U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-11-2019, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,657 posts, read 14,068,921 times
Reputation: 22696

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post

Also, it certainly does appear that the children of poor and low-income families who receive free school breakfast, lunch, etc., program meals, regardless of whether they get food stamps, are being overfed.
You presented absolutely NO evidence to prove that SNAP recipients are "overeating"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2019, 09:59 AM
 
1,599 posts, read 1,865,025 times
Reputation: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ossify View Post
socialism is not just wrong because it creates a larger base of poor by stealing from hard working people, but that it creates vast swaths of useless humans whose minds are idol, empty and thus playgrounds for Satan. To have an idol, purposeless and useless life and mind (or to use activity and the mind to do evil) is contrary to what the Lord has intended for His creation
This is why humanity is becoming secular. People taking religion outside its intended context and using it as a weapon against the under privileged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,657 posts, read 14,068,921 times
Reputation: 22696
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's where you're wrong. If their taxes are too high, they can't compete with their competitors. And just so you know, taxes are ALWAYS included in the pricing formula, even including "loss-leaders" as how much in 'sales price divided by cost' negative revenue per unit is a known and carefully considered factor. If the "loss-leader" increases the customer base and thereby increases profits as customers buy other goods/services to the extent that the profits are greater than the loss, the "loss-leader" strategy is implemented.
https://missouribusiness.net/article...ead-and-price/
Always remember... Corporations don't pay taxes. Their clients/consumers pay the corporate tax. Business 101.
Businesses pass on costs to consumers, but the opposite doesn't happen when taxes are reduced, they do not cut prices unless they need to do so to gain a competitive advantage. If a tax affects an entire industry all players have the same tax burden so they are not pitted against one another.

PS this has absolutely nothing to do with a 'loss-leader' strategy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 10:30 AM
 
2,214 posts, read 815,680 times
Reputation: 2423
Quote:
Originally Posted by zach_33 View Post
The Gini Coefficient in the US has been on the rise since Reagan took office. The Forbes 400 (top 400 wealthiest Americans) combined net worth was about $3 trillion in 2017.

And GOPers say we can't afford $70 billion per year for SNAP benefits? Who in hell wants to deprive a million elementary school kids of a free school lunch when their parents are having a hard time making ends meet? Those people should be ashamed of themselves.

In this context, I support everything socialist. UBI, Medicare for all, free college, you name it. If 1000 among us can afford to buy small islands in the pacific and own a fleet of private jets, then we should all be able to live with a baseline of food, shelter and dignity.
80% of the US lived in the middle class when federal government spending represented 3% of GDP, now it represents 28%(40% including state and local government spending). We haven’t gotten rid of any of the programs FDR and LBJ put into place, they’re all still there. You’re 3 trillion argumentment is flawed that’s their combined net worth not their taxable income. 3 trillion doesn’t even represent 70% of government expenses currently, you can confiscate all their wealth and not come close to funding the government for 1 year. The ginicoeficient is also a terrible way to measure the success of a country. It assumes that if the rich were less wealthy or if there were less rich people we would be better off which isn’t the case at all we want as many rich people as possible living here, that’s why our legal immigration process is highly tilted towards bringing in people with capital who will employ people and spend their wealth here. What you aren’t understanding is that in the process of trying to make everyone equal you will make everyone poorer. The best way to measure the success of a country imo is migration, people vote with their feet, there isn’t a single county on earth that has a positive net migration with the US. We take in half the world’s immigrants. Everyone wants to live here, no one wants to leave. That’s the true measure of success.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 10:34 AM
 
1,669 posts, read 356,715 times
Reputation: 1963
Quote:
Originally Posted by zach_33 View Post
The Gini Coefficient in the US has been on the rise since Reagan took office. The Forbes 400 (top 400 wealthiest Americans) combined net worth was about $3 trillion in 2017.

And GOPers say we can't afford $70 billion per year for SNAP benefits? Who in hell wants to deprive a million elementary school kids of a free school lunch when their parents are having a hard time making ends meet? Those people should be ashamed of themselves.

In this context, I support everything socialist. UBI, Medicare for all, free college, you name it. If 1000 among us can afford to buy small islands in the pacific and own a fleet of private jets, then we should all be able to live with a baseline of food, shelter and dignity.
And what happens when those 1000 leave the US ?
Or run out of money should they stay and give it all to Uncle Sam ?

Medicare for all alone will peak at $56 TRILLION over 10 years. That is in the very study Sanders is using for his platform.
Shelter ? Are you demanding these 1000 buy homes for the poor ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 10:35 AM
 
13,177 posts, read 4,802,109 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by cttransplant85 View Post
80% of the US lived in the middle class when federal government spending represented 3% of GDP, now it represents 28%(40% including state and local government spending). We haven’t gotten rid of any of the programs FDR and LBJ put into place, they’re all still there. You’re 3 trillion argumentment is flawed that’s their combined net worth not their taxable income. 3 trillion doesn’t even represent 70% of government expenses currently, you can confiscate all their wealth and not come close to funding the government for 1 year. The ginicoeficient is also a terrible way to measure the success of a country. It assumes that if the rich were less wealthy or if there were less rich people we would be better off which isn’t the case at all we want as many rich people as possible living here, that’s why our legal immigration process is highly tilted towards bringing in people with capital who will employ people and spend their wealth here. What you aren’t understanding is that in the process of trying to make everyone equal you will make everyone poorer. The best way to measure the success of a country imo is migration, people vote with their feet, there isn’t a single county on earth that has a positive net migration with the US. We take in half the world’s immigrants. Everyone wants to live here, no one wants to leave. That’s the true measure of success.
You sound like a libertarian who wants us to go back to the early 1800s or to feudal times.

Do you consider feudalism, where private property rights (for the rich) is more important than democracy to be the ideal society?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 10:36 AM
 
13,177 posts, read 4,802,109 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post

Medicare for all alone will peak at $56 TRILLION over 10 years. That is in the very study Sanders is using for his platform.
No its not. You just made that up.

By the way, our current health care system is on track to cost roughly $50 trillion over the next ten years. TRILLION.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 10:37 AM
 
1,669 posts, read 356,715 times
Reputation: 1963
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
You sound like a libertarian who wants us to go back to the early 1800s or to feudal times.

Do you consider feudalism, where private property rights (for the rich) is more important than democracy to be the ideal society?
I read his post...more like 1960's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 10:41 AM
 
13,177 posts, read 4,802,109 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
I read his post...more like 1960's.
Nope, he glorifies a time when federal government spending was basically non-existent.

The 1960s was the opposite of the libertarian dream with very strong labor unions, low inequality, high minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, strong trust in government institutions, lots of regulation and strong anti-trust legislation to protect small business and rural America...And...the highest economic growth in the history of the country...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 10:56 AM
 
1,669 posts, read 356,715 times
Reputation: 1963
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
No its not. You just made that up.

By the way, our current health care system is on track to cost roughly $50 trillion over the next ten years. TRILLION.
Have you read the studies that Sanders is relying on ?
Oh and Sanders has revised his cost just last month and is now saying $40 trillion.
So, like the frog in the pot, he's slowly increasing this cost and will probably match the cost cited in the study.

And that study was done back in 2016 so you can be sure the cost is even more now...3 years later along with how many million new "non citizens" ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top