Interesting little factoid - about 100% of Federal receipts go straight to Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, and interest on the national debt. Cutting those other spending issues won't really do anything other than slow down how fast our debt is growing (over $100 billion a month so far, this fiscal year - about $1.22 trillion so far).
The Federal Government already spends all its receipts (and thus, about 70% of all its spending) on the bottom 50%. I guess we need to spend even more?
Then explain why the most successful economic groups are 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from Asia and Africa - and the come, overwhelmingly, with below-poverty-level assets. I grew up poor - very poor. And we always made our own food with basic staples. You can get nutrition if you're willing to put in a little time. Of course, we also had a 13" black and white TV until 1990, when I bought one with some of my first paycheck after I graduated from college.
Yep, agree 100%. In fact, a simple objective review of actions by each party shows the Democrats are exceedingly fascist. But that's the kind of talk that gets you modded down on/. Which is kind of a confirmation of the statement in the first place...;)
Using your example of NH an ID card is $10 and lasts for 5 years. That's $2 per year for voting. That's really cheap. And to go further, how does one live in a modern society WITHOUT a Government issued ID? I guess you never travel on an airplane. You do not set up utiltities. You never rent a car or tool. You don't have a bank account. You have no cell phone nor mailbox. Basically - you live in the woods as a hermit - probably not too interested in politics to start with.
Well that would suck... I live in Ventura but work 3-4 days a week in San Francisco. So I have places in both cities (it's cheaper to rent an apartment in SF than to do hotels for 2 to 3 nights a week). I guess I pay a violation because my commute is long enough I choose to stay overnight?
Rather than renting more than 1 location, make the penalty for illegally subletting a place (which is what many AirBNB places are - a person rents an apartment then starts to rent it out to others for considerably more than the base rental cost) rather than a person renting a few places for their own exclusive personal use.
For the record, I agree with you 100%. All parties - organizations, companies, individuals - should have the same right to petition the Government, and that includes donating to politican causes or individuals. I've always thought that restrictions on political donations was a violation of the 1st Amendment.
OK. So when it's $2500 from a single person, that's not enough to be tempting as a bribe. But what about when it's $5,000,000 from a single organization who's taking "forced" contributions (labor union dues, for example) and using them in a bundle - that's not a bribe?
In other words, why is a limit set for one type of entity and a different limit for a different type of entity? Why is an individual limited to $2500 but an organization or corporation unlimited?
Why should there be a limit in the first place? What's the Constitutional groundwork that supports a limit in terms of personal donations towards politics?
Note your OpenSecrets list is for 2016 only, and is only what has been reported through Q1 2016. Many organizations hold their spending/influence until after the conventions. Looking at how the spending ends up is much more illustrative of where the money comes from.
This was going on before political donations. As long as companies (or labor unions, or other organized groups) can promise nice, fat "consulting/board" positions to politicians after they retire, they will have power.
In reality, this shows the tolerance of the GOP. They'll have debate, they'll welcome discourse with people generally on the other side of an issue. Can you imagine a pro-life or anti-same-sex-marriage speaker at the Democrat convention?
Diversity isn't just about genetics or sexual preference - it's also about beliefs and values. The Democrats are about as anti-diversity as you can get.
Check the revenues per capita, and adjust for inflation. You'll find the Federal Government brings in over TWICE today what it did back in the 50s and 60s with that 90% tax bracket (today we cap out well below that, down below 40%). The reality is that the average tax load, per taxpayer and adjusted for inflation, has greatly increased - along with our debt.
Of course, most people believe we had a real surplus back in the 90s, when the fact is the US national debt (which is a cumulation of all deficits) has gone up every single year since 1957 when Ike was President - and we paid half the effective tax rate as well.
My guess: with a lower-taxes President in place, and a guy who wants to streamline business operations, any temporary hiccup will be quickly replaced by faster growth. Add in the promise of a repatriation amnesty and you'll see investments in the US spike pretty readily.
Apparently you missed where I showed I was, in fact, correct. Check out the actual debt to the penny since October 1, 2015 and learn for yourself. You can apologize afterwards - if you have enough integrity, that is.
So, your answer is "nuh uh". Sorry - Social Security due is a debt. That's the point. You want to talk about what caused the debt? That's a completely different discussions. The largest debt we owe is for Social Security. Flat out - and I've referenced that. Would LOVE to see you provide a reference that states otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting little factoid - about 100% of Federal receipts go straight to Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, and interest on the national debt. Cutting those other spending issues won't really do anything other than slow down how fast our debt is growing (over $100 billion a month so far, this fiscal year - about $1.22 trillion so far).
The Federal Government already spends all its receipts (and thus, about 70% of all its spending) on the bottom 50%. I guess we need to spend even more?
Then explain why the most successful economic groups are 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from Asia and Africa - and the come, overwhelmingly, with below-poverty-level assets. I grew up poor - very poor. And we always made our own food with basic staples. You can get nutrition if you're willing to put in a little time. Of course, we also had a 13" black and white TV until 1990, when I bought one with some of my first paycheck after I graduated from college.
Yep, agree 100%. In fact, a simple objective review of actions by each party shows the Democrats are exceedingly fascist. But that's the kind of talk that gets you modded down on /. Which is kind of a confirmation of the statement in the first place... ;)
Using your example of NH an ID card is $10 and lasts for 5 years. That's $2 per year for voting. That's really cheap. And to go further, how does one live in a modern society WITHOUT a Government issued ID? I guess you never travel on an airplane. You do not set up utiltities. You never rent a car or tool. You don't have a bank account. You have no cell phone nor mailbox. Basically - you live in the woods as a hermit - probably not too interested in politics to start with.
Well that would suck... I live in Ventura but work 3-4 days a week in San Francisco. So I have places in both cities (it's cheaper to rent an apartment in SF than to do hotels for 2 to 3 nights a week). I guess I pay a violation because my commute is long enough I choose to stay overnight?
Rather than renting more than 1 location, make the penalty for illegally subletting a place (which is what many AirBNB places are - a person rents an apartment then starts to rent it out to others for considerably more than the base rental cost) rather than a person renting a few places for their own exclusive personal use.
Which is insane given that the Navajo language was not put into written form until the 1930s. Well after English was "standard" throughout the US.
For the record, I agree with you 100%. All parties - organizations, companies, individuals - should have the same right to petition the Government, and that includes donating to politican causes or individuals. I've always thought that restrictions on political donations was a violation of the 1st Amendment.
OK. So when it's $2500 from a single person, that's not enough to be tempting as a bribe. But what about when it's $5,000,000 from a single organization who's taking "forced" contributions (labor union dues, for example) and using them in a bundle - that's not a bribe? In other words, why is a limit set for one type of entity and a different limit for a different type of entity? Why is an individual limited to $2500 but an organization or corporation unlimited?
So should businesses have the same right?
Why should there be a limit in the first place? What's the Constitutional groundwork that supports a limit in terms of personal donations towards politics?
Should unions or trade associations have the right to run advertisements, lobby, or push issues?
Note your OpenSecrets list is for 2016 only, and is only what has been reported through Q1 2016. Many organizations hold their spending/influence until after the conventions. Looking at how the spending ends up is much more illustrative of where the money comes from.
This was going on before political donations. As long as companies (or labor unions, or other organized groups) can promise nice, fat "consulting/board" positions to politicians after they retire, they will have power.
Is that why there are pro-choice GOP Governors, just pandering? How many anti-abortion Democrat Governors are there?
WOOSH.
In reality, this shows the tolerance of the GOP. They'll have debate, they'll welcome discourse with people generally on the other side of an issue. Can you imagine a pro-life or anti-same-sex-marriage speaker at the Democrat convention?
Diversity isn't just about genetics or sexual preference - it's also about beliefs and values. The Democrats are about as anti-diversity as you can get.
Who doesn't hate bison? It's become a hipster staple like kale and arugula... Not like in the old days when it was "weird beef".
Laws mean nothing to them... Disruptive! $60 billion valuation! Disruptive!
Check the revenues per capita, and adjust for inflation. You'll find the Federal Government brings in over TWICE today what it did back in the 50s and 60s with that 90% tax bracket (today we cap out well below that, down below 40%). The reality is that the average tax load, per taxpayer and adjusted for inflation, has greatly increased - along with our debt.
Of course, most people believe we had a real surplus back in the 90s, when the fact is the US national debt (which is a cumulation of all deficits) has gone up every single year since 1957 when Ike was President - and we paid half the effective tax rate as well.
Just continuing the policy established by President Obama...
My guess: with a lower-taxes President in place, and a guy who wants to streamline business operations, any temporary hiccup will be quickly replaced by faster growth. Add in the promise of a repatriation amnesty and you'll see investments in the US spike pretty readily.
Trump supports immigrants as well. Just not ones here illegally, or with unknown/highly-suspicious backgrounds. Seems a reasonable position to me.
Apparently you missed where I showed I was, in fact, correct. Check out the actual debt to the penny since October 1, 2015 and learn for yourself. You can apologize afterwards - if you have enough integrity, that is.
Again, if she doesn't flip Ohio and Florida - who wins? Because it's not looking good for Hillary! in those States...
So, your answer is "nuh uh". Sorry - Social Security due is a debt. That's the point. You want to talk about what caused the debt? That's a completely different discussions. The largest debt we owe is for Social Security. Flat out - and I've referenced that. Would LOVE to see you provide a reference that states otherwise.