Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 30

 

Poll

Do you agree with the gay marriage approval in California?

Yes67%67% - 112
No27%27% - 45
I don't know0%0% - 0
Plead the fifth3%3% - 5
Other? (Please State)1%1% - 3
Total: 165
2012-02-09 00:16:29
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6321|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The difference is that the word marriage is used in government documents and the state constitution, not the phrase civil union. In order to be afforded same be benefits as a hetero couple, the language needs to be consistent.
I don't see a reason to change the system, not so they can 'get benefits' or so they can have the same words as everyone else on their document.

For once FEOS is right, everyone should get a civil union, they can go to church f they like, benefits should be minimal.
Fuck Israel
2012-02-09 07:55:43
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6621|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Those tax policies are intended to promote certain behaviors deemed "favorable" to the overall health of the nation and its economy...just like any other tax policy. Subsidize desired behavior, tax undesired behavior.
Isn't that basically "social engineering" by government?
That's exactly what it is. Another reason to have simplified tax code and tax as little as possible.
No argument here, although, in order to reduce taxes significantly, we'll have to cut spending first.  It's always harder to get Congress to cut spending than it is to get them to cut taxes.
2012-02-10 00:08:51
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6321|eXtreme to the maX

Turquoise wrote:

No argument here, although, in order to reduce taxes significantly, we'll have to cut spending first.  It's always harder to get Congress to cut spending than it is to get them to cut taxes.
Just let us know who you think should lose their job - thats the immediate consequence of cutting spending.
Fuck Israel
2012-02-10 03:03:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6626|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

No argument here, although, in order to reduce taxes significantly, we'll have to cut spending first.  It's always harder to get Congress to cut spending than it is to get them to cut taxes.
Just let us know who you think should lose their job - thats the immediate consequence of cutting spending.
Not really. The government can cut quite a bit of spending without impacting employment.

However, there are plenty of jobs that need to go away in the government.

Besides, the job of the government isn't to employ people. It's to ensure the private sector has the right environment to do so.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-02-10 03:20:40
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6991|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

<...> the job of the government isn't to employ people. It's to ensure the private sector has the right environment to do so.
these are the same people who keep reminding me communism is an utopia and doesn't work.
/facepalm
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2012-02-10 03:56:52
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6321|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Not really. The government can cut quite a bit of spending without impacting employment.
Such as?
However, there are plenty of jobs that need to go away in the government.
Pretty hard for the private sector to just absorb those people.
Besides, the job of the government isn't to employ people. It's to ensure the private sector has the right environment to do so.
Which takes time, in the meantime you have 8-10% unemployment.
Fuck Israel
2012-02-10 04:07:06
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5801

Just cutting spending without cutting jobs will cause negative economic effects. You will be cutting off money to people who rely on that spending. In turn you will be removing a money sources to the people who that money trickles down to through services.

So yeah, we don't live in a vacuum.
2012-02-10 04:12:00
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6321|eXtreme to the maX
Someone explain to me how govt can cut spending without directly or indirectly cutting jobs.

If the trickledown theory of helping rich people get rich flies then the trickledown theory of govt spending must work too.

The first one falls in fact because rich people tend to put their money offshore or invest in imports eg gold - whereas govts do pretty well all their spending and investment onshore.
Fuck Israel
2012-02-10 05:40:02
HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|6925|Oklahoma City
DX has a good point...

In a round about way, he is right no matter how you look at it, with the exception of pay cuts...

Example: Let's say I am working on a big government funded project at work. Say it is something that has a positive impact on the City, but doesn't necessarily need to be done, and would be the first thing cut if we had another economic downturn... Let's say it is a $10Million project.

If we cut it, it won't hurt MY job, I have other things to work on... BUT, we are paying a U.S. vendor for their software, and U.S. construction crews to help implement it.

On the flip side, if that were an overseas software developer, it would be less impact, but STILL would hurt the construction crew here.

Most money we spend here, even for stuff from overseas, employs someone...

The trick is to find the biggest spenders with the fewest people attached... Some government funded programs have directors that are making hundreds of thousands of dollars, equivalent or better even than the private sector versions of those jobs. In the past, government versions of private sector jobs have paid much less, but offered much more job security. I think this is a good model...

I could make twice as much money in the private sector for what I do, but the market is volatile right now. I like my secure job where I can make a difference... We have lost 9 positions to lay-offs in the last 20 years, and only 2 of those positions were actually filled at the time... And those employees were moved into other open positions.
2012-02-10 05:48:15
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Someone explain to me how govt can cut spending without directly or indirectly cutting jobs.

If the trickledown theory of helping rich people get rich flies then the trickledown theory of govt spending must work too.

The first one falls in fact because rich people tend to put their money offshore or invest in imports eg gold - whereas govts do pretty well all their spending and investment onshore.
Neither of your statements is true.

Rich people put their money into securities, bonds, and yes, gold (also a security). Even moving money offshore into a foreign bank account spurs the economy as that bank lends money out in turn. It's all circular, and the return is targeted. Money generally ends up where it's needed. If an idea is bad it will have a difficult time attracting capital for investment. If an idea is good, it will have an easier time. Survival of the fittest idea.

When the government invests, the money ignores the validity of the idea because the governments goal is not to make a profit. Money is squandered on politically connected projects like Roads to Nowhere. It is dumped into companies like Solyndra that have no real business model and no way of ever becoming profitable. It's amazing how quickly the costs rise when the government is the buyer. Compare costs between private and public projects sometime. Labor costs magically double and so does the estimated length of the build (so said labor can milk it).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-10 06:46:53
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|6856|Your moms bedroom
OH, man i clicked this thread I thought it would be how about the Judicial system in California overturning THE PEOPLES VOTE! What's the point of voting if the government is just going to tell you what they think and make it law. Which to me is the more important issue.

My question is, if you are gay why would you want to get married anyways? You have a perfectly good excuse not to get married, kinda like getting married if you don't plan on having children... whats the point?
2012-02-10 06:55:16
HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|6925|Oklahoma City

Locoloki wrote:

My question is, if you are gay why would you want to get married anyways? You have a perfectly good excuse not to get married, kinda like getting married if you don't plan on having children... whats the point?
As been covered many times:
Tax Breaks.
Health Insurance.
Owning property together.
Equality.


Plus a number of other rights... For example: If I have a bad accident and am laying, dying, in a hospital, usually only relatives are allowed to come see me before I croak. This includes my wife. If I were gay, it would NOT include my "partner."

Then when I died from that accident, my wife also owns the house, so she is safe...

If I were gay, my partner and I couldn't both be on the mortgage together, and if I died, the only way to make sure he got the house would be to leave it to him in a will, and he would have to pay taxes on that as inheritance.

etc
etc
etc

Last edited by HITNRUNXX (2012-02-10 06:55:52)

2012-02-10 06:56:22
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5394|Sydney

Locoloki wrote:

OH, man i clicked this thread I thought it would be how about the Judicial system in California overturning THE PEOPLES VOTE! What's the point of voting if the government is just going to tell you what they think and make it law. Which to me is the more important issue.

My question is, if you are gay why would you want to get married anyways? You have a perfectly good excuse not to get married, kinda like getting married if you don't plan on having children... whats the point?
Why do gays need to explain why? Do heterosexual couples have to explain to the government why they want to get married?

These are people's rights we're talking about.
2012-02-10 07:54:22
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5475|foggy bottom

Locoloki wrote:

OH, man i clicked this thread I thought it would be how about the Judicial system in California overturning THE PEOPLES VOTE! What's the point of voting if the government is just going to tell you what they think and make it law. Which to me is the more important issue.

My question is, if you are gay why would you want to get married anyways? You have a perfectly good excuse not to get married, kinda like getting married if you don't plan on having children... whats the point?
there should have been a PEOPLES VOTE over desegregation in the 1950's and 60's too
Tu Stultus Es
2012-02-10 09:15:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6621|North Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

No argument here, although, in order to reduce taxes significantly, we'll have to cut spending first.  It's always harder to get Congress to cut spending than it is to get them to cut taxes.
Just let us know who you think should lose their job - thats the immediate consequence of cutting spending.
Well, let's see.  I'd say we could cut about half of the military budget -- primarily with regard to making the military more efficient.

Cutting infantry doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there is quite a lot of bureaucracy that could be removed from the military.  We should change the pay scale into a system based on skill level and responsibility rather than seniority (with some considerable cuts to what some officers get just because they've been there forever).  The upper echelon of our military is definitely overpaid in particular.

Some of these savings could be used to reverse the trend of having soldiers with families on welfare.  No soldier or his/her family should have to be on welfare -- it's a disgrace that it's even a problem, but it happens partly because we don't treat our lower level soldiers well enough.  So, some of the lower level soldiers would see a pay raise.

We should also restructure our contracting process in terms of who our suppliers are.  Instead of having suppliers that overcharge due to deals that are made via backscratching among our higher level bureaucrats, lower prices should be stressed.  Also, soldiers or officers that find new ways to operate more efficiently should be rewarded rather than punished just because they go against protocol.

Also, we don't always need to redesign equipment, because the more we keep buying newer things, we end up having to mothball a bunch of stuff that still gets the job done.  We should still replace equipment that's worn out, but if it isn't worn out -- keep using it.

A related issue that doesn't have to do specifically with cost but would still need to be done is to hold armor manufacturers more accountable.  We've had a few scandals where some supplier gave our soldiers faulty armor that ended up getting some of our people killed.  So far as I've seen, the companies involved didn't suffer many consequences for that.

But this is just one side of where the budget could be reformed.  Some of it will cost jobs, but it won't cost any jobs we actually needed to keep.

Last edited by Turquoise (2012-02-10 09:17:27)

2012-02-10 09:35:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6621|North Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not really. The government can cut quite a bit of spending without impacting employment.
Such as?
The easiest way to cut government spending without costing jobs is to end all agricultural subsidies.  Those are pure waste.
2012-02-10 09:36:47
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5475|foggy bottom
those subsidies exist in order to keep the market price of goods from shooting through the roof

Last edited by eleven bravo (2012-02-10 09:37:17)

Tu Stultus Es
2012-02-10 09:39:25
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6948|St. Andrews / Oslo

FEOS wrote:

My consistent position has been that civil unions should be the recognized thing for everyone.

If people want to get married, they can do so in their church. Would still count as a civil union, though.
Exactly.


and I'm not entirely sure I support the idea of forcing churches to allow same-sex marriages.. It's their church, they can do whatever - if they define marriage as a thing between a man and a woman, and don't want to do it for two men or two women, then fair enough. As long as getting married in Church has no benefits over getting married in the Town Hall, then, meh.

Last edited by Jenspm (2012-02-10 09:40:27)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2012-02-10 09:41:50
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5801

Jesus fucking Christ people gay marriage is not about forcing churches to do anything. Churches don't matter already. The court paper called a marriage certificate matters
2012-02-10 09:43:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6621|North Carolina

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Someone explain to me how govt can cut spending without directly or indirectly cutting jobs.

If the trickledown theory of helping rich people get rich flies then the trickledown theory of govt spending must work too.

The first one falls in fact because rich people tend to put their money offshore or invest in imports eg gold - whereas govts do pretty well all their spending and investment onshore.
Neither of your statements is true.

Rich people put their money into securities, bonds, and yes, gold (also a security). Even moving money offshore into a foreign bank account spurs the economy as that bank lends money out in turn. It's all circular, and the return is targeted. Money generally ends up where it's needed. If an idea is bad it will have a difficult time attracting capital for investment. If an idea is good, it will have an easier time. Survival of the fittest idea.

When the government invests, the money ignores the validity of the idea because the governments goal is not to make a profit. Money is squandered on politically connected projects like Roads to Nowhere. It is dumped into companies like Solyndra that have no real business model and no way of ever becoming profitable. It's amazing how quickly the costs rise when the government is the buyer. Compare costs between private and public projects sometime. Labor costs magically double and so does the estimated length of the build (so said labor can milk it).
This isn't always true.  Socialized medical systems have considerably lower costs for medications.

It's all about economies of scale.  The government has the possibility of taking advantage of greater bulk discounts than anyone else.

Of course, this is assuming that the government chooses the lowest bidder.

When the government instead purchases things according to whatever a bribed official directs it towards, then the costs can be pretty high.  So, oftentimes, corruption is the primary factor in determining if economies of scale actually applies for the government's spending habits.

Unfortunately, our government can be notoriously corrupt in its bureaucracy compared to many of our peers, which is why economies of scale don't always function properly for us with government spending.
2012-02-10 09:45:56
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6948|St. Andrews / Oslo

Macbeth wrote:

Jesus fucking Christ people gay marriage is not about forcing churches to do anything. Churches don't matter already. The court paper called a marriage certificate matters
Right, but it's another point in the gay marriage debate. Many people want to make gay marriage in church a legal right. Realise it's a bit of a tangent.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2012-02-10 09:47:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6621|North Carolina

eleven bravo wrote:

those subsidies exist in order to keep the market price of goods from shooting through the roof
That would depend on the product.

With beef, you're correct.  With milk and cheese, it's the opposite.

Some subsidies are aimed at getting suppliers to produce less of a food in order to generate artificial scarcity and a respective rise in price.

Others are designed to keep the price down, because the normal costs of bringing the food to market would push the price much higher.

The funny thing is...  if our agricultural market was completely free, our diets would likely be healthier.

In a non-subsidized market, meats are more expensive, while most other goods (like fruits and vegetables) are typically cheaper.

Americans would have a more fruit and vegetable oriented diet due to costs without our current subsidies in place.
2012-02-10 09:48:49
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5801

It's not a point in the debate at all. No one on the legalize side wants to force churches to do anything. Propagandists on the antigay side try to make it about churches in order to trick people. They are lying.
2012-02-10 09:50:15
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5801

I rather eat meat than eat like a rabbit so fuck your healthier diets
2012-02-10 09:52:27
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6621|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:

I rather eat meat than eat like a rabbit so fuck your healthier diets
I'd rather not have my tax money go to agricorporations that don't need my money.

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 30

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard