patrick.net

Honest Abe says

It is reported that 20% of Americans rely 100% (One Hundred Percent) on Government assistance.

It is also reported that the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom 120 million of us.

"To say Romney earned $20.9 million in 2011 stretches the meaning of the word "earn" beyond logic or morality." - Robert Reich.

Honest Abe says

Its pretty obvious why our once great country is in serious trouble, isn't it?

Yes and it is not what you think as the reason.

All your questions are pandering to the same left vs. right paradigm which is so tiring and outright boring.

All of the above mentioned indentured voters will be voting for Barrack Hussain Obama for one simple reason. Can you figure out what it might be?

(Should I laugh now, or latter?)

If the indentured voters don't vote BO, the gravy train stops. Those who vote for a living don't want the gravy train to stop, do they???

Please prove that all people who rely on government assistance will vote for Obama.

Actually, please prove that even a simple majority will.

I'll come back when you have data.

Honest Abe says

indentured voters will be voting for Barrack Hussain Obama for one simple reason. Can you figure out what it might be?

Red State welfare recipients will smash through Fox News programming and vote for Obama?

The deuce you say!

"Earth to Kevin" - Passing out freebees, perks, food stamps ,housing vouchers, prescription drugs and numerous other "benefits" is how politicians have pandered for votes for decades.

If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul will always vote for you. Politicians know that, I guess you don't. Maybe you believe the dependent class actually votes based on the issues, not in their own self-interest, HAHAHAHAHAHA.

P.S. why don't you have any friends? Just askin'

Ron Paul is the only politician who has the political will to make tough choices and fix the mess that our "wise leaders" have created. Sound money, limited constitutional government, and no more empire building.

Honest Abe says

"Earth to Kevin" - Passing out freebees, perks, food stamps ,housing vouchers, prescription drugs and numerous other "benefits" is how politicians have pandered for votes for decades.

I guess the large number of folks in rural America on welfare didn't get the message then. Because they certainly didn't vote for Obama.

Most conservatives who claim themselves to be conservatives are hypocrites. So these conservative welfare states are no surprise.

Honest Abe says

"Earth to Kevin" - Passing out freebees, perks, food stamps ,housing vouchers, prescription drugs and numerous other "benefits" is how politicians have pandered for votes for decades.

If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul will always vote for you. Politicians know that, I guess you don't. Maybe you believe the dependent class actually votes based on the issues, not in their own self-interest, HAHAHAHAHAHA.

P.S. why don't you have any friends? Just askin'

Ron Paul is the only politician who has the political will to make tough choices and fix the mess that our "wise leaders" have created. Sound money, limited constitutional government, and no more empire building.

So, yeah, you don't have any data.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Let me think, OK, I got it. The two states with the largest welfare rolls in America (and probably in the WORLD) are California and New York...both liberal, commie, utopia, dependent, welfare states.

You think the solution to every problem is more government, more rules, more regulation, more oversight, and more red tape. Just in case you haven't noticed - its chocking the life out of businesses, jobs, the economy and peoples wellbeing.

You busbbody liberal do gooders shoud simply get your nose out of other peoples business.

Ron Paul 2012

Honest Abe says

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec-economy-welfare-caseloads-total-recipients

That's misleading. What you are showing is the total welfare alone. That's like just seeing one side of the coin.

Honest Abe says

The two states with the largest welfare rolls in America (and probably in the WORLD) are California and New York...both liberal, commie, utopia, dependent, welfare states.

Please state how much do these two states bring in, in terms of federal revenue. Then we can talk about whether they are really sucking federal dollars or they're just getting back what they contributed.

If you don't have any meaningful data that can be compared, your whole argument is worthless.

Unfortunately the ones "sucking federal dollars" are not the ones contributing the money. If that was the case everyone could live at the expense of everyone else...but for some reason that only works in the minds of liberal's.

Honest Abe says

Unfortunately the ones "sucking federal dollars" are not the ones contributing the money

You are correct sir. All the conservatives in the red states are sucking my money.

Nomograph says

ANSWER THE QUESTION, ABE.

Abe hasn't ever answered questions before in the entire history of patrick.net, why do you expect it to happen now?

Honest Abe says

Unfortunately the ones "sucking federal dollars" are not the ones contributing the money

Honest Abe seems to be honestly evading questions.

Our country will never have budget sanity until outlays are equal to, or less than, tax revenue and those who are the advocates for largess of the public treasury feel the pain of their advocacy.

http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Civil-War-Preparing-ebook/dp/B005FMBENU

It's definitely true that Republican states are way bigger consumers of the social welfare programs that they so bitterly complain about. Pretty ironic!

Lately I think the solution to the whole tax issue is simply to tax unearned income (capital gains, dividends, interest, land rents) highly, and make all earned income (income from your own work) completely untaxed.

No conservative would have any right to complain about social welfare programs, since they would not take a dime from income anyone actually worked for.

BTW, thanks for keeping this dicussion relatively civil.

Honest Abe says

Kevin, your problem is that you have a disease known as "liberalism". Its a debilitating though non-contageous disease. One glaring symptom is that common sense is completly compromised and entirely eliminated. So sorry for your loss.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec-economy-welfare-caseloads-total-recipients

Ron Paul or bust.

When are you going to present some data showing that people who are dependent on government assistance are going to vote for Obama?

Kevin says

When are you going to present some data showing that people who are dependent on government assistance are going to vote for Obama?

Kevin's question is very relevant.

uomo_senza_nome says

Please state how much do these two states bring in, in terms of federal revenue. Then we can talk about whether they are really sucking federal dollars or they're just getting back what they contributed.

If you don't have any meaningful data that can be compared, your whole argument is worthless.

My concern is also relevant.

Honest Abe says

http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Civil-War-Preparing-ebook/dp/B005FMBENU

This answer is seriously irrelevant and tangential to the original concerns which you raised. are you going to follow through your own thoughts or just shoot random stuff in the air?

Lately I think the solution to the whole tax issue is simply to tax unearned income (capital gains, dividends, interest, land rents) highly, and make all earned income (income from your own work) completely untaxed.
No conservative would have any right to complain about social welfare programs, since they would not take a dime from income anyone actually worked for.

Sounds like a good idea. Would it work? Would there be enough taxes collected? How high would taxes on unearned income have to be?

+1

Honest Abe says

More damage has been done to this country in the last three years than the Nazi's and Japanese did in all of WW2.

That's a pretty ridiculous assertion.

Look, I can understand if people disagree with Obama. Fine. But saying he's doing damage to the US on the scale of WW2 is just absurd.

Nomograph says

Please don't be such a complete ass

Please don't insult the other users! Point out the problems in the argument instead.

I have a jail and I plan to use it.

wthrfrk80 says

Sounds like a good idea. Would it work? Would there be enough taxes collected? How high would taxes on unearned income have to be?

I'm pretty sure there could be enough taxes collected to do everything we need to do as a country. Just think of all the land rents, interest, dividends, and capital gains. Georgism is the idea that we can fund everything we need from land rents alone.

I calculated in another thread than we could eliminate all other taxes by a flat 2% tax on all assets per year. But that taxes savings from your own work, which we're trying to avoid here.

Anyone know the breakdown between earned and unearned income?

Whether it would work politically is another matter. The idle rich would violently oppose it. And the goal of most Americans is not actually to live from their own income and savings, but instead to live from the work of other people. Though they generally won't admit that, maybe not even to themselves.

I like the idea of Georgism, in theory. Would it be possible to objectively differentiate between earned and unearned income?

After all, when I invest, I get "unearned" income as a return on that investment. It's the reward for putting off instant gratification.

Isn't the value of all investments from earned income?

Maybe there could be a progressive tax on unearned investment income?

The idle rich would violently oppose it. And the goal of most Americans is not actually to live from their own income and savings, but instead to live from the work of other people. Though they generally won't admit that, maybe not even to themselves.

Definitely true...not just in America.

Honest Abe says

Obama played the fiddle while America burned. More damage has been done to this country in the last three years than the Nazi's and Japanese did in all of WW2.

Still evading and an outright blind assertion.

I'm not sure if you're even interested in hearing other points of view.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

wthrfrk80 says

I like the idea of Georgism, in theory. Would it be possible to objectively differentiate between earned and unearned income?

After all, when I invest, I get "unearned" income as a return on that investment. It's the reward for putting off instant gratification.

Isn't the value of all investments from earned income?

Maybe there could be a progressive tax on unearned investment income?

Income that accrues to you from mere ownership is unearned income.

But I admit that there are border cases that are confusing. If you invest your savings, you actually do do some useful work in evaluating risk. So I'd say the tax rate on unearned income should be high, maybe 50%, but not 100%

It definitely should not be 15% like we have now with capital gains. That's simply the most influential in DC getting the most reward (and taking it from everyone else!), rather than the most productive people.

Another thing we'd need is very sold non-fiat currency, so that you are not forced to invest in risky things just merely to preserve your savings. I like silver more than gold. What if we all just started pricing things in ounces of silver and said screw the Fed?

uomo_senza_nome says

I'm not sure if you're even interested in hearing other points of view.

I'm pretty sure he's not interested in hearing other points of view.

If your conclusions are unacceptable, no amount of reasoning will work.

So you have to start out with conclusions that he will like. Then he'll listen to your reasoning.

To be fair, that's just how people normally are. It's very hard to work from facts and reason, and to ignore your own biases.

I'm pretty sure he's not interested in hearing other points of view.

LOL, you're right.

To be fair, that's just how people normally are. It's very hard to work from facts and reason, and to ignore your own biases.

:) That's the whole point of forum participation though. Hearing opposing views and checking them with facts/reason is a great way to improve upon knowledge...it's easy to spot BS that way too.:)

Another thing we'd need is very sold non-fiat currency, so that you are not forced to invest in risky things just merely to preserve your savings.

Tell me about it. The thing is, gold and silver have been "financialized" like everything else. During the crash of 2008, gold and silver crashed with everything else. I certainly don't consider gold and silver to be "safe."

Seems like cash is the worst asset class right now, except for all the others...

uomo_senza_nome says

That's the whole point of forum participation though. Hearing opposing views and checking them with facts/reason is a great way to improve upon knowledge...it's easy to spot BS that way too

I've learned a tremendous amount from forums like these. Sometimes the learning is very painful. Like when I learn that so much of what I've been taught is bullshit.

I've also learned that much of the book publishing industry is a racket. Publishers hawk so many books that tell only one "side" of an issue...telling their target audience what they want to hear.

"What gunpowder did for war, the printing press has done for the mind."

I'd say the same is true for the internet.

Nomograph says

comparing it to some minor economic policy

Is this just Denial or do you see future benefit in devaluation ?
Patrick might have Jail but I have charts.

Patrick said: "What we need is a solid, non-fiat currency". Bravo!! I remember arguing with you several years ago about that very issue. In 2009 you had the opposite view, if I remember correctly. I congratulate you on your growth!!

Honest Abe.

I don't think I changed. I did say that the government likes fiat currency for several reasons:

1. can threaten devaluation to foreigners who hold US Treasuries
2. can confiscate money from citizens by printing more instead of raising taxes
3. can punish savers and force them to spend or lose to "stimulate" the economy

I never liked any of those.

I am convinced that the primary purpose of all central banks is to protect big bankers from responsibility for their own decisions. The central bank can always bail them out by issuing them credit. So they are guaranteed to never lose, no matter what they do.

But note that a hard currency based on gold or silver does not actually stop people from promising to pay each other. So we could still have massive credit bubbles even with gold or silver.

Patrick, you have a great memory! Fiat currency also allows for military aggression, empire building and war. THATS the part I dislike the most. It also threatens the financial stability of other's by exporting our inflation to all other countries around the world.

The money supply can be created out of thin air...but you can't create gold or silver out of thin air. Sound money is part of the checks and balances of a sound economy.

Fiat money is also dishonest in that it can't be defined. I have learned that there is no provision in the law, no government regulation, no statute, nothing that defines what a dollar even is. Some on this site have responded with a lame response " A dollar is ten dimes".

Imagine if each gas station had a different definition, or idea of how much a gallon was. Imagine what would happen if a sky scraper was built but all the different tradesmen had their own definition of what a "foot" was. Obviously chaos and catastrophy would result...which is what IS happening to our financial situation. Even a gold or silver standard won't prevent bubbles as long as government meddling of interest rates through The Fed continues.

BTW, the promise to pay with a hard currency is actually backed by something. The promise to pay with Fiat currency is actually backed by nothing. Its not the PROMISE that's the problem. It's the VALUE of the currency that's the issue.

Respectfully submitted by,

Honest Abe

Honest Abe says

Fiat currency also allows for military aggression, empire building and war.

What?

At the risk of being redundant, do you have any evidence that fiat currency increases the amount of military aggression, empire building, or war?

Over the last 2000 years of reasonably well-recorded history, it's been a trend towards less war, less aggression, and certainly less empire -- but also a trend towards fiat currencies.

Personally I suspect this correlation is simply the result of technical progress and economic integration, but given that you're claiming exactly the opposite of reality I'd like to know why.

Honest Abe says

Fiat money is also dishonest in that it can't be defined. I have learned that there is no provision in the law, no government regulation, no statute, nothing that defines what a dollar even is. Some on this site have responded with a lame response " A dollar is ten dimes".

Woah selective memory! We've been around this before, either with you or another poster, well over a year ago, and a few times since. A dollar is quite clearly defined in the US legal code. It's a lie to say that there is "noo provision in the law, no government regulation, no statute, nothing that defines what a dollar even is" You simply don't like how it's defined.

Honest Abe says

Imagine if each gas station had a different definition, or idea of how much a gallon was. Imagine what would happen if a sky scraper was built but all the different tradesmen had their own definition of what a "foot" was. Obviously chaos and catastrophy would result...which is what IS happening to our financial situation. Even a gold or silver standard won't prevent bubbles as long as government meddling of interest rates through The Fed continues.

Our current financial situation has exactly nothing to do with people having "different definitions" of what a dollar is.

Things are crappy for several well-known reasons, none of which are trivial to fix, all of which would still be true even if we had hard currency, and all of which have occurred in the past.

Acting like current indebtedness and recession is historical is fun and all, but history just doesn't bear it out. We've had much worse recessions, much worse public debts, higher unemployment, lower productivity, you name it.

the government likes fiat currency for several reasons:
1. can threaten devaluation to foreigners who hold US Treasuries
2. can confiscate money from citizens by printing more instead of raising taxes
3. can punish savers and force them to spend or lose to "stimulate" the economy
I never liked any of those.

Amen to that. Nothing like the need to go "yield chasing" with risky assets just to preserve your wealth.

THROW DOWN CHALLANGE - to Kevin, or anyone else out there. PLEASE post the CURRENT definition of "a dollar" (unrelated to the historical definition - so many grains of gold or silver, etc).

If you can, you'll shut me up forever and I will go away with my "tail between my legs", never to return.

GAME ON !!!

Honest Abe says

PLEASE post the CURRENT definition of "a dollar"

Here you go:

http://www.x-rates.com/