U.S debt

[Marky]

Too help recover the debt of each state they are "taking" money from different parts. Well I live here in texas so I can tell you what i know from here..

A representative for texas (i dont know who it was) said he will lower taxes. thats what got him voted on mostly ( cause who wants to pay higher taxes). Well what he didnt mention is that when you lower taxes it also subtracts the amount of money the community has for education and improvements and ect.. Well now the schools have been forced to lower there budget and the representative basically said ( i did what i said about lowering taxes/ if you want the money back get your community to raise there taxes again)

Well now here in El Paso the El Paso ISD was planning to close down two whole elementaries. they didnt but there still 18million over there budget so they got to get there money back somehow.


The school district I am attending is CISD which was forced to cut 32 positons (in comparing not that much but EPISD is bigger than CISD). Well they cut 6 teachers from my school dropping the number down too 33 faculty at my school alone (my school is berly on its third year open. its an early college high school). well this caused them to fire almost all the freshman teachers because of that rule last hired first fired. So now our school is missing freshman teachers.


Anyways I wanted to know what is happening ot the other states. and if they are going threw a problem like this what measures are they taking to drop down there budget? We need a more efficient way than laying off teachers.


(our school budget is only 6 million over)

[Sage]

I'd suggest taxing the living fuck out of the top 1% of the country but they control our government so that's never going to happen.

[Sith Lord 13]

I'd suggest taxing the living fuck out of the top 1% of the country but they control our government so that's never going to happen.

Doing that disincentivizes earning money. All you'll do is cut the GDP, as the rich would no longer want to make money at the level they do.

[Sage]

as the rich would no longer want to make money at the level they do.

The amount of money they make means fuck all if they're just going to hoard it and never give back to society. Frankly, I'm disgusted that people can own entire fleets of private jets and yachts and multiple mansions on private islands while their countrymen starve to death on the streets. If having gargantuan luxuries is the only incentive you have to work, then frankly, society can do without you.

[TopGear]

The amount of money they make means fuck all if they're just going to hoard it and never give back to society. Frankly, I'm disgusted that people can own entire fleets of private jets and yachts and multiple mansions on private islands while their countrymen starve to death on the streets. If having gargantuan luxuries is the only incentive you have to work, then frankly, society can do without you.

Why? They worked for it, they earn it. If I worked my ass off to get to the top and earned a shit load of money, why should I have to give it back? I earned it, I should determine where it goes.

Sorry but I would have to disagree with ya Sage.

[Sage]

Why? They worked for it, they earn it. If I worked my ass off to get to the top and earned a shit load of money, why should I have to give it back? I earned it, I should determine where it goes.

Sorry but I would have to disagree with ya Sage.

There isn't an infinite amount of money. In order for someone to make money, someone else has to lose it: If a store wants to make money, I have to spend my money there. If the richest people in the world keep earning more and more money and simply keeping it locked away or spending it frivolously on things that only help them, it's never going to get back down to other people. Excuse me for believing that people who control a great deal of a country's wealth should take things into consideration beyond their spoiled snobby asses. Excuse me for believing that nobody deserves a fleet of private jets while millions of people in their own country can't even afford refried beans in a tin can. Excuse me for believing these enormous sums of money could be put towards something better than pampering the modern-day aristocrats and that maybe, just maybe, these people are needlessly selfish and indifferent to the plight of the average person.

[TopGear]

There isn't an infinite amount of money. In order for someone to make money, someone else has to lose it: If a store wants to make money, I have to spend my money there. If the richest people in the world keep earning more and more money and simply keeping it locked away or spending it frivolously on things that only help them, it's never going to get back down to other people. Excuse me for believing that people who control a great deal of a country's wealth should take things into consideration beyond their spoiled snobby asses. Excuse me for believing that nobody deserves a fleet of private jets while millions of people in their own country can't even afford refried beans in a tin can. Excuse me for believing these enormous sums of money could be put towards something better than pampering the modern-day aristocrats and that maybe, just maybe, these people are needlessly selfish and indifferent to the plight of the average person.


I understand there is a money cycle, but there are only a handful of people who fit in that category. They earned it, they decide where they money goes. You can't tell someone how to spend or spread there money. You just can't. Sorry to burst your bubble, but If Bill Gates wants a private jet, then hes going to get one. Guess where that money is going???? To a company that builds one!!! Guess what happens then???? Then that company builds one and passes its making on to it's employers. You want people like Gates who spend Millions. The rich get richer and the poor are getting poorer. Just how it works.

[Sage]

The rich get richer and the poor are getting poorer. Just how it works.

If this is what your argument boils down to then I'm happy in ending the discussion on the grounds that we can accept you are content with the injustices of this world and the plutocratic rule of the wealthy where as I have the nerve to suggest that maybe humanity deserves better than this.

Simply because some things are a certain way doesn't mean people have to like them. There's a word for people who choose to neither speak out or do anything about the people fucking them over: We call those people cowards.

[TopGear]

Until our government stops controlling the budget, then yes. It's sad, but its the truth. The government is the worst and most inefficient group to run a country. How can you set a limit or spending limit on anything when they have the ability to just print more money off?

[Sage]

The government is the worst and most inefficient group to run a country.

I take it you'd rather live in the United States of Walmart, then?

[TopGear]

I take it you'd rather live in the United States of Walmart, then?

No, But see someone else but our government, someone that doesn't have the power to print money off, when he needs it. Someone who has the records and the ability to manage something of this magnitude. One who has been doing this all his life and went to college to get a degree in it. Not someone who lies and just gets elected into a position and is expected to fulfill the request of 'Fixing' the debt or budget.

Thats how you fix this problem.

[Sage]

No, But see someone else but our government, someone that doesn't have the power to print money off, when he needs it. Someone who has the records and the ability to manage something of this magnitude. One who has been doing this all his life and went to college to get a degree in it. Not someone who lies and just gets elected into a position and is expected to fulfill the request of 'Fixing' the debt or budget.

Thats how you fix this problem.

So... you're against electing people, then?

[TopGear]

So... you're against electing people, then?

Not so much about electing people, but just eliminating the job of 'budgeting' from the positions of elected officials.

[Sage]

Not so much about electing people, but just eliminating the job of 'budgeting' from the positions of elected officials.

So, you think simply changing who is in charge of the budget is going to stop the rich from getting richer and the poor from getting poorer? Rich people control the country. They buy politicians on both sides. That's not going to happen.

[TopGear]

So, you think simply changing who is in charge of the budget is going to stop the rich from getting richer and the poor from getting poorer? Rich people control the country. They buy politicians on both sides. That's not going to happen.

In a way yes, because It wouldn't be politicians in control of the money. It would take time, quite a bit of time for it to stop the rich getting extremely rich and stop the poor getting poorer. I agree, that Rich do control the country, but would you rather see rich control, then the poor? I would be better then the system we have now. Its just impossible for a government to be efficient. Just not possible, they have all the power and they just print off money like it's nothing. The main problem is the government itself. Im am not against the government in anyway just don't agree on how they run it.

[Sage]

I agree, that Rich do control the country, but would you rather see rich control, then the poor?

I would rather see the country controlled by officials elected into office by a well-educated population. Face it: When some people literally have power over billions (http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400) of dollars, we're all poor. There is no middle class. You're as much of a peasant as I am, and until people find the courage to put a choke chain on these motherfuckers, that's all you'll ever be.

[TopGear]

I would rather see the country controlled by officials elected into office by a well-educated population. Face it: When some people literally have power over billions (http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400) of dollars, we're all poor. There is no middle class. You're as much of a peasant as I am, and until people find the courage to put a choke chain on these motherfuckers, that's all you'll ever be.

I would like to see that too, but till someone that knows how to budget the US government, who spends money out of there ass and uses it in the most inefficient ways possible because there is no fear in running out because they 'create' the money why do they care? Hand it off to someone who knows what they are doing! To get a well educated population you have to spend the money in the correct ways ( Ie; SCHOOLS) how the hell are we going to educate the population if we are cutting school funding??? if anything we need to be dumping twice as much money into our schools, not fixing roads that are going to be torn up in 5 years. 50 billion dollars spent on New Transportation Stimulus Program (http://www.thompson.com/public/newsbrief.jsp?cat=GRANT&id=3106)

[Perseus]

Why? They worked for it, they earn it. If I worked my ass off to get to the top and earned a shit load of money, why should I have to give it back? I earned it, I should determine where it goes.

Sorry but I would have to disagree with ya Sage.

It's not smart for the economy for the money to be in one place. If only one group of people have the money, then no one the bottom can go and spend make the economy healthy. Most rich people are just greedy.

[thingmebob]

Across the Atlantic, here in the United Kingdom, we are facing just as bad spending cuts on services. Just as the United States, my government has tried to lower the national debt by making rediculous cuts on social spending, and most annoyingly for me, has reduced our renounded armed forces by a huge amount. Both our nations are in similar difficulty, but unfortunately there isn't much we can do. We both need to reduce the debt to safeguard our economical futures, and public services have beared the brunt.

[Marky]

Across the Atlantic, here in the United Kingdom, we are facing just as bad spending cuts on services. Just as the United States, my government has tried to lower the national debt by making rediculous cuts on social spending, and most annoyingly for me, has reduced our renounded armed forces by a huge amount. Both our nations are in similar difficulty, but unfortunately there isn't much we can do. We both need to reduce the debt to safeguard our economical futures, and public services have beared the brunt.


I belive that. but why from education? Education should be the number one priority for the U.S not something else. I think Education stand over the military. so why make all the cuts in education and hardly anything on the military?

[Sogeking]

To get a well educated population you have to spend the money in the correct ways ( IE; SCHOOLS) how the hell are we going to educate the population if we are cutting school funding??? if anything we need to be dumping twice as much money into our schools, not fixing roads that are going to be torn up in 5 years. 50 billion dollars spent on

There is a conspiracy theory going on that they're doing this on purpose. They want to keep the general public's education standards low in order for them to be the subject of those on a higher position then them. So that the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich. And in the rate the US education system is going, it sort of seems plausible.

[Amnesiac]

It's not smart for the economy for the money to be in one place. If only one group of people have the money, then no one the bottom can go and spend make the economy healthy. Most rich people are just greedy.

I've seen plenty of people here talk about not having the government legislate morality when it comes to social issues like abortion and religion. Isn't making the rich give up more of their wealth to the government because it's "a good thing to do" and it's for "their fellow countrymen" the same thing?

I don't want the government legislating morality economically or socially. Keep tax rates fair, not skewed against one side.

[Sage]

I've seen plenty of people here talk about not having the government legislate morality when it comes to social issues like abortion and religion. Isn't making the rich give up more of their wealth to the government because it's "a good thing to do" and it's for "their fellow countrymen" the same thing?

I don't want the government legislating morality economically or socially. Keep tax rates fair, not skewed against one side.

So in the name of moral neutrality, you're totally fine with the unchallenged rule of plutocracy? You don't think people who have a lot of power, at present, have no real incentive to do anything positive with it?

[Sogeking]

I've seen plenty of people here talk about not having the government legislate morality when it comes to social issues like abortion and religion. Isn't making the rich give up more of their wealth to the government because it's "a good thing to do" and it's for "their fellow countrymen" the same thing?

I don't want the government legislating morality economically or socially. Keep tax rates fair, not skewed against one side.

The government had done that before in the name of progressivism. And it turned out great! We certainly don't want to go through this (http://www.shmoop.com/gilded-age/summary.html) period again

[Perseus]

I've seen plenty of people here talk about not having the government legislate morality when it comes to social issues like abortion and religion. Isn't making the rich give up more of their wealth to the government because it's "a good thing to do" and it's for "their fellow countrymen" the same thing?

I don't want the government legislating morality economically or socially. Keep tax rates fair, not skewed against one side.

If only the rich have the money, than the middle and lower class won't have any money to spend. It's not morality. It's simple economics. You want the money to be equitable. Not in one place. What part of that do you not understand?

[Amnesiac]

So in the name of moral neutrality, you're totally fine with the unchallenged rule of plutocracy? You don't think people who have a lot of power, at present, have no real incentive to do anything positive with it?

I'm not saying we shouldn't protect the middle and lower classes from being cheated by corporations. I don't think lobbying should even be legal, it corrupts our political system so badly that it's amazing anything pro-lower classes gets done in the U.S.

There's a difference between protecting the rights of the individual and legislating morality. Demanding that the rich do "something positive" with their money seems, to me, to be legislating morality. Many rich people already do donate their money to worthwhile causes. That should be an option. However, fraudulent business practices should be outlawed.

If only the rich have the money, than the middle and lower class won't have any money to spend. It's not morality. It's simple economics. You want the money to be equitable. Not in one place. What part of that do you not understand?

Of course I understand that. That's why you have a progressive tax system. It's just important that the law is fair and balanced, not discriminatory. Yes, the rich should pay a higher tax rate, but it shouldn't be disproportionally high.

[Perseus]

Of course I understand that. That's why you have a progressive tax system. It's just important that the law is fair and balanced, not discriminatory. Yes, the rich should pay a higher tax rate, but it shouldn't be disproportionally high.

I never said it should be disproportionally high. If it were, then they'd be getting cheated out of their money that they earned. And that's just wrong.

[Amnesiac]

I never said it should be disproportionally high. If it were, then they'd be getting cheated out of their money that they earned. And that's just wrong.

Exactly. If the Bush tax cuts are repealed, then the tax rate will be proportional.

The only way to properly cut taxes is to do it equally across the board.

[Sage]

Many rich people already do donate their money to worthwhile causes.

The wealthy make pathetic donations for PR and their own image. So long as you own even a sliver of all the outrageous luxuries I've mentioned many times in this thread, you're still being a greedy motherfucker. Nobody needs any of those things, and money put towards those could have gone to a better cause. I don't care if you want to pull the 'legislating morality' card: In the real world, we can have people with fleets of private jets or we can put an end to much of the poverty in the country. You cannot have it both ways and no amount of euphemisms like 'rights of the individuals' can justify the terrible disdain and indifference the rich have towards everyone below them.

[Amnesiac]

The wealthy make pathetic donations for PR and their own image. So long as you own even a sliver of all the outrageous luxuries I've mentioned many times in this thread, you're still being a greedy motherfucker. Nobody needs any of those things, and money put towards those could have gone to a better cause. I don't care if you want to pull the 'legislating morality' card: In the real world, we can have people with fleets of private jets or we can put an end to much of the poverty in the country. You cannot have it both ways and no amount of euphemisms like 'rights of the individuals' can justify the terrible disdain and indifference the rich have towards everyone below them.

Well, Sage, I have to disagree. Yes, it's true that in the U.S. and many other countries, the rich and corporations are allowed to manipulate the political system to get their way, and I don't agree with it. The rich shouldn't control Congress and the President, they shouldn't have disproportionately lower taxes, and they shouldn't be able to cheat and scam the lower classes out of their money.

But I just can't agree with the idea of taking money from the higher classes and distributing it among the lower. Even if we did that, I don't think it would be enough to solve all of this country's problems. No matter the economic system you subscribe to, there will always be a lower class, and the most we can do is give them the opportunity to move up and protect them from abuse by the other classes.

I'm a bona fide capitalist, and I admit that capitalism can seem like an incredibly selfish system. Still, in my opinion, freedom is more important than social welfare.

[Sage]

I'm a bona fide capitalist, and I admit that capitalism can seem like an incredibly selfish system. Still, in my opinion, freedom is more important than social welfare.

All the freedom in the world doesn't mean much when you're dead. If you ask me- the freedom to own a private island with seven mansions and a dozen yachts is a freedom I will happily sacrifice to get people off the downtrodden streets.

[TopGear]

Well, Sage, I have to disagree. Yes, it's true that in the U.S. and many other countries, the rich and corporations are allowed to manipulate the political system to get their way, and I don't agree with it. The rich shouldn't control Congress and the President, they shouldn't have disproportionately lower taxes, and they shouldn't be able to cheat and scam the lower classes out of their money.

But I just can't agree with the idea of taking money from the higher classes and distributing it among the lower. Even if we did that, I don't think it would be enough to solve all of this country's problems. No matter the economic system you subscribe to, there will always be a lower class, and the most we can do is give them the opportunity to move up and protect them from abuse by the other classes.

I'm a bona fide capitalist, and I admit that capitalism can seem like an incredibly selfish system. Still, in my opinion, freedom is more important than social welfare.

I Completely agree with Commander Awesome. I don't agree with spreading the wealth. If someone has earned it they deserve it, if someone who doesn't work doesn't deserve anything.

[Amnesiac]

All the freedom in the world doesn't mean much when you're dead. If you ask me- the freedom to own a private island with seven mansions and a dozen yachts is a freedom I will happily sacrifice to get people off the downtrodden streets.

Then it's up to you to sacrifice that freedom. The government shouldn't tell people to give up their money for welfare, considering the government can't even set up and fund that system properly.

Really, this debate's turned into the age-old capitalism vs. socialism/social democracy debate. Both systems have their flaws, but capitalism seems to have prevailed as the preferred system, considering how the highest standards of living are in nations with free-market economies.

[Maverick]

The soaring debt and widening gap between the rich and poor can all be blamed on monetary policy. The government currently is living beyond its means on an unsustainable path of monetary ruin.

Whatever Congress can't tax or borrow, the difference is printed by the Federal Reserve Bank. The US dollar is backed by nothing other than faith - believing it has value. Other than that there's no gold or commodity backing the dollar so its pretty much like monopoly money that can be printed at any time. Its like counterfeiting but its legal since the government is doing it.

Printing money has consequences though. It causes inflation. When new money created out of thin air enters the economy it devalues the money that's already out there. The more money thats out there, the more expensive things become. That's why a can of coke has gone from 10 cents to a dollar.

The rising costs of living, healthcare, housing, insurance, and food (and beyond) can all be blamed on inflation. The US government has been printing dollars ever since it went off the gold standard in the 70s.

The notion that the dollar has any value is false. Right now you're witnessing the biggest ponzi scheme in history. The US is just printing paper dollars for goods and people accept it as if it as any intrinsic value. The government is just able to make money out of nothing to buy what it needs without having to tax is at a much much higher rate.

Tax the rich all you want. You'll just find that you'll kill any economic growth, innovation, and jobs here. Take away money from the ones that are successful and you'll find that they'll pack up and leave and go to a more tax friendly country. Nothing will be left here and nobody will want to start a company here.

The rich keep getting richer because most new money that gets printed, goes straight to the banks and to Wall Street. They spend the money right away and reap the benefits of the newly created money. Then as it enters the economy the middle class and poor suffer as they find that the cost of everything goes up. Its been a repetitive process for decades. And until the US reigns in spending and goes back to sound money, nothing will change. No mater how much you tweak the tax system and make a few little budget cuts.

The United States is fucked.

[Sage]

Then it's up to you to sacrifice that freedom. The government shouldn't tell people to give up their money for welfare, considering the government can't even set up and fund that system properly.
But you know the wealthy have no reason to give up that freedom. You know they have the power to make an incredible difference in the world and they choose to let people suffer instead. Why you fail to see the damning consequences of inaction and indifference is beyond me.

Really, this debate's turned into the age-old capitalism vs. socialism/social democracy debate. Both systems have their flaws, but capitalism seems to have prevailed as the preferred system, considering how the highest standards of living are in nations with free-market economies.
I'm not a full-fledged socialist. I just fail to see why anyone needs (or if we want to be very liberal (6. not strict; free) (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal) in our word choice, deserves) more than twenty million dollars. Money carries power with it, and when you become as powerful as some of the richest people in this country, I sincerely believe you have a moral obligation to help those with less power than you. At this time, there is no reason for any wealthy person to put their money to good causes besides their own self-image and it is a truth universally acknowledged that those with power will do anything to hold onto it. Waiting and hoping for them to have a change of heart is futile. Until you put a choke chain on powerful people, they will never do anything good.

[Amnesiac]

But you know the wealthy have no reason to give up that freedom. You know they have the power to make an incredible difference in the world and they choose to let people suffer instead. Why you fail to see the damning consequences of inaction and indifference is beyond me.

I'm not a full-fledged socialist. I just fail to see why anyone needs (or if we want to be very liberal (6. not strict; free) (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal) in our word choice, deserves) more than twenty million dollars. Money carries power with it, and when you become as powerful as some of the richest people in this country, I sincerely believe you have a moral obligation to help those with less power than you. At this time, there is no reason for any wealthy person to put their money to good causes besides their own self-image and it is a truth universally acknowledged that those with power will do anything to hold onto it. Waiting and hoping for them to have a change of heart is futile. Until you put a choke chain on powerful people, they will never do anything good.

Then increase the social pressure. As Ant said, making the rich do good is just going to give them a reason to go somewhere else. It doesn't matter how much you try, you can't make people good. The greedy rich will continue doing that if they want, and there are plenty of other countries that would be more than happy to house them and pamper them with low taxes and governmental loopholes.

I don't believe in the government telling people what to do with their belongings, ever. It just doesn't work. If you think I disagree with you on the rich having a moral obligation to do good, I don't. I just don't think that should be forced on them.

Debates exactly like this one have been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. There's no clear-cut solution.

[Sage]

Then increase the social pressure. As Ant said, making the rich do good is just going to give them a reason to go somewhere else.

You may have a point there. I'll think further on this.

[Perseus]

I Completely agree with Commander Awesome. I don't agree with spreading the wealth. If someone has earned it they deserve it, if someone who doesn't work doesn't deserve anything.

What a narrow minded approach. Not all poor people are poor because they don't want to work, etc. People like you are what make the poor poorer. It's a vicious cycle.

[TopGear]

The soaring debt and widening gap between the rich and poor can all be blamed on monetary policy. The government currently is living beyond its means on an unsustainable path of monetary ruin.

Whatever Congress can't tax or borrow, the difference is printed by the Federal Reserve Bank. The US dollar is backed by nothing other than faith - believing it has value. Other than that there's no gold or commodity backing the dollar so its pretty much like monopoly money that can be printed at any time. Its like counterfeiting but its legal since the government is doing it.

Printing money has consequences though. It causes inflation. When new money created out of thin air enters the economy it devalues the money that's already out there. The more money thats out there, the more expensive things become. That's why a can of coke has gone from 10 cents to a dollar.

thats what I have been trying to get across! Thank you Maverick!

[TopGear]

Here is a good article (http://financiallyfit.yahoo.com/finance/article-112550-9317-5-what-millionaires-have-in-common?ywaad=ad0035&nc).

[CaptainObvious]

So Tim, you've written a nice polemic here about how the rich are so horrible and constructed a nice little class warfare scenario in which one can either have those with obscene wealth, or one can have an equal society. That is a false dichotomy. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy will not be a panacea for the nation. Now, I mean that only as regards your vitriol here; I think the US taxes the wealthy too little and that there simply have to be revenue raising measures enacted to avoid fiscal ruin, many of which must inevitably be levied upon the rich. However, it is a simple fact that if you tax the rich sufficiently, you will lose their productive value. You can call it immoral all you want, but if you remove the incentive of possible wealth you hamstring the productivity of the economy; the question is finding a proper balance. That proper balance is always going to involve some people in the streets, and some extremely wealthy people; no system in history has ever been able to subvert the realities of inequality because in order for our society to advance humans have always required incentives and always will.

In any case, as to your number, $20 million really isn't all that much. Particularly if a person is planning to have their wealth in the form of actual productive assets - which is undeniably better for society - like corporations, you can't buy much with that amount of money. Only for those who continue to gain wealth at a significant rate is $20 million a lot in the long term.

Ant: Really? Fiat money is such a canard in this argument. The gold standard doesn't change anything except to fix the money supply - what intrinsic value does gold have, exactly? none but what the market gives it - which is an inferior system. Among other central issues, a commodity-based currency reinforces cyclical movements of the business cycle when one of the foremost goals of monetary policy is necessarily the opposite.

[Korashk]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best thing that could ever happen to the educational system would be for the government to stop funding it completely and sell all of the facilities and staff contracts to private entities. Force the schools to be successful or be closed down. Would it take decades? Yes. Would it be worth it? Yes.

I also have a plan that I think would eliminate the debt over time. First you end government monopolies on any services that they currently monopolize. Wait a year or two then cut government services on a yearly basis, but keep tax rates the same for the year you've just cut services. Then on the next year cut some more services and lower taxes to the rate that would have been needed to fund LAST year's service cuts. Rinse, repeat until the debt is gone. It would take forever, but at least it would be the first step to instituting a free market economy.

There isn't an infinite amount of money. In order for someone to make money, someone else has to lose it:
False (kind of). Economics is not a zero-sum game. When a transaction is made both sides end up with more value than they initially had. Otherwise they wouldn't have made the transaction. Money is nothing more than a standard for measuring value, and value is not a concept that is limited. As long as people are being born, the amount of value in the world goes up, along with the amount of money.

If the richest people in the world keep earning more and more money and simply keeping it locked away or spending it frivolously on things that only help them, it's never going to get back down to other people.
What about the people that have jobs making those frivolous things? What about the people that have jobs transporting those frivolous things? What about the rest of the people that are involved in the sale of that product?

That rich person buying that frivolous item helps hundreds of people put food on the table.

Excuse me for believing that people who control a great deal of a country's wealth should take things into consideration beyond their spoiled snobby asses. Excuse me for believing that nobody deserves a fleet of private jets while millions of people in their own country can't even afford refried beans in a tin can. Excuse me for believing these enormous sums of money could be put towards something better than pampering the modern-day aristocrats and that maybe, just maybe, these people are needlessly selfish and indifferent to the plight of the average person.
Nobody deserves anything. Who are you to say what they should be spending their money on or what would be "better"?

The rich get richer and the poor are getting poorer. Just how it works.
Statistics disagree. The rich get richer, the poor get richer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg/800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png

I would rather see the country controlled by officials elected into office by a well-educated population. Face it: When some people literally have power over billions (http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400) of dollars, we're all poor. There is no middle class. You're as much of a peasant as I am, and until people find the courage to put a choke chain on these motherfuckers, that's all you'll ever be.
No one* in the US is poor. Not really.

how the hell are we going to educate the population if we are cutting school funding???
Make the educational system completely private.

There is a conspiracy theory going on that they're doing this on purpose. They want to keep the general public's education standards low in order for them to be the subject of those on a higher position then them. So that the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich. And in the rate the US education system is going, it sort of seems plausible.
This is a nice and useless piece of conjecture.

So in the name of moral neutrality, you're totally fine with the unchallenged rule of plutocracy? You don't think people who have a lot of power, at present, have no real incentive to do anything positive with it?
I'm pretty sure CA is an advocate of LF Capitalism. LF capitalism is not plutocracy. In fact, it;s prety much the only viable economic system that DOESN'T lead to plutocracy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't protect the middle and lower classes from being cheated by corporations. I don't think lobbying should even be legal, it corrupts our political system so badly that it's amazing anything pro-lower classes gets done in the U.S.
You wouldn't need to make lobbying illegal if we got our way. LF economics means no lobbyists.

Money carries power with it, and when you become as powerful as some of the richest people in this country, I sincerely believe you have a moral obligation to help those with less power than you.
Why?

*Pretty much

[Rainstorm]

I'd suggest taxing the living fuck out of the top 1% of the country but they control our government so that's never going to happen.

I was listening to a debate over that. Apparently the consensus was that just taking the fuck out of the rich wouldn't do much. We'd still be 3/4 of a trillion in debt for the next fiscal year

[slappy]

In California we had a $25 billion dollar debt.
When governor Schwarzenegger (R) left this January

Now, the new governor Jerry Brown (D), in the first three months has cut the debt in half just by cutting wasteful spending.

[TopGear]

In California we had a $25 billion dollar debt.
When governor Schwarzenegger (R) left this January

Now, the new governor Jerry Brown (D), in the first three months has cut the debt in half just by cutting wasteful spending.

Can you source that? That meaning the "in the first three months has cut the debt in half just by cutting wasteful spending."

[slappy]

Can you source that? That meaning the "in the first three months has cut the debt in half just by cutting wasteful spending."

http://gov.ca.gov/
On that front page is a good example of big cuts of wasteful spending

[Iceman]

http://gov.ca.gov/
On that front page is a good example of big cuts of wasteful spending

That doesn't say anything but he cut $356. Now with mathematical skills, I figured out that is less than half.

[Korashk]

That doesn't say anything but he cut $356. Now with mathematical skills, I figured out that is less than half.
That would be $356,000,000 not $356. Still probably less than half. A lot less.

[Iceman]

That would be $356,000,000 not $356. Still probably less than half. A lot less.

I had million typed after it. Must have deleted it when I changed the numbers.

[slappy]

That doesn't say anything but he cut $356. Now with mathematical skills, I figured out that is less than half.

That is not the only Thing
He cut his own office by 7%
He got rid of state worker cellphones saving about $10 million
Cut prison funding
And many other things

Here is another link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCWcQozq5rQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I know a lot of it is just him signing things but skip past that part to where he is at the podium.

[Iceman]

That is not the only Thing
He cut his own office by 7%
He got rid of state worker cellphones saving about $10 million
Cut prison funding
And many other things

Here is another link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCWcQozq5rQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It is a 20 minute video I doubt you even watched yourself, so I am not wasting 20 minutes of my life to watch a video which may not even have the information you claim to be true. He's still hundreds of millions shy of cutting the amount you claimed.

[slappy]

It is a 20 minute video I doubt you even watched yourself, so I am not wasting 20 minutes of my life to watch a video which may not even have the information you claim to be true. He's still hundreds of millions shy of cutting the amount you claimed.

He talks about it right when he gets to the podium. Just skip the signing part
But if I understand correctly, you are complaining that the video is to long thus making what I said untrue

[Iceman]

No I am saying you most likely did not watch the whole thing. (correct me if I'm wrong), and so the evidence you claim may not even be in there.

[slappy]

No I am saying you most likely did not watch the whole thing. (correct me if I'm wrong), and so the evidence you claim may not even be in there.

I just watched the hole thing for like the fifth time
Just skip past the signing part when he gets to the podium and he talks about it

[Rainstorm]

That is not the only Thing
He cut his own office by 7%
He got rid of state worker cellphones saving about $10 million
Cut prison funding
And many other things

Here is another link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCWcQozq5rQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I know a lot of it is just him signing things but skip past that part to where he is at the podium.

You do realize Govenors, politicians and most people in Government say these things simply to raise their poll numbers and keep them in office longer...

Also, Cut prison funds? Yeah, that's amazingly wasteful. :rolleyes:

[slappy]

You do realize Govenors, politicians and most people in Government say these things simply to raise their poll numbers and keep them in office longer...

Also, Cut prison funds? Yeah, that's amazingly wasteful. :rolleyes:

Just watch the video

Also, the prison system in California is over funded

[Iceman]

No, let's get back on the topic of the U.S. debt, not California.

[Rainstorm]

Just watch the video

I have. I still call it bullshit.

You're not going to cut any significant amount of the deficit by removing cell phones and cutting prison funding. It's like trying to cut the lawn with scissors. You'll never get anywhere, including with the US itself.

The US needs to cut funding to systems such as the TSA, Congressional salaries and Presidential trips. Those will at least cut down on some of the funding in Washington.

But, to be honest, we're never going to get out of the debt. It'll just keep mounting.

[slappy]

No, let's get back on the topic of the U.S. debt, not California.

If you're going to avoid the proof than don't say I'm wrong

[Iceman]

If you're going to avoid the proof than don't say I'm wrong

Get back on topic. That is what I am saying. Now that is spam, because it is useless and off topic. Don't say anything unless it is on topic from now on.

[Rainstorm]

http://www.futuretimeline.net/subject/images/us-debt-graph-2020.jpg

Notice that how after WW2, when the US became a 'Super-Power' and fought in the nuclear and space race with the USSR, the debt truly began to increase.

The US moved too fast in building these weapons and such that now sit useless in some high class military bunker where we spend more money on removing them.

As I said, we're never getting out of debt. It'll just get worse.

[slappy]

Get back on topic. That is what I am saying. Now that is spam, because it is useless and off topic. Don't say anything unless it is on topic from now on.

You know what really pisses me off?
The hypocrisy that is coming from you. I have reported like five of your posts so far for starting fights and for not fallowing the rules. You are abusing your mod power and you don't deserve to be a moderator because they are supposed to fallow the rules, and you are not.

[Iceman]

You know what really pisses me off?
The hypocrisy that is coming from you. I have reported like five of your posts so far for starting fights and for not fallowing the rules. You are abusing your mod power and you don't deserve to be a moderator because they are supposed to fallow the rules, and you are not.

I know you have. ;)
If you wish to continue this feel free to PM me, because once again you have strayed from the topic.

[Scarface]

Everyone needs to calm down Right. Now. The argument about who says what he said she said ends now. Want to argue? Take it to PM. This argument has nothing to do with the topic at hand.