'Murica! (171 Viewers)

[swag]

Calm down,

part of what i said is true, they sell the body parts of the dead baby.

Actually the proper procedure for both dead babies and motorcycle accident victims is not to donate their organs but to throw them away in Dumpsters.

well said

Sorry, Martin. Clubs exists for beating.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Ocelot]

that "half a billion" a year could go to more productive things, like maybe education in urban areas.

Oh, both programs are very valuable to society as a whole in my opinion. Maybe more funding for education would be slightly more necessary, but it should not be an "either/or" issue, both should be provided.

I'm sure I can find republican leaning academics who have done research that points to the other direction as well.

In all cases, I am personally against programs like these that force people to pay for others mistakes, and also arguably provide a safe net for those who make bad life decisions. The underlying principle for me is that for those who feel the need to fund an organization such as planned parenthood, then by all means go ahead and be charitable, just don't force the rest of the population to fund it too. Perhaps if the government reduced the tax burden, people would have more means to be charitable with issues they believe in.

But here's the thing: A functioning society with low levels of poverty benefits virtually everyone. Low levels of crime, high levels of education, health, also productivity etc. are all highly interconnected. And that's why I also do not believe that you can look at these "bad life decisions" in isolation, as it is a fact that they are strongly concentrated in specific sections of the population - so either they're for some reason naturally irresponsible, or these decisions are strongly dependant on circumstances and environment.

Going away from planned parenthood and towards the big picture, that is also exactly why the statement that "the best government is the least government" only would be correct in a hypothetical world where everyone was completely equal at birth and had the same environment, chances & opportunities. But that's not how life works. And for this reason alone, society, with the state being nothing else than its executive body, has to intervene to at least try and shift that imbalance a little. It never works perfectly, and that's why your wealth and ultimately wellbeing is still everywhere on the world largely determined simply by how rich your parents are, but without these interventions matters would be much worse (and also largely are where these interventions do not exist).

Finally, the idea of private charities & donors taking over the job of the state sounds nice, but does not work at all. Never has apart from isolated, often religious, communities, and most probably never will. Also, an interesting thing to consider here is that the rich statistically actually give fewer money, relatively speaking, to charities than the less wealthy.

- - - Updated - - -

Parties exist because humans depend on heuristic shorthands to cut through ambiguity and complexity while affording natural lines of cooperation. I both detest that they exist while understanding it's a natural social human thing to create them. So you gotta learn to live with them.

Yup, parties are a necessity as a really direct democracy, e.g. with public votes on every bill, would simply not work out.

The problem of the democratic system in the USA in my opionion however is that the election system virtually eliminates the chances for smaller parties, which really makes the whole thing rather undemocratic as there is no viable alternative besides the two big parties, a situation that imo will never change unless the election system (majority voting for example) changes drastically.

In every other democratic, and especially economically developed, country that I am aware of, a multitude of parties covering the political spectrum exists, so everyone can actually express their political views and opionions at least somewhat at the ballot (not many will probably agree 100% with any party of course). In the US it really does seem to me like choosing the lesser of two evils is the only option very often.

In a representative democracy, competition simply is a good thing ultimately.

 

[Völler]

Apparently Planned Parenthood is the most pressing issue we face these days.

Bikeshedding...

 

[Hust]

Oh, both programs are very valuable to society as a whole in my opinion. Maybe more funding for education would be slightly more necessary, but it should not be an "either/or" issue, both should be provided.

I agree. Only not at the tax payer expense.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it should be more shocking that we cut budgets to NASA, Education, etc while year after year expanding the military budget for shit we're never going to use.

I can agree to this. If we had a better education system we would have an even better military


Seriously, our education is in shambles. What has happened to NASA is so sad.

 

[Ocelot]

I agree. Only not at the tax payer expense.

But that's the only way it can be provided. Merit goods.

 

[Hust]

But that's the only way it can be provided. Merit goods.

There are plenty of wealthy socialists on the left that are anti-big business, anti-wall street, etc...test their socialist intentions. They have no problem spending other peoples money why not tap into their 1%er's on the left since they are easily OK with it for taxation. Look at the Hollywood socialites and movie stars...if the budget is only 500m (Not sure if that is the amount you said) per year, that can easily be private funded.

Test their hypocrisy.

 

[ALC]

Yeah, it seems that there's a law but Planned Parenthood found a way around it because the law has many loopholes.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/...arts-of-aborted-babies-how-can-that-be-legal/

Looks like what they're doing is not illegal at all according to that article and the law.

 

[Bjerknes]

"take back the country" (from what no one knows), etc.

It should be from the socialist/fascist policies of the left, but when you love them too, what's the point?

The real problem is that Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party. There is no difference between the two apart from religious issues. They should merge and a new Libertarian party should be created.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, both programs are very valuable to society as a whole in my opinion. Maybe more funding for education would be slightly more necessary, but it should not be an "either/or" issue, both should be provided.



But here's the thing: A functioning society with low levels of poverty benefits virtually everyone. Low levels of crime, high levels of education, health, also productivity etc. are all highly interconnected. And that's why I also do not believe that you can look at these "bad life decisions" in isolation, as it is a fact that they are strongly concentrated in specific sections of the population - so either they're for some reason naturally irresponsible, or these decisions are strongly dependant on circumstances and environment.

Going away from planned parenthood and towards the big picture, that is also exactly why the statement that "the best government is the least government" only would be correct in a hypothetical world where everyone was completely equal at birth and had the same environment, chances & opportunities. But that's not how life works. And for this reason alone, society, with the state being nothing else than its executive body, has to intervene to at least try and shift that imbalance a little. It never works perfectly, and that's why your wealth and ultimately wellbeing is still everywhere on the world largely determined simply by how rich your parents are, but without these interventions matters would be much worse (and also largely are where these interventions do not exist).

Finally, the idea of private charities & donors taking over the job of the state sounds nice, but does not work at all. Never has apart from isolated, often religious, communities, and most probably never will. Also, an interesting thing to consider here is that the rich statistically actually give fewer money, relatively speaking, to charities than the less wealthy.

We have all sorts of freebies and social programs in the United States. We are already a socialist country. Both parties support the same macroeconomic policies. Everyone is still poor and the gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase. Of course people aren't created equal. Taking from one group to give to another is not going to solve anything.

- - - Updated - - -

The best thing about big government is that morons with 85 IQ's can garner jobs as a "contract administrator" working for a government contracting firm making 90K a year browsing Reddit all day long while drinking Frappacino's sniffing their own farts either in their cubical or remotely from home. I know people who don't even have a bachelors degree getting these jobs just because daddy knows someone in gubbermint. That's the only good thing about big .GOV, idiots can get taxpayer money to support the economy.

Upward and onward for der homeland!

 

[swag]

Bikeshedding...

Dude. Thank you. I can't believe I haven't come across that term before. That is so appropriate (Parkinson's Law).

 

[Enron]

Nope i am not against organ donating if the person donating or his family agrees to it, but not cutting a baby open just to Sell his organs, wich i think in the states is a federal fellony.

Ben Carson wrote like 3 papers on how important this is to medical science.

 

[Völler]

Dude. Thank you. I can't believe I haven't come across that term before. That is so appropriate (Parkinson's Law).

It's a great term indeed.

"Parkinson observed and illustrated that a committee whose job was to approve plans for a nuclear power plant spent the majority of its time on discussions about relatively trivial and unimportant but easy-to-grasp issues, such as what materials to use for the staff bike-shed, while neglecting the non-trivial proposed design of the nuclear power plant itself, which is far more important but also a far more difficult and complex task to criticise constructively."

 

[Martin]

Dude. Thank you. I can't believe I haven't come across that term before. That is so appropriate (Parkinson's Law).

and you work in the IT industry? i hope you understand what a black mark this is

 

[swag]

This campaign needs a little old skool San Francisco politiking...

Ahhh, Jello... we miss your political antics here.

 

[Völler]

and you work in the IT industry? i hope you understand what a black mark this is

When you green-light a transfer that turns out to be wrong?

 

[swag]

and you work in the IT industry? i hope you understand what a black mark this is

It is, admittedly, more than a little embarrassing. I was always more Linux since the 90s than BSD. And, well, the concept of a bike shed in the U.S. is a bit like a cabana for squirrels where you live.

 

[Martin]

It is, admittedly, more than a little embarrassing. I was always more Linux since the 90s than BSD. And, well, the concept of a bike shed in the U.S. is a bit like a cabana for squirrels where you live.

i suppose you're right about that

cabana for squirrels also sounds quite apt for SF btw

 

[Ocelot]

It should be from the socialist/fascist policies of the left, but when you love them too, what's the point?

The real problem is that Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party. There is no difference between the two apart from religious issues. They should merge and a new Libertarian party should be created.

- - - Updated - - -



We have all sorts of freebies and social programs in the United States. We are already a socialist country. Both parties support the same macroeconomic policies. Everyone is still poor and the gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase. Of course people aren't created equal. Taking from one group to give to another is not going to solve anything.

- - - Updated - - -

The best thing about big government is that morons with 85 IQ's can garner jobs as a "contract administrator" working for a government contracting firm making 90K a year browsing Reddit all day long while drinking Frappacino's sniffing their own farts either in their cubical or remotely from home. I know people who don't even have a bachelors degree getting these jobs just because daddy knows someone in gubbermint. That's the only good thing about big .GOV, idiots can get taxpayer money to support the economy.

Upward and onward for der homeland!

The bolded parts

Seriously, there's no point in even discussing these matters if you truly believe what you wrote here.

 

[Bjerknes]

Trump Promises To Cut Middle-Class Taxes, Gets Carl Icahn Endorsement - Live Feed

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.



Many middle-income households would have a lower tax rate under Mr. Trump’s proposal, but because high-income households generally pay income tax at much higher rates, his proposed across-the-board rate cut could have a positive impact on them, too. For example, an analysis of Jeb Bush’s plan—taxing individuals’ incomes at no more than 28%—by the business-backed Tax Foundation found that the biggest percentage winners in after-tax income would be the top 1% of earners.



Mr. Trump’s plan appears designed to help him, as the GOP front-runner, cement his standing as a populist—though that message is complicated by the fact that the billionaire, like other Republican leaders, would eliminate the estate tax.



...



To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition. Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.



A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money, even if the money stays overseas, but allow a few years for the tax to be paid. The Trump campaign estimates that many companies would choose to bring their money back home, boosting jobs and investment in the U.S.



Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred. All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.



...



The plan proposes to simplify tax filing for many lower- to middle-income households. The plan says that some 42 million households that currently file tax forms to establish that they don’t owe any federal income tax now will be able to file their returns on a single page.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...iddle-class-taxes-gets-carl-icahn-endorsement

Some interesting concepts there. I think this might garner some support from both retarded party members. Not sure if this is attainable without blowing out some margins in some areas, but that will eventually happen anyway. It will surely not work if Trump is serious about ramping up military spending and building his Great-er Wall.

On a side note, it is rather interesting how supposed journalists question Trump on how the country will pay for his ideas while cutting taxes to various groups. Whenever the Democrats propose something, nobody ever questions how they will pay for it -- probably because a lot of their policies supposedly act to help a group that is in desperate need for funding. But alas, that doesn't change the fact someone will have to pay for it. 60 Minutes will never ask that to their favorite candidates.

- - - Updated - - -

The bolded parts

Seriously, there's no point in even discussing these matters if you truly believe what you wrote here.

We basically are, or at least trending that way quite rapidly.

There's no point in discussing this with you either if you believe socialist policies always work. Clearly they don't.

 

[Ocelot]

We basically are, or at least trending that way quite rapidly.

There's no point in discussing this with you either if you believe socialist policies always work. Clearly they don't.

No you aren't. Not even Sweden is a socialist country, you either have no idea what socialism is, or severely distorted perceptions of your own country.

I never, ever, said this.

- - - Updated - - -

Whenever the Democrats propose something, nobody ever questions how they will pay for it

Everyone asks about this all the time (as they should).

 

[Bjerknes]

No you aren't. Not even Sweden is a socialist country, you either have no idea what socialism is, or severely distorted perceptions of your own country.

I never, ever, said this.

- - - Updated - - -



Everyone asks about this all the time (as they should).

European Socialism: Why America Doesn't Want It

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/10/25/european-socialism-why-america-doesnt-want-it/

Add in the seemingly endless attack against individualism, personal freedom, private property, et cetera, yeah, we're heading in the wrong direction.