tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 16, 2017 4:54 am

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Your statement proves beyond a doubt that you don´t believe what you say you do, but just argue in favor of your own selfish desires. Painfully clear since you have no problem living on and from stolen property without any remove of the human rights violations you are committing. Knowing that you have was stolen and still keeping it makes you no better than the thief himself.

The parties that have been wronged for the most part simply don't exist. If they can prove a claim in court they should absolutely be compensated by the government. And, since we're on the subject, the government has continued doing that sort of thing to this day.


All of the United States. You have to return it all. Not allowing them to build casinos, vacate the premises
.
By the way, have you figured out which of Reagan's policies murdered the middle class yet?


Still because he exploded the national debt like no president outside of war before.

Then tell me why the Holocaust was bad.


violated Human dignity. A man made concept, but in the end the only one of relevance.
And if you really have to ask, you may want to consider psychiatric evaluation for yourself, your lack of empathy is frightening and can get dangerous is unchecked.

BobPatterson wrote:
Are you a fan or habitual reader of Ann Coulter?

No, she's an awful bitch.


you like the aweful bitch Ayn Rand, don´t you..... and she makes Ann Coulter look like a cunning thinker.

best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
LMP737
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 16, 2017 5:36 pm

BMI727 wrote:
I buy insurance, but only for things I care about losing.


Then by default you are insuring other peoples property. What return do you get on that? And what about taxes? Are you going to stop paying those? After all, there are lot of things that your tax dollars go to pay for that don't benefit you.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 16, 2017 6:28 pm

BMI727 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Are you a fan or habitual reader of Ann Coulter?

No, she's an awful bitch.


But you sound so alike. How did you get indoctrinated to her thoughts and words? Some kind of alchemy?
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 16, 2017 7:20 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Are you a fan or habitual reader of Ann Coulter?

No, she's an awful bitch.

You like the awful bitch Ayn Rand, don´t you..... and she makes Ann Coulter look like a cunning thinker.

During my Human Events days Ayn Rand was a kind of poster child for the far right wing in America. I tried reading Atlas Shrugged but failed to finish it. Did you really understand anything in her genre?

BMI727: Are you or were you ever a member of the John Birch Society? It's safe to admit it nowadays.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Fri May 19, 2017 11:26 am

BobPatterson wrote:
I tried reading Atlas Shrugged but failed to finish it.


Yeah, it is one of those books that you really want to finish in order to finish it. But then again, many books are....

Did you really understand anything in her genre?


How does one determine if we really understood anything at all? But then again, i am an avid reader of philosophical (since) fiction and economist by training, so i am pretty confident.

best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
BMI727
Posts: 11280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 20, 2017 5:07 am

tommy1808 wrote:
All of the United States. You have to return it all.

Return it to whom? How can you carry out justice for a crime where both the perpetrator and victim are long gone?

The American government should start by stopping illegal seizures of property before trying to correct past crimes.

tommy1808 wrote:
Still because he exploded the national debt like no president outside of war before.

1. Which specific Reagan policy or policies exploded the national debt?
2. How does an exploding national debt function to "murder the middle class"?
3. How do you account for the fact that growth in government spending, and resulting deficits, is actually largely due to entitlement programs championed by liberals?
4. How do you account for the fact that during Reagan's term in office shrinking numbers in the middle class were due more to people moving up the ladder rather than down? In your mind, does leaving the middle class due to making more money count as being "murdered"?
5. If you believe that Reagan murdered the middle class by exploding the national debt then what is your opinion on the policies of the Obama administration?

tommy1808 wrote:
violated Human dignity. A man made concept, but in the end the only one of relevance.
And if you really have to ask, you may want to consider psychiatric evaluation for yourself, your lack of empathy is frightening and can get dangerous is unchecked.

But you say that human dignity and human rights are made up ideas that can be granted or revoked by society/government at will. Considering that, how could one objectively consider it an injustice if it is decided that human rights/dignity no longer includes not being murdered or being forced to the back of the bus? Why should anyone be outraged when, in your estimation, such things are just the government/society doing that which it has the power to do?

Also, how can you attack my supposed lack of empathy when you are the one arguing against human rights?

tommy1808 wrote:
you like the aweful bitch Ayn Rand, don´t you.....

I've never read anything she wrote, so I have no opinion. Nothing I've heard makes me feel like I'm missing out.

LMP737 wrote:
Then by default you are insuring other peoples property.

I'm not paying the premiums.

BobPatterson wrote:
But you sound so alike. How did you get indoctrinated to her thoughts and words? Some kind of alchemy?

It's a combination of two things: 1) Me reading facts and putting some thought into things and 2) You selectively reading what I write or reading things I don't write into what I do write to make it seem that way.

BobPatterson wrote:
BMI727: Are you or were you ever a member of the John Birch Society? It's safe to admit it nowadays.

Nope. I'm not a member of any political organization.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 20, 2017 10:55 am

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
All of the United States. You have to return it all.

Return it to whom? How can you carry out justice for a crime where both the perpetrator and victim are long gone?


Apparently your dementia has progressed much to far to have any discussion with you, as we have been over that a couple of timed already.

Best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 20, 2017 6:43 pm

BMI727 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
But you sound so alike. How did you get indoctrinated to her [Ann Coulter's] thoughts and words? Some kind of alchemy?

It's a combination of two things: 1) Me reading facts and putting some thought into things and 2) You selectively reading what I write or reading things I don't write into what I do write to make it seem that way.


So, with respect to Ayn Rand, you claim not to have read anything she has written. Your response to Tommy was:

"I've never read anything she wrote, so I have no opinion. Nothing I've heard makes me feel like I'm missing out."

Yet, you publicly post your opinion that she's an "awful bitch".

How did you form that opinion of her? Hearsay? Reading facts and having thoughts? Dreams?
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 20, 2017 7:45 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
parently your dementia has progressed much to far to have any discussion with you, as we have been over that a couple of timed already.

No you haven't. Not to mention that your silence on Reagan's supposed crimes against the middle class and your anti-human rights stance is deafening.

BobPatterson wrote:
Yet, you publicly post your opinion that she's an "awful bitch".

I posted that Ann Coulter is an awful bitch. Pay attention.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 20, 2017 10:51 pm

BMI727 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Yet, you publicly post your opinion that she's an "awful bitch".

I posted that Ann Coulter is an awful bitch. Pay attention.


:-) You are correct. There was a bit of a shell game going on and I was duped. :-) Apologies.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 21, 2017 9:47 am

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
parently your dementia has progressed much to far to have any discussion with you, as we have been over that a couple of timed already.

No you haven't.


Yes, i have. Not for the first time. We have been over this issue somewhere between 5 and 10 times before, and you always trott down the same spineless pretense on having a philosophy, which proofs to be motivated (aka faked) by nothing but personal greed.
Return all your property to the descendants of those it was stolen from, or stop pretending you assign any value to property as a human right.

Not to mention that your silence on Reagan's supposed crimes against the middle class


First i did, he over spend. Biggest debt sinner in all of US history. Secondly, what is the point, since you would forget anyways.

and your anti-human rights stance is deafening.


unless you return all your property, minus what your family brought from whereever they immigrated from, to the descendants of those it was stolen from you, by your own admission, do not believe in any human rights at all. Because according to you, life and property are the only ones, and you don´t care about protecting either one, unless it is your own.

best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
BMI727
Posts: 11280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 21, 2017 9:26 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Return all your property to the descendants of those it was stolen from, or stop pretending you assign any value to property as a human right.

That's easy to say but how would you actually go about doing that?

tommy1808 wrote:
First i did, he over spend. Biggest debt sinner in all of US history. Secondly, what is the point, since you would forget anyways.

First, it is factually untrue that Reagan was the "biggest debt sinner in all of US history." Second, you did not even attempt to answer any of the questions I posed. Your ideas do not hold up under any sort of examination and your approach to supporting your case it comical. More accurately, your approach to supporting your case is Trumpian.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 22, 2017 2:40 am

BMI727 wrote:
First, it is factually untrue that Reagan was the "biggest debt sinner in all of US history." Second, you did not even attempt to answer any of the questions I posed. Your ideas do not hold up under any sort of examination and your approach to supporting your case it comical. More accurately, your approach to supporting your case is Trumpian.


Who should be considered the "biggest debt sinner in all of US history"?

Is it a President or a Congress?
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 22, 2017 7:41 am

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Return all your property to the descendants of those it was stolen from, or stop pretending you assign any value to property as a human right.

That's easy to say but how would you actually go about doing that?

tommy1808 wrote:
First i did, he over spend. Biggest debt sinner in all of US history. Secondly, what is the point, since you would forget anyways.

First, it is factually untrue that Reagan was the "biggest debt sinner in all of US history." Second, you did not even attempt to answer any of the questions I posed. Your ideas do not hold up under any sort of examination and your approach to supporting your case it comical. More accurately, your approach to supporting your case is Trumpian.


http://billmoyers.com/story/whats-killi ... dle-class/

Deregulation of the banking world contributed as did all kinds of other measures. The neo-liberalism philosophy, you probably like it, but that is killing the country. Do you feel it is fair that in 1980 a Fortune 500 CEOs earned about 42 times as much on average as the typical worker. Today they earn 373 times as much. Economist Emmanuel Saez found that the top 1 percent of Americans captured more than half of the total income growth from 1993 to 2014, do you feel that is fair?

It isn't Reagen perse, but it started with him, or even a bit before his time. And it isn't one law, but it a set of laws, typically: less taxation, fewer benefits for the poor/middle class. Just the way you like it, but these are the consequences of your policies.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 22, 2017 8:05 am

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Return all your property to the descendants of those it was stolen from, or stop pretending you assign any value to property as a human right.

That's easy to say but how would you actually go about doing that?


anyone that cared would easily find a solution to that problem. Saying "oh, returning that property is too hard, so i rather keep it" doesn´t cut it. Conclusion remains, you don´t have a philosophy, you just pick what serves you best at the moment.

First, it is factually untrue that Reagan was the "biggest debt sinner in all of US history.".


I didn´t think i need to add "outside of war" for the 15th time. Give me another one that almost doubled the national debt (186%) outside of war. Heck, even Obama didn´t manage that, fighting two wars he didn´t start.

BobPatterson wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
First, it is factually untrue that Reagan was the "biggest debt sinner in all of US history." Second, you did not even attempt to answer any of the questions I posed. Your ideas do not hold up under any sort of examination and your approach to supporting your case it comical. More accurately, your approach to supporting your case is Trumpian.


Who should be considered the "biggest debt sinner in all of US history"?

Is it a President or a Congress?


as per Republican logic: the president.

Because Obama was an evil dept sinner, even when a republican congress was doing the sinning, so sure as hell Reagan is the debt sinner. Or have you been correcting fellow GOP-near posters when they blamed Obama?

best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
BMI727
Posts: 11280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 22, 2017 12:13 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Deregulation of the banking world contributed as did all kinds of other measures.

Which acts?

Dutchy wrote:
Do you feel it is fair that in 1980 a Fortune 500 CEOs earned about 42 times as much on average as the typical worker. Today they earn 373 times as much.

It's what the market will bear and that's what matters. If you don't think it's fair then don't do business with companies that overpay their executives.

I don't think it's "fair" to pay more than $50 for a watch, so I just don't do that. Many other people think it's more than fair to pay many multiples of that which keeps dozens of watchmakers in business.

Dutchy wrote:
Economist Emmanuel Saez found that the top 1 percent of Americans captured more than half of the total income growth from 1993 to 2014, do you feel that is fair?

Yes, again because it's what the market will bear. More importantly it depends on what exactly counts as "income" in this case. If it includes returns on investments then it's more than fair considering that those putting the capital out there and taking the risk should be getting the returns. Again, not a target for plunder but an example to follow.

Dutchy wrote:
And it isn't one law, but it a set of laws,

Which ones specifically?

tommy1808 wrote:
anyone that cared would easily find a solution to that problem.

Ok then. Let's start with who actually gets the land back. Native tribes often evolved or fought among themselves over land so do you give it back to only the group that the US government took it from? Do you say it goes back to 1800? 1700? 1492?

And how would you decide who gets the land back? A lot of the groups whom it should belong to are gone. And beyond that they didn't keep good records of births, marriages and deaths so how do you plan to figure out just who should be part of the trusts with hundreds or thousands of people getting land back? How does someone prove that they have a claim on some of this land? And how are these sudden new landowners who have most likely never met supposed to manage their new windfall?

Like I said, if someone has a provable claim against the government they should take it to court and be compensated. And, as I pointed out before, the US government is still pulling this shit today and should quit immediately.

tommy1808 wrote:
I didn´t think i need to add "outside of war" for the 15th time. Give me another one that almost doubled the national debt (186%) outside of war. Heck, even Obama didn´t manage that, fighting two wars he didn´t start.

First, do you think the Cold War doesn't count as a war?
Secondly defense spending under Obama is less than the peak during the Reagan era. That is hardly surprising when you understand that defense spending is not what is driving government spending, so a wartime vs. peacetime distinction is increasingly unimportant.
Third, the national debt was reduced during both the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Fourth, along with answering the questions I posed earlier, please explain why national debt during wartime is less detrimental to the middle class than national debt during peacetime.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 22, 2017 1:47 pm

Focus on the big lines, BMI727.

It is morally wrong, in my book, what your line is. Your line is, get what you can get, no matter, and you can do anything as long as not too many people object.

Like I said, that is Victorian.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 22, 2017 2:04 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Ok then. Let's start with who actually gets the land back. Native tribes often evolved or fought among themselves over land so do you give it back to only the group that the US government took it from? Do you say it goes back to 1800? 1700? 1492?

And how would you decide who gets the land back? A lot of the groups whom it should belong to are gone. And beyond that they didn't keep good records of births, marriages and deaths so how do you plan to figure out just who should be part of the trusts with hundreds or thousands of people getting land back? How does someone prove that they have a claim on some of this land? And how are these sudden new landowners who have most likely never met supposed to manage their new windfall?

Like I said, if someone has a provable claim against the government they should take it to court and be compensated. And, as I pointed out before, the US government is still pulling this shit today and should quit immediately. .


Dude, we all already know that you are too lazy to be a halfway decent person.If there is a will, you find a way. Unclaimed property could just go into the fond under the stewardship of the remaining native population. You get to keep your house, but you pay rent for the land. Simple.

First, do you think the Cold War doesn't count as a war?


No. The cold war was on for a lot longer before that, without such a spending fest.

Fourth, along with answering the questions I posed earlier, please explain why national debt during wartime is less detrimental to the middle class than national debt during peacetime.


Wartime expenditure is hard to avoid, peacetime is.

Secondly defense spending under Obama is less than the peak during the Reagan era. That is hardly surprising when you understand that defense spending is not what is driving government spending


It doesn´t create value, not does it contribute to the welfare of society. How much lower would you military budget have needed to by to get rid of *all* of todays national debt today... somewhere 30 - 40%.

best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 22, 2017 2:30 pm

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Return all your property to the descendants of those it was stolen from, or stop pretending you assign any value to property as a human right.

That's easy to say but how would you actually go about doing that?

I love it, the most dogmatic poster on the whole of a.net suddenly is confronted by something else dogmatic and turns into Mr Pragmatism. BMI certainly adds to the fun of this place.

Fred
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 22, 2017 4:13 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Return all your property to the descendants of those it was stolen from, or stop pretending you assign any value to property as a human right.

That's easy to say but how would you actually go about doing that?

I love it, the most dogmatic poster on the whole of a.net suddenly is confronted by something else dogmatic and turns into Mr Pragmatism. BMI certainly adds to the fun of this place.

Fred



Which is especially fun since it is his very own dogma that stares him in the face. Property is inalienable, and that is a natural, not a man made right. If it is the first, the natives deserve their property back.

No thief would ever get a bonus for good intentions by saying "your honor, I wanted to return the property, as I come to realize stealing is wrong, but returning the stolen goods was soo complicated...."

Best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 22, 2017 8:49 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
Who should be considered the "biggest debt sinner in all of US history"?

Is it a President or a Congress?


as per Republican logic: the president.

Because Obama was an evil dept sinner, even when a republican congress was doing the sinning, so sure as hell Reagan is the debt sinner. Or have you been correcting fellow GOP-near posters when they blamed Obama?


Pardon my non-response. My question was specifically for BMI727. I should have made that more clear.

If BMI727 responds I may then have more to say.

Cheers
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 23, 2017 1:57 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Who should be considered the "biggest debt sinner in all of US history"?

Is it a President or a Congress?

I have the mental capacity to understand that the national budget comes from a combination and attribute credit for events accordingly. As for Tommy, I don't know. For that matter, nobody has seriously tried to explain how the national debt has damaged the middle class other than just saying so and expecting everyone to believe it.

Dutchy wrote:
Focus on the big lines, BMI727.

No, because you can't just point out some "big lines" and expect everyone to believe it without substantiating your claims. If you're so sure that the boogeyman of deregulation has caused the demise of the middle class then you should have no problems telling the class what was deregulated by which acts and how it caused damage.

Dutchy wrote:
It is morally wrong, in my book, what your line is. Your line is, get what you can get, no matter, and you can do anything as long as not too many people object.

Is it your position that the government should use regulation (backed, of course, by force) to enforce your views of what is moral and immoral?

tommy1808 wrote:
Dude, we all already know that you are too lazy to be a halfway decent person.If there is a will, you find a way.

How do you expect to be able to carry out justice for a crime where both the perpetrators and victims are gone? Aside from the offenders being gone there is no legal entity to return the land to in most cases. And you know it too, that's why you don't have any ideas other than to give everything back to the "natives." How is giving land taken from one tribe to the descendants of another any more right than the descendants of white people who stole it? And when do we snap the line? Only giving it back to the last group to have it before the US government? Or should we try to undo injustices tribes committed against each other?

tommy1808 wrote:
No. The cold war was on for a lot longer before that, without such a spending fest.

Actually, if you look at the numbers the Reagan defense spending increase it is only a peak compared to the years immediately before and after (hence the peak). If you look at the actual numbers, you'd see that Reagan's supposedly profligate spending is actually below the level sustained for basically all of the 1950s and 1960s.

tommy1808 wrote:
Wartime expenditure is hard to avoid, peacetime is.

Do you think there is no connection between the two? Did you think that America just decided it would be cool to build the most technologically advanced fighting force the world had yet seen once Saddam's tanks rolled into Kuwait? And, just for the record, we won the Cold War too. Is it your belief that the effects of an administration's policies are limited to the time that administration is in office?

tommy1808 wrote:
It doesn´t create value, not does it contribute to the welfare of society.

This assertion, like many others you've made, is provably false. Also, it is a colossally and ironically stupid one to write on the internet.

tommy1808 wrote:
How much lower would you military budget have needed to by to get rid of *all* of todays national debt today... somewhere 30 - 40%.

Holding the 2016 budget constant, if you were to zero out defense spending completely you would pay off the national debt in about 30 years.

flipdewaf wrote:
I love it, the most dogmatic poster on the whole of a.net suddenly is confronted by something else dogmatic and turns into Mr Pragmatism.

I know you want to argue with an anarchist because that is the only argument you could win. If you actually read what I've written you would see multiple concrete, practical policy ideas to improve the state of affairs.

tommy1808 wrote:
No thief would ever get a bonus for good intentions by saying "your honor, I wanted to return the property, as I come to realize stealing is wrong, but returning the stolen goods was soo complicated...."

Recovered property that is unclaimed is auctioned off by the government.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 23, 2017 6:50 am

i will quote myself:
Deregulation of the banking world contributed as did all kinds of other measures. The neo-liberalism philosophy, you probably like it, but that is killing the country. Do you feel it is fair that in 1980 a Fortune 500 CEOs earned about 42 times as much on average as the typical worker. Today they earn 373 times as much. Economist Emmanuel Saez found that the top 1 percent of Americans captured more than half of the total income growth from 1993 to 2014, do you feel that is fair?


This is the big line --> do you feel that this trend is a good line to follow and thus must continue? For the numbers, you can find the link to it, in the article I have linked to it.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 23, 2017 7:15 am

BMI727 wrote:
And, just for the record, we won the Cold War too. Is it your belief that the effects of an administration's policies are limited to the time that administration is in office?


You won the cold war by accident. No one in the US intelligence community had any angling that the USSR would go down near term, so that wasn´t strategy, that was just checking who goes broke first. Could have been you. Well, it was you .... just took a few decades to come to that end.

This assertion, like many others you've made, is provably false. Also, it is a colossally and ironically stupid one to write on the internet.


It is completely correct. Lots of countries fare very well without overstretching their military.

Holding the 2016 budget constant, if you were to zero out defense spending completely you would pay off the national debt in about 30 years.


The concept of compound interests muss be completely new to you. But thank you for confirming my point unknowingly, only a little down adjustment, still way more spending than any other nation on this planet, and you would have zero national debt.

Recovered property that is unclaimed is auctioned off by the government.


See, problem solved. Just give all your property to the US government, and if they can´t figure out who to give it back to, they auction it off.

Was that really so difficult? You knew the solution all along, but since you don´t care about even the minimum human rights at all, you will never ever put your hands where your mouth is.

best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 23, 2017 7:29 am

tommy1808 wrote:
but since you don´t care about even the minimum human rights at all, you will never ever put your hands where your mouth is.


that's not true, he cares about human property rights to the max, that others have to suffer because of that, isn't a concern of him.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 23, 2017 10:47 am

Dutchy wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
but since you don´t care about even the minimum human rights at all, you will never ever put your hands where your mouth is.


that's not true, he cares about human property rights to the max, that others have to suffer because of that, isn't a concern of him.


If that was correct, he'd be devoting his life to returning the USA to the natives in full, yet he choses to explain how murdering tens of thousands Americans per year by neglect is just peachy, because taxes for anything else but police and military (which incidently pay for his lifestyle iirc) are a crime against humanity....

If he ever needs a safety net, I have the feeling his last post won't be "since taxes to finance my life saving surgery are theft, I will now die in peace".

Best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
BMI727
Posts: 11280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 23, 2017 11:53 am

Dutchy wrote:
This is the big line --> do you feel that this trend is a good line to follow and thus must continue?

Considering how my investments in the stock market have done, I have a hard time complaining personally. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that any of those CEOs now earning 300 times or more what their employees make got any of that money through criminal acts?

Dutchy wrote:
For the numbers, you can find the link to it, in the article I have linked to it.

That article is the same snake oil you and Tommy have been selling. You're so certain that the middle class is dying (despite it being shown that more people leave the top than bottom) through the actions of lawmakers yet you, and that article you linked, can't name one piece of legislation responsible for it. Same with deregulation: "Deregulation" supposedly ruined everything but nobody seems to be able to figure out what was deregulated. And meanwhile we're all supposed to be outraged by the fact that people who make investments are the ones who get the return when the investment pays off.

tommy1808 wrote:
You won the cold war by accident. No one in the US intelligence community had any angling that the USSR would go down near term, so that wasn´t strategy, that was just checking who goes broke first. Could have been you. Well, it was you .... just took a few decades to come to that end.

The fundamental weakness of Communism caused it to break under pressure from a much more powerful economy. Taking decades to do it just reduced the body count by a ton.

tommy1808 wrote:
It is completely correct. Lots of countries fare very well without overstretching their military.

It is still provably false, and you're still writing on the internet. How many of those other countries spawned the likes of Google or Apple? How many of those other countries put a man on the moon? Have you or any of your family/friends ever been to the emergency room? Working in the defense industry created so much value for regular people that the government literally passed a law to stop it.

And, lest we forget, quite a few of those countries didn't have to stretch their military at all because they existed under the umbrella of American military capability.

tommy1808 wrote:
The concept of compound interests muss be completely new to you.

I neglected it to simplify the calculation. Accounting for interest will extend that repayment a good bit, further undermining your point.

tommy1808 wrote:
But thank you for confirming my point unknowingly, only a little down adjustment, still way more spending than any other nation on this planet, and you would have zero national debt.

So I made a mistake. I went back to where I put the numbers together and realized I accidentally counted all discretionary government spending, not just defense. Actually, zeroing out defense spending wouldn't even close the deficit, meaning that spending nothing on defense indefinitely would never make a dent in the national debt.

By the way, you have still answered none of the questions I posed above.

tommy1808 wrote:
See, problem solved. Just give all your property to the US government, and if they can´t figure out who to give it back to, they auction it off.

That's pretty similar to what the government did once they took the land from the natives in the first place.

tommy1808 wrote:
Was that really so difficult? You knew the solution all along,

It's not a solution at all. How does that do anything to correct the injustice? Take the land from people who weren't the ones who stole it and sell it to other people and be unable to give the proceeds or the land back to those whom it was taken from because they don't exist.

tommy1808 wrote:
If that was correct, he'd be devoting his life to returning the USA to the natives in full, yet he choses to explain how murdering tens of thousands Americans per year by neglect is just peachy,

Nobody knows who to return it to and without the power to raise the dead nobody will find out. And do you know the definition of murder?

tommy1808 wrote:
If he ever needs a safety net, I have the feeling his last post won't be "since taxes to finance my life saving surgery are theft, I will now die in peace".

Why should I have the right to take someone else's property and use it to secure my existence?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 23, 2017 12:49 pm

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
You won the cold war by accident. No one in the US intelligence community had any angling that the USSR would go down near term, so that wasn´t strategy, that was just checking who goes broke first. Could have been you. Well, it was you .... just took a few decades to come to that end.

The fundamental weakness of Communism caused it to break under pressure from a much more powerful economy. Taking decades to do it just reduced the body count by a ton.


it took decades longer to ruin your own country, after you have won.

It is still provably false, and you're still writing on the internet. How many of those other countries spawned the likes of Google or Apple?


Your dementia again... we have been over business practices that are illegal here before. Those companies are in the US since your virtually have no privacy laws whatsoever. The state of human rights in your country is purely disgusting, Not even

How many of those other countries put a man on the moon?


None.... how many scientists did you send, or was it mostly show?

Have you or any of your family/friends ever been to the emergency room?


yes, many time. Almost no wait, and no bill. Universal single payer healthcare is awesome.

Working in the defense industry created so much value for regular people that the government literally passed a law to stop it.


money ain´t value.

And, lest we forget, quite a few of those countries didn't have to stretch their military at all because they existed under the umbrella of American military capability.


Right, you are having troops where they are out of the pure good of your heard and not your own geopolitical goals, right.... in fact many of those should charge rent. Incidentally, we paid you for being here instead of putting that money in our own military.....

I neglected it to simplify the calculation. Accounting for interest will extend that repayment a good bit, further undermining your point.


Math 101 for you perhaps? Compound interests makes my argument stronger, because that would reduce the reduction required to have a sustainable budget. We are talking about the past here, you know, the world you are living in. You would still have had the largest military on this planet if you had reduce your budget by just 30% or so. And be debt free....

So I made a mistake. I went back to where I put the numbers together and realized I accidentally counted all discretionary government spending, not just defense. Actually, zeroing out defense spending wouldn't even close the deficit, meaning that spending nothing on defense indefinitely would never make a dent in the national debt.


if you had maintained a military budget at 60 or 70% of what you did have in the past it would have reduced your national debt to zero.

By the way, you have still answered none of the questions I posed above.


Why would i answer nonsense questions? What Reagan exactly did to ruin the country doesn´t matter, it comes down´to debt and he is and will remain the biggest debt sinner.

That's pretty similar to what the government did once they took the land from the natives in the first place.


So, your new song will be "stealing" (haha) from the thief's to try and return it to the owners, is so evil that it can´t be done.
Since you have no property rights to the stolen goods you live off, taking it from you is no crime. In fact if anyone "steals" from, you shouldn´t be pressing charges, since it is not yours to beginn with.


It's not a solution at all. How does that do anything to correct the injustice? Take the land from people who weren't the ones who stole it and sell it to other people and be unable to give the proceeds or the land back to those whom it was taken from because they don't exist.


They have descendants. If they don´t have them, make a national park of it.

Nobody knows who to return it to and without the power to raise the dead nobody will find out. And do you know the definition of murder?


They have descendants. But good to know you think that the Nazis would have been perfectly fine to keep all that they stole from the Jews, if they had just managed to exterminated them all. How good a person you are....
Do you know that different countries have different definition of murder...

If he ever needs a safety net, I have the feeling his last post won't be "since taxes to finance my life saving surgery are theft, I will now die in peace".

Why should I have the right to take someone else's property and use it to secure my existence?


That is exactly what you have been doing since the day you where born.

best regards
Thomas
Crooked Donald Trump an his team are extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit! #muchworsethanclinton
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 23, 2017 1:31 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
This is the big line --> do you feel that this trend is a good line to follow and thus must continue?

Considering how my investments in the stock market have done, I have a hard time complaining personally. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that any of those CEOs now earning 300 times or more what their employees make got any of that money through criminal acts?

Dutchy wrote:
For the numbers, you can find the link to it, in the article I have linked to it.

That article is the same snake oil you and Tommy have been selling. You're so certain that the middle class is dying (despite it being shown that more people leave the top than bottom) through the actions of lawmakers yet you, and that article you linked, can't name one piece of legislation responsible for it. Same with deregulation: "Deregulation" supposedly ruined everything but nobody seems to be able to figure out what was deregulated. And meanwhile we're all supposed to be outraged by the fact that people who make investments are the ones who get the return when the investment pays off.


You don't see the morality in this issue?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
LMP737
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 23, 2017 5:03 pm

BMI727 wrote:
I'm not paying the premiums.


You might not pay your neighbors premium but if your neighbors house burns down where do you think the money the insurance company uses to pay for the loss comes from? Here's a hint, from the money the insurance company takes in from other people paying premiums.

It should be obvious to any one that we all pay for things that do not directly benefit us in any way. So the argument that you should not have to pay for something that does not directly benefit you is bogus.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Wed May 24, 2017 1:41 am

tommy1808 wrote:
it took decades longer to ruin your own country, after you have won.

It hasn't happened yet. All the GDP has done is tripled since the end of the Cold War.

tommy1808 wrote:
Your dementia again... we have been over business practices that are illegal here before. Those companies are in the US since your virtually have no privacy laws whatsoever.

Who has ever done a Google search under duress? Has anyone ever been coerced into buying an iPad? Is it your position that any or all of those companies' customers have had a relationship with them that was not voluntary?

tommy1808 wrote:
yes, many time. Almost no wait, and no bill. Universal single payer healthcare is awesome.

If you've ever been to the emergency room then you've benefited from defense spending. Unless you believe that you are of no value, then you cannot say that such spending is of no value.

tommy1808 wrote:
money ain´t value.

Actually in the modern economic system money is value. We've been using fiat currency for quite a few centuries now and it works pretty well, but if you want to barter goods feel free.

tommy1808 wrote:
Right, you are having troops where they are out of the pure good of your heard and not your own geopolitical goals, right..

That's not what I said.

tommy1808 wrote:
Compound interests makes my argument stronger, because that would reduce the reduction required to have a sustainable budget.

How do you figure that? One thing compound interest does do, however, is make it take longer to pay off debts.

tommy1808 wrote:
You would still have had the largest military on this planet if you had reduce your budget by just 30% or so.

The mission isn't to have the largest military in the world, the mission is to have a military that brings the capability necessary to protect American security around the globe. And to do so by a sufficiently wide margin. A good military can win a war, a great military doesn't have to fight a war.

tommy1808 wrote:
if you had maintained a military budget at 60 or 70% of what you did have in the past it would have reduced your national debt to zero.

Show us the math to substantiate that claim.

tommy1808 wrote:
Why would i answer nonsense questions?

I want to see you try and support your assertions with facts. But, it appears you have no interest in doing so and prefer the Trump method: say something ridiculous and when confronted with facts to the contrary either deny you said it or just keep saying it with no substantiation.

tommy1808 wrote:
What Reagan exactly did to ruin the country doesn´t matter

It does if you are going to make the claim that Reagan ruined the country. If you're so sure he wrecked everything you should at least be able to explain what he did that was so bad.

tommy1808 wrote:
it comes down´to debt and he is and will remain the biggest debt sinner.

You have made no attempt what so ever to explain how "it all comes down to debt" when it comes to making things good for the middle class. In addition, you have provided no objective measure by which Ronald Reagan is the "biggest debt sinner."

tommy1808 wrote:
They have descendants.

How are you going to find them after at least a century? They didn't keep good records of who was related to whom and who owned what. Unless you can invent a time machine the information you would need to return the land to its rightful owners just doesn't exist.

tommy1808 wrote:
If they don´t have them, make a national park of it.

So let me get this straight: The government comes in, steals land from the natives and gives it out to settlers. Your solution is to take the land back from whomever has it now, by this time not the people who took stolen land from the government, and carry out justice by handing it all back to the same government that stole it? The only entity to endure from the original crime, and the one that committed it, is the one that should get the land?

tommy1808 wrote:
But good to know you think that the Nazis would have been perfectly fine to keep all that they stole from the Jews, if they had just managed to exterminated them all.

The Nazis were in power for twelve years, so less than a generation. And were in power during a time when record keeping was quite good. At the end of it the survivors knew what they had, where they lived, where their relatives lived and who their relatives were. The information to fix (some) things existed.

But then, according to you, Jews just lost their made up rights for a while and no actual injustice occurred.

tommy1808 wrote:
Do you know that different countries have different definition of murder...

Find me one that doesn't involve doing something.

Dutchy wrote:
You don't see the morality in this issue?

Two entities enter into an economic relationship in which services are traded for compensation and both parties do so voluntarily. As far as being related to morality it is just like adultery: If you think it's immoral then don't do it. But stay out of other people's business.

LMP737 wrote:
You might not pay your neighbors premium but if your neighbors house burns down where do you think the money the insurance company uses to pay for the loss comes from? Here's a hint, from the money the insurance company takes in from other people paying premiums.

That's not paying for their insurance, that's being part of a risk pool.

People should enter economic relationships voluntarily, and that includes being part of a risk pool. People should be part of any risk pool they choose, if the risk pool chooses to accept them. Ask yourself why it wouldn't make sense to have a particular health plan and risk pool specifically for tri-athletes aged 18 to 35?

LMP737 wrote:
It should be obvious to any one that we all pay for things that do not directly benefit us in any way. So the argument that you should not have to pay for something that does not directly benefit you is bogus.

This statement rests on the erroneous assumption that I don't benefit from insurance unless I make a claim. It is similar to the, also erroneous, idea that I don't benefit from the presence of law enforcement unless I'm the victim of a crime.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Wed May 24, 2017 6:12 am

BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
You don't see the morality in this issue?

Two entities enter into an economic relationship in which services are traded for compensation and both parties do so voluntarily. As far as being related to morality it is just like adultery: If you think it's immoral then don't do it. But stay out of other people's business.


Like I said, you are perfectly fine with the "damn all" policy. As long as you have some gains, you are alright with it. Child labor, yeah no problem, me and my family don't have to do it, and it is perfect for the bottom line, so why pay more for labor? Made a killing on bank stocks did you? Before 2008 I mean or at the moment? Let's do the deregulation thingy: more profits, perfectly, and off course, public loses and private gains, who cares, not my problem. And if you don't like the morals of a company, go to someone whom does it better, so no iPhone, but a fairphone. You are not anti-moral, but you are amoral.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 10:19 am

BMI727 wrote:
People should enter economic relationships voluntarily, and that includes being part of a risk pool.
Its quite possible to remove yourself from the risk pool that is the country you live in and try to apply for citizenship in another country/risk pool, of course the issue is that you can't just decide to be in a certain risk pool the others have to determine whether they want you in that risk pool as well. As with any insurance risk pools there are rules that you have to abide by to get the payouts/peace of mind, a country is no different.

Fred
Image
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 11:03 am

Dutchy wrote:

You don't see the morality in this issue?


Morality with regards to salary is an invention. I don't see people complaining about Karl Lagerfeld making hundreds of millions of dollars designing clothes, but somehow people take offense with corporate executives making much less.
Frankly, I find it grotesque that we are even discussing this as a society. If the owners of a privately held corporation deem it fitting to pay their executives ludicrous amounts of money, they are entitled to do so and the society as a whole shouldn't have the least bit of a say in it. Political attempts to rein in executive compensation are populist to not call them anything worse. If the shareholders in a corporation think their executives' salaries are too high, they can cut them via shareholders resolution, nobody else should even think twice about that topic because it's none of their business.

Dutchy wrote:
Deregulation of the banking world contributed as did all kinds of other measures. The neo-liberalism philosophy, you probably like it, but that is killing the country. Do you feel it is fair that in 1980 a Fortune 500 CEOs earned about 42 times as much on average as the typical worker. Today they earn 373 times as much. Economist Emmanuel Saez found that the top 1 percent of Americans captured more than half of the total income growth from 1993 to 2014, do you feel that is fair?



Deregulation has never hurt anybody. What's killing us is central banking and fiat money. Get rid of that and all our macroeconomic woes will be solved by a hard gold standard backed 100% by productivity.
The financial crisis of 2007 was not caused by banks putting up CDOs, it was caused by politicians virtually forcing banks to put subprime mortgages into those CDOs by forcing lenders to loan to people who would never have gotten a mortgage on the free market. The market only worked as the corrective institution it is supposed to be. The correction hurt, but you have to understand that the correction (like all big corrections of the past) only happened because a bunch of morons in politics didn't understand that market laws are laws of nature that no amount of political will can bend. If politics don't try to interfere in the economy, you will have modest, even growth with only very small, barely noticeable corrections and no big crises. All growth will be backed by actual productivity gains, unlike what's happening today.
Economics is very easy once you understand the basic principle. Most politicians don't or don't want to accept that they are not above those principles.

Bankers were not at fault for the 2007 crisis and they won't be at fault when the next crisis hits (which is inevitable since the last crisis was not resolved but just wrapped in an even larger bubble of public debt). Likewise, fairness of economic distribution had no part in the crisis. But of course, politics managed to make it even worse with their interventionist let's create more money 'solution'.

The Federal Reserve has stopped publishing figures on the money supply years ago. There's are reason they aren't at least publishing the M3 figure. And it isn't pretty.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 12:44 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

You don't see the morality in this issue?


Morality with regards to salary is an invention. I don't see people complaining about Karl Lagerfeld making hundreds of millions of dollars designing clothes, but somehow people take offense with corporate executives making much less.
Frankly, I find it grotesque that we are even discussing this as a society. If the owners of a privately held corporation deem it fitting to pay their executives ludicrous amounts of money, they are entitled to do so and the society as a whole shouldn't have the least bit of a say in it. Political attempts to rein in executive compensation are populist to not call them anything worse. If the shareholders in a corporation think their executives' salaries are too high, they can cut them via shareholders resolution, nobody else should even think twice about that topic because it's none of their business.


That is a very Anglo saxion view to this issue. I don't subscribe to this, especially when the common people salaries haven't risen as much, or even lost their jobs and at the top, they think they should earn and get pay raises as much as they have. Don't you think there is no moral issue with that?

aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Deregulation of the banking world contributed as did all kinds of other measures. The neo-liberalism philosophy, you probably like it, but that is killing the country. Do you feel it is fair that in 1980 a Fortune 500 CEOs earned about 42 times as much on average as the typical worker. Today they earn 373 times as much. Economist Emmanuel Saez found that the top 1 percent of Americans captured more than half of the total income growth from 1993 to 2014, do you feel that is fair?



Deregulation has never hurt anybody. What's killing us is central banking and fiat money. Get rid of that and all our macroeconomic woes will be solved by a hard gold standard backed 100% by productivity.
The financial crisis of 2007 was not caused by banks putting up CDOs, it was caused by politicians virtually forcing banks to put subprime mortgages into those CDOs by forcing lenders to loan to people who would never have gotten a mortgage on the free market. The market only worked as the corrective institution it is supposed to be. The correction hurt, but you have to understand that the correction (like all big corrections of the past) only happened because a bunch of morons in politics didn't understand that market laws are laws of nature that no amount of political will can bend. If politics don't try to interfere in the economy, you will have modest, even growth with only very small, barely noticeable corrections and no big crises. All growth will be backed by actual productivity gains, unlike what's happening today.
Economics is very easy once you understand the basic principle. Most politicians don't or don't want to accept that they are not above those principles.

Bankers were not at fault for the 2007 crisis and they won't be at fault when the next crisis hits (which is inevitable since the last crisis was not resolved but just wrapped in an even larger bubble of public debt). Likewise, fairness of economic distribution had no part in the crisis. But of course, politics managed to make it even worse with their interventionist let's create more money 'solution'.

The Federal Reserve has stopped publishing figures on the money supply years ago. There's are reasons they aren't at least publishing the M3 figure. And it isn't pretty.
[/quote]

Read up what happened in 2007 and why money system in itself should not be a marked as it is now. Banks and their greed, especially the incentives put into the system to individual employees with bonuses up to millions of dollars. Of course it was a combination of things, but the banks themselves played a major role in that.
I agree that the money system is flawed, but that won't be resolved with going back to the gold standard, especially if also connected to productivity.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 1:10 pm

Dutchy wrote:

Read up what happened in 2007


You may dispense with the didactics, I know far better than you can even imagine what happened in 2007. I didn't just read what other people wrote on that topic, I took the time to actually understand the underlying mechanics.

Dutchy wrote:
Banks and their greed


Greed is a natural feature of human nature. To macerate bankers for it is completely pointless. Bankers, like everybody else, can only work with what you give them. The mindless political caste of the 90s gave them a mountain full of subprime loans to work with, and they did the only logical thing which was packaging it with better rated loans to make them more appealing. Then money became too cheap because there was a war to finance and the subprime loan share became unsustainable. It was a perfectly predictable chain of events and there were enough people who saw it coming (contrary to what mainstream media likes to make up). There was just nobody who would listen to them. No banker had the least bit of responsibility for what happened in 2007. To say otherwise is scapegoating in best 1933 fashion.

Dutchy wrote:
I agree that the money system is flawed, but that won't be resolved with going back to the gold standard, especially if also connected to productivity.


Your saying that proves that you don't understand what a fully covered gold standard even is. It is impossible to academically argue against it unless you admit that it is required to keep social security programs afloat. By doing that however, you also admit that those programs can't sustain themselves and rely on robbing the middle class to help the poor (strictly speaking, it also takes from the poor about just as much as it gives them, so it is a net loss to everyone unable to escape the system by being rich enough.

You claim to be socially responsible, but your advocacy of the fiat money system proves you are either a hypocrite or don't know what you are talking about. You see, when the entire money supply is covered by productivity, it automatically rebalances its distribution towards those creating the productivity (as in the working man and woman). Astronomical CEO salaries would become much less feasible.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 1:41 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Read up what happened in 2007


You may dispense with the didactics, I know far better than you can even imagine what happened in 2007. I didn't just read what other people wrote on that topic, I took the time to actually understand the underlying mechanics.


Why do you put all the fault on government, if you say that you fully understand the system which let to the 2007 disaster? Revoking the Glass–Steagall Act was one. The whole system of rating and who paid them is another. CDO's and disconnecting the person whom gave the loan and whom collected them is another. Relaxing all kind of banking regulation (Trump wants to do it again), see the Iceland example. I too got some study time in and took some courses on this.

aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Banks and their greed


Greed is a natural feature of human nature. To macerate bankers for it is completely pointless.

Agreed, it is the system, blaming the bankers is pointless. So change the system.

The most crazy concept we ever came up with, is the concept of public debt, debt to whom? Whom creates money and get to charge interest?

Dutchy wrote:
I agree that the money system is flawed, but that won't be resolved with going back to the gold standard, especially if also connected to productivity.


Your saying that proves that you don't understand what a fully covered gold standard even is. It is impossible to academically argue against it unless you admit that it is required to keep social security programs afloat. By doing that however, you also admit that those programs can't sustain themselves and rely on robbing the middle class to help the poor (strictly speaking, it also takes from the poor about just as much as it gives them, so it is a net loss to everyone unable to escape the system by being rich enough.

You claim to be socially responsible, but your advocacy of the fiat money system proves you are either a hypocrite or don't know what you are talking about. You see, when the entire money supply is covered by productivity, it automatically rebalances its distribution towards those creating the productivity (as in the working man and woman). Astronomical CEO salaries would become much less feasible.[/quote]

Going back to the Gold standard will favor those whom have gold. I favor the greenback system. The greenback system should and could potentially be linked to productivity.

What I don't get is you don't see any immorality with the astronomical CEO salaries (or better the distribution of wealth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM) but on the other hand you seem to favor a system that links productivity to compensation and thus agreeing that the CEO salaries are ridiculous.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 1:51 pm

You do know that a gold standard doesn't mean paying with little golden coins, do you?

I see a huge problem with the wealth distribution, but big CEO salaries are not the root of the problem, they are only symptomatic and regulating them will not solve anything, it will only make our society less free. Getting rid of fiat money would really change how wealth is distributed. That's where we need to go.
 
wingman
Topic Author
Posts: 3070
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 1:55 pm

I have to agree with Dutchy there. The government certainly colluded with the banking sector in that it enabled the latent greed that's always been present there. This kind of crap didn't go down for 70 years under GS and as soon as we repealed it we laid the groundwork for the crisis. Banks once again controlled lending and investment activities under one roof, and we got a second lesson from the consequent tragedy in just 8 short years. And now Repubs want to do it all over again. They're like mice with cocaine, they simply can't help themselves..and neither can the banks. Sure, you can blame borrowers as well and claim "caveat emptor" all day long, but doing so beyond a small measure implies that one doesn't place any value on the implicit trust that should exist between the "governed" and the powerful institutions that are meant to help and protect us. 2007-2009 was an epic collapse of that trust, and it almost ruined us completely.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 2:04 pm

aviationaware wrote:
You do know that a gold standard doesn't mean paying with little golden coins, do you?
duhhhh

aviationaware wrote:
I see a huge problem with the wealth distribution, but big CEO salaries are not the root of the problem, they are only symptomatic and regulating them will not solve anything, it will only make our society less free. Getting rid of fiat money would really change how wealth is distributed. That's where we need to go.


You claim that you study the subject, well enlighten us and show us how getting rid of fiat money and reintroducing the gold standard, will lead to a more acceptable (ethical) wealth distribution, without government interference.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 5:15 pm

Dutchy wrote:
enlighten us and show us how getting rid of fiat money and reintroducing the gold standard, will lead to a more acceptable (ethical) wealth distribution, without government interference.


Nothing easier than that. Hard money has deflationary tendencies. While the corporate media keeps telling you that deflation is worse than inflation, that is only true when you are rich. When you are living from your own work then the exact opposite is true, so a hard money system is better for those people by definition. You can easily see that by looking at how wealth was distributed during the time of the 20th century where there was a (albeit soft, not hard) gold standard - Bretton Woods. The evidence is very conclusive - during Bretton Woods, the lower 90% of the population in the US had 65% of the total income, very consistently over decades from the 40s to the 70s. Both before that and after that (today), it was/is at 50%.

Now imagine a hard gold standard and it will be even better.

The most ethical wealth distribution is always the one determined by a free and unrestrained market. Those opposing this statement are often people who do not understand that they have never known a free and unrestrained market, same as there was never true communism. What we call capitalism today is a corporate welfare society skewed by the elites to benefit themselves. They can only do this because the government has way too much influence over how our society works. That is why people like me want to eliminate most government functions - not because we want the rich to rip off the poor even more. Social security programs don't improve our lives, they make us depend on debt and shackle us to the very system that is causing the wealth inequality. Once you understand this, you have made the first steps into a larger world (although a much unhappier one, because once you realize how easy it would be to fix everything you will be even more furious at the elites for blocking it).
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 5:54 pm

If you want to reform the system, go after fractional reserve banking system, not falling back to the gold standard.

You might be a libetarian, but tell me whatr fuctions do you see for a government?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 6:30 pm

The only legitimate functions of government are to uphold and protect the rights to life, liberty and property; so the entire justice system from police to the courts; the state department (in radically trimmed form); defense & veteran's affairs - also radically trimmed; and homeland security.

The following departments are completely unnecessary:
- Interior (except a select few functions the justice department can take over)
- Treasury
- Agriculture
- Commerce
- Labor
- Health & Human Services (except a scaled down FDA)
- HUD
- Transportation
- Energy
- Education

You can see I am already more generous than many hardcore libertarians.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 9598
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 7:48 pm

aviationaware wrote:
The only legitimate functions of government are to uphold and protect the rights to life, liberty and property; so the entire justice system from police to the courts; the state department (in radically trimmed form); defense & veteran's affairs - also radically trimmed; and homeland security.

The following departments are completely unnecessary:
- Interior (except a select few functions the justice department can take over)
- Treasury
- Agriculture
- Commerce
- Labor
- Health & Human Services (except a scaled down FDA)
- HUD
- Transportation
- Energy
- Education

You can see I am already more generous than many hardcore libertarians.



We might call that a form of Arnachy also.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 7:58 pm

WarRI1 wrote:

We might call that a form of Arnachy also.


Absence of unnecessary administration does not equal absence of laws, so you can hardly call that anarchy.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 8:05 pm

aviationaware wrote:
The only legitimate functions of government are to uphold and protect the rights to life, liberty and property;


What do you feel is the protection of the right of life, or the right to liberty. What exactly, in your view, must the government do to protect the right to life? Or must the government do liberty?

aviationaware wrote:
The following departments are completely unnecessary:
- Interior (except a select few functions the justice department can take over)
- Treasury
- Agriculture
- Commerce
- Labor
- Health & Human Services (except a scaled down FDA)
- HUD
- Transportation
- Energy
- Education

You can see I am already more generous than many hardcore libertarians.


Ok:
1. I don't subscribe to that view
2. So, no role of government for infrastructure, education, healthcare, support in any way for citizens, innovation, environment protection, fundamental research (innovation).
3. Also a "damn all" view
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 8:25 pm

Dutchy wrote:
2. So, no role of government for infrastructure, education, healthcare, support in any way for citizens, innovation, environment protection, fundamental research (innovation).


Exactly. None of these fields need government because the private sector can do all of them better. Innovation for example - provide basic protection in the form or IP laws and leave it there.

Dutchy wrote:
3. Also a "damn all" view


Not at all, how do you get to that conclusion? The people can sort things out for themselves, they don't need a corrupt organization to do that for them (and very inefficiently so).
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 8:43 pm

By far more important, aviationaware:"What do you feel is the protection of the right of life, or the right to liberty. What exactly, in your view, must the government do to protect the right to life? Or must the government do liberty?"

- most big innovations are paid for by governments, not private, much too risky, no business case for that
- government = corrupt, that is your assertion. Inefficient is also your assertion.

What I mean with your "damn all" policy is that you don't care for all your countrymen, just the happy view which you are inclined to help. You can't deny that your policies would mean that even more people will fall through the cracks and even less social mobility than in current American society.
Show us five societies which flourish(ed) with your principles.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Thu May 25, 2017 10:41 pm

Dutchy wrote:
- most big innovations are paid for by governments, not private, much too risky, no business case for that


Name one (recent, WW2 inventions don't count).

Dutchy wrote:
- government = corrupt, that is your assertion. Inefficient is also your assertion.


Those are facts, not assertions.

Dutchy wrote:
You can't deny that your policies would mean that even more people will fall through the cracks and even less social mobility than in current American society.


I do, and vehemently. Money with deflationary tendencies means that as time goes by, income inequality becomes less pronounced (as opposed to in societies like ours with inflationary money, where it becomes more pronounced as everyone can see). This improves social upward mobility. By taking government protection out of the equation, you would also open rich people up to the risk of losing their money, again benefiting the upward mobility of lower income people. And last but not least, removing regulation always makes it easier to start a business - which again, helps upward mobility.
You don't help people by handing out welfare, you help them by enabling them to care for themselves. Those who cannot do that can be taken care of by private philantropy.
Hard money means a drastically more mobile society - which is exactly why the elites are giving their best to make you think hard money is bad. It isn't.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Fri May 26, 2017 6:54 am

aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
- most big innovations are paid for by governments, not private, much too risky, no business case for that


Name one (recent, WW2 inventions don't count).


All major breakthroughs with medicines, the industry just makes the medicine from the inventions done by universities, paid for by the taxpayer. Every fundamental technique within your smartphone. The internet itself. Whoeps, by far more than one, is that also ok?

aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
- government = corrupt, that is your assertion. Inefficient is also your assertion.


Those are facts, not assertions.

Show us the facts, that is in western countries


aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
You can't deny that your policies would mean that even more people will fall through the cracks and even less social mobility than in current American society.


I do, and vehemently. Money with deflationary tendencies means that as time goes by, income inequality becomes less pronounced (as opposed to in societies like ours with inflationary money, where it becomes more pronounced as everyone can see). This improves social upward mobility. By taking government protection out of the equation, you would also open rich people up to the risk of losing their money, again benefiting the upward mobility of lower income people. And last but not least, removing regulation always makes it easier to start a business - which again, helps upward mobility.
You don't help people by handing out welfare, you help them by enabling them to care for themselves. Those who cannot do that can be taken care of by private philantropy.
Hard money means a drastically more mobile society - which is exactly why the elites are giving their best to make you think hard money is bad. It isn't.
[/quote]

"Hard money means a drastically more mobile society" show us how.

Show us examples of all your assertions.

Do you agree that in the US there is less government protection than in Western Europe? Yet there is more social mobility in Europe than in America.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Dutchy and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos