BF2S Forums Looking for Rush, Haninty counter Radio from the Left - Any Ideas ?

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I think you should check out the amount of money the US govt is spending per soldier, and compare it to the amount of money spent on a childs education.

Your wife is in education, yeah? maybe you already know the answer.

yes she is a teacher,
We have  high national defense bill. what is your point regarding what we have been discussing?

Well you consider national Defense a function of govt - necessity too I assume. I'd agree with you on that point also.

Do you think National Defense expenditure generates more wealth than the education the government is currently providing?

Because at the moment the funding is headed more towards defense than education.

Dilbert_X wrote:

This is always funny, coming from someone who works in the most subsidised and protected industry outside the defence sector.

lowing wrote:

I do not think our problems stem from being diverse. There is plenty of lazy good for nothing leeches to cover all races and cultures. It comes from the liberal mindset that the govt. is supposed to take care of our every want and need. It shows even in this thread that some people do not understand or appreciate that all they think they are entitled to or "deserve", does not come from govt., nor is it "free". It comes from someone else's efforts, that the govt. has tapped into and redistributed THEIR reward for those efforts..

These people still think the govt. generates its own wealth. If that is true, why the fuck do I need to pay taxes then? The govt., in their eyes earns it's own money, they it sure as fuck does not need mine.

Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-18 19:42:30)

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Not sure what the fixation is on "Generating Money" but the real debate you two are trying to have is the old "Creation of Wealth" vs "Debt".

The Government regulates wealth and debt that is created by people.  In doing so it "balances" the debt load on the private sector through monetary polices (tax rate, interest rate, tax system).

The Dollar gets its value by the debt load it represents (debt creates the dollar so the dollar = wealth).  Wealth is created many ways and there is NOT a fixed amount of wealth in the world like many people believe.

This Debt load right now for a US dollar is spread among 300+ million people, in the '70s it was spread among ~100 million people.  Our government loves immigration because of this, it keeps the paramid scheme going awhile longer.

Physical Wealth is like owning your house, a business with a factory with equipment all paid for, anything material without a lean against it, something that can acquire another's debt (dollar).  In reality the government owns most physical wealth in America.  This is why we have property tax, the government owns your house(land) in reality and through this system ultimately owns most wealth its citizens create or aquire.  This is what balances the debt load on the dollar.

If I really wanted to argue with Lowing I would just say that America could generate money by building a military and then using it to overthrow another country and then charge property tax to the people that live there.

Well, there's more than that though.  Expanding and improving certain infrastructures via public spending can lead to increases in private revenue.  When it comes to actually generating money, military expenditures are some of the least efficient.  Nearly anything involving military action leads to a net loss in revenue -- unless you count indirect gains involving strategic influence in global markets.

For example, the only profitable angle to the Iraq War for the economy overall is causing oil prices to spike -- which can benefit American oil companies and multinational oil companies that are based in America.

By contrast, public investment in education can lead to some of the greatest gains for the economy.  Granted, this is still dependent on the quality of management.

Yeah, my post isn't very well written or complete as I did it in hast right before I had a meeting. but the jist was that the dollar represents debt and all that backs it is citizens promising to repay that debit with work, physical wealth,.......  All the US government does is accept this promise of repayment when issuing(printing) dollars in the form of Loans to Banks and such.

It is obvious that the 500,000 working people in America can not back up 12+ Trillion dollars of debt.  Everything is funny money now and really not backed by anything, the US dollar will fail soon and there is not turning back.  It is laughable how the US media and politicians never discuss this truth while everyone positions themselves for the collapse of the dollar that we will see in our lifetime.  The bailout of the banks by the US government was just to buy time.  They made a payment on a credit card with a credit card.  Doesn't take long to figure out how long that will last before banks will fail again.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not think our problems stem from being diverse. There is plenty of lazy good for nothing leeches to cover all races and cultures. It comes from the liberal mindset that the govt. is supposed to take care of our every want and need. It shows even in this thread that some people do not understand or appreciate that all they think they are entitled to or "deserve", does not come from govt., nor is it "free". It comes from someone else's efforts, that the govt. has tapped into and redistributed THEIR reward for those efforts..

These people still think the govt. generates its own wealth. If that is true, why the fuck do I need to pay taxes then? The govt., in their eyes earns it's own money, they it sure as fuck does not need mine.

It seems like you're intentionally misinterpreting the concept of returns on public investment.  How the government generates revenue and wealth isn't that different from the private sector -- the only difference is coercion.

The market generates wealth from investment.  That principle can work with any source of money -- including taxes.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-19 01:48:05)

AussieReaper wrote:

Lowing, if the government were making a profit, we'd be arguing that they are over taxing us and not spending/investing into public works.

Are the government supposed to be making a profit?

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It seems like you're intentionally misinterpreting the concept of returns on public investment.  How the government generates revenue and wealth isn't that different from the private sector -- the only difference is coercion.

The market generates wealth from investment.  That principle can work with any source of money -- including taxes.

nope I have not missed that point. You are missing the point that the govt. is investing in the public with someone else's money by redistribution, it is not spending its own money, it is "investing in the public" with money it has taken from someone else.

That is not generating anything, that is wealth redistribution from someone that has worked for it and earned it, to someone that has not.

Of course they're investing with someone else's money.  Banks do the same thing.  Again, the only difference is coercion.  You have to pay taxes, whereas you can choose what bank to put your money into.

Arguments against greater government involvement are valid when criticizing the lack of choice involved.  However, you have to acknowledge that investment works in the same manner regardless of whether it's by the private sector or the government.

Wealth can be generated either way.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

well gee Turquoise, dontcha think coercion is a pretty big fuckin' difference? Why do I feel like you are agreeing with me but you just can't bring yourself to say, "you're right"? If a bank robber steals money from the bank and invests it, he is not creating wealth, he stole wealth. "Taking from the rich and giving to the poor", is NOT creating wealth in the context of this discussion which started out as, over taxation, and the need liberals have for other peoples money..

Taxation is a legitimate form of collecting money.  Robbing a bank isn't.

That's not even what I was debating though.  You were saying government can't create wealth.  It can.  That's what I was debating.

The fact that governmental investment can lead to more productive labor is the surest proof that government can create wealth.

In terms of policy, the debate is over which methods of generating wealth are most successful and efficient for a given issue.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeeeeessssss Turquoise I know taxation is necessary, been there done that

The govt. is playing WITH OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. It has no wealth of its own!! That is why it can not generate wealth of its own. It is like saying you have generated wealth because you took it from your parents. You didn't generate shit, your parents did.

and no the debate is not over which methods of wealth generation is more effective, it never has been. The debate is over, over taxation for the purposes of wealth redistribution and NOT to accommodate the real function of govt.

It's not that cut and dry.  For example, anyone who went to public schools and gained a degree from a public university owes part of their success and employability to government intervention.

Before public education existed, social and economic mobility were far less prevalent in our society.

There are various other governmental institutions that we take advantage of everyday, so when factoring these things into what they provide for us, part of our income is owed to the state.  You can view that as what the government earns, so to speak.

The debate is surely not over, because what taxes are appropriate with respect to income level are debated amongst every Congress.  The same is true regarding public programs vs. letting the market clear things.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

anyone who went to school and earned a degree with govt. money did so because the govt. took that money from someone else who earned it.

YOu are trying to argue the nobility in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, and see what govt. is able to do. That is not the argument I have made. I agree, people do benefit from govt. redistribution of wealth. but please lets not kid our selves, lets just call it exactly that shall we, redistribution of wealth.

The govt. has no money of its own, so to accomplish ANYTHING it must do so by taking money from the earners.
This has 2 avenues it can take, 1 to operate the necessary functions of govt. and 2 social programs. It is avenue 2 that I object to, to the level currently legislated by our govt.

Lowing, do you believe that private education does not earn its money?

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-19 12:51:04)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Lowing, do you believe that private education does not earn its money?

yes it does, however, in order to build its schools, hire its teachers, it had to take out a loan or receive willingly donated charity.
The govt. built public schools by taking money from earners. Now, that is not to say that I believe govt. funded education is a bad thing. I do say that if the govt. is going to suck at it so bad, then let someone else do it to a far greater desired result. I mean if you are going to argue that education is a way of creating wealth, then there really isn't a reason to disagree with me.

Now that that is out of the way.....address my post.

The only thing I'm really taking issue with is your perception of government stealing your money in terms of taxation.  It earns the money it takes from you just the same as the private sector does from the services you purchase from it.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-19 13:03:20)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The only thing I'm really taking issue with is your perception of government stealing your money in terms of taxation.  It earns the money it takes from you just the same as the private sector does from the services you purchase from it.

no sir. I have no problem with taxation as repeatedly stated. I have a problem with "wealth redistribution".

The govt. does not "EARN" my money, it is dues paid for being in the club. Some people get be in the same club without paying any dues. So to compensate for the lack of funds from those that do not pay, the rest of us are forced to pay higher dues for the same benefit.

It's impossible to support an income tax without also supporting wealth redistribution, unless you only support an income tax that is a flat fee (or you only support sales taxes and property taxes to an extent).

Nearly all income taxation is wealth redistribution.