Politics

[IdaRam]

Hi John,
Because this seemed to start as a misunderstanding between you and I, I feel compelled to try to help bring some clarity and resolution so that perhaps we can all move on?
The following is offered in a polite and courteous way. I say that in an effort to set the tone and make clear at the outset that no matter how this may be read, my hope is that none of the following is meant in an impolite or disrespectful manner.
This issue might be a perfect example of how written words can make communication much more tricky than when communicating verbally. Facial expressions, tone, inflection, etc are missing. Not to mention everyone writes in a bit of a different style and comprehends written communication differently than verbal communication.

One thing we all must keep in mind here is that this is very much an international forum. We have members from all over the globe. Our perspectives are very diverse and our view of “politics” especially is invariably shaped by the environment in which we exist. Many folks from countries such as Germany, Australia, Spain, Russia, Iceland, etc, etc, etc may have a very different view of the USA as what you and I do.
They are also free to express their points of view. And while at times it may anger and frustrate us to hear some of their views, it is also a chance for learning and understanding, as well as possibly offering a different perspective and changing someone’s opinion if it is negative.
My point is, there are just as many folks who are not American here as there are members from the U.S. The founder of AH is Namibian. Super Moderator @BRICKBURN is Canadian. Us Americans are guests here just like everyone else.

This little dust up began with you quoting a post of mine in such a way that I thought you were calling me out for my stance on an issue and throwing in the towel on your membership. Hell, I thought you were hacking on the USA not agreeing with me. I now know you were agreeing with me, but it sure didn’t come across that way initially.
Additionally, I would like to point out that this exchange took place on Friday and the last post I see relating to it was on Saturday, yet you mention you come back a few days later and it is still going on. No, several people posted the following day, Saturday, there just hasn’t been much posted since Saturday so it appears it’s still going on. Check the dates. Just as yourself, people go away for a day or two and then discover posts a day or two later which they have a comment on.
I offer this as what appears to be another mis-perception.

You categorized some of the replies as hate mail. I don’t think that is accurate. I think folks in general, not just myself, are having a hard time relating to and understanding you. No one is sending you hate mail.

I think if you go back with a fresh set of eyes and a perspective of trying to understand what happened here and what folks are saying, it may make some sense.
There is a saying: “Seek to understand before being understood”.
Without exception, every person who has posted on this line of discussion is a reasonable individual and regularly do, in fact, seek to understand.

I politely and respectfully ask you to consider what I’ve written here, read through the posts again and come back with a fresh approach.
Than you
Dan

 

[nztimb]

Excellent Dan. Your perspective is the epitome of good internet understanding, not to mention good manners and advise written to those who have difficulty in this area.

 

[Royal27]

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ent-trump-outwitting-global-control-officers/

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[Hogpatrol]

• 
  Finally! Obamacare fully explained in a way the average person can understand...
  
  Only weeks after leaving office on January 20, 2017, former president Barack Hussein Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come out and fix it. Joe drives to Obama's new house, which is located in a very exclusive, gated community near Chicago where all the residents have a net income of more than $250,000 per year.
  
  Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the guest bathroom that contains the leaky pipe under the sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama that it's an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes. Obama asks Joe how much it will cost. Joe checks his rate chart and says, "$9,500."
  
  "What?! $9,500?" Obama asks, stunned, "But you said it's an easy repair Michelle will whip me if I pay a plumber that much!"
  
  Joe says, "Yes, but what I do is charge those who make $250,000 per year a much higher amount so I can fix the plumbing of poorer people for free," explains Joe."This has always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied the Democratic Congress, who passed this philosophy into law. Now all plumbers must do business this way. It's known as 'Affordable Plumbing Act of 2014 ' I'm surprised you haven't heard of it."
  
  In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there's no way he's paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book calling for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses in the area have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe's price, Obama does nothing and the leak goes unrepaired for several more days. A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. Michelle is not happy as she has Oprah and guests arriving the next morning. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour and there's a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return.
  
  Joe goes back to Obama's house, looks at the leaky pipe, checks his new rate chart and says, "Let's see, this will now cost you $21,000."
  
  Obama quickly fires back, "What! A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!"
  
  Joe explains, "Well, because of the 'Affordable Plumbing Act ,' a lot of wealthier people are learning how to maintain and take care of their own plumbing, so there are fewer payers into the plumbing exchanges. As a result, the price I have to charge wealthy people like you keeps rising. Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work by those who get it for free has skyrocketed! There's a long waiting list of those who need repairs but the amount we get doesn't cover our costs. This unfortunately has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, they're not being replaced, and nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they can't make any money at it. I'm hurting, too, all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won't pay their fair share."

 

[sgt_zim]

butbutbutbutbut....that's dIIIIIfrent.

 

[tigris115]

I'm gonna sound like a total tankie but the reason I believe that living comfortably and not having to fear death from diseases, exposure, starvation, etc. is a human right. Now instead of having the government provide everything, the government will make the rules much more explicit, easy to understand, and get rid of loopholes so you don't have 700 dollar insulin vials or landlords suddenly hiking up rent.

I also feel that taxes and tax use need to be made more efficient so you can do more for less. Also I don't think anyone will mourn if we tax the truly gargantuan companies as long as the private individual is left alone as they aren't part of the problem.

In terms of my basic policies, I have 3: Care for the needs and freedoms of the citizenry, secure the environment for future generations and ourselves, and optimize the crap out of as many systems as you can as a true democracy needs to run efficiently for the benefit of the populace and not mega-corps using politicians as puppets.

 

[LivingTheDream]

You cant really tax corporations since they just pass that cost onto consumers. Either way the tax payer will pay more one way or another.

 

[Newboomer]

Taxes were what drove businesses overseas and partly caused the mess we're in today. Can't really blame them, though. Like all businesses they're looking at the bottom line and don't really care about customers. Cheap labor, less regulation, loopholes to exploit saves mega bucks. That leaves the rest of us to make up the difference and with all the deadbeats, welfare types and illegals it really puts a strain on things.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Warren says medicare for all is going to be paid for by higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. Where does she think the higher taxes paid by corporations are going to come from. How this woman got where she's at is clear to me. She's done the same thing she accuses others of doing, gamed the system.

 

[sgt_zim]

I'm gonna sound like a total tankie but the reason I believe that living comfortably and not having to fear death from diseases, exposure, starvation, etc. is a human right.

It isn't a right if somebody else is FORCED to pay for it.

Now instead of having the government provide everything, the government will make the rules much more explicit, easy to understand, and get rid of loopholes so you don't have 700 dollar insulin vials or landlords suddenly hiking up rent.

We are in the pickle we're in precisely because of the "precision" of regulations (explicit rules). More rules will not make things better, more rules will make things worse. More rules is just doubling down on something that has already demonstrably failed to contain costs. In fact, costs have risen because of them. The number of doctors relative to the general population has basically been steady for the last 3 or 4 decades. However, there has been an absolute explosion in the number of medical "administrators" of one stripe or another, positions created to deal with all of the rules.

I also feel that taxes and tax use need to be made more efficient so you can do more for less. Also I don't think anyone will mourn if we tax the truly gargantuan companies as long as the private individual is left alone as they aren't part of the problem.

They've been "fixing" the US income tax code since 1913. Today, Title 26 USC is north of 70,000 pages. As others have pointed out (slightly differently), companies do not ever "pay" taxes of any sort, they only remit taxes. Businesses have 2 columns in their ledger books: income and expenses. In order for any business to simply break even, 100% of their expenses must be covered by their customers. In order to make a profit, 100% of the expenses still have to be covered by their customers, plus the business earns more for their trouble.

But let's play ball for a minute. Let's take "gargantuan" Exxon Mobile. They make around $1 billion annually in profits. But they generally have somewhere around $10 billion in annual OpEx and CapEx combined. This means if they don't earn at least $10 billion in income annually, they lose money. Now, 8-9% ROI is a pretty good annual return, but at the end of the day, it's still just 8-9%, albeit of a very large investment.

In terms of my basic policies, I have 3: Care for the needs and freedoms of the citizenry, secure the environment for future generations and ourselves, and optimize the crap out of as many systems as you can as a true democracy needs to run efficiently for the benefit of the populace and not mega-corps using politicians as puppets.

Here's a thought. If you want to care for the needs of the citizenry, then take care of them yourself - you don't need to force me into doing it in order to do it yourself. You have no moral authority to force me into it, though you (and those who believe as you do) clearly have the power to do so. That exercise of power over me erodes my freedoms. So you must decide, take care of people's needs, or support liberty. You cannot support both - that would be a contradiction.

 

[tigris115]

It isn't a right if somebody else is FORCED to pay for it.



We are in the pickle we're in precisely because of the "precision" of regulations (explicit rules). More rules will not make things better, more rules will make things worse. More rules is just doubling down on something that has already demonstrably failed to contain costs. In fact, costs have risen because of them. The number of doctors relative to the general population has basically been steady for the last 3 or 4 decades. However, there has been an absolute explosion in the number of medical "administrators" of one stripe or another, positions created to deal with all of the rules.



They've been "fixing" the US income tax code since 1913. Today, Title 26 USC is north of 70,000 pages. As others have pointed out (slightly differently), companies do not ever "pay" taxes of any sort, they only remit taxes. Businesses have 2 columns in their ledger books: income and expenses. In order for any business to simply break even, 100% of their expenses must be covered by their customers. In order to make a profit, 100% of the expenses still have to be covered by their customers, plus the business earns more for their trouble.

But let's play ball for a minute. Let's take "gargantuan" Exxon Mobile. They make around $1 billion annually in profits. But they generally have somewhere around $10 billion in annual OpEx and CapEx combined. This means if they don't earn at least $10 billion in income annually, they lose money. Now, 8-9% ROI is a pretty good annual return, but at the end of the day, it's still just 8-9%, albeit of a very large investment.




Here's a thought. If you want to care for the needs of the citizenry, then take care of them yourself - you don't need to force me into doing it in order to do it yourself. You have no moral authority to force me into it, though you (and those who believe as you do) clearly have the power to do so. That exercise of power over me erodes my freedoms. So you must decide, take care of people's needs, or support liberty. You cannot support both - that would be a contradiction.

I get it. I'm a libtard commie autistic retard and I know never to talk here again. I just want to try and find situations that work for people without screwing America over even further.

 

[Brent in Az]

Warren says medicare for all is going to be paid for by higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. Where does she think the higher taxes paid by corporations are going to come from. How this woman got where she's at is clear to me. She's done the same thing she accuses others of doing, gamed the system.

She wants to tax wealthy individuals, and Corporations. The very people who donate large sums of money to political campaigns, and the DNC.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[tigris115]

I feel naive about many things as tbh, I just want what's best for the people around me. I know that I can't just throw money at problems but I just want to find a decent compromise

 

[Hank2211]

I feel naive about many things as tbh, I just want what's best for the people around me. I know that I can't just throw money at problems but I just want to find a decent compromise

tigris115, you are right about one thing. This thread does seem to bring forth some "extreme" views. But candidly, none so extreme as your last post, which I assume has been edited by one of our moderate moderators since it popped up in my mailbox, since I can no longer see it.

I like to think of myself as fairly middle of the road, at least by US standards. No ideological litmus tests, just what I think makes sense. Yet my views often elicit extreme responses from people on both ends of the spectrum because I sometimes don't conform to what either sides thinks of as orthodoxy For example, I believe in the sanctity of human life. Hence, I am against both abortion and capital punishment. (That, for what it's worth, includes sending people to the bottom of the ocean, as you seemed to suggest.) I seem to piss off both sides in these cases. Oh well. I'm used to it, and it doesn't get under my skin.

When those who are self-proclaimed moderates take extreme stands, as you took, and then complain that people seem to be unwelcoming, well, you're probably right. They are unwelcoming. Your language was as immoderate as any I have seen on this particular thread, and more than almost all.

There is nothing so annoying as a sanctimonious preacher of tolerance who tolerates anything and everything except views which differ from his or her own.

 

[tigris115]

Yea my big motto is never to be preachy. That message that I edited was more a display of great anger and bitterness on my part as 2 of my worst personality flaws: Acting before thinking and not moderating myself emotionally. I'm better than I was in k-12 but I'm still a work in progress.

tigris115, you are right about one thing. This thread does seem to bring forth some "extreme" views. But candidly, none so extreme as your last post, which I assume has been edited by one of our moderate moderators since it popped up in my mailbox, since I can no longer see it.

I like to think of myself as fairly middle of the road, at least by US standards. No ideological litmus tests, just what I think makes sense. Yet my views often elicit extreme responses from people on both ends of the spectrum because I sometimes don't conform to what either sides thinks of as orthodoxy For example, I believe in the sanctity of human life. Hence, I am against both abortion and capital punishment. (That, for what it's worth, includes sending people to the bottom of the ocean, as you seemed to suggest.) I seem to piss off both sides in these cases. Oh well. I'm used to it, and it doesn't get under my skin.

When those who are self-proclaimed moderates take extreme stands, as you took, and then complain that people seem to be unwelcoming, well, you're probably right. They are unwelcoming. Your language was as immoderate as any I have seen on this particular thread, and more than almost all.

There is nothing so annoying as a sanctimonious preacher of tolerance who tolerates anything and everything except views which differ from his or her own.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I get it. I'm a libtard commie autistic retard and I know never to talk here again. I just want to try and find situations that work for people without screwing America over even further.

I dont think anyone was saying that. It was really a logically discussion regarding the economics of taxes, and who ultimately pays. In my honest opinion, there is no way to raise any tax that doesnt somehow come back and impact the middle class.

For what it is worth I appreciate people having a different view then myself, it keeps me on my toes and somewhat grounded. Part of the issue I think with politics today, is there is some much information and with the targeted nature of data, that people get in an echo chamber and cant believe there are those that exist with different priorities and view points.

Which is why there are so many meltdowns by people today, everything they read and everybody they talk to think like them, so when shit doesnt go their way, we revert back to basic instincts.

 

[tigris115]

I think it's more that people take things personally. Also the bad stuff I said earlier was me letting out steam from an argument which is wildly inappropriate even for the internet.

I dont think anyone was saying that. It was really a logically discussion regarding the economics of taxes, and who ultimately pays. In my honest opinion, there is no way to raise any tax that doesnt somehow come back and impact the middle class.

For what it is worth I appreciate people having a different view then myself, it keeps me on my toes and somewhat grounded. Part of the issue I think with politics today, is there is some much information and with the targeted nature of data, that people get in an echo chamber and cant believe there are those that exist with different priorities and view points.

Which is why there are so many meltdowns by people today, everything they read and everybody they talk to think like them, so when shit doesnt go their way, we revert back to basic instincts.

 

[sgt_zim]

@tigris115 - I didn't take it personally, still don't. As @LivingTheDream pointed out, it was a logical take-down of an irrational position, irrational positions I held 30 years ago my own self.

You and I both want what's best, of that I have no doubt. There is clearly a wide variance on what we each believe the path to "best" is.

In the intervening years, I have read Bastiat and Hazlitt and von Mises and Hayek and Rand and Pugsley and a boat-load of others. It is a difficult thing to read through their books and still maintain the views I held back then, because I was forced to confront the myriad contradictions in my views. Contradictions cannot exist: A = A.

A and !A cannot both simultaneously be true.