Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.  (Read 7034 times)

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 5611
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #260 on: September 28, 2019, 09:03:10 am »
For those who think the world is on a downhill slide:
If the charts were published by an extremely left magazine would they look the same using the same data?
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 9570
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #261 on: September 28, 2019, 10:01:02 am »
It looks, from your link, it started dropping in2014, and was down to 13th in 2016.n Then in 2017, Trump brought it up to 9th until the dems took the house in 2018. Then it started back down and hit 13th when all the witch hunts hit top speed.

Good link, Ace.
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #262 on: September 28, 2019, 11:17:16 am »
The actual cause is the drain of our revenue for the military budget trying to be the police force for the world.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2029USp_30t
According to this website, military spending as a % of GDP has decreased but is expected to increase but not as high as is was in 2010. (Ranging from approximately 4% to 5.5% of GDP)

Unfortunately , the United States is addicted to its government, representing 36% of GDP according to the website.

So a significant cut in government spending will increase unemployment until those workers are absorbed into the rest of the economy. I refer to government spending as workfare.
Go back to your economics text books and reread about the multiplier effect. Workfare (to a point) is good for the economy. That is one of the benefits of NASA.
And so there is no confusion, I would prefer a much smaller central government - some day. It will be painful getting there.

The bigger problem IMHO is perpetual deficit spending. It is immoral for us to ask our children and grandchildren to pay for the stuff we are getting today.
Tom

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #263 on: September 28, 2019, 11:30:36 am »
What really boggles my mind is why one half of our country is so eager to blame decades of stupidity and inaction by congress and prior presidents on the current incumbent in the white house - no matter what party he or she represents.

Our problems originated long before his inauguration.

We have seen our failing system work. The President is not a dictator. Certain unpopular efforts of the President have been stymied. I support some of those efforts and reject some others, but that is not the point.

What the leftist lunatics need to realize is that the pendulum of US policy on any one issue will swing wildly from side to side, but hopefully will someday settle in the middle where it belongs.


Tom

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17225
  • Gender: Female
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #264 on: September 28, 2019, 12:07:06 pm »
Quote
If the charts were published by an extremely left magazine would they look the same using the same data?

If the charts were MADE by that web site you might have a point.  Did you look at the chart sources?

We spend about 2% more of our GDP than we expect our NATO alies to spend on defense.  While I agree with you that we do not need to have our fingers in every pie around the world there are some very important things that only we can do at this point.

Where we really are over the barrel is on mandatory spending and the majority of that is on "Benefits" of some kind.  They include Medicare, Medicaid, Foodstamps, SSI, Government job and retirement costs, and the various other things that our federal government spends on with no constitutional mandate.

We don't have a revenue problem.  Revenue is up.  What do you do in your family when spending exceeds income?  Why should our government do otherwise?
How do you see it working out with the promises of more stuff given to people?  The entire military budget would not cover what we owe now, and who pays for what they are promising?

They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #265 on: September 28, 2019, 12:21:24 pm »
....and who pays for what they are promising?
Someone else, I already pay too much.  :wink:

Tom

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17225
  • Gender: Female
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #266 on: September 28, 2019, 12:41:27 pm »
Quote
Someone else, I already pay too much.

Lol.  Good luck with that.  I don't think a choice is given.
They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 5611
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #267 on: September 29, 2019, 09:05:18 am »

The bigger problem IMHO is perpetual deficit spending. It is immoral for us to ask our children and grandchildren to pay for the stuff we are getting today.
I couldn't agree more.  So where was the conservatives when Trump handed the top 1% 32 billion dollars that added to this deficit?
Kathyp:
Quote
who pays for what they are promising?
IF, and this is a big one... american companies were taxed for hiring labor outside the country and producing goods outside the country equal to the costs of the loss of revenue that this practice causes we wouldn't have such a deficit and most likely would have better jobs.  Higher paying jobs and more people working not only increases revenue but decreases the need for Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and SSI.
I keep hearing how socialism is ruining our country... What is your answer for China?  China is growing by leaps and bounds investing in their infrastructure.  They are also investing in foreign countries infrastructure gaining influence without wasting one bullet.  Number one, how do they do it?  Number 2, where do you think "make america great" falls into this plan?
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #268 on: September 29, 2019, 09:31:19 am »
I couldn't agree more.  So where was the conservatives when Trump handed the top 1% 32 billion dollars that added to this deficit?
So lets take the 50,000 foot overview. Do not focus on the last action.

Our progressive tax structure needs an overhaul. The middle class, the class with the most people in it, should be paying the majority of the tax bill. Everyone should have more skin in the game. Then each decision to dole out money would be more carefully scrutinized. The poor should pay something. Too many people pay nothing, so its all free to them.


That was my point from a few posts ago. Everyone thinks someone else should pay for what we are all getting.


IMHO even the 1% as some point should have paid enough and there should be a cap on income tax.

Take a look at the distribution on who pays taxes. Do your own research. The government publishes the data. Here is the first link I saw. Let us assume that the information is accurate enough.  https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-taxes
1% of the population should not be paying 30% of the taxes. 50% of the population should be paying 50% of the taxes.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 10:06:47 am by incognito »
Tom

Offline iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 9570
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #269 on: September 29, 2019, 10:00:41 am »
""IF, and this is a big one... american companies were taxed for hiring labor outside the country and producing goods outside the country equal to the costs of the loss of revenue that this practice causes we wouldn't have such a deficit and most likely would have better jobs.""


That is just another name for import tariffs, which you vehemently oppose.

Yes, if you are willing to work for 10 cent an hour and let the government have all the rest, we can be like China. As long as you want your kids to grow up before working 10 hours a day for pennies, you better take another look.
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #270 on: September 29, 2019, 10:02:40 am »

IF, and this is a big one... american companies were taxed for hiring labor outside the country and producing goods outside the country equal to the costs of the loss of revenue that this practice causes we wouldn't have such a deficit and most likely would have better jobs.  Higher paying jobs and more people working not only increases revenue but decreases the need for Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and SSI.
I keep hearing how socialism is ruining our country... What is your answer for China?  China is growing by leaps and bounds investing in their infrastructure.  They are also investing in foreign countries infrastructure gaining influence without wasting one bullet.  Number one, how do they do it?  Number 2, where do you think "make america great" falls into this plan?

You and I will never agree on this.

The welfare of the masses should not be based on extortion from the producers.

How many government scandals and debacles do you need to witness before you lose faith in politicians' ability to fairly govern? I hit my limit.


Why do you trust politicians to fairly draw artificial lines on how things should work?

Cruel capitalism works in allocating resources.

If American companies were taxed in the manner you describe, and they deemed it detrimental to themselves, at some point they would no longer be American companies. They would reorganize somewhere else and we would have less revenue. The parasite (the government) cannot kill the host (the companies). There is more to the story and some of it is posturing but look at Harley Davidson moving some production overseas due to government meddling. https://fortune.com/2018/06/26/harley-davidson-moving-production-overseas/


I have traveled extensively around the world (including China). I have seen examples of the standard of living most of the world exists in (including China). There are plenty of people willing to work for a lot less than the American worker. Don't those human beings deserve to make a better living for themselves? Or does fairness and goodwill to all end at our borders?
Tom

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #271 on: September 29, 2019, 10:04:07 am »
oops.
Tom

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #272 on: September 29, 2019, 10:04:59 am »
oops again.
Tom

Offline sawdstmakr

  • Global Moderator
  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 10750
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #273 on: September 29, 2019, 10:22:04 am »
Brian,
So you want to tax big companies more because they move their manufacturing overseas, even if they don?t leave the US, who do you think really pays those taxes. You and I do. Why do you think everything costs so much more than it used to. Most of it is due to taxes which in turn causes more inflation.  That on top of that the government keeps printing more money to pay for their give away policies.
Jim

Online Ben Framed

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 2837
  • North Mississippi
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #274 on: September 29, 2019, 11:30:07 am »
Brian,
So you want to tax big companies more because they move their manufacturing overseas, even if they don?t leave the US, who do you think really pays those taxes. You and I do. Why do you think everything costs so much more than it used to. Most of it is due to taxes which in turn causes more inflation.  That on top of that the government keeps printing more money to pay for their give away policies.
Jim

Printing more money (through) the federal reserve, not the government, which charges interest on each dollar they print!! 

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #275 on: September 29, 2019, 11:33:46 am »
I keep hearing how socialism is ruining our country... What is your answer for China?  China is growing by leaps and bounds investing in their infrastructure.  They are also investing in foreign countries infrastructure gaining influence without wasting one bullet.  Number one, how do they do it?
Not through economic socialism.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/07/08/chinas-economic-success-proves-the-power-of-capitalism/#5da7d40f3b9d
China's Economic Success Proves the Power of Capitalism
Between 1958 and 1962, 45 million people starved to death in China as the result of the largest socialist experiment in history. Mao called this experiment the ?Great Leap Forward,? but for China it was a disaster.
Today, China is the world's leading export nation, ahead of the United States and Germany. Above all, never before in history have so many people escaped poverty in such a short time as in the past decades in China. According to official World Bank figures, the percentage of extremely poor people in China in 1981 stood at 88.3%. By 2015 only 0.7% of the Chinese population was living in extreme poverty. In this period, the number of poor people in China fell from 878 million to less than ten million.
The Problem With Prevailing Explanations Of China?s Success
It is widely believed that China?s success is based on a uniquely Chinese ?third way,? a political and economic model that occupies the ground between capitalism and socialism. According to this interpretation, China is successful because the state continues to play an important role in the Chinese economy. But this interpretation is wrong.
 
In fact, China?s success provides clear evidence of the power of capitalism. Under Mao, the state had an omnipotent grip over China?s economy. What has happened over the past few decades can be summed up in a few sentences: China has progressively embraced the tenets of free-market economics, introduced private ownership, and gradually reduced the influence of the once all-powerful state over the Chinese economy. That the state still plays a major role today is simply because China is in the midst of a transformation process that began with complete state dominance of the economy.
   However, as the Chinese economist Zhang Weiying stresses, China?s success in recent years has ?not been because of the state, but in spite of the state.? Here are some facts: Impressed By The Success Of SingaporeFor leading Chinese politicians and economists, 1978 marked the beginning of a busy period of foreign travel to bring back valuable economic insights and apply them at home. Chinese delegations made over 20 trips to more than 50 countries including Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the United States, Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland. The Chinese were especially impressed by the economic successes of other Asian countries. Although barely acknowledged, the economic dynamism of China?s neighboring countries in particular was seen as a role model.
On his visit to Singapore, Deng was impressed by the local economy, which was far more dynamic than the Chinese economy. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore?s founding father and long-time prime minister, remembers: ?I had told Deng over dinner in 1978 in Singapore that we, the Singapore Chinese, were the descendants of illiterate landless peasants from Guandong and Fujian in South China ? There was nothing that Singapore had done that China could not do, and do better. He stayed silent then. When I read that he had told the Chinese people to do better than Singapore, I knew he had taken up the challenge I quietly tossed to him that night fourteen years earlier.?
However, this newfound enthusiasm for other countries? economic models did not lead to an instant conversion to capitalism, nor did China immediately ditch its planned economy in favor of a free-market economy. Instead, there was a slow process of transition, starting with tentative efforts to grant public enterprises greater autonomy, that took years, even decades, to mature and relied on bottom-up initiatives as much as on top-down, party-led reforms.
More Private Property, More Liberalized Markets
Long before the official ban on private farming was lifted in 1982, peasant-led initiatives to reintroduce private ownership against socialist doctrine sprang up across China. The outcome was extremely successful: people were no longer starving and agricultural productivity increased rapidly. By 1983, the process of de-collectivizing Chinese agriculture was almost complete. Mao?s great socialist experiment, which had cost so many millions of lives, was over.
Initially, the growth in private ownership across China was driven by increasing numbers of small-scale entrepreneurs setting up businesses, which were only allowed to employ a maximum of seven people. The increasing erosion of this socialist system that exclusively permitted public ownership under the management of a state-run economic planning authority was accelerated by the creation of Special Economic Areas. These were areas where the socialist economic system was suspended and capitalist experiments were permitted. The official proclamation of the market economy at the Fourteenth Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in October 1992?a step that would have been unthinkable only a few years before?proved a milestone on the road to capitalism.
To understand the dynamics of the Chinese reforms, it is crucial to note that the extent to which they were initiated ?from above? was only one part of the picture. Many contributing factors happened spontaneously ? a triumph of market forces over government policy. Key institutional innovations were instigated, not in the offices of the Politburo, but by countless anonymous agents acting on a local level, and in many cases against the rules.
China?s development in recent decades demonstrates that rising economic growth?even when accompanied by rising inequality?benefits the majority of the population. Hundreds of millions of people in China are far better off today as a direct result of Deng?s motto ?let some people get rich first.?
Which Path Will China Take Now?
For all the positive developments China has seen in recent decades, a lot still remains to be done. Although its economic growth was accompanied by an increase in economic freedom, there are still deficits in many areas. China has both a strong need for further reforms and great potential for further improvement and growth. Zhang?who, as well as being an astute analyst of the Chinese economy, has himself contributed significantly to its development?stresses: ?China?s reform started with an all-powerful government under the planned economy. The reason China could have sustained economic growth during the process of reform was that the government managed less and the proportion of state-owned enterprises decreased, not the other way around. It was precisely the relaxation of government control that brought about market prices, sole proprietorships, town and village enterprises, private enterprises, foreign enterprises, and other non-state-owned entities.? Taken together, all of this formed the basis for China?s unprecedented economic rise.
As Zhang emphasizes, this process of transformation is far from complete: ?Government control over large amounts of resources and excessive intervention into the economy are the direct cause of cronyism between officials and businessmen, are a breeding ground for official corruption, seriously corrupt commercial culture, and damage the market?s rules of the game.? Accordingly, he sees a strong need for further reforms toward marketization, reduction of government control over resources and intervention into the economy, and the establishment of a true rule-of-law society.
Whether or not China will go down that road remains to be seen. The process of reform has never been a smooth and consistent one?rather, it has been marred by frequent setbacks, especially in recent years, when instances of governmental intervention in the economy have set back the reform process. The greatest danger for China is that the Chinese themselves will start to believe what many people in the West already think?that the country has discovered a special ?third way? between capitalism and socialism and that economic success has been achieved not in spite of, but because of, the great influence of the state.
Tom

Offline Michael Bush

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17416
  • Gender: Male
    • bushfarms.com
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #276 on: September 30, 2019, 08:28:25 am »
>That is just another name for import tariffs, which you vehemently oppose.

They are certainly connected.  Let's say you raise the taxes on US companies that are using foreign labor and moving their facories.  What would they do?  They would move their headquarters and be a Brazillian company importing goods into the US and the only way to head that off then is tariffs...
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm en espanol: bushfarms.com/es_bees.htm  auf deutsche: bushfarms.com/de_bees.htm  em portugues:  bushfarms.com/pt_bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--James "Big Boy" Medlin

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 5611
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #277 on: September 30, 2019, 08:38:34 am »
They would move their headquarters and be a Brazillian company importing goods into the US and the only way to head that off then is tariffs...
There is another way, balance of trade.  Imports must equal exports, no tariffs.
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 5611
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #278 on: September 30, 2019, 09:15:38 am »

China's Economic Success Proves the Power of Capitalism

Makes a nice article but the fact remains that the party controls everything.  The population does not decide what direction the party takes and of course there are objections.  China is about as socialistic as you can get.  If individuals actually own the companies that they run then they could take their assets and move it to another country.  Not much hope for that.
The only check that China faces is pollution.  It can't continue what it is doing because it will kill its population and put it in economic stress due to medical costs.  They recognize the problem and they have invested in non fossil energy such that they are the number one producer of solar and wind energy in the world.  Another one of those "make america great" but we ain't.  We are second fiddle.
The US was always the economic leader of the world having a balance of capitalism and socialism.  China is learning the ropes gaining at an enormous rate while we are declining.  You don't have to be that smart to predict what is going to happen in the future.
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #279 on: September 30, 2019, 10:33:43 am »
You don't have to be that smart to predict what is going to happen in the future.
Does that upset you? The inevitable will happen. With its larger population, resources and human desire to have what others have, China will have the largest and strongest economy. They have the manufacturing capacity to fulfill its population's demands. But China has its own internal problems.

I am not sure what your message is. Are you bothered that the US is not number one in every category? Should that be our goal?
Tom