Boehner's Lawsuit

[shickingbrits]

I never suggested that a job be mandatory, just mandatory to receive a handout.

You have brought up many interesting points and I hope to address them, but you also wrote a long and somewhat convoluted post, similar to mine. I can't decipher your central thesis though.

Trade offs? Government isn't effective? I should sell cakes?

You have the same if not more issues with selling cakes. I have no baking experience, am competing with economies of scale, have much heavier start-up costs than anticipated by your post and in the end am likely to generate more waste than sales.

You must rethink your broken window fallacy. It is true that replacing a window doesn't add any wealth. On the other hand, leaving it broken does deprive a whole community of both wealth and sense of pride. Not replacing it has a much higher cost than replacing it.

I agree that government thrives on problems and is as likely to generate them or maintain them as a terrorist is. Who is responsible for government though? Is Phatscotty?

Phatscotty acts like he gives a shit about who is paying what in taxes or that he cares about layabouts when he has to work so hard to earn his living, when he doesn't. Phatscotty just wants to be appreciated. I do appreciate you Phatscotty, now stop helping the government spend my money.

If it takes the need to know that someone is doing something shittier than yourself for you to be ok with the shit you are doing, then fine, let all those who want a handout be required to work for it, give them a shittier thing with shittier benefits. But don't say, they aren't doing shit so they get nothing, because you are going to cost us just as much as the handouts would with a worse outcome.

The matter is quite simple. The government is a duopoly that have taken stances proven to generate them the greatest benefit, rather than the people's. Following these stances has led to the misuse of resources that we have been facing. Continuing to allow them to lead us with a duopoly will continue this trend. Feeding into the base channel of ideas that they've propounded for generations will not change this. And both parties subvert the issue to their own ends and blame it on demand that they instilled through their rhetoric.

The coffers are empty so we can't hire the guy to mow the lawn...but we can pay for the security needed when he doesn't have a job or afford to give free handouts? Trade-offs indeed.

[patches70]

.

I can't decipher your central thesis though.

My central point is handouts-

led to the misuse of resources

if the handouts are given on credit. It's one thing to handout what you have saved up, it's another thing all together to fund handouts by using a credit card.


If you want to-

just mandatory to receive a handout.

then you are using government, aren't you? How else do you force anyone to do anything without having the threat of violence at the point of a bayonet?

And in the US at least, the handouts given are given by going into ever greater debt which leads to-

now stop helping the government spend my money.

But they need your money. To pay for the handouts, or more accurately, to pay for the interest on the debt collected by giving handouts.

[shickingbrits]

I think that demanding labour for handouts would save money, thereby decreasing government expenditure, thereby decreasing the debt.

Not everyone would want to work for the handouts and as many would not need to be given out. Having to work for the handouts would encourage those receiving them

a. to seek other employment
b. gain experience in a field
c. lead to privatisation of productive services not being currently provided.

Exercising your freedom to not work for the handout would mean that you have made your own bed and others would be more prepared to let you lie in it. It would give society a stronger moral imperative to deal with the issues of denying handouts would bring and the individual involved would have a get out of misery clause and choosing not to use it would be less able to demand satisfaction from society.

Handouts is not a point. It's a word. Just as if I said love, it wouldn't be a poem. Perhaps you defined your position earlier in the thread, but from what i'm reading I can only conjecture you want a free market with no handouts?

[patches70]

from what i'm reading I can only conjecture you want a free market with no handouts?

No handouts from the government. If you give $1 out of your own pocket to some poor soul that's just fine by me. When the government takes $1 from one person with the intention of giving it to another, the government can't give that person the whole $1. Because part of that dollar goes to paying IRS employees, government workers who process the paperwork to document that $1 was given to so and so, and on and on. Government doesn't care about such cost and for them to give $1 to someone they have to take $3 from someone else.



And lets explore your "have to take a handout". Don't forget, the bailouts of the banks were handouts. And the banks used almost the exact same reasoning you do! If the banks didn't get those handouts then people would lose their jobs. Riots! Economic collapse! Etc etc.

The banks need the handouts so bad that not only did they get the $700 billion or so TARP, but then got $85 billion a month for years on end afterward from The Fed! And we have to pay all that money back!

What did that money go to? Ask Elizabeth Warren, she oversaw the TARP handouts and she testified in front of Congress that due to the complexities of the process she didn't have any idea where the money went. (That's not a dig on Warren, per say, so all you Warren lovers don't jump on me for that, she did say that to Congress).

So, how about those handouts? Ok by you?

It wasn't by me, nor a majority of Americans.


Handouts are charity, can you agree on that?

And there is nothing wrong with charity, I'm all for it. But the government is not capable of charity, for they don't produce anything. They get their money from either borrowing or taking from someone else.

If you take money from person A at the point of a bayonet and gave it to person B, could you call that "charity"?
I don't think you would call that charity, you'd call that robbery, wouldn't you?

Now lets not sugar coat it, that's what government does, takes money from people at the point of a bayonet. Under threat of violence government takes portions of people's money, do they not?

I think that demanding labour for handouts would save money, thereby decreasing government expenditure, thereby decreasing the debt.

It all depends on the labor, doesn't it? Giving people handouts and demanding they dig holes in the ground and then fill them back in won't decrease government expenditures. If you think it can then please explain how, because there is no wealth creation in that.

The US government spent some $2trillion last year on welfare programs. Has the debt decreased? All we see is more and more people need handouts. Why? Because people have insisted that it's government's job to do so, and government has happily complied.

And let's get it straight, handouts don't involve requiring labor from someone. That's called a job. That's not a handout. Creating jobs just for the sake of creating jobs is stupid. What jobs are created must have some value added to be worthwhile, otherwise it's a waste of resources.





Now I take it from your position (correct me if I'm wrong here) but you'd rather see that people with means were to be required to give money to people with less means?

Is that correct?

If so, then who would be in charge of enforcing such a requirement?
Who would determine who gets what and how much is taken from whom?

Or, is your position that people with means should be required to give money to people with less means, but would be allowed to demand that some labor be given in return?

If so, we already have that. It's called business. And those who run business can only give money to others in exchange for labor so long as that labor derives some sort of profit. Otherwise, the eventual conclusion is the business goes bankrupt. And now more people need handouts.


Look man, I'm all for encouraging people to be charitable. I'm all for job creation, obviously. But it has to all be done in a voluntary manner, otherwise it turns into something terrible and will not have the effect you desire.

I said this in another thread. Even the worst mismanaged private charity in the world won't use the donations they acquire by people who volunteer that money and spend those donations to spying on every person on the planet, building bombs and the various ways of dropping those bombs on people all over the world.

That's what government does with the money they take, don't they? Even though they'll tell you with a straight face that they need the money to "help people". The government couldn't help themselves play grab ass with a two dollar whore without losing a few billion dollars.

Voluntary transactions between individuals without fear of coercion or threat of violence is what I'm for. And coercion and violence is what is implied when you use the term "required".
You wanna give someone who is down and out a job mowing your lawn? Great! Value added, two parties agreeing on something.
You wanna tell someone that they have to hire so and so and pay such and such to mow the lawn, whether the lawn needs mowing or not or else?
Naw, that's coercion and it's immoral. No matter how you slice it.

[Phatscotty]

I agree that government thrives on problems and is as likely to generate them or maintain them as a terrorist is. Who is responsible for government though? Is Phatscotty?

Phatscotty acts like he gives a shit about who is paying what in taxes or that he cares about layabouts when he has to work so hard to earn his living, when he doesn't. Phatscotty just wants to be appreciated. I do appreciate you Phatscotty, now stop helping the government spend my money.

Holy shitballs! I have been at this for over a decade, and never ONE TIME have I heard someone thank the taxpayer! It's always the politician who gets all the credit, all the admiration, all the respect. The politician gets the love, but what did they do really? Did they invent welfare? no. Did they invent redistributing income? no. They didn't do anything new. so WTF!



I don't get exactly where you are coming from though with the rest of it. I've been standing on the rooftops telling the government to reduce spending, slow down the increase, at least freeze spending, ANYTHING to address the debt we are unfairly saddling on the next generation. I view the debt we force on future Americans, in our own name, as truly wicked. We are completely selling out our own future. I would take deep offense that I am accused of helping the government spend money, but clearly you are new here and haven't read my work. My main priority if I had to choose would EASILY be to cut government spending. I must have pointed out at least 10 times in the last 10 days that our government spends twice as much as we take in on an annual basis, and point out it can't last forever, and that we need to get serious and do the right thing and handle our bills rather than pass them off to our children, and how this is the first generation that is breaking the long standing American tradition of working to hand the next generation an America that was better than was handed to them.

I care plenty about tax rates, not just for myself, but for every single American. we should all be taxed at the same rate, equally, period. Like I already said, the person earning 10 billion pays in a billion, the person earning a million pays in $100,000, the person who earns ten dollars pays in one dollar. completely fair, completely equal, everyone is treated exactly the same. That way your destiny is more in our own hands. Not sure about you, but I have already experienced a couple 'raisies' that put me in the next tax bracket, only to actually receive a lower paycheck than I got for the same amount of hours at a lesser rate. When that happens, it becomes clear you did not get a raise at all, you just work less for yourself and more for the beast. I know others who have said "F that, I'm not taking the manager's or assistant managers job! Why would I take on more responsibility when I only get 50 cents/1$ more an hour, which moves me into the next tax rate meaning I probably earn the same as the worker who has far less responsibilities, is not on call, is not asked to do more with less all the time, doesn't have to come in on their days off, can't go on weekend vacations, doesn't have to take the bullet everytime something goes wrong"

Anyways, I was in bed gettin ready to sleep figuring reading these long posts would do the trick, then I saw your appreciation and I jumped out of bed like it was 530AM and late for work!

One more thing, you said in America there is extreme wealth, which automatically means there is extreme poverty? Might want to take a look at what poverty mean in America, and it's anything but extreme mate. Ever been to a 3rd world country? I have been to a few. What you call extreme poverty is extreme wealth to the poor in those countries.

Compare this.....


with this....


That does not look like extreme poverty to me

[shickingbrits]

The position held by both Patches and Phatscotty will never come to pass. As such, what will your demands do? They will create a circular dialogue that will result in more government spending and increased government power.

You are like a guy hitting his head against a wall when the path lead around it.

Again, Phatscotty you say that the guy earning 10 should give 1, when he is actually 990 in debt already. This will increase collection fees, costing 5 to collect 1, increase enforcement fees, increase hostility and not get you what you are seeking, lower government intervention/expenditure.

Is paying for the police or an alarm system charity? We can spend 600bn on weapons for our security, but can't spend 50bn on work programs that would decrease our need for defence spending by 200bn?

Phatscotty, we compare ourselves amongst ourselves. If you grow up in Philli, spending most of your days on the playground, you are rather unlikely to become a prince of Bel-air. You are 50,000 times more likely to feel poor, disenfranchised and thinking, I get me a gun, I sell me some shit and I get me some welfare. Conversely, if your great-great-someone submitted an application for a patent 10 seconds before another guy, should their great-great-kids be considered aristocracy? If you are living off of a 100m trust fund overseen by a tax lawyer, living in a house paid off and a car handed down, you are living a lifestyle that is not representative of your cost of living it (you are not being taxed as would an upcomer who is earning an income to match that lifestyle), you are not generating wealth and have added nothing to that society. If someone would like to enjoy the lifestyle of someone with 100m then they should have to pay for it, sorry Mr Wayne. They are freeloaders, not captains of industry leading an economic recovery.

I would set up an exchange and ask those with hoarded capital to put a percentage at risk generating jobs and wealth or face taxation. It is not a form of punishment for being wealthy. It is a form of keeping resources productive. If taxed, the money would have a 3 to 1 effect, if put into production, it would have a 7 to 1 effect. If held in Japanese bonds, it would have a negative productive effect locally.

Patches, banks are not people and fraud is not generosity.

Digging holes? You can propose that on the exchange, but I don't think you'll get very far with it unless it's to improve sewage systems, create geothermal energy, build public pools, ponds, graveyards.

Let's run with your proposal for a bit. Tax everyone equally and eliminate handouts. Have we:

a. generated more income?
b. decreased our spending?

No and no. Will it come to pass? No. So what does your proposal do? It traps us in a co-opted dialogue that has us spending in excess in both welfare and security in perpetuity. You are like a kid who won't stop asking for a trip to the sun.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is paying for the police or an alarm system charity? We can spend 600bn on weapons for our security, but can't spend 50bn on work programs that would decrease our need for defence spending by 200bn?

You're hinting at why your suggestions for better government are unreasonable because they're unattainable. We get those outcomes because of the inherent nature of the political process (rent-seeking, uninformed voters, concentrated benefits/dispersed costs). The better way to is maintain a common sense moral attitude against all government functions, but if that's too extreme, then settle with minimal government functions (i.e. 5% of today's current government).

[Phatscotty]

The position held by both Patches and Phatscotty will never come to pass. As such, what will your demands do? They will create a circular dialogue that will result in more government spending and increased government power.

It is inevitable these positions will come to pass. The USdollar is going to die, and we will have the opportunity to get on the right path. At that point it should be obvious what not to do, and then when we look at the opposite of what we then know not to do, there will be staring back at us these positions. And after the severe pain is felt for so recklessly trashing our currency and so arrogantly thinking it was a-okay to spend twice what we took in, I think we are going to strive for these positions.

Generally, I would like nothing more than to simply be going in the right direction, and then take it from there. Which way towards increased Liberty and Freedom? Towards smaller government and balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility? That's the road I want to be on.

[Phatscotty]

Back on Topic; Boehner's lawsuit in Obama's own words

note; all the people in the audience applauding his point. Where are they now? Guarantee you each person who defends Obama here, who rips me for saying the same thing about Obama AND Bush and every president in the future who does this regardless of party, and says Obama's unilateral actions are no big deal; were clapping along in 2008 when Obama ran against the exact same thing. I would like to know what happened to you? What is it that changed your mind and makes you justify the Obama doing the total opposite of the reason you like him/voted for him?


Checkmate

[shickingbrits]

When the USD dies, the debt will remain and the population will experience rapid inflation. It's not just the dollar that will be dying, it will be the petrodollar that dies with it and the benefits it entails. When the dollar dies, the services of the US will go down in demand and the US doesn't make many of it's own products.

There will be massive unemployment, higher living costs and internationally imposed provisions for paying off the debt. Certainly handouts will cease and there will be a massive scramble to restructure society under the new order. Part of which will be the pleasure with which they tread on you. I wish you the best.

[BigBallinStalin]

When the USD dies, the debt will remain and the population will experience rapid inflation. It's not just the dollar that will be dying, it will be the petrodollar that dies with it and the benefits it entails. When the dollar dies, the services of the US will go down in demand and the US doesn't make many of it's own products.

There will be massive unemployment, higher living costs and internationally imposed provisions for paying off the debt. Certainly handouts will cease and there will be a massive scramble to restructure society under the new order. Part of which will be the pleasure with which they tread on you. I wish you the best.

How do you measure the variables within the claims which you are making?

e.g. "when the USD dies". wtf does that mean? In the real world of monetary policy, there's no absolutes. It's "the value of the USD is declining at x-rate compared to other currencies," or "the value of various good and services within the US are changing in price--in terms of the USD."

You're not being clear.

[shickingbrits]

When people in Rwanda start uses USDs as toilet paper, (is that clear enough for you?)

[BigBallinStalin]

When people in Rwanda start uses USDs as toilet paper, (is that clear enough for you?)

There's the old Internet dilemma: "don't know if stupid or just... [trolling]."

Until you sufficiently signal that you're beyond trolling or stupidity, I'll take you seriously.

Good luck on your self-education.

[AndyDufresne]

When people in Rwanda start uses USDs as toilet paper, (is that clear enough for you?)

--Andy

[ooge]

Back on Topic; Boehner's lawsuit in Obama's own words

note; all the people in the audience applauding his point. Where are they now? Guarantee you each person who defends Obama here, who rips me for saying the same thing about Obama AND Bush and every president in the future who does this regardless of party, and says Obama's unilateral actions are no big deal; were clapping along in 2008 when Obama ran against the exact same thing. I would like to know what happened to you? What is it that changed your mind and makes you justify the Obama doing the total opposite of the reason you like him/voted for him?


Checkmate

Remind me again about the valid reasons for congress suing the president?
A link to a list of executive orders by president.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order understandably a different time but I found the Amount issued by the president The tea party likes interesting,Cal Coolidge 1,203. Barack Obama 182. GW Bush 291. So if issuing E.O. somehow shows a President does not respect the Constitution or the congress.Who out of these three operated the most outside the Law.

[tzor]

e.g. "when the USD dies". wtf does that mean? In the real world of monetary policy, there's no absolutes. It's "the value of the USD is declining at x-rate compared to other currencies," or "the value of various good and services within the US are changing in price--in terms of the USD."

A pure fiat currency cannot stand the test of time. No pure fiat currency has ever done so. The Dollar has remained for as long as it has because it was also the "reserve" currency; the currency of all international transactions. No nation has ever held on to reserve currency standards forever and there are clear signs that the Dollar is loosing reserve its reserve status. This won't happen overnight, but the rise of the BRICS is inevitable, If even the BRICS were to abandon the dollar for their internal transactions, the shock to the dollar would be massive.

Mind you this doesn't require a doomsday scenario, but the dollar as we know it will eventually die, just as the dollar as people used to know it effectively died a slow death starting with Brenton Woods and ending with Nixon's total abandonment of the gold standard which set the way for economic misery and high inflation.

[BigBallinStalin]

e.g. "when the USD dies". wtf does that mean? In the real world of monetary policy, there's no absolutes. It's "the value of the USD is declining at x-rate compared to other currencies," or "the value of various good and services within the US are changing in price--in terms of the USD."

A pure fiat currency cannot stand the test of time. No pure fiat currency has ever done so. The Dollar has remained for as long as it has because it was also the "reserve" currency; the currency of all international transactions. No nation has ever held on to reserve currency standards forever and there are clear signs that the Dollar is loosing reserve its reserve status. This won't happen overnight, but the rise of the BRICS is inevitable, If even the BRICS were to abandon the dollar for their internal transactions, the shock to the dollar would be massive.

Mind you this doesn't require a doomsday scenario, but the dollar as we know it will eventually die, just as the dollar as people used to know it effectively died a slow death starting with Brenton Woods and ending with Nixon's total abandonment of the gold standard which set the way for economic misery and high inflation.

I don't care about your interpretation of what he meant.