The Glade 4.0

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama- ... /id/499187

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... oveLEFTTop

Here's the thing ...

You click the links, you read the articles, and if you are not outraged, then your politics are so far gone it's not worth discussing.

_________________

I giggled until I peed a little. America is so ****.

_________________

And people doubt me when I say that you shouldn't put money into 401k.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

How is this any of your god damned business you cock biting, Bull semen gargling Mother ****?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

That's such bullshit...

From one of the links:



Lest anyone think this has anything to do with revenue, it's going to raise less than a billion dollars a year. This is about setting caps on wealth. It's pure liberal ideology and nothing else.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

What's the difference between means-testing SS and Medicare, capping various income tax deductions, capping eligibility for small business preferences, capping eligibility for various transfer payments, etc. - all of which are typically favored by conservatives and budget hawks - and capping the amount of these particular tax deferral programs? Seems to me the point of all of the above is to say, "Sure, it's ok for the government to give people a hand up when they're struggling or in the early stages of starting a business or saving for retirement, but at some point, the special treatment / extra benefit has to get phased out."

And then there's the whole distorting government influence issue that underlies all social engineering through tax policy - i.e. why should the government be rewarding me for saving a dollar instead of spending a dollar? The who, what, where, when and why of my saving/spending decisions are my own business, but by giving preferential tax treatment to the former, the nanny-state is trying to push me into saving more than I otherwise would. It's funny how so many people are able to see the obvious role that tax preferences like the mortgage interest deduction, FHA loans, etc. helped fuel the housing bubble, but so few people seem to realize that things like IRAs and 401-Ks are helping to fuel the financial services bubble and all the creative/risky investment vehicles out there.

Really? Just.... really? I wouldn't even know where to start in a forum-based conversation about this.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You mean besides the fact that those are all things about money that is actually handled by the government, as opposed to people's private savings? And the fact that budget hawks like those things because they actually meaningfully affect the government bottom line?

As for your last part, the idea that it's "nanny-state" to encourage you to save for yourself is a lame gotcha-attempt at its worst. Really, try to be a little less blatant with the knee-jerking.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I seriously didn't expect this out of you. Holy crap.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I'm seriously curious as to why Bull and Mother were capitalized.

Democrats are out of control.

Yes, really. Bear in mind that I'm not actually staking out a position on this policy proposal, as I haven't thought about it enough to have a firm opinion. Also, I get that saving for retirement is a wise thing for individuals to do, and it's beneficial for society (and cheaper for the government in the long run) if people save more on their own. What I'm getting at, though, is that it seems strange for folks who generally dislike nanny-state nudging and government subsidies (including distorting tax preferences) to be outraged by a policy that reduces the scope of this particular kind of nudging/subsidization/distortion. I'm curious as to the reason.

Speaking for myself, I do generally think the government's role for assistance programs, tax preferences, etc. should be of the safety-net / early-stage assistance kind, rather than a totally uncapped, everyone gets it type of approach.

Maybe the same reason that the government encourages people to lock their doors at night rather than rely on the police to catch every burglar?

It is not "nanny state" for the government to encourage people to rely on themselves. Holy ****. I seriously cannot believe you are actually trying to make that comparison.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not sure what you mean here.


How is this a gotcha attempt? It's nanny-state because the government is trying to nudge people into doing something they might not otherwise do because the government thinks its for their own good. I mean seriously, replace "save for yourself" with "drink less soda" and tell me again that it's not a nanny-state thing.

Exactly what I said. They all involve money that is taxed or distributed by the government.



Trying to nudge people into self-reliance isn't nanny-state-ism at all. Nanny-state-ism is trying to push people into greater reliance on the state. You're distorting the idea so that any government encouragement of any behavior at all becomes nanny-state. Since anything the government does will encourage something, that makes anything it does "nanny-state" and thereby essentially renders the concept meaningless.

You're trying to invent hypocrisy by ignoring glaring differences. Not taxing people so that they can save money to meet their expenses is the opposite of nanny-state behavior.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Does Obama wake up in the morning and ask himself, "how can I **** the **** that previous presidents have done? I need to ensure I make a mark."

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

RangerDave you have completely slid off the rails.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

$205k a year doesn't sound that bad.

So if you start out as a poor slob, work your way up from nothing and continue to save monies in a tax-deferred retirement account with the hopes of passing it along to your children so they don't have to start out with nothing the government is saying, "**** yourself", you only need $3,000,000 to retire reasonably. Anything above and beyond that we are going to tax at normal income levels and then tax again upon your death so that your family cannot advance above your designated caste.

This will do absolutely NOTHING to the rich. This merely limits upward mobility for future generations.

_________________

You know what I hear in this thread? A bunch of Six-Percenters whining.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The government knows best.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Are you jumping on the Fair Tax bandwagon?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Heh. No, but I'm not as ideologically far from it as many here seem to think.

Lenas:

IRAs, 401(k), 403(b), and other structured, pre-paid annuities are all designed around 25 years of payouts. $205,000 a year for 25 years is fine and dandy under current pricing indexes, currency valuations, and market behaviors. That may or may not be viable by the time the people currently paying into their retirement start collecting. More to the point, $3,000,000 is valid for TODAY; that number grows every time they do another round of quantitative easing; it grows because of inflation. And, mind you, $205,000 a year is approximately 30% less money today than it was when Obama took office.

RangerDave:

You realize that supporting the current Administration in any way whatsoever after their behavior this year is tantamount to admitting you want a new Constitution, right?

_________________

That's preposterous, Khross. Obama doesn't want a Constitution.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades