Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

I can see the appeal of that approach. I don't agree with it, but there's a way to work that for all types of social assistance. If you're not willing to move to where the jobs are, for example, then why should the rest of us pay so you can sit on your entitled ass in some bygone-era red-state shithole and collect assistance?

[iam416]

Correct. Accountability for all.

[iam416]

Of course, when it comes to limited resources, they ought to go to US Citizens, even those living in red-state shitholes like Wheeling and deep blue shit holes like inner city DC, ahead of folks living in third-world shitholes.

Then, when you're doling out aid to US Citizens living in various red/blue shitholes you hold them accountable.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Right ...... and we're really getting down to brass tacks now.

I think we all know where Hanni and the Geezer stand and both, at times, have argued their positions well, IMO. I may not agree with them.

From what I can read into the rest of you here from the posts you make, I doubt there is not a poster here who does not believe that Citizens, 1/2 citizens (those that are here legally - ya'll know what I mean), need to be accountable at several levels.

As a starting point, I'll go with portions of Maslow's heirachy of needs (cause we really don't give a shit, here anyway, about belonging, esteem, self-actualization and self-transcendency .... well maybe AlabamAlum does), you get the point:

Safety and Security needs include:

• Personal security
• Financial security
• Health and well-being
• Safety net against accidents/illness and their adverse impacts

My view is that government, in general, has a role in doing things so that citizens can realize Maslow's Safety and Security needs. I'm not sure all those here share that view and that's fine. So, lets say we all agree that government does have a role.

The next question is to what degree? Now, it gets harder and infinitely more complex.

For me the question is what is affordable? ...... and, we all know there are a ton of ways to answer that question depending on your particular political and economic views.

Without appearing to cross-over to DJT's view of things ..... and don't even start to accuse me of that ..... maybe he's on the right track with regard to the ACA, Boarder Security, taxation and the like and then taking talent's advice ("maybe we should see how things settle before we judge") and simply sit tight.

I think an obvious answer to that is, there's a risk that things will get out of hand if we just sit tight.

[hack]

Of course, when it comes to limited resources, they ought to go to US Citizens, even those living in red-state shitholes like Wheeling and deep blue shit holes like inner city DC, ahead of folks living in third-world shitholes.

Then, when you're doling out aid to US Citizens living in various red/blue shitholes you hold them accountable.

Which goes back to immigration policy, which apart from a per-capita tiny refugee alottment already filters out immigrants who aren't qualified to do things and prioritizes those who have skills which are currently in shortage. Which is why a greater percentage of immigrants have a college degree than non. I'm sure there are numbers on this stuff -- who gets what. I frankly don't care. Done right, immigration is a net positive by a wide margin, and the US may not be doing it perfectly but it could be doing it more wrongly.

But it would be good to make that accountability thing a two-way street. Conditions as they are now have a very entitled set of takers blaming others when they should in fact point those fingers at themselves. And all of us are paying a price for coddling that group.

[iam416]

There isn't just one "taker" group or one "coddled" group. Poverty is poverty, man.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Just for clarification's sake, because some news outlets originally misreported his identity, the Quebec mosque shooter was a Dylan Roof-type, not another Muslim.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-mosque-shooting-toll-idUSKBN15E0F6

[hack]

I agree. Frankly I think any worry about one individual gets from the USG is nonsense if one is not also worried about what's called corporate welfare. In particular in defense contracting. Those are some REAL balance-sheet problems.

[hack]

Well here's a meaty bone to chew on: https://www.cato.org/blog/common-arg...st-immigration

[Jeff Buchanan]

I agree. Frankly I think any worry about one individual gets from the USG is nonsense if one is not also worried about what's called corporate welfare. In particular in defense contracting. Those are some REAL balance-sheet problems.

Hmmmmm....... strawman?

Not that I disagree with that view (Corporate Welfare) but it tends to take the discussion in an another direction. I think I see your linkage though. Perhaps a little more detail on that would help.

[Jeff Buchanan]

My view is that the markets are frequently terrific indicators of things. The Dow closed down 122 points today after being down 200.

"I think it also has to do with what the immigration policy represents [in terms of] the way the Trump administration is going to operate," said John Conlon, chief investment officer at People's United Wealth Management. "The fact is that you've got a major policy that was implemented very quickly. That's causing uncertainty."

The order sparked outrage as thousands took to the streets across the U.S. in protest. Several world and corporate leaders also condemned the order. On Saturday, a federal judge issued an emergency stay to halt the deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the U.S.

"The Trump worries are now beginning to set in," said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at First Standard Financial. "We're having this ongoing worry effect that could overtake earnings and economic data."

The U.S. stock market has seen a massive rally since Trump's election, with the S&P and Dow advancing 7.25 percent and 9.61 percent since Nov. 8, respectively. "You're coming off all-time highs on virtually every index," said Mark Spellman, portfolio manager at Alpine Funds. "It doesn't take much for people to take a breather."

Traders have bet on Trump's promises of tax reform, infrastructure spending and deregulation that would boost growth, just as earnings have begun growing again.

"While investors were very quick to price in the expected impact that deregulation, infrastructure spending and job growth could have on the U.S. economy, I find it very difficult to believe that after pricing in heavy premiums based on fiscal promises, that investors are not now reconsidering what damage Trump might do by implementing other promises that supplemented an incoherent and ranting political campaign," said Jameel Ahmad, vice president of research at FXTM.

"Whether it is building a wall, banning certain nationalities, starting a trade war or pretty much anything else President Trump may do to upset people, it does risk both creating and deepening a negative perception of the U.S.," Ahmad said.

Like I said up thread - the Trump veneer wearing thin. Interesting times.

[hack]

My point is that if you are worried about people taking more than ``their fair share'' from the national pie, or whatever you want to call it, then you are essentially concerned about the financial health of the country. Debt, deficit, etc. If that's what you're worried about, then there are other actors -- corporations -- who are taking much much more. When some military contractor colludes with the DOD to produce a $600 toilet seat or a $700 hammer or a $2 gazillion bomber, that's also a stress on the country's resources. As was Halliburton wildly overcharging for services rendered in Iraq. Or oil companies enjoying subsidies as well as using diplomats overseas to do their lobbying with foreign governments. Your tax dollars pay for that just like they do the costs of helping immigrants. If you claim to be anti-immigration because it allows more mouths to cue at the federal buffet table, then you should care about the biggest of overeaters and not about the smallest.

[Jeff Buchanan]

........ then you should care about the biggest of overeaters and not about the smallest.

I get the point, thank you.

Not challenging you on this but I've never seen a rational comparison of Corporate Welfare (and I understand and find the amount of it that I can know about scandalous) and the total cost of Federal largess (someone on the far right has to know or have estimated that cost).

[hack]

It probably depends on how it's defined. I would love to see a real measure of how resources are split between commercial and individual, but that would be very difficult. But there are so many examples. One I just have on the brain due to recent work is taxation -- as a person, if you have a question, very often you don't get a person. You get to call the IRS and listen to a recording, or look on the web site. As a corporation you can get an Advance Pricing Agreement -- you can seek approval in advance for something you are doing in your tax return. Now obviously there's a good reason for that given the complexity of a commercial return vis-a-vis that of a private citizen, and given the likelihood of a much larger tax bill there. But we're all paying the salaries of hundreds of people to handle this stuff, whereas we get to call up and listen to a recording and then perhaps go overpay an accountant to interpret things that are confusing. Just one example of how, IMO, if there were a real accounting of federal spending and a better understanding of what constituents Washington REALLY works for, this accusatory finger might point in another direction.

[Da Geezer]

Jeff said:

...So, lets say we all agree that government does have a role.

The next question is to what degree? Now, it gets harder and infinitely more complex.

For me the question is what is affordable? ...... and, we all know there are a ton of ways to answer that question depending on your particular political and economic views.

Let's go back to the postulate that government does have a role. It seems to me that the role of government is not so much determined by what is affordable since that word implies that government, in general, has assets or income. Factually, government's money comes from its citizens, so what is "affordable" is another way of saying "the amount of taking from one person and giving to another person" we will tolerate.

I believe a better way to determine government's role is to try to isolate that which we, as citizens, hold in common, and limit government to those items. We hold air in common, and government should, using the law, prohibit companies from pushing their costs of production off on the rest of us by polluting the air. This seems to me to be pretty straight forward.

But when we begin to make value judgments as to what is important (like Maslow's) we run into trouble. Take "Personal Security". Does that mean a person should be required to have a handgun, the better to fend off danger? Or does it mean a person should be prohibited a handgun, so the police don't have to worry about it? Does "financial security" mean we should promote greatly similar salaries (and mediocrity) or should we nurture the brightest and most aggressive among us, tax those folks, and give the rest some sort of guaranteed (but lower) income?

In general, I think Jefferson's advice "...that government is best which governs least" remains the touchstone of good governance.