NAACP issues travel advisory for Florida...

[Revoltingest]

Except for those who believe that politicians never lie and that the MIC is just some crazy conspiracy.

Lies are different from conspiracies, even
though that latter often employs the former.
I've asked for evidence of the MIC.
It's fans have never offered anything of substance.
Just allusions & bias confirmation.

 

[Kfox]

What Rev is proposing I don't really see it as coming with a tax hike He'd scrap a lot of programs for it.

If you are going to help the poor, IMO the best way to do it is to give them programs not money. A lot of poor people are irresponsible with money

 

[Revoltingest]

What Rev is proposing I don't really see it as coming with a tax hike. He'd scrap a lot of programs for it.

I anticipate it would be require a spending increase.
Ideally, that would mean increasing taxes...for fiscal
responsibility. But whether there's a tax increase or
more deficit spending, I'd expect a very high marginal
benefit to cost ratio.

A word might confuse some who've not done
economic / tax analysis....
"Marginal" means dealing with things at the margin,
ie, differences between alternatives. In this case,
how much benefit is gained relative to how much
the cost increases.

 

[We Never Know]

I anticipate it would be require a spending increase.
Ideally, that would mean increasing taxes...for
fiscal responsibility. But I'd expect a very high
marginal benefit to cost ratio.

 

[Revoltingest]

View attachment 78039

Of course.
But I avoided addressing too many issues at once.
The waters on RF are muddied enuf already.
BTW, ya donna have to yell.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you are going to help the poor, IMO the best way to do it is to give them programs not money. A lot of poor people are irresponsible with money

No, that's just prejudice against the poor. Some are poor for those reasons, but most were just dealt a **** hand in life.

 

[Kfox]

No, that's just prejudice against the poor. Some are poor for those reasons, but most were just dealt a **** hand in life.

So you admit some poor people are irresponsible with money? So what sense does it make to give them more to be irresponsible with?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I anticipate it would be require a spending increase.
Ideally, that would mean increasing taxes...for fiscal
responsibility. But whether there's a tax increase or
more deficit spending, I'd expect a very high marginal
benefit to cost ratio.

A word might confuse some who've not done
economic / tax analysis....
"Marginal" means dealing with things at the margin,
ie, differences between alternatives. In this case,
how much benefit is gained relative to how much
the cost increases.

I suppose it would take a detailed analysis that's beyond us. Including if it would be fewer federal employees if there are fewer federal programs, amd state employees if this is to be also at the state level.
Amd a spending increase doesn't necessarily mean a tax increase. The extra money in people's pockets on it's own meams some additional taxes from extra sales of goods amd services that have various taxes attached to them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you admit some poor people are irresponsible with money? So what sense does it make to give them more to be irresponsible with?

How are you going to filter them out? And some people doesn't even mean many or a majority. Most poor people are poor by circumstances not of their making such as those with disabilities.
Personally I'd rather get people help rather than fretting and blowing gaskets over someone lazy and irresponsible receiving aid. That's not most people so it's not worth the worry.

 

[fantome profane]

So you admit some poor people are irresponsible with money? So what sense does it make to give them more to be irresponsible with?

A lot of rich people are irresponsible with their money. We should take it away from them.

 

[We Never Know]

Of course.
But I avoided addressing too many issues at once.
The waters on RF are muddied enuf already.
BTW, ya donna have to yell.

People are more worried about who should pay what/more taxes than they are worried about where our tax money is going.

 

[Revoltingest]

People are more worried about who should pay what/more taxes than they are worried about where our tax money is going.

Some people discuss other things at times.

 

[Kfox]

How are you going to filter them out?

If you don't give anybody money, but insist they make it themselves there is nothing to filter out

Personally I'd rather get people help rather than fretting and blowing gaskets over someone lazy and irresponsible receiving aid. That's not most people so it's not worth the worry.

I’m all about helping people in need out, but not by giving them money, you give them food, clothing, and shelter. It’s kinda hard to be irresponsible with that kind of help.

 

[Kfox]

A lot of rich people are irresponsible with their money. We should take it away from them.

We shouldn't GIVE rich people money either.

 

[Stevicus]

Lies are different from conspiracies, even
though that latter often employs the former.
I've asked for evidence of the MIC.
It's fans have never offered anything of substance.
Just allusions & bias confirmation.

If you accept it as self-evident that the public "could possibly be manipulated by mischievous talking heads," and if we can see that these mischievous talking heads are pushing a militaristic agenda, then it stands to reason that the public can be manipulated into voting for warmongering politicians.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you accept it as self-evident that the public "could possibly be manipulated by mischievous talking heads," and if we can see that these mischievous talking heads are pushing a militaristic agenda, then it stands to reason that the public can be manipulated into voting for warmongering politicians.

Talking heads, politicians, & voters...all have favored war.
It think this might be the closest to detente we can get
on this subject.

 

[Stevicus]

Talking heads, politicians, & voters...all have favored war.
It think this might be the closest to detente we can get
on this subject.

Yes, although the voters didn't always favor war automatically. The US delayed entry into WW1 and WW2 is evidence of that. Something changed about the character and values of the American voting public that caused us to become far more aggressive and warlike after World War II.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, although the voters didn't always favor war automatically. The US delayed entry into WW1 and WW2 is evidence of that. Something changed about the character and values of the American voting public that caused us to become far more aggressive and warlike after World War II.

After WW2, voters got a taste for it.

 

[Stevicus]

After WW2, voters got a taste for it.

Or, the public might have been led to believe that the outside world was something to be feared, which required our constant vigilance and intervention.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or, the public might have been led to believe that the outside world was something to be feared, which required our constant vigilance and intervention.

And don't forget the downside of altruism,
ie, people with bad judgement brutalizing
other countries to "fix" them.