Suspicious Packages Shipped To Clintons, Obamas, and Time Warner

[LTS]

9 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

I should have expanded beyond ability to incorporate the fact that our armed forces are a citizen volunteer force. Ask yourself this, your in uniform, the President suspends Posse Comotatis and orders you to fire on mom and dad, would you?

As for attacking each other, I completely agree. No longer do we sit down and actually speak to one another, which appears to me in any event, to be one of the core problems. The media plays a part in this as well in my opinion, sensationalist story coverage of tragic events committed by small groups or individuals. Opiods, car accidents, suicides, all tale many 1000's more lives annually then political or ideological based attacks with guns, yet politicians and the media play a game of spotlighting those lesser attributal tragedies than the others. We all know the reasons for this, it's akin to saying sex sells.

Let me answer your first question as written: The answer is "no". However I don't think it will play out quite as vanilla as that unfortunately.  I'm not positive that some crazy bastards might actually shoot people because "they were ordered" but I would suspect the VAST majority of military would have serious thoughts.

Of course I would have never joined the military because I don't agree with putting soldier's lives on the line to further the business interests of corporations.

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

They just did that. They cut taxes and kept spending the same. 

He means spending cuts. Entitlements, primarily.

Perhaps I am not detecting your sarcasm.

[Scottysabres]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

They just did that. They cut taxes and kept spending the same. 

I am pro tax cuts, I firmly believe we need more tax cuts. bureaucracy has become beyond bloated. It's a monster that feeds on everything, including itself. The founders specifically had this debate about containing the Federal government and keeping a good portion of power at the colony/commonwealth/state level.

Turns out, those men were much smarter than roughly half the current population give them credit for, eh?

[SwampD]

5 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

I am pro tax cuts, I firmly believe we need more tax cuts. bureaucracy has become beyond bloated. It's a monster that feeds on everything, including itself. The founders specifically had this debate about containing the Federal government and keeping a good portion of power at the colony/commonwealth/state level.

Turns out, those men were much smarter than roughly half the current population give them credit for, eh?

Hmmm, which half might you be talking about?

I think taxes should be higher. I think the rich should pay more in taxes. I've actually heard them saying it themselves.

I'll gladly pay more taxes. They do a lot of good things.

I honestly can't believe how much people b!tch about paying taxes, as if they would magically have all this extra money if they didn't have to pay them anymore.

[LGR4GM]

17 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

He means spending cuts. Entitlements, primarily.

Perhaps I am not detecting your sarcasm.

I know, I was being cheeky. That's my bad. 

14 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

I am pro tax cuts, I firmly believe we need more tax cuts. bureaucracy has become beyond bloated. It's a monster that feeds on everything, including itself. The founders specifically had this debate about containing the Federal government and keeping a good portion of power at the colony/commonwealth/state level.

Turns out, those men were much smarter than roughly half the current population give them credit for, eh?

We just cut taxes. The federal deficit went up 700 billion dollars. What are we cutting to make up for that? We can fix healthcare and trim the military budget. 

[LTS]

The concept of paying more in tax comes along with the assumption that the Government is efficient in using that money.  The problem is that they are not and I don't think anyone would debate otherwise.

It's like giving to a charity where 75% or more of your money goes to the overhead of operating the charity.

The concept of cutting taxes is to reduce government spending, but the problem there is that it doesn't result in more efficiency, it results in programs being cut.

Basically, the government sucks at being a business and the more we let it try to be something it cannot be, the worse off we will be.  This is why I don't want more government or more money going to the government, especially at the federal level. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by LTS

[That Aud Smell]

31 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

What are we cutting to make up for that? We can fix healthcare and trim the military budget. 

The markets and Capital won't countenance significant cuts to things that make their engines roar. They will come for entitlements, eventually. It may take a full-blown crisis and meltdown, the likes of which we have never seen as a nation or a modern western culture, to make it happen. But entitlements will primarily be what gets cut.

[Hank]

49 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I know, I was being cheeky. That's my bad. 

We just cut taxes. The federal deficit went up 700 billion dollars. What are we cutting to make up for that? We can fix healthcare and trim the military budget. 

No. We should NOT trim the military budget. 

17 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

The markets and Capital won't countenance significant cuts to things that make their engines roar. They will come for entitlements, eventually. It may take a full-blown crisis and meltdown, the likes of which we have never seen as a nation or a modern western culture, to make it happen. But entitlements will primarily be what gets cut.

Entitlements SHOULD be cut. 

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, Hank said:

No. We should NOT trim the military budget. 

Entitlements SHOULD be cut. 

Why? Serious question. 

 

And which "entitlements"? 

Edited October 30, 2018 by LGR4GM

[That Aud Smell]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

No. We should NOT trim the military budget. 

Entitlements SHOULD be cut. 

I understand this perspective. And while I don't agree with it, I'm also not sure what else an empire in decline is positioned to do.

[SwampD]

36 minutes ago, LTS said:

The concept of paying more in tax comes along with the assumption that the Government is efficient in using that money.  The problem is that they are not and I don't think anyone would debate otherwise.

It's like giving to a charity where 75% or more of your money goes to the overhead of operating the charity.

The concept of cutting taxes is to reduce government spending, but the problem there is that it doesn't result in more efficiency, it results in programs being cut.

Basically, the government sucks at being a business and the more we let it try to be something it cannot be, the worse off we will be.  This is why I don't want more government or more money going to the government, especially at the federal level. 

So, I guess the question is, do you want your money going to government waste, or to corporate profits, cuz I have yet to any service go into private hands and end up costing less. The only thing businesses are more efficient at is making profit. They offer less and less service for more and more money and things end up costing exactly the same. Stuff costs what it costs.

 

[Hank]

20 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Why? Serious question. 

 

And which "entitlements"? 

I'll use myself as an example of entitlements. When 9/11 happened I was a single parent of two boys, one in diapers. My older boy didn't handle that first deployment very well and attempted suicide. I was sent home. The Army decided if I couldn't deploy they couldn't use me. I moved to Olean, applied for unemployment and lived in income based housing. I didn't have the education I do now but I still had plenty of job opportunities at a decent wage. But, when you subtract daycare and medical/dental/vision and factor in the income based housing my net was just slightly more than I was getting sitting on my ass enjoying time with my boys. I was able to get by just fine like I was. It wasn't WORTH IT getting a full time job. It wasn't until my unemployment was close to running out that I took a job. I think this is common, and I don't blame people for doing it. The easier it is to get by on entitlements/benefits, the less incentive there is to work. 

[LGR4GM]

Not sure that answers my question but it does help me understand your viewpoint. 

[SwampD]

I just find it interesting that of the people I know, the only ones who complain about "entitlements" have all taken advantage of them and those that have never used them don't really care.

Not sure what that means. Just pointing out.

[LTS]

41 minutes ago, SwampD said:

So, I guess the question is, do you want your money going to government waste, or to corporate profits, cuz I have yet to any service go into private hands and end up costing less. The only thing businesses are more efficient at is making profit. They offer less and less service for more and more money and things end up costing exactly the same. Stuff costs what it costs.

 

Yes, but it's more important to understand why it costs that.  There are middle grounds between government incompetence and corporate profits. I'm also not referring to private companies that take on government contracts in the "privatization" sense either.

No system is perfect, but the government doesn't have competition whereas the market does.

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, LTS said:

Yes, but it's more important to understand why it costs that.  There are middle grounds between government incompetence and corporate profits. I'm also not referring to private companies that take on government contracts in the "privatization" sense either.

No system is perfect, but the government doesn't have competition whereas the market does.

That's just not true. The government is already competing with the market right now.

[LTS]

3 minutes ago, SwampD said:

That's just not true. The government is already competing with the market right now.

In what way?  

If I have to pay the government taxes they have my money... if they are losing to the market they shouldn't need more of it right?

[SwampD]

Just now, LTS said:

In what way?  

If I have to pay the government taxes they have my money... if they are losing to the market they shouldn't need more of it right?

So all you do is give them your money, and you get nothing in return? Is that what you are saying?

If it is, then I don't need to go on.

If there was a service that the Government provided that a private company could take over and make money on, They would do it. It has happened.

(ftr, I hate using the term "government" Like it's this big monolithic boogieman. we end up sounding like some guy in a trump cover van.)

[LTS]

2 hours ago, SwampD said:

So all you do is give them your money, and you get nothing in return? Is that what you are saying?

If it is, then I don't need to go on.

If there was a service that the Government provided that a private company could take over and make money on, They would do it. It has happened.

(ftr, I hate using the term "government" Like it's this big monolithic boogieman. we end up sounding like some guy in a trump cover van.)

Oh, I get things in return from the government. Keep in mind I am not saying we should not pay taxes.  I am saying I am not in favor of heavier taxation until the government can bring some efficiency to its operations.

While I am a fan of smaller government, I don't advocate for no government.

Without overtaxing my brain I would be far more in favor of certain governmental services being turned over to something like private B corporations.  That's the general concept which of course at that level could be shot full of holes.  

I suppose the foundational concept is that I would like to see more entrepreneurial programs supported that can really effect change in our society.  I don't think the government will ever be the entity to enable that.

[SwampD]

30 minutes ago, LTS said:

Oh, I get things in return from the government. Keep in mind I am not saying we should not pay taxes.  I am saying I am not in favor of heavier taxation until the government can bring some efficiency to its operations.

While I am a fan of smaller government, I don't advocate for no government.

Without overtaxing my brain I would be far more in favor of certain governmental services being turned over to something like private B corporations.  That's the general concept which of course at that level could be shot full of holes.  

I suppose the foundational concept is that I would like to see more entrepreneurial programs supported that can really effect change in our society.  I don't think the government will ever be the entity to enable that.

Another thought I had about this is that not everything that needs to be done, is something that someone can make money on. We need gov't for that.

Here's one rich guy not opposed to taxes.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-tech-titan-takes-strong-stand-for-prop-c

[5th line wingnutt]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

So all you do is give them your money, and you get nothing in return? Is that what you are saying?

If it is, then I don't need to go on.

If there was a service that the Government provided that a private company could take over and make money on, They would do it. It has happened.

(ftr, I hate using the term "government" Like it's this big monolithic boogieman. we end up sounding like some guy in a trump cover van.)

Like what?

[SwampD]

7 minutes ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Like what?

Some utilities, schools,... AT&T stadium.

My town had it's own paving crew and DPW, others contract it out to private companies.

I'm sure there are more.

[5th line wingnutt]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Some utilities, schools,... AT&T stadium.

My town had it's own paving crew and DPW, others contract it out to private companies.

I'm sure there are more.

Funny, after I posted I thought about privatized prisons...and then thought "but wait, I'm still paying taxes for prisons".  Most utilities were always private but heavily regulated.  If I send my kid to private school, I still have to pay taxes for the public ones.  Was it ever the governments job to build sports stadiums?  And I am still paying the taxes that pay those paving companies.

[SwampD]

10 minutes ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Funny, after I posted I thought about privatized prisons...and then thought "but wait, I'm still paying taxes for prisons".  Most utilities were always private but heavily regulated.  If I send my kid to private school, I still have to pay taxes for the public ones.  Was it ever the governments job to build sports stadiums?  And I am still paying the taxes that pay those paving companies.

Pretty sure some prisons already are.

Are your roads still getting paved?

Edited October 30, 2018 by SwampD

[5th line wingnutt]

3 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Pretty sure some already are.

The point is...  It is not like the government is making widgets and selling them to voluntary buyers.  The government makes programs and makes you buy them whether you want them or not.  I never wanted social security or medicare but I was forced into both.

The government also heavily regulates some industries, like health care insurance.  They mandate what coverages are included, and if you want insurance you have to pay for stuff you do not want and do not need.  I wanted a policy where I would pay for routine stuff out of pocket, and be covered for the big expensive stuff.  Claims are expensive to generate, process and pay, and right now almost every visit to a provider generates one or more claims.

It is insane.