GE pays no taxes, receives tax bonuses, ships jobs overseas, and its CEO is into job creation

[Tebet]

So what is the bare minimum?

thats up to the legislature and their interpretation of the constitution. preferably a number below what we take in from taxes lol. the point being. if tax cuts and spending are equal and tax cuts are more efficient, why spend? the awnser is control. personally i think the control should be given to the individual or in our case the corporation which is just a group of individuals.

[aurik]

Why spend? Because I like driving on roads.

[notorious bum]

I can't vouch that Guartz's theory is 100% correct, however, I would say its far from some "conspiracy theory" about the fed. Seriously, I get tired of hearing that lame ass cop-out to avoid debate whenever someone even alludes to the fact that the Federal Reserve really is this evil foreign-interest entity and not the propaganda you have come to accept that is an honest function of the government.

Watch some muthafuggin Secret of Oz, enjoy the history lesson, and come back with a new perspective.

[Dantrag]

Speaking of industries:

Chicken used to get shipped over to China, got cut there, and then got shipped back for sale here in the states...

This was when gas prices were lower.

[aurik]

I would argue but I really get tired of dealing with monetarist crackpot theories, including William Still.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Money_Masters

"The film asserts or implies that bankers have intentionally caused a number of significant events, including John F. Kennedy's assassination, Abraham Lincoln's assassination, the War of 1812, the Battle of Waterloo, the American Civil War, the Russian Revolution, the Great Depression, and the crucifixion of Jesus (who drove out the "money changers" in all four Gospels)."

Yeah very reliable source you have there.

[Tebet]

Why spend? Because I like driving on roads.

hopefully your elected representatives will think that is a necessity and authorized by the constitution.

[aurik]

hopefully your elected representatives will think that is a necessity and authorized by the constitution.

So basically you're saying nothing of use. Congratulations on your 6th post.

[notorious bum]

I would argue but I really get tired of dealing with monetarist crackpot theories, including William Still.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Money_Masters

"The film asserts or implies that bankers have intentionally caused a number of significant events, including John F. Kennedy's assassination, Abraham Lincoln's assassination, the War of 1812, the Battle of Waterloo, the American Civil War, the Russian Revolution, the Great Depression, and the crucifixion of Jesus (who drove out the "money changers" in all four Gospels)."

Yeah very reliable source you have there.

Oh, stop the fucking presses lol A theory that bankers, who hold the world's wealth and in-turn the power that comes with it, use their influence to such extremes against those who endanger said power and wealth???? Assassinations that weren't by some lone-gunman?! Bankers controlling the economy!? Blasphemy! Its such a stretch from today's world, I cannot even comprehend these crackpot ideas.

Why don't you actually watch the documentary, since the majority of these so-called theories are actually referenced and pulled from history texts. This isn't some 9/11 'inside job' opinionated piece that can be Mythbuster'd so easily.

[aurik]

Oh, stop the fucking presses lol A theory that bankers, who hold the world's wealth and in-turn the power that comes with it, use their influence to such extremes against those who endanger said power and wealth???? Assassinations that weren't by some lone-gunman?! Bankers controlling the economy!? Blasphemy! Its such a stretch from today's world, I cannot even comprehend these crackpot ideas.

Why don't you actually watch the documentary, since the majority of these so-called theories are actually referenced and pulled from history texts. This isn't some 9/11 'inside job' opinionated piece that can be Mythbuster'd so easily.

I have watched it in the past. It's the same wankery that populist monetarist kooks have been writing since forever. As smart as they may be, they still don't full grok what money actually is.

[Tebet]

So basically you're saying nothing of use. Congratulations on your 6th post.

thank you.

i thought we established that the bare minimum should be covered. even the staunchest libertarian would agree some spending is necessary, but do we need to spend at our current levels? how much can be considered stimulative and could just be cut and then rolled into tax cuts? by your logic the net result would be the same.

please explain. i have my opinions but i am willing to learn new ideas and i enjoy the debate.

[aurik]

thank you.

i thought we established that the bare minimum should be covered.

But you haven't said what that bare minimum is. In fact, when asked directly, you refused to answer the question.

So I give you another opportunity to say something more than the tautological: what is the bare minimum that we should be spending?

[notorious bum]

As smart as they may be, they still don't full grok what money actually is.

Why is it that most believe the monetary system of early history is so simple and our current system today is so vast and complex that the former cannot be learned from or used to draw comparisons?

Maybe I'm uneducated or my understanding of money is inadequate, but that documentary was as cohesive and comprehendable as any history/poli-sci/govt lecture I've experienced and I didn't feel that cynical or skeptical feeling after watching like most documentaries do on similar subjects lol

[aurik]

Maybe I'm uneducated or my understanding of money is inadequate

I think that's likely. It's not an easy concept to grasp. Don't feel bad, the vast majority of people are in the same boat.

[notorious bum]

I think that's likely. It's not an easy concept to grasp. Don't feel bad, the vast majority of people are in the same boat.

Are there any alternative works out there you could recommend that I could research to find out just how deep the rabbit hole goes?

[Tebet]

But you haven't said what that bare minimum is. In fact, when asked directly, you refused to answer the question.

So I give you another opportunity to say something more than the tautological: what is the bare minimum that we should be spending?

sorry, i had to look up tautological tautological.

i was using bare minimum as an abstract value for our discussion but i will attempt to define it in awnser to your question with the hope that you will awnser one of mine.

bare minimum would be operations, tax collection, infrastucture, defense, minimal regulation, and inforcement of private property laws. im sure im leaving some things out that i would agree are necessary but you get the point. i realize now that i cant make this argument without resorting to the usual right wing rhetoric but that is the point i am trying to make.

i have already conceded your point that not taxing is the same as spending from the governments point of view, but unless the taxed individual or corporation recieves 100% of the money taken then the two are not equal to the taxed or the recipent which is the world we live in.

[aurik]

bare minimum would be operations, tax collection, infrastucture, defense, minimal regulation, and inforcement of private property laws. im sure im leaving some things out that i would agree are necessary but you get the point. i realize now that i cant make this argument without resorting to the usual right wing rhetoric but that is the point i am trying to make.

So about 99% of the US disagrees with your definition of bare minimum. What now?

[aurik]

Are there any alternative works out there you could recommend that I could research to find out just how deep the rabbit hole goes?

Wish I had something to point you to, but I don't remember where I learned most of this. Most of it is probably a combination of massive amounts of reading from a wide variety of sources, and independent synthesis.

[Tebet]

So about 99% of the US disagrees with your definition of bare minimum. What now?

i guess im done if you wont engage me on the issue, that not taxing and spending are equal. i am trying to prove that they are not the same for the individuals but only to the government. the fact that i am unable to define an acceptable number for bare minimum has nothing to do with what we were originally talking about.

[aurik]

It has everything to do with your argument. You say that we shouldn't spend in excess of the bare minimum, and that we should cut taxes to that point, but you don't realize that there's no widely accepted concept of bare minimum.

Perhaps you think that we shouldn't tax for social security, that everyone should be responsible for their own financial arrangements for retirement. So instead of taxing people and then spending it on social security, you'd rather the government just "spend" that money instantly with 100% efficiency by not taxing it in the first place. And lots of people would disagree with you.

We could also construct the argument the other way around, choosing one of the "tax and spend liberals" pet issues.

[Tebet]

It has everything to do with your argument. You say that we shouldn't spend in excess of the bare minimum, and that we should cut taxes to that point, but you don't realize that there's no widely accepted concept of bare minimum.

Perhaps you think that we shouldn't tax for social security, that everyone should be responsible for their own financial arrangements for retirement. So instead of taxing people and then spending it on social security, you'd rather the government just "spend" that money instantly with 100% efficiency by not taxing it in the first place. And lots of people would disagree with you.

We could also construct the argument the other way around, choosing one of the "tax and spend liberals" pet issues.

i see your point, but that also proves mine, that mathematically spending and not taxing are not equal to the recipents of ss. you do not get the same utility from paying into ss and then recieving benifits as you do from not being taxed. mainly the choice to spend or invest or give away the money not taken from you and then given back later in life.