France’s role in Afghanistan to change
I love France, it’s a beautiful country with wonderful food, lots of historical sights to visit, but the only problem I have with it is that France is full of French people. And they lived up my expectations yesterday when they elected a Socialist, Francois Hollande to be President, replacing their relatively conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy. The French committed to join us in the war against terror in Afghanistan, but even Sarkozy was withdrawing from Afghanistan a year earlier than he had agreed (the end of next year).
Hollande promised during the campaign to withdraw France’s 3,308 troops by the end of this year, according to Stars & Stripes;
“I will not comment on any possible decisions that the very newly elected French government might take in the future,” German Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, said at a news conference Monday. “But France has committed itself very clearly in one of the first strategic partnership agreements with Afghanistan to a long-term commitment way beyond 2014.”
Funny to see the words “France” and “committed” being used in the same sentence without a mention of three month vacations and 30-hour work weeks, doesn’t it? The French are already fighting the war against terror in their streets, a war that followed them back from Afghanistan, so I guess they’re comfortable with that.
When I was in Paris, the tour guide told us that there were ten bombs going off every day in Paris. I have no evidence to confirm that, but I know that we had to go through metal detectors and hand searches to get into a Parisian department store, so I don’t doubt it. If that’s the kind of life they enjoy, more power to them.
Category: Foreign Policy, Terror War
A lifetime limit (5 yrs? 10 yrs?) on welfare?
How about 1 year? We’ve got people taking 99 week vacations, and they’re also the reason the unemployment rate is supposedly going down–because now they CAN’T find work, are “discouraged”, and simply drop off the rolls.
And how about those of us who can count the number of weeks we’ve been on unemployment on one hand with fingers left over?
Like all the incessant caterwauling about the gov’t taking your hard-earned money.
Joe, between the state and federal government, I am compelled to give them over 40 percent of my earnings.
You read that right–40 percent. And what do I see for that return? Shitty schools, crumbling infrastructure, graft, corruption, and greed. If it was an EFFECTIVE use of my tax dollars, 1–they wouldn’t need nearly as much, 2–you’d hear a lot less grumbling, 3–when EVERYONE pays, EVERYONE benefits.
So when I see welfare queens (or kings) filling up their carts on shit I can’t afford, paying for it with an EBT card, wheeling it out to their dualie truck that they bought with funds from working “under the table” and then having the balls to bitch that the government doesn’t “do enough” for them, yeah, it fucking pisses me off.
NHS, One year? Ten years? Some common ground! At least that’s a starting point!
I could call you a lazy bum since you’ve been on unemployment for, what, an infinitely longer time than me (zero weeks), but I don’t want to bruise your fragile ego.
Is 40% too high, or too low? That’s a subject for debate. I know you would probably say, oh, 0%? But increasingly complex societies require more overhead (hell, even primitive societies have some overhead) to maintain services. Crumbling infrastructure + a bunch of out-of-work people; I see a solution right there. If already-underfunded public schools are shitty, how good will they be when you cut funds even more?
The only thing we agree on is that we detest welfare abuse, and that’s a different discussion. But I do think the rules have to be tightened up significantly, and then enforced, and that enforcement comes under the heading of necessary overhead. But yeah, I can see how that supermarket scenario pisses you off. Tighten up the rules so only the truly needy get the help, I’m all for that.
A few points, Joe.
1. The fact that you can use Babelfish to translate French to English, formulate a reply, and then use Babelfish to translate that reply to French is not evidence of an original thought. That’s determined by the content of your reply – which was actually quite predictable. As well as trite.
2. The fact that someone sees and mentions a problem with free handouts to the “needy” (some of which are anything but) does not equate to a lack of sympathy for those truly in need. The two concepts are logically distinct.
3. It’s generally considered a no-no to quote someone without attribution – if for no other reason than readability. You neglected to do that in your comment 51 above.
4. I’m raising the BS flag. Please point out where anyone other than you here said “no benefits for anyone no matter how dire their plight”. I don’t believe you can.
Joe, which commenters said “no benefits/assistance for anyone no matter what”, and when did they say it?
Your recall skills are really good when it comes to nagging Jonn over which feminists he thinks might be doable, so you should be able to give us detailed examples of your assertion. Unless, of course, you’re just talking out your ass and doing heroic battle with strawmen.
Hondo,
Point #1 – Took French in 8th grade back in ’63, but I am very rusty to say the least.
Point #3 – I was paraphrasing the general tenor of this site.
Point #2 and #4 – I can’t remember reading any post by the regulars on this site that did anything but trash the notion of “welfare” (by any other name), usually with the rejoinder that they were sick and tired of the government taking “their” money. Don’t recall any moderation whatsover on this matter, even to the point of contributors stating there are a lot of moochers, but few if any really needy people in this country.
So that’s no on specific examples, and yes for you making stuff up on the spot when you get called out. Oh, you never answered my question at #25 either.
I could call you a lazy bum since you’ve been on unemployment for, what, an infinitely longer time than me (zero weeks), but I don’t want to bruise your fragile ego.
And I could say that you’ve been leeching off the teat for your entire adult life, but that would 1–REALLY hurt your feelings, 2–be a lot closer to the truth than you’re willing to admit.
Frankly, when I’ve been out of work for three WEEKS since the age of 14, I don’t think that’s a bad record at all, so over the course of about 30-plus years, that’s about as close to zero as one can reasonably expect.
And no, 40 percent is NOT a reasonable expectation at any income level. Especially for the ROI we get. If the US government was a business, would YOU invest in it? That to me is the benchmark of effective government.
Joe:
So, you admit that the “no benefits for anyone no matter how dire their plight” statement was your opinion, and that you jumped to an unjustified conclusion based on insufficient evidence. I guess that’s a start.
Most of us here understand quite well that taxes are an unpleasant but necessary reality. But when quite literally 5% of the taxpayers are paying nearly 60% of the federal income taxes paid – and 10% of the taxpayers are paying over 70% of all federal income taxes paid – well, something is seriously wrong.
And in case you doubt this, the figures for 2009 were top 5% AGI – 58.66% of federal income taxes paid; top 10% AGI – 70.47% of federal income taxes paid.
For comparison, in 2009 the bottom 50% of taxpayers by AGI paid approximately 2.25% of all federal income taxes.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
And spare me that tired, bogus, horsecrap “fairness” argument. The only truly fair taxes are zero exemption flat income taxes and no exemption sales taxes. Both of those result in everyone earning or spending a dollar being treated equally. All others tax schemes are by design not applied equally to all, and thus by definition are not fair.
I understand your numbers, but jumping from stats to what is “fair” is a big leap, and a topic on which there are a multitude of opinions. Just tryig to define “fair” could take years. Numbers don’t define fair, it’s a value judgement. But I will say that in an economy where the Dow-Jones is soaring, the 1% are raking in the profits, and millions and millions are unemployed and/or in dire distress – well something is out of whack and railing about what is fair doesn’t solve the problem. The Apollo missions had to make mid-course corrections to hit their target. Why wouldn’t a complex system like a national economy need the occasional readjustment?
Because what you would consider a “mid-course corrections” is in reality destruction of the capitalist system.
And you bitch about US wanting to blow shit up for the sake of change?
Why are you guys always so gung-ho to fuck with what works better than any other economic system out there?
I agree that a mid-course correction is needed, Joe. When 50% of the taxpayers essentially have no “skin” in the game, something is wrong. Ditto when 10% of the population is footing 70+% of the bill.
But defining “fair” actually is pretty easy, Joe.
World English Dictionary:
fair (adj)
1. free from discrimination, dishonesty, etc; just; impartial
A reasonable synonym in this context is “equal” – e.g., “equal treatment”. And “equality under the law” is an expression of that concept in legal terms. And one of the Amendments to the Constitution directly addresses that legal principle, actually – something called the “equal protection clause” (14th Amendment, Section 1, last clause of the section). Under US law, everyone is to be treated equally – regardless of income or social standing.
So, Joe: please explain what is wrong with treating everyone exactly the same when it comes to taxes? Specifically, what’s wrong with requiring anyone who makes or spends a dollar to pay his/her share of federal taxes based on what they earn or spend? Isn’t that exactly what the principle of equality means – that the rich and poor get treated alike? Are you really arguing against the principle of equal treatment for all? Wouldn’t taking that position that mean you’re endorsing the proposition that “all Americans are equal, but some Americans are more equal than others?” Should we only enforce equal treatment when it’s easy or convenient to do so – but cease trying when that becomes difficult or causes problems?
C’mon. I really want to hear your answer to this one.
“Why are you guys always so gung-ho to fuck with what works better than any other economic system out there?”
– Sparky, there ae so many mountains of evidence that disprove that contentin that it leaves me breathless that you can even write sucha thing with a straight face. You’re laughing your ass off, right?
Hondo, I’m open to a major overhaul of the tax system – it’s got a serious case of atherosclerosis. The devil is in the details. I believe Elizabeth Warren summed it up well, ” You built a factory – good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for,etc. etc.”
Those companies, and those people profiting hugely from those companies, shoud pay their FAIR share. That does not mean they should merely pay as much as the man on the street, the men and women doing the work every day. And make no mistake about it, the working man is a vital peice of the whole equation and deserves protections. We can’t all be, nor should we all be, entrepeneurs or captains of industry or fabulously rich bloggers.
Fair share, eh? What is their fair share, Joe? Give us a number. I won’t hold my breath either, because the unwillingness to answer a simple question like that is very telling.
Nearly everyone you hear blathering about “fair share” refuses to answer the same question, because in the end it isn’t about a percentage or even the money. It’s about power and control.
So, Joey, you’re in the “99%”, right? You want free shit, like the Occutards that Ringo documented at LA? Is that a fair summation of your stand on this?
And, no, Elizabeth [The Indian] Warren was not correct, in that the people who build the factories pay as much, if not more than the people she’s steppin’ up for.
I know you’re down with the 10% carrying 70% of the burden of income taxes, and that it’s really OK, for 50% of the populace to sit on their asses and pay nothing, right? And, in this case, a simple yes or no answer would be nice.
Now, do you file the 1040EZ when you file your income taxes? Do you forgo all those “loopholes” that you and the Occutards have your panties in a wad over? Or, do you take every exemption you can? I’m sure a man of the people like you will file the 1040EZ, and probably cut the government a check for an extra $1,500 or $2K, right?
I suppose it would be pointless to remind Joe that a flat tax system does ensure that the “rich” pay more. Basic arithmetic guarantees that, as X% of $2M is 100x as much as X% of $20k.
You nailed it, PowerPointRanger. When someone starts using the term “fairness” with respect to taxes, that’s nothing more than code for “progressive taxation” – e.g., force the higher earners pay more proportionally. There’s nothing remotely “fair” about that – it’s nothing but a blatant application of the Marxist principle “from each according to his ability . . . . ” Calling that “fair” is nothing but Orwellian NewSpeak.
Bottom line: fair means “treat everybody equally”. If fair is an income tax of X% for the low-wage earner, that same X% is also fair for the high wage earner. Under a flat tax system with no exemptions, the guy making 10x as much pays 10x as much in taxes – period. That sounds about as fair as you can get to me.
But good luck on ever getting Joe (or one of his philosophical persuasion) to ever answer why they’re overtly arguing against equal treatment for all in this context. I’ve found they almost always change the subject or disappear when confronted on that point. (Kinda like Joe did above in his last comment.)
I believe Elizabeth Warren summed it up well
Fauxcahontas isn’t someone you should be quoting when trying to make a cogent point, Joe. She speaks with forked tongue.
And when Granny Warren claims to be the intellectual foundation for the OWS protests, which are not, never were, never will be about “fairness” but more about a bunch of spoiled little shits wanting their freebies off the backs of someone else, you throwing your lot in with her tells me all I really need to know.
And yeah, capitalism DOES work.
For Joey’s benefit: the change in subject I was referring to in your comment 63 was your rather transparent attempt to broaden the scope of the discussion. We were discussing personal Federal income taxes on individuals – not corporate income taxes. Corporate taxes are a different subject altogether, with different issues. That’s a different discussion entirely, and is irrelevant to a discussion of personal income taxes.
Not even a nice try. Too obvious.
Oh, and Joe, I’m going to make a statement. Discuss:
“Corporations don’t pay taxes. They merely collect them.”
Ya know joe, i notice you’re coming up with all these hypotheses on economic theory but I have yet to see a single citation to support your claims. All I’ve seen is a bunch of inane comments by a lost soul with nothing going for them but nothing.
Yat Yas,
Go talk to real working people in Sweden, Finland, Denmark for example. They will provide all the citations you need suppporting an alternative economic model. Oh yeah, they’re also a lot happier, healthier, less stressed and less neurotic than the average American.
“Oh yeah, they’re also a lot happier, healthier, less stressed and less neurotic than the average American”
Well, if you disregard all of those suicides and stuff.
@71: Well, Joe, it’s funny you bring up Sweden, since they mentioned a number of years ago that socialized healthcare bankrupt their country. Also, when you consider that most European nations didn’t have to spend much on their own defense (they had us to do it for them), they could play around with socialist cradle to grave entitlements. now that we have backed off, over the past couple of decades in that regard, they are finding that they can’t afford to secure their country and continue to pay for their handouts. Plus, the growth of industry is stagnant because of high taxes and lower productivity (a whole lotta unions over there), just like we are finding out here in this country. Merkel took steps to spur growth and help get their economy moving, again. Steps in the opposite direction that we have taken under the fraud Obama and they are coming back faster than we are; what does that tell you?
I was born there and have a lot of relatives still there, so don’t think you can come in with your tourist bullshit viewpoint and lecture us on what it’s like over there. I hear about it all the time.
And I’d like to see how well their economies develop outside those heavily subsidized by their respective governments, Joe.
Kinda like when NAFTA got passed and the timber industry in the Northeast was decimated by the Canadians who subsidized their timber industry with the express purpose of undercutting (no pun intended) ours. To this day there are entire sections of Maine, NH, and Vermont who haven’t recovered. But yeah, it’s so much better to depend on a minimal existence from Unca Shuga than it is to stand on your own two feet and achieve something better–in some cases, a LOT better.
As far as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark go, tell me how much fun it is to live there when incomes are significantly ours yet costs are on par with any major US city. Sorry, I’m not real high on living in a 400 sq. ft. apartment and dodging heroin addicts and whores while I try to bike to work because I can’t afford a car nor have anywhere to park it.
Joe,
The “austerity measures” haven’t been quite so austere.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/europes-nightmare-has-just-begun
Wait until everyone in France is paying a 75% tax rate just to pay the interest on the debit.
significantly ours = significantly lower than ours. Oy.
And even in countries like Sweden where they have higher GDP per inhabitant, how far does that go when half of it is confiscated by the government?
Yat Yas, “They will provide all the citations you need suppporting an alternative economic model”. Translation: Joey’s got nothing, so, we should have to source his laughable claims, not him.
NHS,
“Confiscate” is too strong a word. The people do after all get something (a lot) in return.
The fuck they do. Show me what $4 trillion buys these days. Shrimp on treadmills seems to be popular. So do bailing out failing car companies.
Again, if the United States government were a corporation, would you invest in it with the ROI you get?
Still no citations Joey?
Sparky, don’t forget, the government, in the guise of the National Institutes of Health, spent $3.6 Million to study stoned monkeys who were menstruating. http://activistsandairplanes.com/2011/06/10/the-friday-stupid-government-spends-3-6-million-to-study-a-stoned-monkey/
See, Joey, that’s how one cites what one says. Not that difficult.
What exactly is it that I get for the funds they confiscate from me? Maybe my retirement income, but that is a bill every American owes me since I served every American. Sadly, most are not contributing a dime to it.
Reality check here: the parasites owe me not me them.
…And at the rate they’re going, OWB, you won’t get retirement, either.
I have the pleasure of knowing that Social Security is set to become insolvent the year I could retire. Lovely.
And by definition, the parasites believe you don’t just owe them…they believe you EXIST for them.
Up,
I’m not defending every single hare-brained program ever funded. I agree there should be more oversight, a lot more oversight, but you guys are too cheap to pay for that kind of necessary overhead. The study you mention does sound a little bit sketchy. But it is possible to be against frivolous spending but in favor of an income tax and a social safety net.
OWB – the interstate highway system (or what’s left of it)? National defense? Part of the cost of bridges, tunnels, airports, etc. Again, some of the spending is essential.
Pinto,
You’re younger than I thought….
Joe:
“Confiscate” is a perfectly accurate description of taxation. One definition of the term confiscate is “to seize as forfeited to the public domain”.
That is precisely what taxation does – it forcibly seizes private funds under color of law and uses them for governmental purposes. The fact that it is done under color of law does not alter the nature of the act. It merely makes it legal.
Wrong, Joe. The main problem is not a lack of oversight. The main problem is that the government is attempting to do too many things for people that people can – and should – be responsible for doing for themselves.
Thoreau had it right: “That government is best which governs least.” Every penny that the government confiscates in taxes is a penny less available for productive economic use. Government is, in essence, nothing but overhead. The private sector uses resources eminently more efficiently and effectively.
End Federal involvement in those areas that people can and should take care of for themselves, and the Federal deficit (and the US economy) will take care of itself.
Oh, and we’re still waiting for you to define what you mean by “fairness” regarding taxation – Joey.
” The private sector uses resources eminently more efficiently and effectively.”
One of those very general truisms that isn’t necessarily true, but that doesn’t stop people from parroting it.
You could write a book trying to define “fairness”. Na ga da.
Looks like you’re going to be waiting awhile Hondo.
The assertion you made, Joe, was that we get quite a lot from the system that confiscates it from us. I am one of the people. I don’t get back nearly what I put into it. Most in this country contribute nothing.
Not fair at all by anyone’s definition.
(PN – been retired for quite a while now.)
Adam_S: Obviously. Can’t say I really expected an answer from Joe, though.
It’s been my experience that whenever someone refuses to answer a rather simple question – such as define what they mean by “fairness” WRT taxes – that means they either (1) don’t really have an answer, or (2) have an answer but realize it’s indefensible. But maybe that’s just me.
@87: Bullshit, Joe. Private entities need to turn a profit to stay in business. In order to do that, they have to be more efficient/effective than a government that doesn’t have to show a profit to stay in business. That you don’t get that, doesn’t surprise me since you are a commie, but don’t think that being a commie makes you intimately more qualified to understand how private business works compared to those that are part of it.
Another commie that I work with made the statement that as things stand, we are undertaxed. I posed this question to him: “If I went out and bought a $100k car; can I claim I’m underpaid at my job”? It’s the same thing. If government thinks we need higher taxes; then why don’t they couple that with across the board spending cuts? Leftist/socialist/commies love to talk about taking away our money, but the only spending cuts they are willing to acknowledge are to the defense budget; why?
OK, at some point between collecting zero% in taxes and collecting 100% in taxes you would cross a threshold where the taxee might think, “This is no longer fair”. That threshold varies from person to person. It depends in part what the taxee is getting for his x% tax rate. My guess, and it’s just a guess based on the rants I read here, is that your threshold would be down near zero %.
Old,
Cutting gov’t payrolls in times of recession and unemployment is a sure way to continue the death spiral. Most economists who are not members of the tea party recognize that fact.
Would those economists be on the gubmint payroll, Joe???
Joe: Not a truism at all. Here’s a short version of the proof. 1. Goods and services in this nation are produced virtually exclusively by the private sector. 2. Government produces virtually nothing in the way of goods and services beyond that which is inherently governmental (e.g., security services, legal system, etc . . . . ). Even there, large components of those efforts are contracted to private industry. 3. Governmental efforts include an extra layer of oversight, bureaucracy, red-tape, and regulation that would not otherwise exist. These are non-productive uses of funding that consume resources that could otherwise be used for private sector production. 4. Private sector production does not have that same governmental overhead, therefore a larger fraction of inputs (revenue) can be used to produce goods and services. 5. The net result is that the private sector operating independently produces the same goods and services for a smaller net financial input than does a government entity that is contracting for the same goods and services. This means that the private sector is inherently more efficient at using resources. By similar argument, it can be shown that the private sector is also more effective. Governments don’t have to worry about going bankrupt if they are not producing a product that meets consumer needs (e.g., about being effective). In contrast, businesses do – because if they don’t do so, absent a bailout they will go out of business. Here’s a concrete example. Assume a business paves parking lots. A company comes to them to and contracts for a large parking lot costing $1M. The company pays them the $1M; the business builds the parking lot. Total cost for goods/services: $1M. Now consider what happens if the government contracts for the same parking lot. The cost to the government is the same. However, the government must raise this money through taxation. It must also (by law in most places) (1) pay someone to administer the contract, (2) audit the contract, (3) monitor the contractor’s performance, (4) seek approval to spend the money for the project, (5) pay the personnel who… Read more »
Actually, Joe, I’d argue that any fixed tax rate between 0 and 100% would be fair, provided that it was applied equally to all income. Whether a rate of either close to 0% or close to 100% it would be (1) justified or (2) a good idea is an entirely different argument than whether a rate is “fair”.
As I’ve said previously: fair means “treat everybody equally”. If you’re not doing that, well, then the system in place isn’t fair. Period. “Progressive” taxation is decidedly not fair, and actually provides a disincentive to earn more.
Taxation should be about raising revenue – period – and not about “redistributing the wealth”. The latter concept is decidedly Marxist and IMO has no place in America.
Joe: How many economists run their own business? As for cutting gummint payroll; you don’t seem to have a problem eith that when it involves the military; eh? The economists that say that are the same economists that said it when Reagan came into office. They are disciples of Keynesian economics, which didn’t work under Carter (even though admitted Keynesian Bob Beckel still clings to that bs), yet they still want us to believe it works. Of course most of them are in academia where they get paid by the university and government to float their bullshit.
“Redistributing the wealth” is just as nebulous and fuzzy a concept as “fair”. Very subjective and squishy.
The most fair kind of a cash generating ponzi scheme for the gubmint is a consumption tax. Then everyone pays AND decides how much they will pay.
But those against a consumption tax evidently are OK with all those folks who currently are paid under the table continuing to not pay taxes, and all those receiving funds for illegal activities paying no taxes.
A consumption tax is the ultimate in fairness.
“OK, at some point between collecting zero% in taxes and collecting 100% in taxes you would cross a threshold where the taxee might think, “This is no longer fair”.” Congratulations, Joe, you entering the beginning of understanding the Laffer Curve. No apply the 0%-100% tax rate curve to the revenue received by the government through taxation and you’ll start to catch on.
“Cutting gov’t payrolls in times of recession and unemployment is a sure way to continue the death spiral. Most economists who are not members of the tea party recognize that fact.” Joe, see Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman (to support your penchant for Nobel Laureates) and a host of others who can be found at the Adam Smith institute and the Mises Academy.