BMW i
Forum for the BMW i3, i4 and i8
BMW i3 BMW i8
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

  BMW i Forums > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-20-2015, 11:40 AM   #23
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3156
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87 View Post
you live in arlington, I live in hippy colorado. try having any kind of political debate with a stoner and it always turns into a legalization conversation.
Fair point, lol.
Appreciate 0
      08-20-2015, 11:56 AM   #24
BavarianDevil
Private First Class
BavarianDevil's Avatar
United_States
50
Rep
137
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW M4 Silverstone/Beige
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Almaden Valley, South San Jose, CA

iTrader: (0)

I find politics a no win conversation taking up useless time. Like religion its very personal and we all interpret it differently.
Appreciate 1
      08-20-2015, 11:57 AM   #25
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
9018
Rep
22,063
Posts

Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

Like talking to a women? Different language.
Appreciate 0
      08-20-2015, 01:46 PM   #26
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87 View Post
People get too wrapped up in the social issues to ever actually elect an official that will be good for them, economically wise.

Most people I know that are strongly opinionated right or left, can only tell you the social stances of politicians, but couldn't tell you the 1st thing about their economic goals/plans; and that is why the poor stay poor, the middle class stay in the middle and the rich get richer.

I don't care if a politician leans one way or the other on gay marriage, abortion... what matters are items that affect the economy, my money and my job
Red:
I certainly don't disagree with how you describe the people in Northern Colorado. I know only one person who sort of lives there, and he and his family are in Niwot. One data point, or even 100 of them, is hardly enough to say what folks in CO know about in half of a state. LOL

Nonetheless, the one guy I know isn't (AFAIK) economically ignorant -- he's got an MBA, so I know he's studied the subject, but then I didn't ask him about economics during his interview LOL -- and he's doing more than okay money wise. Social issues are important to him as are economic ones. From what I can tell -- and I'll state that my surmising about him is based on random remarks, not a full on discussion -- what he thinks is most important seems to vary depending on state of the nation. I know he's not a one-dimensional guy; he's considerably more complicated than are folks who see things from only one POV.

That said, given the nature in which economic policy is decided upon in U.S., I don't really think that knowing or not knowing a candidate's position on economic matters is why the rich get richer, the poor poorer, or the middle class stay in the middle.
  • The rich get richer, as a group, because they control everything to begin with. That's just as true now as it was 1000 years ago. It's true in democracies. It's true in aspiring communist nations and it's true in dictatorships. The only place it might not be true is in genuinely communist nations, but seeing as there has never been such a thing, it's hard to know.
  • I don't actually know that the poor get poorer. I know they rarely get rich, and that they sometimes move from working poor to middle class. There are surely many reasons for that, but what they know about a candidate's economic position isn't it. The reason it's not is because if one has little to no discretionary spending ability and few highly sought after skills, there are few economic policies, aside from direct economic assistance, that are going to alter collectively the poor's economic position. Select individuals may move up economically, but on the whole, "the poor" ain't going anywhere unless a huge share of them win the lottery.
  • The middle class stay in the middle because they have to. There's only so much room at the top and nobody wants to expand the bottom. The bulk of society must consist of the middle class and the middle class must be maintained in a state where for whatever discontent they express, they are unwilling to stage a revolt. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalearch...d-to-a-revolt/) As a result, all that happens is what defines middle class simply expands. In other words, the top end of "upper middle" moves up faster than does the bottom end of "lower middle." The reason that works is because "the rich" get richer, which means that upper middle class folks need to aim for "very solidly rich" in order to actually hit the mark of "just being rich."
Blue:
I respect that you prioritize economic policy and its impact on you. When I was younger, I did too. And at another point in my life, when I was younger, I stopped doing that.

It's not that I don't care about my own and my family's coffers. I care about them a lot, especially my kids' coffers, for once they finish school, and I've set them up with their first home, I'd just as soon they no longer rely on my "stash." LOL

The thing for me is that at some point, assuming one's doing "things" right, one has to realize that "the rising tide lifts all boats." Sometimes there's a tide that may not be the best one for my boat to ride, but that it can endure even though it's not ideal.

Mr. Obama wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy; that didn't stop me from voting for him, even though I knew I was one of the targets of that tax increase. Mr. Trump has multiple times proposed a a one-time 14% tax on wealth to pay off the national debt which would also cost me more money in taxes. (I'm not here going into sheer folly of actually trying to do so, the literal viability of it, the fact that the national debt is impossible to pay off and that our GDP = our national debt) That alone isn't stopping me from at least considering Mr. Trump.

If I think a candidate will do something right by folks less blessed than I and that nobody otherwise will do for them in the foreseeable future, I may support that candidate even though it's going to cost me a few extra ducats. It's hardly going to be the "end of the world" for me, and that's been so since before I reached a point were I could think of myself as being well off.

And that's the key. I think it the nationally responsible thing to do to ask oneself, and answer honestly, "How much difference is it really going to make in my life if I have in my pocket $XXX/month?" How much "$XXX" is specifically isn't the point. The point is that one needs to know what that sum is in order to know how to prioritize social over economic issues. The truth is one doesn't have to be all that well off in order for $XXX to be a fairly decent sum, and I know that because it's not as though one day I was struggling and the next day I won the lottery or dropped a hit record. LOL I worked my way up the rungs of middle class income levels.

Sure, more money in my pocket is, in the absolute, better than less. But if less in my pocket means that some folks who wouldn't get "whatever" without my having less can instead get that "whatever," then fine. I'll still get by.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BavarianDevil View Post
I find politics a no win conversation taking up useless time. Like religion its very personal and we all interpret it differently.
IMO, if there's a "win" to be had in political discourse, it's found in enabling or inspiring folks to look at the "playing field" with eyes wide open and at the whole picture in all its comprehensive complexity.

When I get into political discussions, what I find annoying, bothersome, frustrating, etc. is that rather than aligning themselves with whatever is the complete set of facts, or with a pattern of ethical comportment, folks instead aim to align with a party and only people who are also of the same party. The other thing that annoys me is folks for whom having a substantive conversation is just beyond their ability to do and what they offer instead is platitudes, non-answers, childish responses, and/or misdirection.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-20-2015, 02:22 PM   #27
csu87
Banned
2092
Rep
3,655
Posts

Drives: 09 335xi
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Northern Colorado

iTrader: (0)

See, I don't mind DONATING money to help less fortunate have a better life, but being forced to do so is what I am not a fan of. The Obama policies have, for the most part, forced people to give more to help those less fortunate. And the problem with giving free things to people, is that eventually, they give up trying to provide for themselves, and let someone else provide for them. It wouldnt be a bad system if everyone strived to get better, but there are way too many that just strive to live off the system.

Case in point is the report out of Seattle after wages were raised to $15/hr. Once the people who received the big bump in pay realized they wouldnt qualify for as much assistance, they started requesting to work less hours so they could still qualify for the same assistance as before.. Now I know this isnt true for everyone, but still, it happens.

Now if the only people applying for and getting assistance were those who truly needed it (disabled, extenuating circumstances...) then I would have no issue with a higher tax to help these guys. Things happen in life and I think people deserve second chances. I know I have had my share of mess ups, and I could have easily turned into one of those less fortunate, but I stuck my head down and powered on to get where I am today.

As for politics being one of the no win conversations, 9/10 times it is. Everyone has their opinion, and no one likes hearing their opinion is wrong. If you find someone that can have an intelligent conversation and unbiasedly look at both sides, then bravo. But with the big 3 (politics, religion, sports) you will most likely not be able to sway someone to see your side and vice versa.
Appreciate 0
      08-20-2015, 03:12 PM   #28
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3156
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87 View Post
See, I don't mind DONATING money to help less fortunate have a better life, but being forced to do so is what I am not a fan of. The Obama policies have, for the most part, forced people to give more to help those less fortunate. And the problem with giving free things to people, is that eventually, they give up trying to provide for themselves, and let someone else provide for them. It wouldnt be a bad system if everyone strived to get better, but there are way too many that just strive to live off the system.

Case in point is the report out of Seattle after wages were raised to $15/hr. Once the people who received the big bump in pay realized they wouldnt qualify for as much assistance, they started requesting to work less hours so they could still qualify for the same assistance as before.. Now I know this isnt true for everyone, but still, it happens.

Now if the only people applying for and getting assistance were those who truly needed it (disabled, extenuating circumstances...) then I would have no issue with a higher tax to help these guys. Things happen in life and I think people deserve second chances. I know I have had my share of mess ups, and I could have easily turned into one of those less fortunate, but I stuck my head down and powered on to get where I am today.

As for politics being one of the no win conversations, 9/10 times it is. Everyone has their opinion, and no one likes hearing their opinion is wrong. If you find someone that can have an intelligent conversation and unbiasedly look at both sides, then bravo. But with the big 3 (politics, religion, sports) you will most likely not be able to sway someone to see your side and vice versa.
Most of the tax increases are just going towards helping bring down the deficit, not necessarily because they want to give people more "free" things.

You'll always have people abuse the system regardless but the increase in taxes isn't to help give more people free shit. In aggregate, welfare related spending doesn't really make up much of federal expenditures.

It has gone up but that's not really because anyone really wants to give people "more" free stuff, it's just because we hit a recession and people lost their jobs and unemployment benefits are a form of welfare.

Could always try cutting spending but people in Congress seem too afraid to cut spending unless it's towards something everyone universally hates, such as the IRS. There's a lot of money to be saved by making changes to social security, you think any politician wants to touch that and risk the wrath of AARP? Nope. Those in Congress are looking out for their own careers and aspirations, which may not necessarily be in the best interest of the country itself.
Appreciate 0
      08-20-2015, 05:44 PM   #29
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87 View Post
See, I don't mind DONATING money to help less fortunate have a better life, but being forced to do so is what I am not a fan of. The Obama policies have, for the most part, forced people to give more to help those less fortunate. And the problem with giving free things to people, is that eventually, they give up trying to provide for themselves, and let someone else provide for them. It wouldnt be a bad system if everyone strived to get better, but there are way too many that just strive to live off the system.

Case in point is the report out of Seattle after wages were raised to $15/hr. Once the people who received the big bump in pay realized they wouldnt qualify for as much assistance, they started requesting to work less hours so they could still qualify for the same assistance as before.. Now I know this isnt true for everyone, but still, it happens.

Now if the only people applying for and getting assistance were those who truly needed it (disabled, extenuating circumstances...) then I would have no issue with a higher tax to help these guys. Things happen in life and I think people deserve second chances. I know I have had my share of mess ups, and I could have easily turned into one of those less fortunate, but I stuck my head down and powered on to get where I am today.

As for politics being one of the no win conversations, 9/10 times it is. Everyone has their opinion, and no one likes hearing their opinion is wrong. If you find someone that can have an intelligent conversation and unbiasedly look at both sides, then bravo. But with the big 3 (politics, religion, sports) you will most likely not be able to sway someone to see your side and vice versa.
Red:
Well, let me ask you this. How do you feel about being forced to subsidize corporations, big ones no less?
I ask you that because you, like many folks, pick on folks who get government assistance, but in terms of the sums going to any one individual, they are a drop in the bucket. Take all the corporate welfare provided to the Fortune 500 and divide by 500, then find 500 income earning households that receive a comparable sum, even on a percentage basis,* of subsidization from Uncle Sam.

*Note:
For an example of a percentage basis, consider this.
"Honeywell had profits of $5 billion from 2009 to 2012. Yet it paid only $50 million in federal income taxes for the period. Its tax rate was just 1 percent over the last four years. This gave it a huge tax subsidy worth $1.7 billion."

Based on the info above, Honeywell received a 34% tax subsidy, or put another way, paid taxes at the rate of 1%. Now I don't know what tax bracket most Americans are in, but I am certain it's not the 1% bracket. Not even the one-percent who are the highest individual income earners are in the 1% tax bracket.
I haven't yet looked at the details to see exactly what those companies did and what the government received in return for the money. (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...code-subsidies) I do know one thing, however, tax subsidies are something that "the rich" (individuals and companies) get a hell of a lot of and "spending via tax breaks" is by far the biggest government expenditure. (http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal...x-expenditures)

Now if you read the short article at the CBPP site linked above, you'll come across a tax break related to offshore earnings. Here are some sample impacts of that provision: http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/29/10-...rporate-taxes/ . That amounts to at ~$57B in tax subsidies for 10 companies. Moreover, the monies saved by two of those companies avoided $16B in tax payments to the U.S. and they were friggin' banks that you and I saved their greedy, sorry asses from going belly up!

Now consider this. According to the Census Bureau, 82.6M people receive welfare. Divvying the ~$70B in tax subsidies for TEN companies among them puts ~$850 in the pockets of each of those individuals. Now I'm not going to guess how little one needs to make for $850 to matter, but I am going to ask you whether in light of the fact that there's no such thing as not being able to afford one's taxes because taxes are always a portion of income, tell me for whom the money makes more of a difference: $850 to a welfare recipient or several billion to a company that makes several billion more than what they'd have to pay in taxes.





You'll note that the chart above depicts the expenditures as percentages not actual dollars. Nobody expects the actual dollars to be level across income brackets (or at least I would hope not).

Brown:
Mr. Obama's policies aren't the only President's policies that forced you to provide the "corporate welfare" noted in the scholarly studies and reports cited above. Every President's policies forced you to contribute to that.

Blue:
The sort of thing that gets my goat is the corporate subsidy stuff, not the comparative minority of folks at whom one can point a finger and say "you're abusing the system." I can, until at least the corporate tax subsidies are done away with and not replaced by something else, look past all the welfare cheats and abusers, all the folks who see receiving welfare as a career because I know that they are not the majority of people who receive it. I can also look past whatever cheats or "hours cutters" there are because for all their "gaming" of the system, they still aren't living anything like a lifestyle of a single person earning ~$50K/year in a an average city (not a high COLA city like D.C. or NYC) or suburb.

And, no, I don't blame or harbor animosity toward corporations for availing themselves of the tax subsidies. (Except perhaps the banks, which, IMO don't deserve to shelter one damn cent from the U.S. pot of money that might be made in part available to benefit U.S. citizens in some way, shape or form. Lawyers are sometimes referred to as "Dewey, Skrewem/Cheatum, & Howe," but I think that name fits big banks equally well.) I blame the politicians who make them available. That sort of thing is among the things I specifically mean when I write that I want elected leaders who care more about you and me than about corporations.

Orange:
I'm sure they don't, but do you really believe most people would prefer to actually be wrong merely because they (1) relied on the incomplete information that someone whom they trusted gave them and/or (2) made no effort to confirm the data they were given?

Personally, I'd be more ticked about being misled than I would over being shown my opinion is in fact baseless. Admittedly, neither is something I like experiencing.

Purple:
It's one thing to arrive at a sound conclusion that though different from the one I form, is at least logically supportable if for no other reason that it considered a relevant and complete set of facts and premises. To be perfectly honest, I don't know how people can actually have a damn opinion that they would publicly air on a topic -- particularly a topic that affects literally millions of people if one gets to vote on the matter (directly or indirectly) and not have comprehensively considered the circumstances and facts concerning it.

For example, there are often multiple economic approaches one may pursue in attempting to resolve fiscal policy matters. Each approach has pros and cons, call them "gapsin the theory" sometimes even, but if one is going to advocate for the nation applying one or the other, then just do so on merit of the theory, do so by plainly stating something akin to "I see 'such and such' as the driving priority right now, and because XYZ approach does 'this and that,' it's the one I think we should use in the near term."

At least there's integrity in that way of developing and presenting one's position. That mode of presentation doesn't depend on which party also concurs with one's view. Plus, if nothing else, it's clearly one's own position that results from one's own complete analysis of the matter not one's position merely because it's the one that one's favorite politician, media hack, or whoever has an "axe to grind" and thus also promotes the approach in question.

Other:
As you may imagine, I'm a pretty big consumer of Sunday morning television and I know you know that I'm not at all keen on the Fox network. There is one exception though. I always watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He is the only Fox News figure I can stand to watch and the reason why is that he is willing to call out his guests when what they say can't be supported by the facts.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/0...rinas-c/203823

Make no mistake, he'll toss a softball from time to time as well.



(Did anyone else watching the second video above notice when her body language and her words told different stories? There were several points when it was clear her involuntary body language indicated she didn't even believe what she was saying at that moment.)

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-20-2015, 06:50 PM   #30
wdb
dances with roads
wdb's Avatar
United_States
1565
Rep
2,466
Posts

Drives: '07 Z4MC, '07 E93 328i
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: the perimeter

iTrader: (4)

*hippie
Appreciate 0
      09-04-2015, 09:32 AM   #31
bmw1racer
bimmerphile, technogeek
bmw1racer's Avatar
United_States
707
Rep
3,523
Posts

Drives: 2012 128i E82 6MT Sport
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Take this quiz to find out which candidate matches your views: http://www.isidewith.com/
__________________
Appreciate 0
      09-04-2015, 11:52 AM   #32
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw1racer View Post
Take this quiz to find out which candidate matches your views: http://www.isidewith.com/
Entertaining. The quiz didn't indicate anything different than what I already knew.

In taking it, I found that very few of my views were among the available choices.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      09-04-2015, 03:00 PM   #33
bmw1racer
bimmerphile, technogeek
bmw1racer's Avatar
United_States
707
Rep
3,523
Posts

Drives: 2012 128i E82 6MT Sport
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Entertaining. The quiz didn't indicate anything different than what I already knew.

In taking it, I found that very few of my views were among the available choices.
Yeah, I thought it was an interesting quiz: I scored 93% for Hillary and 91% for Bernie... Pretty much a dead heat, though I'd give the nod to Bernie.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      09-04-2015, 04:35 PM   #34
Darth Federer
Private First Class
United_States
2
Rep
119
Posts

Drives: 2012 m3 SSII Metallic
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Red:
Well, let me ask you this. How do you feel about being forced to subsidize corporations, big ones no less?
I ask you that because you, like many folks, pick on folks who get government assistance, but in terms of the sums going to any one individual, they are a drop in the bucket. Take all the corporate welfare provided to the Fortune 500 and divide by 500, then find 500 income earning households that receive a comparable sum, even on a percentage basis,* of subsidization from Uncle Sam.

*Note:
For an example of a percentage basis, consider this.
"Honeywell had profits of $5 billion from 2009 to 2012. Yet it paid only $50 million in federal income taxes for the period. Its tax rate was just 1 percent over the last four years. This gave it a huge tax subsidy worth $1.7 billion."

Based on the info above, Honeywell received a 34% tax subsidy, or put another way, paid taxes at the rate of 1%. Now I don't know what tax bracket most Americans are in, but I am certain it's not the 1% bracket. Not even the one-percent who are the highest individual income earners are in the 1% tax bracket.
I haven't yet looked at the details to see exactly what those companies did and what the government received in return for the money. (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...code-subsidies) I do know one thing, however, tax subsidies are something that "the rich" (individuals and companies) get a hell of a lot of and "spending via tax breaks" is by far the biggest government expenditure. (http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal...x-expenditures)

Now if you read the short article at the CBPP site linked above, you'll come across a tax break related to offshore earnings. Here are some sample impacts of that provision: http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/29/10-...rporate-taxes/ . That amounts to at ~$57B in tax subsidies for 10 companies. Moreover, the monies saved by two of those companies avoided $16B in tax payments to the U.S. and they were friggin' banks that you and I saved their greedy, sorry asses from going belly up!

Now consider this. According to the Census Bureau, 82.6M people receive welfare. Divvying the ~$70B in tax subsidies for TEN companies among them puts ~$850 in the pockets of each of those individuals. Now I'm not going to guess how little one needs to make for $850 to matter, but I am going to ask you whether in light of the fact that there's no such thing as not being able to afford one's taxes because taxes are always a portion of income, tell me for whom the money makes more of a difference: $850 to a welfare recipient or several billion to a company that makes several billion more than what they'd have to pay in taxes.





You'll note that the chart above depicts the expenditures as percentages not actual dollars. Nobody expects the actual dollars to be level across income brackets (or at least I would hope not).

Brown:
Mr. Obama's policies aren't the only President's policies that forced you to provide the "corporate welfare" noted in the scholarly studies and reports cited above. Every President's policies forced you to contribute to that.

Blue:
The sort of thing that gets my goat is the corporate subsidy stuff, not the comparative minority of folks at whom one can point a finger and say "you're abusing the system." I can, until at least the corporate tax subsidies are done away with and not replaced by something else, look past all the welfare cheats and abusers, all the folks who see receiving welfare as a career because I know that they are not the majority of people who receive it. I can also look past whatever cheats or "hours cutters" there are because for all their "gaming" of the system, they still aren't living anything like a lifestyle of a single person earning ~$50K/year in a an average city (not a high COLA city like D.C. or NYC) or suburb.

And, no, I don't blame or harbor animosity toward corporations for availing themselves of the tax subsidies. (Except perhaps the banks, which, IMO don't deserve to shelter one damn cent from the U.S. pot of money that might be made in part available to benefit U.S. citizens in some way, shape or form. Lawyers are sometimes referred to as "Dewey, Skrewem/Cheatum, & Howe," but I think that name fits big banks equally well.) I blame the politicians who make them available. That sort of thing is among the things I specifically mean when I write that I want elected leaders who care more about you and me than about corporations.

Orange:
I'm sure they don't, but do you really believe most people would prefer to actually be wrong merely because they (1) relied on the incomplete information that someone whom they trusted gave them and/or (2) made no effort to confirm the data they were given?

Personally, I'd be more ticked about being misled than I would over being shown my opinion is in fact baseless. Admittedly, neither is something I like experiencing.

Purple:
It's one thing to arrive at a sound conclusion that though different from the one I form, is at least logically supportable if for no other reason that it considered a relevant and complete set of facts and premises. To be perfectly honest, I don't know how people can actually have a damn opinion that they would publicly air on a topic -- particularly a topic that affects literally millions of people if one gets to vote on the matter (directly or indirectly) and not have comprehensively considered the circumstances and facts concerning it.

For example, there are often multiple economic approaches one may pursue in attempting to resolve fiscal policy matters. Each approach has pros and cons, call them "gapsin the theory" sometimes even, but if one is going to advocate for the nation applying one or the other, then just do so on merit of the theory, do so by plainly stating something akin to "I see 'such and such' as the driving priority right now, and because XYZ approach does 'this and that,' it's the one I think we should use in the near term."

At least there's integrity in that way of developing and presenting one's position. That mode of presentation doesn't depend on which party also concurs with one's view. Plus, if nothing else, it's clearly one's own position that results from one's own complete analysis of the matter not one's position merely because it's the one that one's favorite politician, media hack, or whoever has an "axe to grind" and thus also promotes the approach in question.

Other:
As you may imagine, I'm a pretty big consumer of Sunday morning television and I know you know that I'm not at all keen on the Fox network. There is one exception though. I always watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He is the only Fox News figure I can stand to watch and the reason why is that he is willing to call out his guests when what they say can't be supported by the facts.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/0...rinas-c/203823

Make no mistake, he'll toss a softball from time to time as well.



(Did anyone else watching the second video above notice when her body language and her words told different stories? There were several points when it was clear her involuntary body language indicated she didn't even believe what she was saying at that moment.)

All the best.
At the start of this post are you suggesting tax cuts etc for corporations is analogous to welfare for individual people? If so, what do the individual people getting welfare benefits produce or create that is comparable to what a company creates? Are you suggesting there is no legitimate reason for a company to receive a tax break or other incentive?
Additionally, I see at the bottom of this post you are not a fan of Fox News. Does that come from intellectually honest reasoning or because you've got an built in bias? Nothing wrong with bias as long as it's for a good reason. Im curious if you have similar animosity towards NBC, MSNBC, CNN or any other news outlet other than Fox News? Thanks.
Appreciate 0
      09-04-2015, 06:38 PM   #35
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Federer View Post
At the start of this post are you suggesting tax cuts etc for corporations is analogous to welfare for individual people? If so, what do the individual people getting welfare benefits produce or create that is comparable to what a company creates? Are you suggesting there is no legitimate reason for a company to receive a tax break or other incentive?
Additionally, I see at the bottom of this post you are not a fan of Fox News. Does that come from intellectually honest reasoning or because you've got an built in bias? Nothing wrong with bias as long as it's for a good reason. Im curious if you have similar animosity towards NBC, MSNBC, CNN or any other news outlet other than Fox News? Thanks.
Red:
Yes.

Blue:
Little to nothing. That's why "corporate welfare" via tax cuts is generally written between quotation marks; they imply that the writer knows the analogy isn't 100% applicable. Where it is applicable is that individual companies or industries do, unlike most private individuals including welfare recipients, get specific "carve outs" in the tax code and those specific provisions are worth huge and material sums, even to billion-dollar-plus companies.

Orange:
In the main, yes, although there may be exceptions. Profit is a company's raison d'etre. Why should I or anyone think or feel that profit is an insufficient motivator/incentive for a company to "do its thing?"

When a government or individual wants a company to do something the company can do but that the company doesn't typically endeavor to do, if the customer is willing to make it profitable for the company to accept the contract, that's all the incentive that's needed. The incentive need not be provided via tax breaks. If the customer isn't willing to pay enough to meet the company's profit requirements, the company need not accept the contract.

The idea of giving a company a tax break for doing what it is predisposed to do in the first place is just ridiculous because the company has already determined it can make profits by doing that thing.

Green:
I'm fine with the hard news portion of news that Fox News reports. What I dislike about a lot of the content on Fox's channel is that it's so heavily infused with opinion. I also don't like that Fox makes mountains out of molehills solely for the purpose of tearing down liberal officials.

Frankly, I don't at all mind getting conservative points of view. I am a regular reader of The Economist.

Purple:
Generally speaking, I find MSNBC to be quite the same as Fox in that regard, and largely, I don't watch either of them unless I learn they have an exclusive story that requires I watch them.

CNN strikes me as being more objective than either of them. Ditto PBS.

I have a bias against opinion being presented as news. That bias applies to every news organization. I also have a problem with news reporters and editorialists making up "facts," taking legitimate facts out of context, and so on, in order to make a point.

I also have a bias against loaded language in news and editorials. I don't need to be told something or someone is "socialist," "liberal, "anti-American," (or pro- or anti- whatever) or "conservative" or anything else. Just present the information using neutral language and credible facts or contextually relevant observations/analogies, thank you, and I can decide for myself. I don't need to be told whether something is consistent with my values and principles. I don't care if something is conservative or liberal; being so isn't what determines whether I am for it, indifferent about it, or against it, or some blend thereof.

I also think all news organizations have an obligation to present both sides of a contentious issue. For example, if they were to cite this writer's conclusion(s) in a story (http://pcl.stanford.edu/research/200...maleffects.pdf), I would expect the reporter to also report in a contextually accurate way that these researchers (http://rkellygarrett.com/wp-content/...al-effects.pdf) have offered XYZ rebuttals to the points the earlier cited author made and one what basis and to what extent they ground their refutation. With that information, I can decide on my own which take on the matter seems most applicable to me and when and what implications it has that I give a damn about, assuming there are any. It doesn't matter which view is liberal or conservative, that is if either is.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      09-04-2015, 06:41 PM   #36
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw1racer View Post
Yeah, I thought it was an interesting quiz: I scored 93% for Hillary and 91% for Bernie... Pretty much a dead heat, though I'd give the nod to Bernie.
I won't share my scores, but I will share that based on the quiz, I have a lot in common with Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders.

The things that identify my distaste for any of the three aren't included in the quiz' questions.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      09-14-2015, 09:21 PM   #37
kmarei
Major General
kmarei's Avatar
Egypt
335
Rep
6,707
Posts

Drives: 2015 Alfa Romeo 4C LE
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Reston, VA

iTrader: (33)

Garage List
As an outsider looking in
It doesn't matter which party wins
Americans get too caught up in the candidates
Oh looks she's a liar"
Oh look he's an idiot!

When the reality is the president has very little to do with the direction of the country
And that direction is not good for the average American
And hasn't been for a few decades
__________________
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST