KRC
-
Posts
6,737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by KRC
-
-
15 hours ago, Nandor said:
Is this where one goes to take over the nation? Vote for Nandor the Relentless, the immortal warrior. Behold, my first campaign statement -
Meh. I am more of a Nadja fan.
-
22 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:
I know Tibs. And we all understand how much more traumatic that is for you than the shooting and killing of an eight year old girl.
We all know that Tibs loves seeing Americans get killed. Does he enjoy seeing children getting killed more than adults?
-
16 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
More regulatory rollbacks...
* Previous administration added 16K pages of regulations.
* Trump administration removed 25K pages.
* Prior administration added over 6K regulations, costing the average American $2,300 per year.
He's yapping about the low energy pressure that causes people to use more water as they have to shower longer, etc.
* washer and dryers
* shower heads and faucets
* dishwashers
Infrastructure approval process timeline is being cut to a maximum of 2 years.
Worst. Fascist. Ever.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Great posts, but I disagree on your ACA analysis in part. I’ve mentioned this in the past, and I’ll add it again here.
There is an actuarial approach to calculating the true cost of benefits offered and provided by a redistributive scheme like Obamacare, at least with some degree of reasonable accuracy. The same approach can be applied to programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Heck, I’m half-convinced that @RealKayAdams could get the job done if we put her and all the friends milling about in her head on the case.
The challenge is that the cost to carry the burden would be neither attainable nor sustainable. The concept is a pipe dream, a pyramid scheme and simply a push towards nationalized health care, where the projection is that the hundreds of thousands of jobs/lives impacted in the move away from private health care models (those also regulated and manipulated by governmental intervention) will simply be absorbed by a low-cost model staffed by state/federal employees. That the governmental model will also be a pyramid scheme, and result in a product that is neither low cost nor actuarially sustainable is irrelevant to those who favor this model.
I also read RKA’s posts and follow 75% of it (that’s a concentration issue on my part, not a reflection on the post), and in turn simply offer that the model proposals discussed are simply the latest iterations of wealth redistribution models wrapped in the same fear and guilt mongering that has moved the masses for thousands of years. I am a realist, consider taxation an obligation of every patriotic American, believe in doing my part to be a sensible steward of the environment, but excessive taxation and ceding control to activist politicians and b’crats is not my particular cup of tea.
I understand the calculation of the costs. I also understand that you need to continually recalculate as people drop out of the plan. With those increased costs, more people drop out, causing costs to go up. A perpetual cycle. Not something I need to explain to you as I know you understand it. That is why Obamacare is mandating people participate. As participation goes down (especially the healthy people dropping out), costs will skyrocket and will continue to skyrocket as only the unhealthiest of people will be left in the plan.
-
5 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:
Are we at “different ends of the political spectrum?” I guess so. We have huge differences on a few key (expensive) issues for sure, but I was also known to multiple campaign Bernie Bros as a secret right-wing canvassing saboteur. You have no idea how much grief I took for my moderate stances on immigration, second amendment, PC culture, protectionism, nuclear energy, Russiagate, Trump impeachment, etc… We share the same concerns about government waste and corruption. We both theoretically want to keep government as small and efficient as possible and keep politicians as accountable to the people as possible. I know we both agree that waste and corruption are present in our military, but we both also don’t want to abandon the idea altogether of a publicly funded military. You see where I am going…
The "we are at different ends of the political spectrum" may have been a bit much. You have moved me a little closer to your POV on some issues, but we are farther apart on others. Always appreciate the well thought out posts.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Well it's not the fact that he worked 7 hours it's the fact that he did so voluntarily and didn't get paid. How noble of him! I've never taken it upon myself to work outside of my daily work hours to plan and prepare for my clients. And yes we both have clients. His are children mine act like them.
Maybe Trump will give him a Congressional Medal of Honor.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Koko78 said:
Take it easy on the man, Jim. He worked 7 whole hours.
Seven hours in a row? Damn. Talk about sacrifice. He deserves a Purple Heart. I would say monument, but they are not lasting very long these days.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:
On what charges?
Defending yourself. That is now a crime.
-
So, is this where I put the "If true..." statement?
-
50k posts and still nothing meaningful to say. Whatever.
?
-
3
-
-
32 minutes ago, ALF said:
Just like vehicle insurance
Exactly. I am paying for other people.
-
On 7/11/2020 at 7:57 AM, 3rdnlng said:
I make every effort to read your posts. I even categorize them and put them on my reading list. Seriously, I believe that you are sincere, which places you far apart from the usual Lefty flakes here. The fallacy that I see in your comments (in general) is that you propose government interference or control in solving issues. That invariably involves a tax or a regulation of some sort. Sin taxes have been around for some time but are by nature self-defeating. They are used to fund programs unrelated to the actual "sin" itself. Take tobacco use for example. We all know it has been substantially reduced over the last decade/decades. The average Marlboro smoker spends somewhere between $5000-$10000 a year to pay for their habit. A lot of smokers choose to quit making the idea of a "sin tax" effective in reducing smoking overall but eliminating the taxes that the government has become accustomed to. Other smokers buy their smokes at Indian reservations if possible and save a good deal of money on taxes. The government loses the taxes from that too. Simply put, government programs that are based on coercing actions by taxing are basically self defeating. If those programs work they defund the government. If they don't work taxes simply are increased and government relies even more on smokers to fund them.
Back a decade ago I vehemently argued against the ACA here at PPP. I always prefaced my arguments with something along the lines of "although I'm philosophically against what Obama is trying to do, my biggest objections are that it is basically flawed and would be implemented by an incompetent administration". The programs that the government put in place must at a minimum be able to work. The ACA was doomed to fail because they went against the basic tenants of insurance by ignoring the "Law of Large Numbers". Liberal government does things like this all the time. They ignore facts and promote "feelz" based programs. Like I said, I know you are sincere, but you're just wrong.
I completely agree. The demand is rarely reduced when the sin taxes are imposed. Therefore, people just look for alternatives to get their supply. You mentioned a few. When Canada imposed a tax on cigarettes, all it did was increase smuggling of cigarettes from the U.S.
As far as ACA, it relies on 100% participation. Otherwise, the costs become too high and people drop out (causing the costs to go even higher). A self-perpetuating problem unless the government can force people to participate.
-
1
-
-
On 7/11/2020 at 6:45 AM, RealKayAdams said:
Woah someone read my post!! Thanks, KRC!
The basic premise is that financial hits from gas taxes on a destitute person’s individual budget will be offset by benefits from other various GND programs, including health care benefits and public transportation options. But there are a lot of moving policy parts in such grand legislative proposals, many of which may end up not being synchronized, so that some citizens may experience incidental financial hardship during the country’s renewable energy transition process. That is why I’d strongly support temporary “fuel stamp” eligibility programs or gas tax reimbursements or circumstantially dependent transportation subsidizations through employer applications.
The bolded part is where I have an issue. You and I both know the government is not going to pass benefits on to the plebs. Passing the buck to others (employers, the "rich," etc.) is not a viable plan. As the cliché says, eventually, you run out of other people's money. Especially when you have a laundry list of other programs that also need money.
QuoteSince we already tax people for driving cars in the form of gasoline excise taxes, this is not uncharted policy territory. There’s nothing unethical about (reasonably imposed) fuel taxes, either. Taxing forms of transportation that pollute is obviously not the same as taxing breaths of air or directly taxing public water consumption or anything crazy like that. All environmental taxes aim to curb bad behavior and incentivize good behavior. Gas taxes would aim to expedite renewable tech innovation while also helping to pay for greenhouse gas damages, which ultimately our government will be financially responsible for fixing in the years ahead.
While gas taxes may not be new, does not mean we need to continually add more. I constantly hear about how this or that tax will be used for x purpose. It rarely works out. After you pay the kickbacks to Congresscritter's friends to do the work and kickbacks to your campaign contributors and funneling money to your personal campaigns, there is no money left and we hear "we need to raise taxes again." ENOUGH with more taxes (not yelling at you). They already waste enough of my money and use too much of it to enrich themselves for me to give them more.
QuoteNext Saturday morning, I can post a thorough explanation of my taxation and budgetary proposals in the Trump Economy thread. By this point, however, you probably know my politics and can guess where the conversation is heading. I’m most closely aligned with Tulsi Gabbard on policy issues (about 90%...with that other 10% including her decision to endorse Joe Biden and sell out to the Democratic Party establishment…sigh). As you can also tell by now, I prefer responding with detailed lengthy (long-winded?) paragraphs instead of a few short sentence sound bites. Otherwise, I find that online political discussions tend to break down from simple misunderstandings that then quickly entice mudslinging from opportunistic internet trolls.
I look forward to your economic thoughts. Spoiler alert: I probably will not agree. ?
QuoteThink of Real, Green, and Skeptical more like Freud’s ego, superego, and id and less like Moe, Larry, and Curly. The true psychological concern is why I spend so much time composing political thoughts on an obscure internet football message board, knowing that maybe only 4 or 5 people read them…hmmm…
It is a healthy outlet (however, you may still want to seek help for the multiple personality disorder ?). Even if only a few people read it (I think more people read it than you realize), it is always healthy to discuss actual ideas. You just have to wade through the crap from the trolls. The ignore feature works well, but we are stuck with people continually responding to their crap. I will keep reading, even though you and I are on different ends of the political spectrum. You have convinced me to move more towards your ideas in some areas. Others, not so much. But I appreciate the conversation.
-
2
-
-
Wouldn't a cash-less society hurt the poor more than anyone? What type of credit cards (interest rates) are they going to get if they are struggling to pay their bills now?
-
3
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
These cases were both punted back to lower courts for more litigation.
If NYS does get them eventually, that will be under grand jury, so it will be confidential.Which means it will be leaked shortly thereafter.
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
22 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:
Woah it’s been kinda quiet here the past month…fine, I’ll talk to myself. Don’t mind me!
{cutting to save space, but content was great}
Skeptical Kay Adams: “I don’t know, Kay. Still seems like a lot of effort to address a problem we don’t even know is real.”
Green Kay Adams: “Kay, first address point #2 from the MMGW science section of my/our previous post. Also, please provide scientific papers or article reviews from dissenting scientific opinions on MMGW.”
Skeptical Kay Adams: “Are you getting cheeky with me, Kay? I’m not too comfortable with you playing economic God, either. Look at you…intruding into our private markets, capriciously choosing energy industry winners and losers like this...deplorable.”
Green Kay Adams: “You disappoint me, Kay. In my/our previous post, please recall point #3 from the problems section with finding MMGW solutions. Also, please feel free to take up any specific economic concerns with any of your favorite qualified professional economists. Greenhouse gas emissions are negative externalities that MUST and CAN be addressed.”
Skeptical Kay Adams: “But how are you going to PAY for your Green New Deal utopia, Kay? Tax us all to death?!”
Green Kay Adams: “Settle down, Kay. That’s another debate entirely which I will take up in the Trump Economy thread at some point soon. Until we meet again, old friend!”
Skeptical Kay Adams: “Wait! Wait! Kay, come back. Can you also respond to the three posts above?”
Green Kay Adams: “Sure, why not, Kay? I have nothing better to do with my life this morning. But not before I post a delightful meme commemorating our wonderful discussion.”
This is for Green Kay Adams: I see you wanting to tax people for driving cars. How are the poor supposed to get to work if they can no longer afford their transportation because the government wants to add yet more taxes? Or, is this another "tax the rich" scheme? Not sure how much is going to be left in their wallets after taxing them for student loan forgiveness, taxing them for the Green New Deal, taxing them for M4A, etc. They would already be taxed at over 100% just for those items.
For Skeptical Kay Adams: You go girl!!
Finally, you may want to seek help for the multiple personality disorder. ?
-
27 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Hi there!Can you speak to your thoughts on the concept of self-determination, and the philosophy that just government derives from the consent of the governed?
You are not going to get a response. You used too many big words.
-
1 minute ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
In DC there are very few good guys with guns, liberals ensured that, but the criminals have no issue getting guns. I still can't believe anyone would turn a obvious failure of everything that liberalism stands for into what you attempted to.
Interesting that the very same people who want guns out of the hands of good guys are now talking about good guys not having guns to stop the violence that was started by the people wanting to take away the guns.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
The dictator nonsense always cracks me up. Wouldn’t a dictator have imposed a heavy federal hand in dealing with Covid 19? Isn’t that the exact OPPOSITE of what Trump did by letting the States handle it at the local level? If he’s a dictator, he’s REALLY bad at it!
Add to that, in one breath they are complaining that he is fascist. In the next breath, they are complaining that he is deregulating. The Kemp's of the world are proving that they really do not understand what words mean.
-
12 hours ago, TH3 said:
About the only thing I am a member of is the belief of the hyperbolic ridiculousness of Donald Trump being president
You also seem to be a member of the KKK.
-
12 hours ago, Foxx said:
nice deflection. answer the question as posed.
He can't. He is too busy being a racist.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:
we are in PPP, so i can say..You're an idiot. Great show
Wifey and I enjoyed the show. We binge-watched it late last year.
-
13 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
How much money did these Psychologists make to come to that conclusion? Did they also determine that water is wet?The water determination is a separate research grant.
-
1
-
The Trump Economy
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
We agree an having both a payroll tax cut and another round of stimulus. There are far too many people still unemployed for a payroll tax cut to have the desired impact. As you mentioned, we need to increase consumer confidence to get people spending again. People who are unemployed are not confident in spending money if they are relying on unemployment to pay the bills.
However, relying on Congress to do the right thing in an election year is highly improbable.