lol, I'm sure the oil industry, banks, wall street, boeing, etc are on tenter hooks hoping a teacher in Maine will continue to bankroll their operations.
Forum > General Discussion > The "Random crap that isn't worth a thread" thread
Venkman
offline
offline
that's right, they have suckers like you for that. who bankroll them to a much greater extent than I do, then defend them, and even more, convince you that 'poor, lazy people' are ones you should be mad at.
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by Venkman
that's right, they have suckers like you for that. who bankroll them to a much greater extent than I do, then defend them, and even more, convince you that 'poor, lazy people' are ones you should be mad at.
Its a lot more profitable for them to count on the unions (including the teachers unions) to keep bankrolling them. Unions just want their dues secure (and to a very much less degree their members protected), they don't give a damn about outcomes. If they could cut the security of their members in half while doubling the dues charged, they'd be quite fine with the trade.
that's right, they have suckers like you for that. who bankroll them to a much greater extent than I do, then defend them, and even more, convince you that 'poor, lazy people' are ones you should be mad at.
Its a lot more profitable for them to count on the unions (including the teachers unions) to keep bankrolling them. Unions just want their dues secure (and to a very much less degree their members protected), they don't give a damn about outcomes. If they could cut the security of their members in half while doubling the dues charged, they'd be quite fine with the trade.
Originally posted by Lurchy
did somebody ask for music??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozAmXo2bDE
That makes me tear up a little. So many people having the time of their lives
doobas™
did somebody ask for music??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozAmXo2bDE
That makes me tear up a little. So many people having the time of their lives
doobas™
Venkman
offline
offline
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Its a lot more profitable for them to count on the unions (including the teachers unions) to keep bankrolling them. Unions just want their dues secure (and to a very much less degree their members protected), they don't give a damn about outcomes. If they could cut the security of their members in half while doubling the dues charged, they'd be quite fine with the trade.
who is 'them', here?
and if you want to start shitting on unions in general, I'll join in. I've made it pretty clear that I've never been a fan.
Its a lot more profitable for them to count on the unions (including the teachers unions) to keep bankrolling them. Unions just want their dues secure (and to a very much less degree their members protected), they don't give a damn about outcomes. If they could cut the security of their members in half while doubling the dues charged, they'd be quite fine with the trade.
who is 'them', here?
and if you want to start shitting on unions in general, I'll join in. I've made it pretty clear that I've never been a fan.
Cowpoker
offline
offline
Originally posted by Venkman
who is 'them', here?
and if you want to start shitting on unions in general, I'll join in. I've made it pretty clear that I've never been a fan.
You have 3 different people coming at you from different angles.
In my opinion, you shouldn't be as critical of the oil industry, banks, wall street and boeing. Energy efficiency is important to every single person in the country, the ability to borrow money is important to business and consumers alike as is wall street and boeing is the type of industry that this country should be excelling at with high end jobs. That being said, there is always areas of improvement so I am not blindly supporting throwing money in that direction or completely deregulating an industry.
The value of high levels of support for the poor usually revolves around spending a smaller amount of money on social programs vs a larger amount of money on law enforcement, jail and justice costs if we eliminate the human element. Basically, a poor person on assistance adds no more benefit then if you generated a random equation and redistributed the money among retailers and property owners.
That is where the frustration comes from, investing money and getting little value back other then the redistribution of those assistance dollars.
All that being said, I am not a fan of cutting assistance and social programs but I do believe there is a lot of room for improvement and a lot of room for more efficiency. SNAP is basically a food production subsidy, it sustains a market and takes out some potential instability, housing and rental assistance are the same thing and most other assistance programs support retail sales. The results are direct, they can be easily measured and the government benefits because those redistributed dollars are taxed again when they get back to the retailer or property owner.
In my opinion, we are arguing about only having one choice. We can either support industry or business or support poor people and I think there is a value in doing both. The discussion should revolve around how we can improve our spending in both areas and what is netting the best results and measure it not only in immediate impact but how it can sustain future growth and improvement.
who is 'them', here?
and if you want to start shitting on unions in general, I'll join in. I've made it pretty clear that I've never been a fan.
You have 3 different people coming at you from different angles.
In my opinion, you shouldn't be as critical of the oil industry, banks, wall street and boeing. Energy efficiency is important to every single person in the country, the ability to borrow money is important to business and consumers alike as is wall street and boeing is the type of industry that this country should be excelling at with high end jobs. That being said, there is always areas of improvement so I am not blindly supporting throwing money in that direction or completely deregulating an industry.
The value of high levels of support for the poor usually revolves around spending a smaller amount of money on social programs vs a larger amount of money on law enforcement, jail and justice costs if we eliminate the human element. Basically, a poor person on assistance adds no more benefit then if you generated a random equation and redistributed the money among retailers and property owners.
That is where the frustration comes from, investing money and getting little value back other then the redistribution of those assistance dollars.
All that being said, I am not a fan of cutting assistance and social programs but I do believe there is a lot of room for improvement and a lot of room for more efficiency. SNAP is basically a food production subsidy, it sustains a market and takes out some potential instability, housing and rental assistance are the same thing and most other assistance programs support retail sales. The results are direct, they can be easily measured and the government benefits because those redistributed dollars are taxed again when they get back to the retailer or property owner.
In my opinion, we are arguing about only having one choice. We can either support industry or business or support poor people and I think there is a value in doing both. The discussion should revolve around how we can improve our spending in both areas and what is netting the best results and measure it not only in immediate impact but how it can sustain future growth and improvement.
Venkman
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cowpoker
In my opinion, we are arguing about only having one choice. We can either support industry or business or support poor people and I think there is a value in doing both. The discussion should revolve around how we can improve our spending in both areas and what is netting the best results and measure it not only in immediate impact but how it can sustain future growth and improvement.
I agree with this. my response was because people like cuiv, with their comments like 'end up supporting the lazy natives' think that they are so picked on because a fraction of their taxes go towards social services, when the reality is that a lot more of their taxes to go big oil, big banks, wall street, etc, while those entities are still making incredible profits.
I also don't look at it as much as 'which one benefits me more' as I do 'which one needs my help more'? sure, some of the people on social services are gaming the system, but I'd still rather my tax dollars to towards a poor family than BP or Goldman Sachs (either directly or indirectly), regardless of which of those entities 'benefit me more'
In my opinion, we are arguing about only having one choice. We can either support industry or business or support poor people and I think there is a value in doing both. The discussion should revolve around how we can improve our spending in both areas and what is netting the best results and measure it not only in immediate impact but how it can sustain future growth and improvement.
I agree with this. my response was because people like cuiv, with their comments like 'end up supporting the lazy natives' think that they are so picked on because a fraction of their taxes go towards social services, when the reality is that a lot more of their taxes to go big oil, big banks, wall street, etc, while those entities are still making incredible profits.
I also don't look at it as much as 'which one benefits me more' as I do 'which one needs my help more'? sure, some of the people on social services are gaming the system, but I'd still rather my tax dollars to towards a poor family than BP or Goldman Sachs (either directly or indirectly), regardless of which of those entities 'benefit me more'
Catullus16
offline
offline
exactly. social workers and pastors are the scum of the earth. stay-at-home moms and disabled people are especially despicable. fuck volunteers and retirees, go be a drug dealer and make something of yourself.
glbisthewaytobe
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cowpoker
You have 3 different people coming at you from different angles.
In my opinion, you shouldn't be as critical of the oil industry, banks, wall street and boeing. Energy efficiency is important to every single person in the country, the ability to borrow money is important to business and consumers alike as is wall street and boeing is the type of industry that this country should be excelling at with high end jobs. That being said, there is always areas of improvement so I am not blindly supporting throwing money in that direction or completely deregulating an industry.
The value of high levels of support for the poor usually revolves around spending a smaller amount of money on social programs vs a larger amount of money on law enforcement, jail and justice costs if we eliminate the human element. Basically, a poor person on assistance adds no more benefit then if you generated a random equation and redistributed the money among retailers and property owners.
That is where the frustration comes from, investing money and getting little value back other then the redistribution of those assistance dollars.
All that being said, I am not a fan of cutting assistance and social programs but I do believe there is a lot of room for improvement and a lot of room for more efficiency. SNAP is basically a food production subsidy, it sustains a market and takes out some potential instability, housing and rental assistance are the same thing and most other assistance programs support retail sales. The results are direct, they can be easily measured and the government benefits because those redistributed dollars are taxed again when they get back to the retailer or property owner.
In my opinion, we are arguing about only having one choice. We can either support industry or business or support poor people and I think there is a value in doing both. The discussion should revolve around how we can improve our spending in both areas and what is netting the best results and measure it not only in immediate impact but how it can sustain future growth and improvement.
Assistance programs have been proven to help the economy.
You have 3 different people coming at you from different angles.
In my opinion, you shouldn't be as critical of the oil industry, banks, wall street and boeing. Energy efficiency is important to every single person in the country, the ability to borrow money is important to business and consumers alike as is wall street and boeing is the type of industry that this country should be excelling at with high end jobs. That being said, there is always areas of improvement so I am not blindly supporting throwing money in that direction or completely deregulating an industry.
The value of high levels of support for the poor usually revolves around spending a smaller amount of money on social programs vs a larger amount of money on law enforcement, jail and justice costs if we eliminate the human element. Basically, a poor person on assistance adds no more benefit then if you generated a random equation and redistributed the money among retailers and property owners.
That is where the frustration comes from, investing money and getting little value back other then the redistribution of those assistance dollars.
All that being said, I am not a fan of cutting assistance and social programs but I do believe there is a lot of room for improvement and a lot of room for more efficiency. SNAP is basically a food production subsidy, it sustains a market and takes out some potential instability, housing and rental assistance are the same thing and most other assistance programs support retail sales. The results are direct, they can be easily measured and the government benefits because those redistributed dollars are taxed again when they get back to the retailer or property owner.
In my opinion, we are arguing about only having one choice. We can either support industry or business or support poor people and I think there is a value in doing both. The discussion should revolve around how we can improve our spending in both areas and what is netting the best results and measure it not only in immediate impact but how it can sustain future growth and improvement.
Assistance programs have been proven to help the economy.
Cowpoker
offline
offline
Originally posted by Venkman
I agree with this. my response was because people like cuiv, with their comments like 'end up supporting the lazy natives' think that they are so picked on because a fraction of their taxes go towards social services, when the reality is that a lot more of their taxes to go big oil, big banks, wall street, etc, while those entities are still making incredible profits.
I also don't look at it as much as 'which one benefits me more' as I do 'which one needs my help more'? sure, some of the people on social services are gaming the system, but I'd still rather my tax dollars to towards a poor family than BP or Goldman Sachs (either directly or indirectly), regardless of which of those entities 'benefit me more'
It isn't so much about gaming the system but what are "we" collectively getting from dollars spent, what are people receiving with those dollars and is it really supporting anything or accomplishing anything.
I always use rent assistance since it is the easiest to track and you do have a comparison with non residential properties and how their values fluctuate. In my opinion, rental assistance is too high, for me personally the state and country programs compound the federal program. It sustains the market price at too high of a level so instead of prices having to reflect the demand and available cash, there is a floor that is sustained through assistance programs. If your current population in a particular area has $200 a month available to spend on rent, the price of rent should reflect that. If assistance programs (either partial or full assistance) put the value at $400-$450+, the person receiving the assistance still gets to live in his apartment and might be paying in the neighborhood of $200 for their share and the fed/state/county is paying the rest. It isn't all bad because it sustains property values and supports local government services and school districts but I am of the opinion that it would be more cost effective to directly fund the local governments and school districts. Basically the person in need gets no additional service or feature because they have a roof over their head with assistance and inflated rent values or without assistance and an actual market rent value without assistance. If you use my numbers which seem to be very close to the numbers in my area, the government pays $2,400 that funnels through the person on assistance to the property owner. The property owner gains an additional $2,400 a year and even if that increased revenue supports a higher property value considering the property owner will want to see at least a 3% return on his investment, it would add $75,000 in value to the property. Take that the next step and assume he pays 2% of market value on property tax and that adds $1500 to property taxes. It leaves the property owner with $900 net, even if he is in a high tax bracket, he is paying about $450 in taxes back to the fed and $65 in state taxes.
At the end of the day, the renter on assistance got no additional value, the local government/school district got $1,500, the federal government got $450 back, the state government got $65 and the investor made $385 net after taxes and his asset retained it's value instead of losing it.
The flip side to the argument is that if you remove that type of assistance all together or even pull back the level of funding is that the original investor will lose that value which hurts him and the local government/school district. It obviously impacts federal and state tax as well as there is less revenue which in this case means less income to be taxed. It seems like you should simply have the federal government directly fund the local and the state but you are losing that property value.
Long term, taking away the property value will give other investors more opportunity but it will fluctuate with the local economy and market demand. If you can get people to understand all of that and know when to expand assistance when it is needed, pull back funding when it is not without causing violent swings or wasting money, then you have a better program but good luck pulling that off politically.
I agree with this. my response was because people like cuiv, with their comments like 'end up supporting the lazy natives' think that they are so picked on because a fraction of their taxes go towards social services, when the reality is that a lot more of their taxes to go big oil, big banks, wall street, etc, while those entities are still making incredible profits.
I also don't look at it as much as 'which one benefits me more' as I do 'which one needs my help more'? sure, some of the people on social services are gaming the system, but I'd still rather my tax dollars to towards a poor family than BP or Goldman Sachs (either directly or indirectly), regardless of which of those entities 'benefit me more'
It isn't so much about gaming the system but what are "we" collectively getting from dollars spent, what are people receiving with those dollars and is it really supporting anything or accomplishing anything.
I always use rent assistance since it is the easiest to track and you do have a comparison with non residential properties and how their values fluctuate. In my opinion, rental assistance is too high, for me personally the state and country programs compound the federal program. It sustains the market price at too high of a level so instead of prices having to reflect the demand and available cash, there is a floor that is sustained through assistance programs. If your current population in a particular area has $200 a month available to spend on rent, the price of rent should reflect that. If assistance programs (either partial or full assistance) put the value at $400-$450+, the person receiving the assistance still gets to live in his apartment and might be paying in the neighborhood of $200 for their share and the fed/state/county is paying the rest. It isn't all bad because it sustains property values and supports local government services and school districts but I am of the opinion that it would be more cost effective to directly fund the local governments and school districts. Basically the person in need gets no additional service or feature because they have a roof over their head with assistance and inflated rent values or without assistance and an actual market rent value without assistance. If you use my numbers which seem to be very close to the numbers in my area, the government pays $2,400 that funnels through the person on assistance to the property owner. The property owner gains an additional $2,400 a year and even if that increased revenue supports a higher property value considering the property owner will want to see at least a 3% return on his investment, it would add $75,000 in value to the property. Take that the next step and assume he pays 2% of market value on property tax and that adds $1500 to property taxes. It leaves the property owner with $900 net, even if he is in a high tax bracket, he is paying about $450 in taxes back to the fed and $65 in state taxes.
At the end of the day, the renter on assistance got no additional value, the local government/school district got $1,500, the federal government got $450 back, the state government got $65 and the investor made $385 net after taxes and his asset retained it's value instead of losing it.
The flip side to the argument is that if you remove that type of assistance all together or even pull back the level of funding is that the original investor will lose that value which hurts him and the local government/school district. It obviously impacts federal and state tax as well as there is less revenue which in this case means less income to be taxed. It seems like you should simply have the federal government directly fund the local and the state but you are losing that property value.
Long term, taking away the property value will give other investors more opportunity but it will fluctuate with the local economy and market demand. If you can get people to understand all of that and know when to expand assistance when it is needed, pull back funding when it is not without causing violent swings or wasting money, then you have a better program but good luck pulling that off politically.
Cowpoker
offline
offline
Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
Assistance programs have been proven to help the economy.
Water is wet, ice is cold, fire is hot.
Assistance programs have been proven to help the economy.
Water is wet, ice is cold, fire is hot.
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cowpoker
Water is wet, ice is cold, fire is hot.
More like "some water is good, sometimes ice helps, sometimes fire is a good thing."
Water is wet, ice is cold, fire is hot.
More like "some water is good, sometimes ice helps, sometimes fire is a good thing."
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLT3A0a3hoQ Pretty awesome feats on that video.
Cowpoker
offline
offline
Federal development programs are also way off their rocker. Don't get me wrong, the small towns in this area absolutely thrive off of these programs because they pump hundreds of thousands of federal dollars in to the local economy but if you push the folks that run these programs locally, they will admit that it just amounts to Uncle Sam writing a check. Basically these small town ballrooms, bowling alleys, retail businesses can not stay in business because of the increase in costs and no additional demand or even decreased demand. The local government can get state and federal funding to attempt to draw new investors to purchase and operate the business but you are lucky if one out 30 of these things stay afloat. They offer grants and no interest loans to purchase and update an existing but vacant business but as soon as those dollars dry up, the place goes under and the process starts all over again.
Good intentions but piss poor implementation and horse shit results for the dollars spent.
I don't understand the policy of pumping money in to businesses that can not possibly succeed or for that matter, pumping money in to people that can not possibly succeed. Just write a federal check to these towns and allow them to use the money instead of laundering it through 6 different government programs in the hopes that a small percentage of it actually makes a difference.
Good intentions but piss poor implementation and horse shit results for the dollars spent.
I don't understand the policy of pumping money in to businesses that can not possibly succeed or for that matter, pumping money in to people that can not possibly succeed. Just write a federal check to these towns and allow them to use the money instead of laundering it through 6 different government programs in the hopes that a small percentage of it actually makes a difference.
Edited by Cowpoker on Mar 7, 2016 11:30:39
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
