Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Surely the middle ground is tolerance?

OK, that's a bloody stupid reply/question. +1 to Phi -1 to dim (if I could). 

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

We are social. We are intelligent. <here> Just enough of each to make us susceptible to a concerted effort to keep us at odds with one another long enough to distract while the dark deeds we'll find out about later can happen. The gloves seem to be off now, the lies are bigger than ever, the global dialogue is focused on extremes like never before. And still I feel it's all to cover up a much larger middle ground of tolerance and cooperation than anyone suspects is there. I think people worldwide are tired of being lied to, but truths seem hollow and untrustworthy and scarce.

2

We are greedy. Should be inserted to complete the post.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

The deep state thing I said because during the first part of Trump"s administration there were daily leaks and things happening were holdovers were blocking his orders.  For instance, when he attempted to put a travel ban in place, the coordination at the airports for how things should be handled was slip shod, yet there were lawyers and crowds, and political figures, ready at the airports to demonstrate, grandstand and make the order unworkable.  In fact  the wheels were turning in the 5th district and several other judicial areas, to block the order.  Lawyers were submitting their cases as the order was being made public.  This kind of thing is why I feel that some instruments of government were still in the hands of whichever hands the government was in prior the election.

John Cuthber,

Strawman argument, against me in terms of the progressive taxing.  My comment was that all the arguments for progressive taxes are already spent.  Meaning we already accepted the arguments, and that is why we tax people with means more heavily than people with little means.   You cannot then reuse the argument to take more from the rich.  It has already been done. Multiple times.   I never said we should have a flat tax.  In fact, I am in a small way responsible for the opposite, campaigning for McGovern years ago were he was for having low income people, pay no taxes at all.

So please look for the middle ground here, and not stake out the extreme.   There should be, in a democracy, some amount that everybody pays to support the group.  People walk and ride their bikes on the same streets and parks were the companies drive their trucks.  And there is food and clothing and building material in those trucks, that even the poorest of us, need.  

The luck thing you speak of is very unscientific.  It is, for instance, impossible for me to have been born anywhere else, then I was, to any different parents than I was. Unless of course you are saying there is some reservoir of souls up there that randomly settle in this or that animal or person.  I don't personally subscribe to reincarnation.   Do you?

If you are using the idea of being fortunate idiomatically, as in caring for those less fortunate, I can buy that, but reality is such that we all start with nothing but our bodies and our heart and our brains, and what happens to us after that is initially up to our parents and their situation, and the establishments that have been built up and maintained and fostered in the area of our parents, substantially reliant on the efforts of our parents, their friends, and their associates.  And as we grow and learn and fit into society we take up a role in that society.   There might be luck involved, but when things happen we either take advantage or if knocked down, get up and go forward.

 

We make our own luck.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 20, 2017 by tar
changed an or to an of

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, tar said:

Meaning we already accepted the arguments, and that is why we tax people with means more heavily than people with little means.

But you said that such a scheme was unfair. That was the point being made.

19 minutes ago, tar said:

There should be, in a democracy, some amount that everybody pays to support the group.  People walk and ride their bikes on the same streets and parks were the companies drive their trucks.  And there is food and clothing and building material in those trucks, that even the poorest of us, need.  

I thought you said that that those who had worked hard for their wealth shouldn't have to support others.

With all this wishy-washy liberalism you are now espousing, I might have to cancel my downvote!

[dimreepr]

57 minutes ago, tar said:

We make our own luck.

 

That's just an excuse to be greedy.

 

[tar]

Strange,

I am suggesting that I already have been paying taxes at a higher rate than some others, and I already give to charity and take care of people in need, around me.  It is not my job to put someone else's children before my own, though.   It is this attitude that you are bringing that I am a stingy entitled rich guy, which I vehemently object to, because it is totally false in terms of my life.  I did not get any estate willed to me, I came from a working class family and never left the working class.  I have some  401K money I am currently paying myself to live.  I earned this, my company matched this, the success of my company was partially due to the punches I took for them and the value I added to their product and services.  I will exhaust my funds in two or three years, so I am downsizing, moving to a less expensive area and such.  Decisions I need to make.  You have no rights to my 401K.   Well actually you do.  I am still paying my taxes because the money in my 401K is wages that have not yet been taxed.  I will pay my taxes every time I take a disbursement.   It is not a transfer payment where the society is taking care of me, it is a vehicle the society put in place for me to save for my retirement.   I am paying myself now, because I didn't take my wages and spend them years ago. 

I paid social security insurance premiums every paycheck for many decades, I have an agreement with the society for some monthly benefits at this time.  I have some pension money from my company for years of adding value to the company, that will continue to go to my wife, even if I die.  The government has nothing to do with these funds.   I am not a ward of the state.

In the arguments for the extremes there is the rich raping the poor and the poor defrauding the system, getting free existence, for no sweat equity in return.  While it would be easy to point out examples of either extreme, the most of us are in the middle, working every day for a company or a resourceful individual, for the money we need for food and rent, medicine, clothes, education and diversion.

It is better in my take, to think of us all on the same side,  in the middle, than to think we need to align ourselves exclusively with the either the gang member drug addict or the  raping CEO.

There are plenty of poor people that work every day, love their families, pay their taxes and treat everybody with respect.

And there are plenty of well off people that work every day, love their families. pay their taxes and treat everybody with respect.

Silly to take sides.

Better to all inhabit the middle ground.

Regards, TAR

 

I said a false thing.  I did get some money when my wife's mom died.  Enough for a down payment on our house, and some investments (which we lost when the dot com bubble bust, and the market hit during the recession.) But even this money was due to the efforts of my wife's mom and dad.   Not luck or government.

Edited November 20, 2017 by tar

[dimreepr]

Tar.

You need to acknowledge the advantages you were born with before you dismiss how lucky you are. Whilst I have no doubt how benevolent your intentions, your words indicate a selfish need, before a true benevolence.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, tar said:

It is this attitude that you are bringing that I am a stingy entitled rich guy

I don't know you. I can only react to what you say. For example:

Quote

It is not my job to put someone else's children before my own, though. 

No one is asking you to. Are they? This is just a silly straw man argument. And it sounds as if you are using that to avoid any responsibility for society as a whole.

The rest of your post is "I ... I ... I ...", which, I suspect, says a lot.

[tar]

dimreepr,

The advantages I was born with have a lot to do with the character and capability of my parents, and the character and capabilities of my country.  I acknowledge that the U.S. is a better place than some poor country run by a warlord.

But this is exactly an argument for us making our own luck.  The fact that I pledged allegiance to my flag every morning in school, went to college, campaigned for McGovern, was part of the counter culture revolution, served in the Army,  worked every day for many decades, paid my taxes, raised two capable respectful girls, keep a nice house and yard and garden for others to look at on the way by, proves I did my part to make this country a better place to be, than some poor country with a despot in charge.

Regards, TAR

 

Strange,

I am saying "We..., we...., we....."   As many many folk, pledge their allegiance to the American flag, many many folk work every day, pay their taxes, raise their children and respect each other.  That is what makes this place work.

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, tar said:

dimreepr,

The advantages I was born with have a lot to do with the character and capability of my parents, and the character and capabilities of my country.  I acknowledge that the U.S. is a better place than some poor country run by a warlord.

But this is exactly an argument for us making our own luck. 

1

No, it's exactly the opposite.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, tar said:

Ten Oz,

 

The deep state thing I said because during the first part of Trump"s administration there were daily leaks and things happening were holdovers were blocking his orders.  For instance, when he attempted to put a travel ban in place, the coordination at the airports for how things should be handled was slip shod, yet there were lawyers and crowds, and political figures, ready at the airports to demonstrate, grandstand and make the order unworkable.  In fact  the wheels were turning in the 5th district and several other judicial areas, to block the order.  Lawyers were submitting their cases as the order was being made public.  This kind of thing is why I feel that some instruments of government were still in the hands of whichever hands the government was in prior the election.

The Acting Attorney General Sally Yates questioned the legality of the travel ban. Trump fired her for it. Courts then proved her right by blocking the ban. Trump's administration then sent the ban through a few rewrites before it was able to temporarily go into effect. I don't see that as an example of a "deep state" conspiracy. The travel ban as initially conceived was unconstitutional. Yates had provided Trump good counsel. 

[swansont]

On 11/19/2017 at 9:01 AM, tar said:

Ten Oz,

Agreed.

There are things we need to do, education we need to acquire and better ways to do a lot of things we do.  But there is also economic realities, as Trump pointed out in the clip above.  Solar panels take 26 years to pay themselves off, and at the same time only last 10 years before they destroy their usefulness.  This is not a wise investment.  And consider, as I suggested before, that it takes energy to produce the solar panels in the first place.

Citations needed.

You think businesses are constructing solar arrays if they are bad investments?

On 11/19/2017 at 9:01 AM, tar said:

And Ten Oz, I have an electrical question for you, concerning solar energy.  A cell produces DC voltage differential and can be aligned in series or parallel to produce any required voltage or current capability, but I noticed solar fields built on major roads, close to the factory or business or housing group they were built to power, and this takes up valuable real estate.  And looks crappy to boot.  I was wondering if the losses due to the resistance of long lengths of wire, is significant for DC, making it required that the field of panels be close, and not off in some clearing in the woods or some remote, unused area.

You use an inverter to generate AC. And add "valuable real estate" to the list of citations needed. How expensive is the real estate being used?

1 hour ago, tar said:

I have some pension money from my company for years of adding value to the company, that will continue to go to my wife, even if I die.  The government has nothing to do with these funds.   I am not a ward of the state.

Nothing? There are no government protections in place, acting as safeguards for your pension?  If some ne'er-do-well tried to abscond with the funds, the government would not be involved in apprehending them, and returning the money?

1 hour ago, tar said:

In the arguments for the extremes there is the rich raping the poor and the poor defrauding the system, getting free existence, for no sweat equity in return.  While it would be easy to point out examples of either extreme, the most of us are in the middle, working every day for a company or a resourceful individual, for the money we need for food and rent, medicine, clothes, education and diversion.

Let's have some examples — in equal dollar amounts, for fairness's sake. Wouldn't want to have any false equivalencies, would we? Since the GOP is currently trying to give the rich $1.5 trillion, let's have example of that amount of welfare fraud. 

 

2 hours ago, tar said:

The deep state thing I said because during the first part of Trump"s administration there were daily leaks and things happening were holdovers were blocking his orders.  For instance, when he attempted to put a travel ban in place, the coordination at the airports for how things should be handled was slip shod, yet there were lawyers and crowds, and political figures, ready at the airports to demonstrate, grandstand and make the order unworkable.  In fact  the wheels were turning in the 5th district and several other judicial areas, to block the order.  Lawyers were submitting their cases as the order was being made public.  This kind of thing is why I feel that some instruments of government were still in the hands of whichever hands the government was in prior the election.

Any actual evidence that the leaks weren't coming from the current administration?

Is there some reason that such workings of government should be carried out in secrecy, such that people have to scramble to respond?

2 hours ago, tar said:

John Cuthber,

Strawman argument, against me in terms of the progressive taxing.  My comment was that all the arguments for progressive taxes are already spent.  Meaning we already accepted the arguments, and that is why we tax people with means more heavily than people with little means.   You cannot then reuse the argument to take more from the rich. 

Take more? As in more than the 91% marginal rate that was in place several decades ago, or the 70% in place in 1980, or the rate under Clinton? Or are you talking about the rate after it was cut by Bush II, and which has been found to not help economy much at all? 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, tar said:

But this is exactly an argument for us making our own luck.  The fact that I pledged allegiance to my flag every morning in school, went to college, campaigned for McGovern, was part of the counter culture revolution, served in the Army,  worked every day for many decades, paid my taxes, raised two capable respectful girls, keep a nice house and yard and garden for others to look at on the way by, proves I did my part to make this country a better place to be, than some poor country with a despot in char

Nonsense.

People still manage to do that in countries where there's a dictator in charge.
The fact that you found it easy to do shows that you had the good luck to be born in a relatively free country.

When, exactly, did you choose to be born in the US?

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, tar said:

Silly to take sides.

Better to all inhabit the middle ground.

Regards, TAR

Ironic especially , when common ground only ever seems to be on your side of the fence.

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, tar said:

The luck thing you speak of is very unscientific. 

Would you like me to find the research on it?

 

2 hours ago, tar said:

Strawman argument, against me in terms of the progressive taxing.  My comment was that all the arguments for progressive taxes are already spent.  Meaning we already accepted the arguments, and that is why we tax people with means more heavily than people with little means.

The problem is that you are on record as not accepting those arguments.
You said so yesterday in this very thread.
Did you forget?

On 19/11/2017 at 2:41 PM, tar said:

Yes I think it unfair to ask rich people to pay more taxes...

[Phi for All]

On 11/19/2017 at 7:01 AM, tar said:

Solar panels take 26 years to pay themselves off, and at the same time only last 10 years before they destroy their usefulness.  This is not a wise investment.  And consider, as I suggested before, that it takes energy to produce the solar panels in the first place.

I missed this bit of oil propaganda. You're off by over 20 years on both payback AND useful life. 

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Quote

Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1). With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.

Why doesn't truth matter?

[tar]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Citations needed.

You think businesses are constructing solar arrays if they are bad investments?

You use an inverter to generate AC. And add "valuable real estate" to the list of citations needed. How expensive is the real estate being used?

Nothing? There are no government protections in place, acting as safeguards for your pension?  If some ne'er-do-well tried to abscond with the funds, the government would not be involved in apprehending them, and returning the money?

Let's have some examples — in equal dollar amounts, for fairness's sake. Wouldn't want to have any false equivalencies, would we? Since the GOP is currently trying to give the rich $1.5 trillion, let's have example of that amount of welfare fraud. 

 

Any actual evidence that the leaks weren't coming from the current administration?

Is there some reason that such workings of government should be carried out in secrecy, such that people have to scramble to respond?

Take more? As in more than the 91% marginal rate that was in place several decades ago, or the 70% in place in 1980, or the rate under Clinton? Or are you talking about the rate after it was cut by Bush II, and which has been found to not help economy much at all? 

SwansonT,

There are massive government subsidies involved with solar array placement.  You know this.  Every call you get on the phone from some solar panel installation group starts with the statement that you can get this installed for free.  Free for who?  Who is footing the bill?  Some government grant money or subsidy program, no doubt.  I don't have any citations but I was in the copier field and we leased out equipment. When you buy a house you take out a mortgage.  If it takes 26 years for the initial investment to be paid off, in terms of lower payments to the electrical grid providers, then the fact that your investment will stop working after 10 years, is a significant non starter.

The valuable real estate I was thinking about was along Rt. 206 in central Jersey where there is a field I was thinking about, being where could be office buildings, factories, apartments, gas stations, convenience stores and whatever.  Not built in a clearing or on a south facing mountain slope, off the beaten path.

I take our police and courts and laws and army as a stipulation, and as the basic reason we pay taxes and have a government.   The government is not primarily made to make us happy, it is there to protect our right and ability to pursue happiness.  To set the rules and establish the playing field.  We still have to suit up and compete on that field, with a spirit of sportsmanship and common purpose. 

Um, I take exception to your characterization that the GOP is giving the rich something by not taking something from them that was their's in the first place.  The numbers do not have to match.  The people that are getting welfare or transfer payments, are getting something.  The people paying taxes are loosing something.   The wealth is going in one direction in the transaction, from the rich to the poor.  So already there is givers and takers in the equation.  I need not cite any numbers.  Bernie already has told us how the wealthiest 1 percent have a larger than 1 percent share of the wealth in this country.  The fact you are denying is that this wealthiest 1 percent also already pays more than 1 percent of the taxes paid into the federal government.   In fact, in addition to paying a large percent of the taxes into the federal government, they also pay a large percentage of the wages in this country, employing many of us.  So their contribution to the system is already firmly established.   Taking away loopholes, while keeping the highest tax bracket very high is not giving the rich anything.

The administration has the right and the reason to have people under it that follow lawful orders.

In the case of the ban, it would be important not to let the cat out of the bag to where people coming here to hurt us would do so quickly before the ban, or be alerted if they were on their way.

The marginal rates are much higher than is fair for high income individuals.  Common religions would set the rate given to the poor as 10%.   Anything more is unfair.   Especially if lower income people are forgiven the expectation that they give 10 percent.    10 percent of a million is 100,000 dollars.   If a guy would give the government 100,000 I would say he is doing his part.   If a guy earning 10,000 were to give the government 1000 I would say he is doing his part.   So if we are forgiving people any tax liability on their first chunk, and asking for a percentage on their next chunk, and a higher percentage on their next chunk, this is fair to everybody and take most from the wealthiest.  Already.  

Regards, TAR

Phi,

Your link was talking about energy payback. That is how long does a PV need to operate to create the amount of energy it takes to produce it.  This might be a couple of years, but this says nothing about the cost of the cell and how long it would take to be economically feasible to use. Nor does it state whether the energy it took to produce was clean energy or Sulphur producing energy. (we have to pollute now, to have clean energy later?)

At the time of this writing, the installed cost of solar panels was between $7-$9 per watt: A 5 kW system would cost around $25,000-$35,000. Many utility companies offer incentives, and some subsidize as much as 50% of system costs.

Average electrical bill is about 126 a month. So if you used no electricity from the grid and got all you needed from your roof, the investment would pay off in 20 years.  But it is not always sunny, and there might be weeks your cells are snow and ice covered and you might have had to have cut down carbon sequestering trees to have your cells unshaded, and they might break or become less efficient or require replacement, before the 20 years is up.

Regards, TAR

and if I put an array on my roof, I would still have to burn gas to heat my water, my house, and my food

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by tar

[Ten oz]

@ tar, nothing in your response to Swansont addresses your previous assertions. Swansont asked for citations from you to support your claims; not your philosophical views of government. 

[tar]

Ten Oz,

Philosophical views?   That is the reality of life Ten Oz.

Regards, TAR

death and taxes

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/curtis-dubay/1-percenters-pay-24-percent-and-top-10-percent-pay-533-percent-all-federal

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, tar said:

death and taxes

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/curtis-dubay/1-percenters-pay-24-percent-and-top-10-percent-pay-533-percent-all-federal

It's so unfair, isn't it.

[John Cuthber]

33 minutes ago, tar said:

I don't have any citations

It shows

34 minutes ago, tar said:

We still have to suit up and compete on that field, with a spirit of sportsmanship and common purpose. 

Or, we can start off with a small loan of a million bucks from Daddy and then buy influence in politics in order to make sure that we win, and the other guy loses. There's a lot of money to be had, relatively easily, by cheating and lying.

And one side is doing most of the lying.

37 minutes ago, tar said:

The marginal rates are much higher than is fair for high income individuals. 

Marginal rates are certainly interesting.
Consider 3 people: my boss; some rich bloke and his cleaner.
The Rich guy first- he's a millionaire.
Because his investments (which supply his income) are offshore, he doesn't pay tax on them, but lets assume he's "one of the good guys". As a higher (income) tax payer, he gets charged 28% capital gains tax - rather than 40% income tax which he would pay if he had the same income as a salary (and, of course, he benefits from the tax free  and low tax parts of his income- but that's not the marginal rate.)
His marginal rate is the higher capital gains rate of 28%

 

My boss, who is just well enough paid (together with his wife) to get caught in the higher tax bracket pays a marginal rate of 40%

Next lets look at Mr Rich's cleaner.

He's on income support so, if he earns money he loses income from dole.
The amount depends a bit on his circumstances, but it's typically 50 to 100 % of what he earns
So the cleaner's  marginal tax rate is somewhere between 50 and 100 %

Are you going to say that is just "luck" or did Mr Rich (who inherited his money) "make his own luck"
Or did the Mr Richs of the world get together and rig the system?

[Strange]

And to make it more complicated /realistic, the cleaner may be a refugee from a war torn country (where the war was largely paid for by the USA) with a degree in medicine and a decade or two of experience. But all his hard work counts for nothing because of his bad luck.

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, tar said:

I am saying "We..., we...., we....."   As many many folk, pledge their allegiance to the American flag, many many folk work every day, pay their taxes, raise their children and respect each other.  That is what makes this place work.

This is how your version of "we" alienates yourself from each other and the rest of the world.

In Canada, we don't pledge to a flag. Collectively, we don't do it because it's perceived as goose stepping and we'd never dare prefix it an argument as to preemptively "win" a social issue.

Outside of America, wearing national symbols on ball caps, speedos and corporate logos may often seen as stolen valor. While it's always acceptable to display Canadian flags in subtle ways, we'll only express larger displays when asked by others, for honor... nothing more.... ever.

I'm not sure the flag issue is working well for America at the moment. It's no role model to anything other than overly jingoistic Americans, and little else.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

In Canada, we don't pledge to a flag.

I never liked our pledge to a flag. The shittiest people seem to wave them and expect me to follow. 

I can pledge to a concept, and to a country, but I expect both to hold up their ends. A flag is a symbol, and currently it's an inaccurate one.

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, tar said:

Ten Oz,

Philosophical views?   That is the reality of life Ten Oz.

Regards, TAR

death and taxes

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/curtis-dubay/1-percenters-pay-24-percent-and-top-10-percent-pay-533-percent-all-federal

Realities of life isn't this thread's topic. This thread is about the lack of truth/facts in Political discussion. Swansont ask you for a citation to support a position you were asserting fact. Death and taxes isn't an appropriate response. 

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

A flag is a symbol, and currently it's an inaccurate one.

A flag was invented so we could identify our allies from a distance, so we didn't kill them as they approached.

Nowadays, we can't be so sure.