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.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Unfortunately she is not running against republicans at the moment, so that is pretty much irrelevant.

And who do you think she's running against? Sanders?

And even your own link puts her at fifth place!

If you expand out to all energy she's even higher.

And if anyone think that means the comments attempting to make Clinton somehow working for oil or energy just has no fething context for any of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Naw, later that activist will be found dead of a suicide... Vince Foster style.

Wow. fething wow.

I know politics start to get really gakky about now, but fething wow.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Naw, later that activist will be found dead of a suicide... Vince Foster style.

Wow. fething wow.

I know politics start to get really gakky about now, but fething wow.

Just to be clear. This was a very black humored joke. I do not expect that too happen and I don't think Mrs. Clinton had anything to do with Mr. Foster's unfortunate suicide.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Naw, later that activist will be found dead of a suicide... Vince Foster style.

Wow. fething wow.

I know politics start to get really gakky about now, but fething wow.

Seb... he was joking.

And yes, politics is now in the gutters for a long while.

I saw a thing the other day about the "Lions of Trump."

Considering it's a couple of days later on, what's the news on that? Real Deal? Two drunk guys, a van and a copy of photostudios? Poe's Law?

I don't like falling into Godwin's Law, but the things I saw looked VERY Godwin-worthy..

 sebster wrote:


And who do you think she's running against? Sanders?

Thats my understanding of how the democratic primaries work yes, The fact that she tries to blame Sanders for this seems to prove that.

 sebster wrote:


If you expand out to all energy she's even higher.

And if anyone think that means the comments attempting to make Clinton somehow working for oil or energy just has no fething context for any of this.

I´m not entirely sure what you are trying to claim here, but yes, politicians usually favor the people/companies that give them money, not a controversial statement exactly

...so April 1st has been and gone, what did people make of Trump's gag ?

Gotta admire the way he kept the act up right ?



..Hmm ?


.. what ?

oh.

Maybe somebody should let him know April 1st is only one day long.

 reds8n wrote:
...so April 1st has been and gone, what did people make of Trump's gag ?

Gotta admire the way he kept the act up right ?



..Hmm ?


.. what ?

oh.

Sorry but no one is gonna be able to beat CornHub for best April Fools prank 2016

 reds8n wrote:
...so April 1st has been and gone, what did people make of Trump's gag ?

Gotta admire the way he kept the act up right ?



..Hmm ?


.. what ?

oh.

Yea, imagine my disappointment. :(

I was looking into Trump's foreign policy stuff. And a lot of it is garbage.

But there's a pretty strong theme in his policy that he feels like America should not be subsidizing world defense budgets through massively disproportionate overspending, that any nation the US is providing security for should be paying for it.

I can't say I can find too much to fault in his logic. The US overspends hugely on it's military and the money being spent there could easily provide for things like free healthcare and free teritary education for all americans. Why should they continue to do so?

I dunno. If I was American that would make sense to me. I realise it might be destabilizing in the short term, but surely a new normal would emerge where the world was not so dramatically unipolar?

It's funny that there's not even really much debate about that it seems in mainstream politics in the US - the rest seem to be content to feed the military industrial beast.

I mean, Trump is an awful, awful man. But I found that interesting to consider.

There have been a couple of good articles on the BBC about Trump.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35933156

The TL/DR here is that the majority of Americans think Trump is awful. He's got a following among a section of Republican voters, though. However none of the mainsteram candidates is popular and Trump represents the top of a very shallow pool of talent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890784

The TL/DR here is that the current situation in US politics is the result of 40 years of decline and hurt to the formerly prosperous working classes, now extending to the middle classes. Bruce Springsteen's album The River is used to illustrate the point.

 Da Boss wrote:
I was looking into Trump's foreign policy stuff. And a lot of it is garbage.

But there's a pretty strong theme in his policy that he feels like America should not be subsidizing world defense budgets through massively disproportionate overspending, that any nation the US is providing security for should be paying for it.

I can't say I can find too much to fault in his logic. The US overspends hugely on it's military and the money being spent there could easily provide for things like free healthcare and free teritary education for all americans. Why should they continue to do so?

I dunno. If I was American that would make sense to me. I realise it might be destabilizing in the short term, but surely a new normal would emerge where the world was not so dramatically unipolar?

It's funny that there's not even really much debate about that it seems in mainstream politics in the US - the rest seem to be content to feed the military industrial beast.

I mean, Trump is an awful, awful man. But I found that interesting to consider.

The problem is then the US moves from international bully to out and out racketeering.

 Da Boss wrote:

I can't say I can find too much to fault in his logic. The US overspends hugely on it's military and the money being spent there could easily provide for things like free healthcare and free teritary education for all americans. Why should they continue to do so?

Free education and healthcare don't exist in the US for ideological reasons. Those same ideological reasons involve throwing money at the military.

 dogma wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

I can't say I can find too much to fault in his logic. The US overspends hugely on it's military and the money being spent there could easily provide for things like free healthcare and free teritary education for all americans. Why should they continue to do so?

Free education and healthcare don't exist in the US for ideological reasons. Those same ideological reasons involve throwing money at the military.

Well... nothing is free.

But I get your drift...

*rolls eyes* Sure, if I said taxpayer funded free healthcare and education would you find that more acceptable than taxpayer funded dramatic military overspend?

 whembly wrote:

Well... nothing is free.

Indeed. That is why I indirectly pay for Catholic schools.

 Da Boss wrote:
*rolls eyes*

Well... don't dismiss it as it ain't a simply as, "hey! lets raise everyone's taxes and pay for healthcare/education for all!".

'taint that simple...

Sure, if I said taxpayer funded free healthcare and education would you find that more acceptable than taxpayer funded dramatic military overspend?

At the expense of not being the world's police?

Maybe.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... nothing is free.

Indeed. That is why I indirectly pay for Catholic schools.

Hmm thats odd, I get a letter every time I move into a neighbourhood with both zones that asks me which system I am to pay for.

That being said, taxes are my single largest expenditure already and I like everyone else has a problem with how at least some of that money is spent.

 whembly wrote:

Well... don't dismiss it as it ain't a simply as, "hey! lets raise everyone's taxes and pay for healthcare/education for all!".

'taint that simple...

It isn't? It seems like you made the argument quite simple.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... don't dismiss it as it ain't a simply as, "hey! lets raise everyone's taxes and pay for healthcare/education for all!".

'taint that simple...

It isn't? It seems like you made the argument quite simple.

Um.

PPACA will bend the cost curve downwards and a family of 4 will save an avg of $2000/year.

How's that working?

...

Not. Possible. In. This. Country.

We already spend billions of borrowed dollars every month. If we're spending more on defense than we need to spend then we should simply spend less. It's not like we have to spend trillions of dollars a year we could and should spend less. If there is money in the budget we can cut we should cut it not find something else to spend it on.

Prestor Jon wrote:
We already spend billions of borrowed dollars every month. If we're spending more on defense than we need to spend then we should simply spend less. It's not like we have to spend trillions of dollars a year we could and should spend less. If there is money in the budget we can cut we should cut it not find something else to spend it on.

We could also stop giving so much aid to other countries too.

Cut all the little stuff you want...You're still spinning your wheels and not getting anywhere reducing the debt or more importantly decrease spending.

Until you accept major reductions in:
Social Security
Medicare & Medicaid
Military


Spending.
And.
Debt.
Will.
Not.
Decrease.

Don't want to cut those three? Need to get elected do you? Then how about the next three big expenses:

Interest on Debt
Veterans Benefits
Agriculture

OK, once you get the Agriculture maybe we can start cutting and still get reelected. That's $135 Billion dollars. Let's cut it all (Monsanto and/or AIG will shoot you dead, but the VP and Congress show some backbone in this hypothetical)

So.
What.

We've still spent $3.65 TRILLION dollars.

Cut something because it's not needed. Don't cut because you think it's "saving money" because, well, that isn't happening until you cut into the "third rail of politics" which no politician is going to do.

 Consul Scipio wrote:
Cut all the little stuff you want...You're still spinning your wheels and not getting anywhere reducing the debt or more importantly decrease spending.

Until you accept major reductions in:
Social Security
Medicare & Medicaid
Military


Spending.
And.
Debt.
Will.
Not.
Decrease.

Don't want to cut those three? Need to get elected do you? Then how about the next three big expenses:

Interest on Debt
Veterans Benefits
Agriculture

OK, once you get the Agriculture maybe we can start cutting and still get reelected. That's $135 Billion dollars. Let's cut it all (Monsanto and/or AIG will shoot you dead, but the VP and Congress show some backbone in this hypothetical)

So.
What.

We've still spent $3.65 TRILLION dollars.

Cut something because it's not needed. Don't cut because you think it's "saving money" because, well, that isn't happening until you cut into the "third rail of politics" which no politician is going to do.

Your post seems to assume that both are mutually exclusive options.

Especially ones that are functioning 1st world nations that don't need it. *cough*Israel*unconvincingcough*


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, any real attempt at cutting the dept in a significant manner, would have to be a combination of raising certain taxes (on those who can afford to have their taxes raised), removing loopholes, cutting incentives, and budget cuts.

Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?

Edit: that is to say, discretionary spending.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?

Edit: that is to say, discretionary spending.

Also... isn't SS pretty much "self funding"?? By that I mean, it's one of the few categories of spending in which we know exactly which taxes go into it: the employment/social security taxes.

And honestly, I would start with "close the tax loopholes" before adding in new taxes on the wealthy. Once the major corporations like Nike, Walmart, GM, Ford, Whirlpool, etc. start paying actual taxes, I would think a lot more stuff could be funded.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?

Edit: that is to say, discretionary spending.

Also... isn't SS pretty much "self funding"?? By that I mean, it's one of the few categories of spending in which we know exactly which taxes go into it: the employment/social security taxes.

And honestly, I would start with "close the tax loopholes" before adding in new taxes on the wealthy. Once the major corporations like Nike, Walmart, GM, Ford, Whirlpool, etc. start paying actual taxes, I would think a lot more stuff could be funded.

In reality, a lot of this would effectively be the same thing.

The ultra wealthy typically do not derive their income from a paycheck or a salary, but essentially from investments of various sorts that most people could never afford to play in and that normally is the realm of large organizations (and that is not taxed at the same levels that income from something like a Salary is).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?

Edit: that is to say, discretionary spending.

Also... isn't SS pretty much "self funding"?? By that I mean, it's one of the few categories of spending in which we know exactly which taxes go into it: the employment/social security taxes.

No. We don't.

The reason why is that all tax revenues go into the General Fund. That is, our SS tax doesn't go into a "special SS account" that is earmarked directly back to SS payments.

It all goes into one giant Piggy Bank™.

Hence why I'm convinced that it won't be there when I retired.

And honestly, I would start with "close the tax loopholes" before adding in new taxes on the wealthy. Once the major corporations like Nike, Walmart, GM, Ford, Whirlpool, etc. start paying actual taxes, I would think a lot more stuff could be funded.

That's all good and dandy... just acknowledge that those corporations don't actually pay those taxes in a vacuum. Tax costs are filtered down to the consumers... and when you look at it from beginning-to-end, it's the consumer that's pays for that tax.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In reality, a lot of this would effectively be the same thing.

The ultra wealthy typically do not derive their income from a paycheck or a salary, but essentially from investments of various sorts that most people could never afford to play in and that normally is the realm of large organizations (and that is not taxed at the same levels that income from something like a Salary is).

If you want the ultra wealthy to pay *something*...

Tax their wealth/assets.

And/or re-classify what exactly is "income" to capture those scenarios...

 whembly wrote:
Um.

PPACA will bend the cost curve downwards and a family of 4 will save an avg of $2000/year.

How's that working?

...

Not. Possible. In. This. Country.

What isn't possible in this country? Universal healthcare, or universal education?

 Consul Scipio wrote:
Cut all the little stuff you want...You're still spinning your wheels and not getting anywhere reducing the debt or more importantly decrease spending.

Until you accept major reductions in:
Social Security

Social Security is paid for with FICA and SECA taxes, not general revenue taxes. It is not part of the budget. Even were we to eliminate SS, it would have no effect on the debt or deficits.