Who are you voting for in 2012?

[alain]

I think the idea is that no matter who you are, everyone is equally human, so you suffer the same exact penalty no matter what your state of income is. And the idea that income is based off of contributions to society is anachronistic. You get paid something because someone wants you to get paid that. It has nothing to do with what you produce to society anymore. Case in point: so many MBAs and managers, who get paid all of the dough, while the real work comes from far below them.

Are you arguing against his point? It really doesn't seem like it.

If the MBAs and the managers get paid the "dough" is because somebody gives it to them.

 

[boneil]

Wrong question.

The correct question is "Why should his penalty be virtually nothing while that of someone in college or with a low income be crippling?"

Finland realized the plutocratic nature of the pervasive system and had the wherewithal to correct it. In Finland's system, penalties are clearly assessed as an equivalent percentage of income.

The capitalist portion of society should reward greater accomplishments with greater assets, not reward greater assets with effective criminal immunity (although I have had some people shockingly tell me otherwise in year past...)

Lol. Forget the contribution to society, if everything someone spent money on was relative, then
-there would be no impetus to make money
-therefore no impetus to work
-society crumbles

Additionally, its not effective immunity. In most states in the U.S., 3 speeding tickets in a moderate time period (1-2 years) will result in a revoked drivers license. Typically 2 counts of reckless driving will have you lose your license for a longer period of time and possible jail time.

The adage is don't do the crime if you can't do the time (or penalty, in this case). Making criminality an offense relative to income is a, pardon the overused saying, slippery slope.

Additionally, are you somehow arguing that pay for "MBAs and managers" is arbitrary? Plz. Pay has never and will never be related to contribution to society (except maybe obscure ancient civilizations). Its related to contributions to the bottom line and seniority (past contributions to the bottom line), plain and simple.

I concede that the line about greater assets and such is an interesting argument.

 

[euroazn]

I guess you die-hard liberals think that this is ok too: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/en...um-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Oh man, this is going to start a fire.

Personally, I think the USA should provide a basic safety net for its citizens. Currently, this is done and then some. If someone makes millions, they deserve it. We should not look towards to rich to milk whenever we want more government spending. Some people like having the government help them or redistribute money, but stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, when you are in a free society, is simply wrong.

End of the day it is up to the individual. A healthy American has zero excuse not to have a decent life. We have the fattest poor in the world.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

I've gotten a multitude of tickets. All have been fought, delayed for over a year and reduce multiple times. Magic little tool called the internet and my brain. Poor people have access to all of these. Rich people pay lawyers because the opportunity cost of researching and writing letters is too high. As if law is any unless favorable to the rich in every other country.

Those with wealth have been and always will have more advantage than those without. This should be all the motivation any free citizen should need to work hard and acquire wealth.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

How about the argument that speeding laws are nothing but taxes in sheeps clothing. At least in the US, tickets make up a large portion of towns revenue. Speed limits were roll out big time during the oil embargo in the 70's.

I understand about proportionality, but a ticket is a ticket. Should driving over the limit cost someone $100,000's of dollars?

One way to look at speeding is simply as a tax. The rich can afford to pay the tax, while those with less disposable income choose to selectively obey the limit in order to avoid the tax. Speeding tickets are not about punishment, they are about revenue generation.

Caveat -- In cases where people are going 100 mph through a school zone or something equally reckless. 10-15 mph over the limit, while going with the flow of traffic is not an issue.

 

[euroazn]

I don't like it, but for every system there is someone milking it. That doesn't mean the system shouldn't be there to begin with.

I also don't like calling subsidies "disposable" income - since these families are allowed no fiscal freedom with it. Also note that there are two ways to fix the picture painted by that article:

1. Decrease entitlements
2. "Obamacare" (or at least what he should have implemented instead of what ended up being the "compromise")

How about... decrease entitlements. That would help fix the debt problem too.

Also, if you're comfortable with the fact that someone is "milking" the system, why can't the rich milk capitalism? Just wondering.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

Considering that my sack of shit for a father does nothing but sit on his fat ass at home and try to sue my mother for child support/college cost arrears while collecting disability and milking a crap divorce agreement while she tries to make ends meet teaching piano, well, several things:

1) The social "safety net" system is screwed up beyond belief. If there is some modicum of truth in that article and that someone who works one week a month can get as much disposable income economic benefit as someone making the median wage in this country, something is very very wrong.

2) Rather than throw good money after bad (EG those who are an economic net negative), instead, the government should use money to create wealth--employ young people coming out of college who can't find a good job (you know...all of those STEM and accounting and finance grads could probably be useful trying to sort out the economic mess the government has), play a bit at venture capitalism rather than subsidization, etc...

3) Make sure the middle class stays intact. The rich can fend for themselves, and the lower class are that not out of "unfortunate circumstances beyond their control" but because along the way, they probably sowed those seeds, and now reap the whirlwind.

 

[euroazn]

There are many ways to address the debt problem. That's one, but I view it as more of a last resort. If we get to that point, we are a failure of a society and really should redo from scratch how we govern ourselves while we slash and burn expenses...

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/entitlements-historical-tax-levels
Really now... how do you propose to maintain these entitlements? Perhaps we should have a 75% tax on the rich?

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Illyak, there actually is something that the government does for graduates. If you work in a non for profit capacity or even in something research orientated for the greater good (I need to pull up the actually definitions), the government will forgive your loans after 8 years. Personally, I have no problem with the government rewarding those in need who seek to become productive members of society.

 

[euroazn]

Illyak, there actually is something that the government does for graduates. If you work in a non for profit capacity or even in something research orientated for the greater good (I need to pull up the actually definitions), the government will forgive your loans after 8 years. Personally, I have no problem with the government rewarding those in need who seek to become productive members of society.

They also do that if you work for... the government. Surprise surprise

 

[Abdel]

Ron Paul destroyed Ben Bernanke today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dj9v9s9buk

 

[bigbadwolf]

what did he say? I didn't notice any "destruction" in that clip...

Ron Paul is making a general point about the fiat dollar. I presume he's against fiat money. Bernanke's contention that gold is not money is true in the sense that I can't (yet) pay for a meal or a supermarket purchase with a gold or silver coin; I have to use dollars in the USA. Paul's argument that gold is money is true in the sense that it's held up for thousands of years and investors (presently) treat gold as a more secure store of value than fiat money (particularly, but not confined to, the USD). Were gold not considered a more reliable store of value, central banks throughout the world would not be surreptitiously buying it with their dollar reserves.

The debasement of currency goes back at least to Roman times (maybe even earlier?), when Rome increasingly mixed cheaper metals in what was once pure gold coinage.

 

[Abdel]

Ron Paul is making a general point about the fiat dollar. I presume he's against fiat money. Bernanke's contention that gold is not money is true in the sense that I can't (yet) pay for a meal or a supermarket purchase with a gold or silver coin; I have to use dollars in the USA. Paul's argument that gold is money is true in the sense that it's held up for thousands of years and investors (presently) treat gold as a more secure store of value than fiat money (particularly, but not confined to, the USD). Were gold not considered a more reliable store of value, central banks throughout the world would not be surreptitiously buying it with their dollar reserves.

The debasement of currency goes back at least to Roman times (maybe even earlier?), when Rome increasingly mixed cheaper metals in what was once pure gold coinage.

Add to that, what the U.S constitution says about money.

The funniest part is when Paul asked him '' if gold is only an asset, why don't central bank hold diamonds?'' ...and Ben's answer was '' it's the tradition''

sorry but I cain't hold my self, HAHAHAHA

Glad I baught gold back when it was $750 and silver when it was $14. I knew these keynsians were clueless. Keep printing Ben, you're making me richer!

 

[alain]

Glad I baught gold back when it was $750 and silver when it was $14. I knew these keynsians were clueless. Keep printing Ben, you're making me richer!

Have you ever try to sell that gold?

 

[Abdel]

Have you ever try to sell that gold?

I did baught/sell Gold & other commodities ETF's.

But I'm holding to my physical gold/silver.

 

[alain]

But I'm holding to my physical gold/silver.

my question again is regarding this. have you ever try to sell it?

 

[Abdel]

my question again is regarding this. have you ever try to sell it?

No, I did not.

 

[Abdel]

Well, that's basically it. It's tradition. Gold's value is as synthetic as that of paper money. It has few practical uses. It's not like oil that can be turned into gasoline or corn that can be eaten.

Historically over the lifetime of the planet people for whatever reason have used gold as currency up until the development of actual currency.

History is not on your side on this one.

Gold have been used as money for +6000 years. The few times they tried paper money or tried to devalue the money (less gold in coin or print paper money), it never lasted and ended up in desaster.

The only solution is to go back to a gold standard....if not gold, link paper money to another commoditie. You got to put some type of discipline on politicians.



Edit: And the 'Tradition' of central banks to hold Gold is because Gold IS money! lol

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

I love people holding gold as if one day it will be used. Let me fill you in. The day you are chipping pieces of gold off to buy bread is the day guns and ammo are far more valuable. When the world goes to crap it will be force and intimidation that will rule the day, not some guy with a sack full of gold coins.

I also didn't see any "ownage". Ron Paul is a smart guy and has his well defined position and Bernanke is a smart guy with his well defined position. Always warms my heart to see a politician making an abstract point instead of trying to get something done.