the debt ceiling (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

So red states do a better job of positioning themselves to receive federal program money? I'm glad to hear that.
Furthermore, the author of that webpage confuses incoming money with dependency.

That's kind of like saying I'm dependent on the federal government because I get a tax return.

It's our money to begin with, and we generally like power to be put right back into the States' hands, so this makes sense.

Now INCREASE that to where the States receive 99% of the "federal governments" (really our) money and I'll be happy.

 

[conception_native_0123]

I wonder what political agenda the author of that article had in mind

 

[moke123]

It's our money to begin with, and we generally like power to be put right back into the States' hands, so this makes sense.

Is it your money or someone elses?

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

And is that even the correct way to frame the question?

www.theatlantic.com

 

[conception_native_0123]

Delaware is last on that list. What a coincidence considering that there is no corporate tax in Delaware

 

[moke123]

Delaware is last on that list. What a coincidence considering that there is no corporate tax in Delaware

Delaware does have a state-imposed corporate income tax, Delaware-incorporated businesses do not have to pay these taxes if they do not conduct business in the state

 

[conception_native_0123]

Is Delaware the only state that works that way? My point was that a lot of corporations incorporate in Delaware for that very reason

 

[Pat Hartman]

Probably what irks me even more than the idea of our nation living on borrowed money is the simple reality of "one person paying for another person's stuff", which contradicts a lot of principles that I personally hold dear to the basis for a reasonably free people.

What the government calls charity, I call theft. When you take money from me to give to someone you think is more worthy, that is theft, plain and simple. When I choose who to support with my extra money, that is charity. The government has killed much of the actual charity that used to exist here.

n Australia, the government subsidises childcare to the tune on billions

No government has money of its own. Any money a government has is other people's money. Meaning yours and mine. Or, money they printed out of thin air which becomes a silent tax as it raises the price of goods through inflation. All money that the government has comes from taxes and fees and a printing press. A government earns nothing. It makes nothing, It only takes. That is why it is so important for the government to be as small as possible and do only the things that the people cannot do for themselves such as make treaties with foreign nations and protect the borders from invaders like the Hattians. I don't care how nice they are as individuals, they are all criminals when they violate our immigration laws to cross the boarder illegally. It makes me sorry that I donated so much money to charities in 2010 after the earthquake. The charities got rich and the Hattians got screwed.

The other really bad thing about government "help" is that once the government gets involved, the price goes up. Childcare would be cheaper in Australia without government "help". Our government has pretty much ruined colleges with their subsidized loan programs. It makes absolutely no sense to loan people large amounts of money to study things that are not going to help them to make a living and pay back what they owe. If you want to study basket weaving, do it on your own nickel, not mine. Spain seems to have a good system for how the government decides who to support. People are actually tested. What a concept! Testing for aptitude to see if you have some chance of succeeding? Who would ever think that was a good idea?

Keep in mind that the Democrats hold the House, the Senate, and the Presidency so if they want to raise the debt ceiling, they can do it all by themselves so the Republicans can stand firm and watch it happen but not participate in the joke.

 

[Isaac]

People are actually tested. What a concept! Testing for aptitude to see if you have some chance of succeeding? Who would ever think that was a good idea?

Wilfred Reilly argues, in his book Taboo, that it makes practical sense to go back to more means testing or IQ testing for immigration purposes.
Immigration for individuals that aren't likely to succeed on their own makes NO sense at all. IQ testing is actually the fairer of the two, it allows for people who may be poor now, but probably won't be for long, because they demonstrate the capability of pushing forward on their own.

Trump's Public Charge emphasis was completely sensible.

 

[HillTJ]

@Pat , In Australia we have a form of income tax called a "Medicare" levy, the tax department avoids associating the word "tax" with this. It used to be 3.0 % of your income ontop of "tax".

Additionally, a surcharge is imposed on all incomes above a certain threashold, the motivation being to encourage individuals to to take out private health insurance and in such instance, the private health insurance became tax deductable to the amount of the levy, if that made sense.

So, people were (and still) take out minimal private health insuranc to avoid paying additional tax, but use the public system because their private health insurance they have does not cover their requirements!. This is an evolving game.

A few years ago, they increased the "levy" by 0.5% to fund a "disability insurance scheme". They sold it to the public as "....being only 0.5% of your income....". But 0.5/3.0 is 16% increase! . I suggest many taxpayers did not figure this.

Theft?, you bet.

Now when i get door to door fundraisers, i say i have no more charity money to give as i've already given to a charity selected by the Govermnment for me! They usually look at me dumbfounded. I'm sure most people are unaware of the insidious theft.

 

[HillTJ]

@Isaac , you're post #48, makes total sense, but in the real world there are a plethora of University trained 'do gooders' and legal opportunists that make their careers out of fighting this kind of ideolgy.

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac , you're post #48, makes total sense, but in the real world there are a plethora of University trained 'do gooders' and legal opportunists that make their careers out of fighting this kind of ideolgy.

So true.

If everyone in my country could be presented with the below two facts, and actually connect them in their minds, the Democrats game would be laid bare. And all the liberals would no longer be able to fool people by claiming that Tucker Carlson's "replacement" theories are just racist nonsense.

• tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are being taken by the Biden administration and released into the US interior, with nothing more than the promise of a court date
• liberal states, i.e. CA specifically, are already beginning to pass laws to actually allow people in the country illegally to vote in local elections as well as hold positions of elected authority - in school districts, to begin with.

This is why the liberals savagely loathe the existence of people like Tucker. Like his style or not, he brings things to light that the vast majority of people who only follow other media networks...simply don't know, and if they did, they might change their tune.

I'm not saying he never includes an exaggeration or speculation, but he also brings a lot of terrible facts to light.
Plus, speculation is not all bad - I mean, that's the definition of what we all do to evaluate what is happening around us. "What will this really mean for us, where is this leading?"

And that's just one thing on the list of a couple dozen that liberals are doing to try hard to destroy our country as we know it. They very well may succeed

 

[conception_native_0123]

They very well may succeed

i seriously doubt that. there will always be republicans to pick up the pieces and get things going again. I've got a friend in Argentina that says the liberal media is lying the world over about their leader, and he's a conservative. that country, he said, was helmed by left wing socialists for the last 30 years and now they're trying something new. so they're on the right track. perhaps they realized that socialism isn't all it's cracked up to be...

 

[HillTJ]

I'm not sure of the meaning of "Democracy". We have elected senators whom make decisions on our behalf. Recently our state govt debated the introduction of a 'euthanasia bill'. The bill was passed, but appeared to be based upon the senators personal experiences. There was a lot of tears & emotional speaches in parliament during that period.

Interestingly, the australian population was also participating in a mandatory online census, which we do every 4 years.

If it's ok to do a census in this manner, then why can we not vote online on issues instead of having senators vote on our behalf?

 

[Isaac]

That's a good point. At least in my country's folklore, supposedly, the reason given has to do with wanting to temper or diminish the phenomenon of drastic and misguided temporary shift of public opinion.

I can kind of see it, not sure how good it's working.

Some states in the USA get around that by doing tons of what they call Propositions, which are precisely what you describe in your last sentence.
For some reason, that's how most of the marijuana legalization has occurred here. Which might be an example of it not working so well, depending on perspective.

 

[Steve R.]

Mark Levin exposes Democrats' reckless schemes, lies amid spending bill push | Fox News Video

'Life, Liberty & Levin' host tells 'Hannity' that Democrats are trying to 'draw all concentration of power' from the American public to D.C.

video.foxnews.com

Note what Levin begins to say at about the 1:30 minute mark concerning the debt service.

I also will reiterate that the debt ceiling is a known constraint, so these last minute hysterical theatrics are nothing but manufactured outrage for political manipulation. Think about it, if all these Congress people were actually concerned about our ability to pay our bills they would solve this in advance, not at the last possible moment. Congress, should be proactively acting in a responsible manner to propose a federal budget where the debt ceiling would not be broken.

Unfortunately, (as an associated negative) it seems that the very concept of developing and working within the constraints of a defined federal budget seems to have died with the Obama administration.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Just FYI, looks like natural gas prices this winter will be double what they were last year. Thanks Papa Joe. This winter, he elderly will be deciding whether to freeze to death or to eat. The decision used to be whether to eat or buy their medication but the Democrats "fixed" the prescription drug prices, right?

 

[NauticalGent]

Just FYI, looks like natural gas prices this winter will be double what they were last year. Thanks Papa Joe. This winter, he elderly will be deciding whether to freeze to death or to eat. The decision used to be whether to eat or buy their medication but the Democrats "fixed" the prescription drug prices, right?

Hey Pat, where did you get this info...wondering if LPG is going the same way?

 

[Pat Hartman]

It was on the radio this morning. Natural gas has gone from $2 and change to $5 and change per whatever UOM they sell by.

 

[Isaac]

the debt ceiling is a known constraint, so these last minute hysterical theatrics are nothing but manufactured outrage for political manipulation. Think about it, if all these Congress people were actually concerned about our ability to pay our bills they would solve this in advance, not at the last possible moment.

EXACTLY. Which shows the Democrats were just being manipulative b**s**ds and that's about it
Going back to my initial reply on this thread about the family spender and his strategy to "force" more debt.

 

[Pat Hartman]

This whole budgeting thing is bull. Trump played chicken with the Dems but sadly folded and Nancy won every single year. He never got the best of her. Paul Ryan screwed him too. Ryan was/is one worthless piece of dog dodo.

I'm not sure who decided that laid off government workers should just stay home and collect their full pay latter needs to be shot at sunrise. It would be far better if the members of Congress and their staffs stopped receiving a check until the budget balanced. Then we might see some action.