Where do you cut the Budget?


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 127 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Mike Franke wrote:

Hey wait surely our economy will grow us out of this problem. Remember after WWII our economy grew so fast that economic growth and inflation made the debt run up in the depression and war insignificant. That will happen again right?

We don't have the situation we did after WW2 where pratically every significant economic competitior to the U.S. was lying in ruins. It wasn't the war that boosted the economy, it was the fact that the United States was the only major participant not to suffer any significant infrastructure damage on it's native soil.


LazarX wrote:
Krensky wrote:


Only 12% of our oil imports (not use since we export most of it back out as gasoline and other refined products) comes from the persian gulf. We get more from Canada (15%) and Latin America (20%).

I realise railing against US Imperialism is hip and all, but check your facts before ranting about the big bad US and it's sinister motives.

12 percent may not be much to you, but I remember back in the days when we lost 7 percent of our supply because of the Arab oil embargo.

An embargo of twice that amount would be a disaster economically speaking.

woooow.....

You're OLD! :)


Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:


What do you mean "like s++!" You mean three meals a day, plenty of exercise, access to computers and the internet, a librabry, cable tv and free health care! CA spends something like $70,000.00 a year on each inmate. I think there is probably some trimming that could be done.

Unfortunately, we could cut the entire prison budget and the entire law enforecement budget and it would not affect our long term budget problems one bit.

This is one of my pet peeves too, when I see the homeless and the elderly living in worse conditions than criminals. I'm not saying turn off the heating and power to the prisons and stop feeding them, but I am saying they certainly shouldn't be as high on the budget priority as the people that haven't actually committed a crime.
Sadly some think it is still too barbaric, they are not giving enough to criminals and anything resembling actual punishment would be inhuman.
Prisons should be a method of isolating the irredemable from society and redeeming the redeemable. Punishment should never factor into it.
The hell it shouldn't. of course many of them should be kicking at the end of a rope

It's this sort of bloodthirsty attitude that really turns me off to capital punishment and I'm not even against it.


Not really sure where to put this, but this seems to be the politroll thread de jour:

Link

I have no idea who this Britishiznoid comedian is, but, boy, does this argument sound familiar...


Moro wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Moro wrote:
Outlaw compound interest, convert all debt holdings to a flat rate of profit (at a sane level) for the holder of the debt. Watch as the economy explodes with activity, and your citizens become freed from debt-slavery.

I don't even know what that means.

Or why it would work.

It would mean that when someone purchases a house, or a vehicle, instead of the actual repayment resulting in an amount that ends up being 75-80% (or more) profit for the lender, there would be a flat interest repayment agreed upon at the beginning of the loan.

When a bank lends $150,000 to someone and then expects the debtor to pay back $225,000-$285,000 over 15 or 30 years, or face the consequences, it's called a mortgage.

When Vinnie down in Queens loans someone $2000 and expects to be paid back $3000 in 90 days, it's called usury.

Outlaw compound interest across the board, and see what happens. There are cultures that already do this, and they tend to have more stable economies, and happier citizens living longer lifespans.

Yes. Iran, for example? Saudi arabia? Syria?


Sissyl wrote:
Moro wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Moro wrote:
Outlaw compound interest, convert all debt holdings to a flat rate of profit (at a sane level) for the holder of the debt. Watch as the economy explodes with activity, and your citizens become freed from debt-slavery.

I don't even know what that means.

Or why it would work.

It would mean that when someone purchases a house, or a vehicle, instead of the actual repayment resulting in an amount that ends up being 75-80% (or more) profit for the lender, there would be a flat interest repayment agreed upon at the beginning of the loan.

When a bank lends $150,000 to someone and then expects the debtor to pay back $225,000-$285,000 over 15 or 30 years, or face the consequences, it's called a mortgage.

When Vinnie down in Queens loans someone $2000 and expects to be paid back $3000 in 90 days, it's called usury.

Outlaw compound interest across the board, and see what happens. There are cultures that already do this, and they tend to have more stable economies, and happier citizens living longer lifespans.

Yes. Iran, for example? Saudi arabia? Syria?

I'm not a fan of fat tony wanting his money legally, but I'm not a fan of living in those countries either. There should be another choice.


Moro wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Moro wrote:
Outlaw compound interest, convert all debt holdings to a flat rate of profit (at a sane level) for the holder of the debt. Watch as the economy explodes with activity, and your citizens become freed from debt-slavery.

I don't even know what that means.

Or why it would work.

It would mean that when someone purchases a house, or a vehicle, instead of the actual repayment resulting in an amount that ends up being 75-80% (or more) profit for the lender, there would be a flat interest repayment agreed upon at the beginning of the loan.

When a bank lends $150,000 to someone and then expects the debtor to pay back $225,000-$285,000 over 15 or 30 years, or face the consequences, it's called a mortgage.

When Vinnie down in Queens loans someone $2000 and expects to be paid back $3000 in 90 days, it's called usury.

Outlaw compound interest across the board, and see what happens. There are cultures that already do this, and they tend to have more stable economies, and happier citizens living longer lifespans.

So what would happen in that case? If instead of compound interest, we agree on a flat interest repayment at the start of the loan. I'm still going to need 15-30 years to pay it off, so the bank is still going to need to make a profit off the loan over that time. You're certainly not going to get to borrow money for 30 years at a total of 4% interest. Most likely the calculation will come out to be just about the same as the compound interest rate would have.

It would just make variable rates and paying off the loan early more complicated.

How would it work with something like a savings account? Compound interest really only means the interest gets deposited in the account and then I get interest on that. Would the account have two separate types of money in it? Principal and interest? Why wouldn't I be able to withdraw the interest and then deposit it as more principal? Or at least empty the account periodically and open a new one?

Actually, reading your post more closely, I think you may be confused. The problem with Vinnie isn't compound interest. Vinnie doesn't do compound interest. Vinnie breaks your legs if you don't pay. Vinnie just charges a ridiculously high interest rate.
It's usury. The lending of money at high rates of interest. Or, originally, at any interest at all.

The Exchange

Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:


What do you mean "like s++!" You mean three meals a day, plenty of exercise, access to computers and the internet, a librabry, cable tv and free health care! CA spends something like $70,000.00 a year on each inmate. I think there is probably some trimming that could be done.

Unfortunately, we could cut the entire prison budget and the entire law enforecement budget and it would not affect our long term budget problems one bit.

This is one of my pet peeves too, when I see the homeless and the elderly living in worse conditions than criminals. I'm not saying turn off the heating and power to the prisons and stop feeding them, but I am saying they certainly shouldn't be as high on the budget priority as the people that haven't actually committed a crime.
Sadly some think it is still too barbaric, they are not giving enough to criminals and anything resembling actual punishment would be inhuman.
Prisons should be a method of isolating the irredemable from society and redeeming the redeemable. Punishment should never factor into it.
The hell it shouldn't. of course many of them should be kicking at the end of a rope
It's this sort of bloodthirsty attitude that really turns me off to capital punishment and I'm not even against it.

Not bloodthisty at all i want the threats to the innocent removed once and for all. and cheaply


Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:


What do you mean "like s++!" You mean three meals a day, plenty of exercise, access to computers and the internet, a librabry, cable tv and free health care! CA spends something like $70,000.00 a year on each inmate. I think there is probably some trimming that could be done.

Unfortunately, we could cut the entire prison budget and the entire law enforecement budget and it would not affect our long term budget problems one bit.

This is one of my pet peeves too, when I see the homeless and the elderly living in worse conditions than criminals. I'm not saying turn off the heating and power to the prisons and stop feeding them, but I am saying they certainly shouldn't be as high on the budget priority as the people that haven't actually committed a crime.
Sadly some think it is still too barbaric, they are not giving enough to criminals and anything resembling actual punishment would be inhuman.
Prisons should be a method of isolating the irredemable from society and redeeming the redeemable. Punishment should never factor into it.
The hell it shouldn't. of course many of them should be kicking at the end of a rope
It's this sort of bloodthirsty attitude that really turns me off to capital punishment and I'm not even against it.
Not bloodthisty at all i want the threats to the innocent removed once and for all. and cheaply

And you're not particularly concerned with any innocents killed along the way. We've already executed innocent people. And exonerated more after years on death row. Speeding up the process and making it cheaper, easier and more common will sweep up even more false convictions.

But that's not a big deal right? If some threats that get removed aren't really guilty?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:


What do you mean "like s++!" You mean three meals a day, plenty of exercise, access to computers and the internet, a librabry, cable tv and free health care! CA spends something like $70,000.00 a year on each inmate. I think there is probably some trimming that could be done.

Unfortunately, we could cut the entire prison budget and the entire law enforecement budget and it would not affect our long term budget problems one bit.

This is one of my pet peeves too, when I see the homeless and the elderly living in worse conditions than criminals. I'm not saying turn off the heating and power to the prisons and stop feeding them, but I am saying they certainly shouldn't be as high on the budget priority as the people that haven't actually committed a crime.
Sadly some think it is still too barbaric, they are not giving enough to criminals and anything resembling actual punishment would be inhuman.
Prisons should be a method of isolating the irredemable from society and redeeming the redeemable. Punishment should never factor into it.
The hell it shouldn't. of course many of them should be kicking at the end of a rope
It's this sort of bloodthirsty attitude that really turns me off to capital punishment and I'm not even against it.
Not bloodthisty at all i want the threats to the innocent removed once and for all. and cheaply

What could possibly be considered bloodthirsty about hanging people?

"He seized power in a bloodless coup. All smothering."

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:


What do you mean "like s++!" You mean three meals a day, plenty of exercise, access to computers and the internet, a librabry, cable tv and free health care! CA spends something like $70,000.00 a year on each inmate. I think there is probably some trimming that could be done.

Unfortunately, we could cut the entire prison budget and the entire law enforecement budget and it would not affect our long term budget problems one bit.

This is one of my pet peeves too, when I see the homeless and the elderly living in worse conditions than criminals. I'm not saying turn off the heating and power to the prisons and stop feeding them, but I am saying they certainly shouldn't be as high on the budget priority as the people that haven't actually committed a crime.
Sadly some think it is still too barbaric, they are not giving enough to criminals and anything resembling actual punishment would be inhuman.
Prisons should be a method of isolating the irredemable from society and redeeming the redeemable. Punishment should never factor into it.
The hell it shouldn't. of course many of them should be kicking at the end of a rope
It's this sort of bloodthirsty attitude that really turns me off to capital punishment and I'm not even against it.
Not bloodthisty at all i want the threats to the innocent removed once and for all. and cheaply

And you're not particularly concerned with any innocents killed along the way. We've already executed innocent people. And exonerated more after years on death row. Speeding up the process and making it cheaper, easier and more common will sweep up even more false convictions.

But that's not a big deal right? If some threats that get removed aren't really guilty?

That is presumptuous of you, actually the way trials are handled bugs the hell out of me and we need much better standards to determine guilt. A proper trail followed by a swift cheap death for the guilty is simply justice. But there must be much more proof given than in so many trials as it is

The Exchange

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:


What do you mean "like s++!" You mean three meals a day, plenty of exercise, access to computers and the internet, a librabry, cable tv and free health care! CA spends something like $70,000.00 a year on each inmate. I think there is probably some trimming that could be done.

Unfortunately, we could cut the entire prison budget and the entire law enforecement budget and it would not affect our long term budget problems one bit.

This is one of my pet peeves too, when I see the homeless and the elderly living in worse conditions than criminals. I'm not saying turn off the heating and power to the prisons and stop feeding them, but I am saying they certainly shouldn't be as high on the budget priority as the people that haven't actually committed a crime.
Sadly some think it is still too barbaric, they are not giving enough to criminals and anything resembling actual punishment would be inhuman.
Prisons should be a method of isolating the irredemable from society and redeeming the redeemable. Punishment should never factor into it.
The hell it shouldn't. of course many of them should be kicking at the end of a rope
It's this sort of bloodthirsty attitude that really turns me off to capital punishment and I'm not even against it.
Not bloodthisty at all i want the threats to the innocent removed once and for all. and cheaply

What could possibly be considered bloodthirsty about hanging people?

"He seized power in a bloodless coup. All smothering."

better to hang the guilty than to let them harm others. The bleeding hearts might as well throw children into a woodchipper themselves (and claim they did not know the machine would do that) the way they are so determined to free murderer and rapists to do it again. Better the blood of the guilty than the innocent. at least to me, you might prefer the other.


Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:


What do you mean "like s++!" You mean three meals a day, plenty of exercise, access to computers and the internet, a librabry, cable tv and free health care! CA spends something like $70,000.00 a year on each inmate. I think there is probably some trimming that could be done.

Unfortunately, we could cut the entire prison budget and the entire law enforecement budget and it would not affect our long term budget problems one bit.

This is one of my pet peeves too, when I see the homeless and the elderly living in worse conditions than criminals. I'm not saying turn off the heating and power to the prisons and stop feeding them, but I am saying they certainly shouldn't be as high on the budget priority as the people that haven't actually committed a crime.
Sadly some think it is still too barbaric, they are not giving enough to criminals and anything resembling actual punishment would be inhuman.
Prisons should be a method of isolating the irredemable from society and redeeming the redeemable. Punishment should never factor into it.
The hell it shouldn't. of course many of them should be kicking at the end of a rope
It's this sort of bloodthirsty attitude that really turns me off to capital punishment and I'm not even against it.
Not bloodthisty at all i want the threats to the innocent removed once and for all. and cheaply

And you're not particularly concerned with any innocents killed along the way. We've already executed innocent people. And exonerated more after years on death row. Speeding up the process and making it cheaper, easier and more common will sweep up even more false convictions.

But that's not a big deal right? If some threats that get removed aren't really guilty?
That is presumptuous of you, actually the way trials are handled bugs the hell...

Then wouldn't more guilty people go free? Is that justice?


Andrew R wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:


What do you mean "like s++!" You mean three meals a day, plenty of exercise, access to computers and the internet, a librabry, cable tv and free health care! CA spends something like $70,000.00 a year on each inmate. I think there is probably some trimming that could be done.

Unfortunately, we could cut the entire prison budget and the entire law enforecement budget and it would not affect our long term budget problems one bit.

This is one of my pet peeves too, when I see the homeless and the elderly living in worse conditions than criminals. I'm not saying turn off the heating and power to the prisons and stop feeding them, but I am saying they certainly shouldn't be as high on the budget priority as the people that haven't actually committed a crime.
Sadly some think it is still too barbaric, they are not giving enough to criminals and anything resembling actual punishment would be inhuman.
Prisons should be a method of isolating the irredemable from society and redeeming the redeemable. Punishment should never factor into it.
The hell it shouldn't. of course many of them should be kicking at the end of a rope
It's this sort of bloodthirsty attitude that really turns me off to capital punishment and I'm not even against it.
Not bloodthisty at all i want the threats to the innocent removed once and for all. and cheaply

What could possibly be considered bloodthirsty about hanging people?

"He seized power in a bloodless coup. All smothering."

better to hang the guilty than to let them harm others. The bleeding hearts might as well throw children into a woodchipper themselves (and claim they did not know the machine would do that) the way they are so determined to free murderer and rapists to do it again. Better the blood of the guilty than...

Can I be in favor of less blood overall?


No. Apparently you can't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Less blood overall? Ain't nobody got time for that. Besides, I'm too busy throwing children into wood chippers.


I know better than to jump into a law and order discussion with Citizen R., but, in one of those moments of synergistic weridiosity, my current reading material has been going over McCleskey vs. Kemp and Lewis Powell's game-giving-away opinion that "taken to its logical conclusion, McCleskey throws into serious question the principles that underlie our entire criminal justice system."

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

That's what I've heard: after a life of pretty intensive labor (and, let's be honest, substance abuse and bad eating habits), they go home and atrophy and die pretty quickly.

I told one old-timer about it who's only a couple of years away and he responded, "Don't worry, I've got a girlfriend 20 years younger than me, I'll stay plenty active."

UPS employees do it in the streets!

Same happens to most people doing physical labor all their lives....my father was a carpenter for all his life. Died at 62 years old. If he hadn't taken early retirement (and the penalties accrued from that) from the union he would have had a couple years to go before he could retire. Retired office workers usually last longer in general.


Fake Healer wrote:
Retired office workers usually last longer in general.

F@!$in' yuppie jerks get everything good.

No, only kidding. The point's moot for me, anyway. My lifestyle, I'll me lucky to make it to my mid-sixties.

[Lights cigarette, cracks open a beer and starts eating some mozzarella sticks]


bugleyman wrote:
Less blood overall? Ain't nobody got time for that. Besides, I'm too busy throwing children into wood chippers.

its not like they're going to throw themselves in there!

Liberty's Edge

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

I love this place.


On the topic of Capital Punishment, there's been a few studies on the topic that we had to look over in our Criminology class. One of the primary discussions came up was, back in the Victorian era, the punishment for almost every crime was execution. This didn't really have any effect on the crime rate. Rather it seemed to exacerbate the issue, since if surrender was death, escalation of crimes was inevitable. You're making killers choose between their death and someone elses, the results become all too obvious.

More esoterically though, studies have indicated that following an state mandated execution, violent crime rates surge for a week.

Further more, the death penalty doesn't deter crimes. And many of these violent criminals end up in there for life. Not all of them unfortunately, but it's not as many as the media would lead you to believe.

The ultimate problem with capital punishment is it prevents nothing, and worse it can take the lives of the innocent, and can cause even more death. The desire to end "evil" is more often a desire for vengeance. Unfortunately that's not really a punishment, it's a display to make you feel satisfied that a bad guy got his comeuppance. It doesn't fix anything. He's causing about as much harm now as he was when he got into the prison. He still did the things, assumedly. So what's left other than schadenfreude?

Economically speaking, you spend more incarcerating the low key offenders than anything else. And given that up here in Canada our Prime Minister decided to go having anyone wearing a mask near a political rally of any kind arrested, we're getting plenty of those.


thejeff wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:

I will also mention your 6% 401K contribution is going to be taxed...just not now. It will be taxed later, most likely when taxes are higher.

The same holds true for IRAs.

I hear this all the time, particularly from people trying to sell me on Roth IRAs :)

Why the automatic assumption that taxes will be higher when we retire? Is that an admission that taxes are actually too low now? :)
It's certainly not the trend over my lifetime. Taxes have been pretty stable, with the top rate bumping up and down by a few points, but the overall trend is still down.

Beyond that, anything I put in an IRA now is coming off the top end of my bracket. I strongly suspect when I retire, not only will I be making less money, but at least some of the money I'm taking out of the IRA will be taxed in lower brackets.

Not an automatic assumption, but a very strong possibility.

In theory it is a safe bet because of what you state, a retiree should drop a tax bracket or two or three, and the IRA will be taxed at a lower rate.

But the fact is the government needs more and more money to cover the deficit. Considering it has roughly $200 trillion in obligations it will need to fund in the future, politicians are going to start to get a bit desperate. Especially when interest rates rise and people here and overseas become less willing to lend money.

And there is all that untaxed money sitting in 401Ks and IRAs, carefully tracked by the IRS.

Governments in other countries help themselves to retirement accounts when they get desperate. There is a risk it could happen here.

I wouldn't consider Roth IRAs safe either. Instead of taxing 401Ks and IRAs, they could just start forcing those accounts to buy government bonds to keep funding the government.

This wouldn't happen if the government would cut its budget to balance it but we all know that is not going to happen until there is no other choice.


Keep fighting wars and you won't have an economy. Let the politicians keep up the securitheatre and you also won't have an economy. Simple as that. No other changes you could make will come near solving your problems.


NPC Dave wrote:
thejeff wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:

I will also mention your 6% 401K contribution is going to be taxed...just not now. It will be taxed later, most likely when taxes are higher.

The same holds true for IRAs.

I hear this all the time, particularly from people trying to sell me on Roth IRAs :)

Why the automatic assumption that taxes will be higher when we retire? Is that an admission that taxes are actually too low now? :)
It's certainly not the trend over my lifetime. Taxes have been pretty stable, with the top rate bumping up and down by a few points, but the overall trend is still down.

Beyond that, anything I put in an IRA now is coming off the top end of my bracket. I strongly suspect when I retire, not only will I be making less money, but at least some of the money I'm taking out of the IRA will be taxed in lower brackets.

Not an automatic assumption, but a very strong possibility.

In theory it is a safe bet because of what you state, a retiree should drop a tax bracket or two or three, and the IRA will be taxed at a lower rate.

But the fact is the government needs more and more money to cover the deficit. Considering it has roughly $200 trillion in obligations it will need to fund in the future, politicians are going to start to get a bit desperate. Especially when interest rates rise and people here and overseas become less willing to lend money.

And there is all that untaxed money sitting in 401Ks and IRAs, carefully tracked by the IRS.

Governments in other countries help themselves to retirement accounts when they get desperate. There is a risk it could happen here.

I wouldn't consider Roth IRAs safe either. Instead of taxing 401Ks and IRAs, they could just start forcing those accounts to buy government bonds to keep funding the government.

This wouldn't happen if the government would...

Yeah, but I've been hearing it for decades. And it all seems rooted in the same "Ohmigod! bignumbers! debt!!!!!" silliness. Not any actual economic analysis.

Frankly, I'd love it if we added more, higher, tax brackets, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

I love this place.

Here in the OTD, we aim for consistency and quality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

I love this place.

I had to look that up. Quit teaching me stuff!

101 to 127 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Where do you cut the Budget? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions