardent opponents of universal healthcare have built their political careers on being opposed to any and all things related to government spending on social programs, so getting them to renege on universal healthcare is a lot like getting them to play Russian roulette. The only way you're going to get universal healthcare to pass is by creating a public sea change which pushes opponents to the idea out of office, and replaces them with sympathetic representatives.

 whembly wrote:

Anyone who understands how the DNC's Superdelegates functions would know that...

That Hillary wasn't going to win New Hampshire? If so, superdelegates had nothing to do with the outcome of the actual vote.

Or are you talking about the fact that the DNC has more direct control over the outcome of its primary process than the RNC?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.

If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.

Because a 5% cut in military spending would save more money than a 5% cut in everything else combined. Not to excuse the other portions of spending, but if the goal is to cut back on dollars spent than looking at the military would be the most efficient option. And let's face it, we really couldn't expect the government to seriously evaluate more than one portion at a time anyway.

I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)

Discretionary spending is a thing.

Jerram wrote:

I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)

Probably because the term "budget" refers only to discretionary spending, this is because mandatory spending is not a part of the normal appropriations process.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Easy E: Oh, people will still have kids even if they are forced to pay their fair share for them.

The tax break for children is supposed to help ease the burden in training up the next generation of workers who will be paying into social security when you retire. Those kids will be paying to cover you in addition to their parents.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What do *you* think it'd take to get the opposition to the table? What could the champions of Universal Healthcare put on the table to entice it's opponent to agree?

Essentially nothing. Most ardent opponents of universal healthcare have built their political careers on being opposed to any and all things related to government spending on social programs, so getting them to renege on universal healthcare is a lot like getting them to play Russian roulette. The only way you're going to get universal healthcare to pass is by creating a public sea change which pushes opponents to the idea out of office, and replaces them with sympathetic representatives.

You mean like after 2008 election? Because, that's about the only time you could get such a coalition and even then, it was a gakky deal.

Each side ought to put something on the table to get something out of reneging their past oppositions.

It's called "compromise".

 whembly wrote:

Anyone who understands how the DNC's Superdelegates functions would know that...

That Hillary wasn't going to win New Hampshire? If so, superdelegates had nothing to do with the outcome of the actual vote.

Or are you talking about the fact that the DNC has more direct control over the outcome of its primary process than the RNC?

DNC does have more control than the RNC over their primary section, but I'm simply talking about how the Clinton Crew would ensure the super-delegate votes from the get go.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I have personally found that Trump supporters project onto Trump like a Twilight protagonist.

That is perfect phrasing. Thankyou.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What do *you* think it'd take to get the opposition to the table? What could the champions of Universal Healthcare put on the table to entice it's opponent to agree?

Essentially nothing. Most ardent opponents of universal healthcare have built their political careers on being opposed to any and all things related to government spending on social programs, so getting them to renege on universal healthcare is a lot like getting them to play Russian roulette. The only way you're going to get universal healthcare to pass is by creating a public sea change which pushes opponents to the idea out of office, and replaces them with sympathetic representatives.

You mean like after 2008 election? Because, that's about the only time you could get such a coalition and even then, it was a gakky deal.

Each side ought to put something on the table to get something out of reneging their past oppositions.

It's called "compromise".

If the majority of the population decides that universal healthcare becomes important enough, then you don't have to get a single thing to politicians who are opposed to it because they will be voted out of office. There is no need for compromise if something becomes important enough to the population at large, it's really that simple.