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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are eccentrically death traps.

Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.

You're missing the point. Some countries have no go areas. The US has no go cities!
(and the entire state of New Mexico)

No, that was my point.

Obamacare.

Don't end it, fix it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Obamacare.

Don't end it, fix it.

Sorry, it has a pre-existing condition.

 Frazzled wrote:
Obamacare.

Don't end it, fix it.

But Socialism/Communism!

 TheSilo wrote:


Like most resilient tax policies, 529s overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. But they do just enough for the middle class that no one wants them gone. Like the mortgage interest deduction, paying out fat refunds to wealthy homeowners while doing nothing for young and poor renters.

[url]http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-64

I can tell you I'm hardly "the wealthiest." I put money in my daughters at the expense of "spending money" for myself to try and help lessen her burden later in the hopes she has it easier than I presently do.

CNBC is posting news otherwise: www.cnbc.com/Id/102376116

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Obamacare.

Don't end it, fix it.

Sorry, it has a pre-existing condition.

Good thing ACA removed the pre-existing condition exclusion BS.

 cincydooley wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:


Like most resilient tax policies, 529s overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. But they do just enough for the middle class that no one wants them gone. Like the mortgage interest deduction, paying out fat refunds to wealthy homeowners while doing nothing for young and poor renters.

[url]http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-64

I can tell you I'm hardly "the wealthiest." I put money in my daughters at the expense of "spending money" for myself to try and help lessen her burden later in the hopes she has it easier than I presently do.

CNBC is posting news otherwise: www.cnbc.com/Id/102376116

Indeed. Evidently anyone who sacrifices to save money for their kids are now the wealthiest Americans. Really?

 Frazzled wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:


Like most resilient tax policies, 529s overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. But they do just enough for the middle class that no one wants them gone. Like the mortgage interest deduction, paying out fat refunds to wealthy homeowners while doing nothing for young and poor renters.

[url]http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-64

I can tell you I'm hardly "the wealthiest." I put money in my daughters at the expense of "spending money" for myself to try and help lessen her burden later in the hopes she has it easier than I presently do.

CNBC is posting news otherwise: www.cnbc.com/Id/102376116

Indeed. Evidently anyone who sacrifices to save money for their kids are now the wealthiest Americans. Really?

Only if reading comprehension escapes you. "Overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest" =/= "only benefits the wealthiest".

Prove it "overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest"

Pro-tip if you're wealthy the tax savings is helpful but you have surplus anyway. If you're not the tax savings is much more critical.

 Frazzled wrote:
Prove it "overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest"

Well, all them dirty corrupt politicians wrote the law, and we invaded Iraq for oil, and 911 was an inside job, so obviously the 1% is just taking advantage of the 99%... did I hit all the key buzzwords there?

To make it a Dakka Royal Flush you need to add in guns, Obama, Benghazi, the Evilz of religion, and its all Bush's fault.

As in, "Good thing I bought this gun. Thank the Great Pasta Being for Obama, and not those other evilz religionz. He brought us back from all the problems that Bush caused. Benghazi!"

 Frazzled wrote:
To make it a Dakka Royal Flush you need to add in guns, Obama, Benghazi, the Evilz of religion, and its all Bush's fault.

As in, "Good thing I bought this gun. Thank the Great Pasta Being for Obama, and not those other evilz religionz. He brought us back from all the problems that Bush caused. Benghazi!"

Same hand I have but my wildcard is "OIF" (Iraq)

 d-usa wrote:
Are they already out of any actual real work to do?

Weren't they elected to try just that?

Also, because it's utter and completely crap.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.

Make it simple.

Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).

That way, they can't kick the can down the road and are forced to make hard decisions.

If it's the wrong decision, then they can be voted out (hopefully).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So that's where this week's GOP bashing thread ended up.

And the irony there is that the PPACA is a DEMOCRAT bill.

 Stonebeard wrote:

Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are essentially death traps.

Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.

While yes, we have places like Detroit or New Orleans, where police are probably constantly on guard, or well aware of the dangerous areas, what I've seen reported on Marseilles, is that there are sections of the city where the French government no longer has jurisdiction... They have ZERO police presence for enforcement/protection, they have no State workers (welfare/CPS equivalents, DMVs, etc.) Which, from where I'm comfortably sitting would have the appearance of being worse than some of our own "worst" areas.


I'm sure there's plenty of nice places in France as well, just as there are here in the US. Just as there's places on this planet that even their "nice" areas aren't as safe or whatever you want to say as even some of our bad areas (seriously, Somalia?) It just seems, odd, i guess, that there are places in "1st World Countries" where the standing government no longer operates or has "control".

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.

No, they did not. Not in the sense some people were showing them.

Some people pointed out how full of gak it was though, so I'm confused as to how that was what you took away from it.

A certain posters link to blatantly bs news that relies on people not being able to actually read another language to put forth half truths and lies did exist though. His next thread was great though! Showed a lot.

Uh... I was part of that discussion with other French Dakkanaughts...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/780/630105.page#7493114

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp

I think almost every country has cities with gakky areas that police/ambulances would be reluctant to go to. What was special was it was being claimed these were completely no go, as in, police don't go. Not "reluctant" or "it's harder to do our job", but "no go". Even more hilariously, that they were Sharia Law only areas.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp

I don't think we were talking about Muslim "no-go zones" (operating under Sharia Law) where local laws are not applicable.

If we were... then, I missed that boat. I thought these were areas that were local services refused to serve/patrol those areas.

Anyhoo... enough of this derailment.

When SC rules Halbig in favor of the plantiff... all hell is going to break loose.

"What was special was it was being claimed these were completely no go, as in, police don't go. Not "reluctant" or "it's harder to do our job", but "no go""


The person you even linked to said "Reluctant", not "refused to serve". And considering that the original thing was exactly what the snopes article disproves, and Jihadin merely said "some people said it was true", well yeah.*

Are there areas that you wouldn't want to go to ever? Yes. Are some of those (or a lot maybe) Muslim majority areas? Quite possible. I don't know. IT's nice to use actual facts though, instead of half truths and outright lies, like some people rely on (see Medium of Deaths news article which was based on an untranslated Swedish report).

*tbh I wouldn't be surprised if there were areas they refused to go, but could someone provide actual evidence and not some unsourced blog?

 Frazzled wrote:
Prove it "overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest"

Pro-tip if you're wealthy the tax savings is helpful but you have surplus anyway. If you're not the tax savings is much more critical.

Not like I included the url in my original post or anything.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-64

Here's some more on the topic:

"In its paper, the Education Sector examined what families derived the most value from the tax benefit in the state of Kansas. Here's what they found: Although 80% of Kansas taxpayers earned less than $75,000 in 2007, they collected only 10% of the 529 tax deductions. In contrast only 1% of Kansans earned more than $250,000, yet they claimed 37% of the total tax benefits for 529 plans. The average deduction for wealthy Kansans was nearly five times larger than the ones claimed by Kansas residents earning less than $50,000."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-529-plans-are-great-for-the-wealthy/

 Frazzled wrote:
Obamacare.

Don't end it, fix it.

You filthy RINO.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Prove it "overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest"

Pro-tip if you're wealthy the tax savings is helpful but you have surplus anyway. If you're not the tax savings is much more critical.

Not like I included the url in my original post or anything.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-64

Here's some more on the topic:

"In its paper, the Education Sector examined what families derived the most value from the tax benefit in the state of Kansas. Here's what they found: Although 80% of Kansas taxpayers earned less than $75,000 in 2007, they collected only 10% of the 529 tax deductions. In contrast only 1% of Kansans earned more than $250,000, yet they claimed 37% of the total tax benefits for 529 plans. The average deduction for wealthy Kansans was nearly five times larger than the ones claimed by Kansas residents earning less than $50,000."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-529-plans-are-great-for-the-wealthy/

And I'd be willing to bet that this extends beyond Kansas. Have seen similar reports in Colorado.

Yea I'm not real clear on why folks making $250,000+ per year need five times as much incentive to invest in college savings plans, or any financial incentive to save (::cough:: capital gains rate ::cough:: ), but shows what I know...Probably the same mentality that drove the WSJ to publish this graphic a couple years ago, showing how "average" Americans were going to suffer under Obama's new tax plan:



Must be tough out there for that struggling family of *six* getting by on only $450,000 after taxes.

 d-usa wrote:

But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.

Term limits are a red herring. All they have ever done is strengthen political parties. Sure, you'll be guaranteed a new face every X years, but its always "New boss, same as the old boss."

 whembly wrote:
[
Make it simple.

Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).

All that does is create a series of yes-men in the House, as only Congressmen are likely to depend on the income derived from being a member of the Federal legislature. And, as you're doubtlessly aware, only the House can propose spending bills.

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.

Term limits are a red herring. All they have ever done is strengthen political parties. Sure, you'll be guaranteed a new face every X years, but its always "New boss, same as the old boss."

 whembly wrote:
[
Make it simple.

Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).

All that does is create a series of yes-men in the House, as only Congressmen are likely to depend on the income derived from being a member of the Federal legislature. And, as you're doubtlessly aware, only the House can propose spending bills.

I'm very skeptical about term limits and limits on congressional salary because all it does it empower lobbyists and the federal bureaucracy. It's hard to develop real expertise or loyalty when everyone knows that you're just gonna be out of office in a few terms, and it's easy for a professional lobbyist to influence a Rep who knows nothing about their topic of interest.

Limits on salaries just empowers the independently wealthy and discourages your more average joe candidates from running. Seriously, who's going to go through the hassle and uncertainty of running for office if they might not even have a paycheck when they get there? Someone who's got at least few million in the bank, that's who.

 TheSilo wrote:
Yea I'm not real clear on why folks making $250,000+ per year need five times as much incentive to invest in college savings plans, or any financial incentive to save (::cough:: capital gains rate ::cough:: ), but shows what I know...Probably the same mentality that drove the WSJ to publish this graphic a couple years ago, showing how "average" Americans were going to suffer under Obama's new tax plan:



Must be tough out there for that struggling family of four getting by on only $450,000 after taxes.

What family of four do they know who makes $450,000?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
Yea I'm not real clear on why folks making $250,000+ per year need five times as much incentive to invest in college savings plans, or any financial incentive to save (::cough:: capital gains rate ::cough:: ), but shows what I know...Probably the same mentality that drove the WSJ to publish this graphic a couple years ago, showing how "average" Americans were going to suffer under Obama's new tax plan:



Must be tough out there for that struggling family of four getting by on only $450,000 after taxes.

What family of four do they know who makes $450,000?

Good Idea Fairy was on a roll on whoever made the chart.

 TheSilo wrote:

Limits on salaries just empowers the independently wealthy and discourages your more average joe candidates from running. Seriously, who's going to go through the hassle and uncertainty of running for office if they might not even have a paycheck when they get there? Someone who's got at least few million in the bank, that's who.

IMO, it's not the monthly salary that is really the issue. It's the idea that once you've done one term, you make that much every month, FOR LIFE.

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.

Term limits are a red herring. All they have ever done is strengthen political parties. Sure, you'll be guaranteed a new face every X years, but its always "New boss, same as the old boss."

 whembly wrote:
[
Make it simple.

Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).

All that does is create a series of yes-men in the House, as only Congressmen are likely to depend on the income derived from being a member of the Federal legislature. And, as you're doubtlessly aware, only the House can propose spending bills.

So... what's your proposal?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are they already out of any actual real work to do?

Weren't they elected to try just that?

They say they were. That doesn't make it true. As the voting ballots pretty much offer only a binary choice (R or D), and offer little in the way of expressing your actual opinion on the major issues, we're left with politicians who, instead of representing their districts like they should, are just going to D.C. to represent their party, which they shouldn't. Every time you hear a politician say that the election was a "mandate of the people" (so that they can do what their party tells them to do), what they really mean is that they're continuing to rely on the stupidity of the American voter to take those statements at face value (because they don't want voters to learn to vote for competent individuals, rather than whoever the party decided on ahead of time).

Yes, I am bitter and cynical. Politicians are too well insulated from the consequences of their mismanagement of the nation to actually be willing to do what is best for the nation.

It is also worth noting that there were states that ended up sending conservatives to DC, while at the same time approving liberal ballot measures.