Politics 2017 part 4

[Gfted1]

EVERYONE gets the free money? Even people over a certain salary range?

[Elerond]

EVERYONE gets the free money? Even people over a certain salary range?

 

Yes that is idea behind it, because for rich it just works as delayed small tax cut, there is no point to exclude them, because it is basically system that moves money from rich to lower and middle class people and those that just live in social benefits lose some of their benefits.

[HoonDing]

So Trump suddenly cares about Syrian babies (so many little babies). What happened to America First?

[Gfted1]

Yes that is idea behind it, because for rich it just works as delayed small tax cut, there is no point to exclude them, because it is basically system that moves money from rich to lower and middle class people and those that just live in social benefits lose some of their benefits.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it will have an immediate impact on those that need assistance most by reducing their monthly funds, with the hope of an eventual trickle down process that will raise their general standard of living? Basically, trickle down economics?

[ShadySands]

I like it

[Elerond]

 

Yes that is idea behind it, because for rich it just works as delayed small tax cut, there is no point to exclude them, because it is basically system that moves money from rich to lower and middle class people and those that just live in social benefits lose some of their benefits.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it will have an immediate impact on those that need assistance most by reducing their monthly funds, with the hope of an eventual trickle down process that will raise their general standard of living? Basically, trickle down economics?

 

 

It has some same elements as trickle down economic model, but there is also differences as in it you take money from current benefits system and loaning and pump it to country's economy and then you adjust tax rates in such that you get that money back to give it back in next month and so on. In grande scale it works so that you take money from people with high income and give it to those with moderate income in hopes that it boost general economy by increasing speed in which money circles around. Its major advantages that are seen to it compared to current system is for example if you live now on unemployed benefit or some other social benefit and take job that gives you 400€ in month you will lose part or all of said benefit that you are getting, which is seen in current system as major discouragement to take such work. In basic income system you would just get 400€ extra to your 500-600€ basic income, which would encourage people take such jobs. Of course there is criticism that such system would encourage employers hire more part time workers and cut salaries of current workers. And of course there is probably need to check if level of basic income is enough to live for people who aren't able to work/get job.  An other seen benefit is increase of spending power with those who earn median income or less, which is seen to have high potential to boost general economy.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

You know I would not be opposed to a universal income under a certain condition. Suppose the US decided they are going to pay every American over the age of 18 the equivalent of a full time worker at minimum wage. That would be around $15k per year, $1200 a month give or take. And the US agreed to provide single payer health coverage on all single expenses over say $15k. In other words, need a kidney transplant we'll cover you. Needs stitches? Get out your credit card. And that is it. That is the only two benefits you get from Uncle Sam. No social security, no government guaranteed loans, no food stamps, nothing. What you earn over that you'll be taxed on at the usual rate.

 

Would that be acceptable? Do you guys realize that would be less than we are paying per citizen for all the boondoggles mess we have now? Reason Magazine did a piece on that last year. I'll see if I can find it

It appears this forum can come up with some sort of common ground. I have an idea... we all together try outline how "our" state would look like. The thread would be a bloody mess, but I'd be interested to see water we can come up with something

Well, you lost me altogether when you mentioned nationalizing big businesses and banks. You do realize a business or a bank belongs to someone right? Often many someones. By nationalizing it you are taking it away from whomever owns it at gunpoint. It would be no different if armed police kicked in your door and said "this is our house now. Get out". If you nationalized GM for example what do you think would happen to all the folks whose retirement funds were heavily invested in GM? Citizens of a free country should not live in fear the government will take their property away from them.

 

Which of course brings up other topics like Civil Asset Forfeiture, Imminent Domain, etc. You all know how I feel about that already.

I realise we have very different views. Which is the exact reason I am proposing this. Anything else would be boring, don't you think?

[Hurlshort]

Is this anything like the Bush Stimulus plan?

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Well, you lost me altogether when you mentioned nationalizing big businesses and banks. You do realize a business or a bank belongs to someone right? Often many someones. By nationalizing it you are taking it away from whomever owns it at gunpoint.

 

In one sense many of the big businesses are already practically nationalised and the situation is similar to taxpayers being a guarantor on their mortgage without having a share of the title deed- too big to fail/ privatise profits and socialise losses etc. I know you don't agree with that sort of set up either, but practically that is what the situation is and there have been no real attempts to stop it from happening again. The taxpayer effectively has ownership obligations without the ownership benefits.

 

You also can nationalise without doing so at gunpoint, indeed that was exactly what happened to multiple companies in multiple countries around 2008 (partly including GM, iirc). If the alternative is the company literally going bankrupt then the government buying out stock is an advantage to the shareholder, not a disadvantage, since without the government their stock would be near worthless.

[Elerond]

Is this anything like the Bush Stimulus plan?

 

It does not cut taxes (as in my understanding Bush plan was to cut taxes from first 6000 dollars earned) but it instead gives people about 6000 euros as basic income, which don't change regardless of your other incomes, which means that in some case effective tax rate can go negative (you pay less taxes for your income than you get form government). Also in it effectively more you earn less you get, because your tax rate is higher so you give higher proportion of that extra income back to government (as we have tiered income tax, where rich have higher tax rates than poor). Also it is meant to remove current social benefit systems and replace them with one in order to make benefit system as general simpler and need less paper work.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Well, you lost me altogether when you mentioned nationalizing big businesses and banks. You do realize a business or a bank belongs to someone right? Often many someones. By nationalizing it you are taking it away from whomever owns it at gunpoint.

 

In one sense many of the big businesses are already practically nationalised and the situation is similar to taxpayers being a guarantor on their mortgage without having a share of the title deed- too big to fail/ privatise profits and socialise losses etc. I know you don't agree with that sort of set up either, but practically that is what the situation is and there have been no real attempts to stop it from happening again. The taxpayer effectively has ownership obligations without the ownership benefits.

 

You also can nationalise without doing so at gunpoint, indeed that was exactly what happened to multiple companies in multiple countries around 2008 (partly including GM, iirc). If the alternative is the company literally going bankrupt then the government buying out stock is an advantage to the shareholder, not a disadvantage, since without the government their stock would be near worthless.

 

 

That isn't exactly how it happened. GM's Bondholders did get screwed and were forced (yes forced) by the Government to accept $0.10 on the dollar for their holdings. And the truth is GM SHOULD have been allowed to fail. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy could have hurt not doubt but all of the assets would have been sold or taken by bondholders. A half dozen new companies would have sprang from those assets and in the long term everyone would have been better off. The short term would have sucked. But that story has yet to have it's final chapter written. All they did was kick the can down the road 20 years. GM has not changed their business model.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7444740

https://www.cato.org/blog/truth-about-gm-chrysler-bailouts 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502135.html

[Hurlshort]

Ok, so Twitter is suing the government.

 

This seems like a pretty blatant violation of our civil liberties. I'm sure the government will counter by saying the users were violating national security by leaking inside information, but that seems like a very slippery slope.

[Bartimaeus]

Our government has had such a good track record against whistle-blowers (and similar characters) over the last few administrations, though...

[Katphood]

Syria war: US launches missile strikes following chemical 'attack' BBC News

[Malcador]

So, I guess this is war with Syria then ?

[Katphood]

Probably, since Russia have already pi**ed themselves and I doubt the Iranian Regime would bother to get themselves into more trouble because of a few dead grunts.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Katphood

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

On the 100th anniversary of ths US entry into WW1 as well.

[Malcador]

Trump's speech is like something out of C&C

[Katphood]

Trump's speech is like something out of C&C

 

"Babies, little babies"

 

*shows the average size of a "little baby" using his hands*

 

"Not the ones me and Barrack Obama killed with drones....but the other ones who got gassed by the rebels and baby snatchers senator Mccain payed a visit to(as if he was paying his own cousins a visit)"

 

 

If there is a savior it better show up right now, I'm not religious but I would take the first ticket out of this hell we are living in.

[Volourn]

I don't get what Syria (if they atcually did do this) were hoping to accomplish with the chemical attack. It just seems illogical in every way.

[HoonDing]

Lock him up.

[Zoraptor]

 

That isn't exactly how it happened. GM's Bondholders did get screwed and were forced (yes forced) by the Government to accept $0.10 on the dollar for their holdings. And the truth is GM SHOULD have been allowed to fail. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy could have hurt not doubt but all of the assets would have been sold or taken by bondholders. A half dozen new companies would have sprang from those assets and in the long term everyone would have been better off. The short term would have sucked. But that story has yet to have it's final chapter written. All they did was kick the can down the road 20 years. GM has not changed their business model.

 

Yeah, I remembered that you disagree with it at the time and I'd normally agree with your objections and do on a philosophical level, but I don't really see an alternative especially in retrospect.

 

The bondholders would have got basically nothing if GM had folded- their assets were effectively worthless even with the atypically generous US bankruptcy provisions as their financial arm was laden with bad debt and obligations, and their core business had huge oversupply/ wrong vehicle supply issues compounded by the difficulty of their potential customers getting credit to buy their product. You're not going to get much, potentially nothing at all, for their factories when there's a car glut and few people able to buy and you'd obliterate the value of the GM marque at a stroke since there would be no certainly about things like warrantees. They needed, effectively, a blank cheque while they got their house in order- and the general economic chaos was somewhat brought under control- and there was only one entity able to give them that.

 

I wouldn't shed many tears for the banking/ financial institution side bondholders who held a large majority of GM's debt. While they lost a lot of money, in theory, they were (and still were up until fairly recently) able to borrow money at literally 0% interest from the government themselves. That rather cushions the blow. Little guys got screwed, of course, but such is life.

 

In a purely theoretical situation I'd have let them fail as well, in the practical situation though a GM folding would have also destroyed all their independent suppliers, an AIG folding would have screwed all the people covered by their policies, another bank failing would have screwed yet more banks etc. As such I can't really criticise the approach taken at the time. They just should have used the opportunity and leverage to make sure that it couldn't happen again, which they've singularly failed to do.

[Agiel]

Given that the Russians were given some warning of the attack, I wouldn't be surprised if Putin thought the solution was something straight out of that movie Fail Safe:

 

"Welp, you done 'effed up Assad, so you'll have to take this one on the chin."

Edited April 7, 2017 by Agiel

[Ben No.3]

I don't get what Syria (if they atcually did do this) were hoping to accomplish with the chemical attack. It just seems illogical in every way.

The city they attacked was under rebel control

[Hildegard]

 

I don't get what Syria (if they atcually did do this) were hoping to accomplish with the chemical attack. It just seems illogical in every way.

The city they attacked was under rebel control

 

 

Chemical weapons in Syria are in a way all over the place. There were a number of warehouses that were ransacked. Syrian government and some opposition forces have them. What proof do we have that actually the Syrian government was behind this attack other than it happened in a city under rebel control?

 

With this attack by the US any rebel forces can use simple logic: use chemical weapons on civilians > media will automatically blame Assad > the US will attack our enemy Assad.