The Trump Indictments

joanne said:

[Good morning, Mr Terp. I was actually commenting on your avatar 

It was kind of Mr Ridski to respond.   Hope you’ve both had a good day! J ]

Hi Joanne, thank you for noticing my avatar.  I hope you are having a good day as well 

Steve said:

terp said:

i completely disagree.  If anything,in a system like this, eligibility should be limited to those paying for the nonsense.  

and the more you pay the bigger your say?

That accurately describes the current state of influence in our government today. 

terp said:

Steve said:

terp said:

i completely disagree.  If anything,in a system like this, eligibility should be limited to those paying for the nonsense.  

and the more you pay the bigger your say?

That accurately describes the current state of influence in our government today. 

But not voting.  Should we be stripping non-citizens of their First Amendment rights?

Steve said:

terp said:

Steve said:

terp said:

i completely disagree.  If anything,in a system like this, eligibility should be limited to those paying for the nonsense.  

and the more you pay the bigger your say?

That accurately describes the current state of influence in our government today. 

But not voting.  Should we be stripping non-citizens of their First Amendment rights?

Totally.  It will also obviously cancel Taco Tuesday across the nation. 

The 2nd embed didn't work.  If you are a regular person (AKA deplorable), you are paying attention to what these people focus on. 

terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:

i completely disagree.  If anything,in a system like this, eligibility should be limited to those paying for the nonsense.  

So voting restrictions are less about protecting the integrity of the vote, and more about trying to make sure only the "right" kind of people are voting?

There are 2 issues: 

1. The integrity of the vote count.  People need to trust that the vote was counted properly and the fraud was as low as possible.  
2. Voters should have skin in the game.  That is, the people who pay taxes should be voting.  Those who are net receivers of tax $$ could maintain eligibility by paying a fee.  Let's say, they would pay a fee to make them at least neutral.   

as for 1 - people will trust the vote count when people stop screaming about fraud that doesn't exist.

so, that's how that works.

as for 2 - you're just trolling now, right?

Steve said:

terp said:

Steve said:

terp said:

i completely disagree.  If anything,in a system like this, eligibility should be limited to those paying for the nonsense.  

and the more you pay the bigger your say?

That accurately describes the current state of influence in our government today. 

But not voting.  Should we be stripping non-citizens of their First Amendment rights?

I think we should pay individually for which amendments we want to apply to us .

Seems pretty fair.

drummerboy said:

as for 1 - people will trust the vote count when people stop screaming about fraud that doesn't exist.

so, that's how that works.

as for 2 - you're just trolling now, right?

It’s not only “now”, it’s all just one big **** troll. 

nohero said:

It’s not only “now”, it’s all just one big **** troll. 

no, I don't think so. trolling is done in bad faith. I think he honestly believes most of the crap he posts.

Who terp? A troll? He’s just an ordinary deplorable insurrectionist who loves his fearless leader, who tells it like it is (in his mind)….

I am not trolling.  Everything works better when you provide control to people with skin in the game.  Whenever you remove the element of the potential for personal loss from the equation, it creates bad incentives.  

I don't think we get to this point where we have this giant welfare/warfare state if people making the decisions had skin in the game.  

Let's look at Ukraine as a great example.  Many Americans approve of our funding Ukraine. There are some huge threads on this board where people who argue against it are painted as "Putinistas".  The reason why people are defending this funding of incredible loss of life is because they do not perceive it costs them anything.   If we were going to send our troops there and even conscript, I bet quite a few of those folks would change their minds.  If there were a blanket tax of say $1k to every American family to pay for the support, people would be against that policy.  And maybe we'd be trying to broker peace rather than throwing gasoline on the fire. 

However, in our system, the Intelligence community works with the politicians and the media to propagandize the war "oh no! another Hitler!  If we don't stop him now he'll be in our doorstep in Millburn before you know it!"  We then borrow/print the $$ to fund the war and we get things like inflation.  Most people don't make these connections, so when the politicians tell us that we're "Paying ourselves as it creates American jobs", most Americans think all is well.  Everybody wins, the military contractors, the politicians, the media. The only losers are the American people and the Ukrainian/Russian people who die and get maimed in this war.  

terp said:

I personally will vote and donate with the regular people.

Who are these "regular people?"

terp said:

Voters should have skin in the game. That is, the people who pay taxes should be voting. Those who are net receivers of tax $$ could maintain eligibility by paying a fee. Let's say, they would pay a fee to make them at least neutral.

I see. So, someone is someone gets their student loans forgiven a "regular person"? What about someone a service job where they make so little they owe no taxes? Someone who is injured at work due to employer negligence, and so can't work and is now on disability and unemployment? Someone who is retired and collecting social security? 

terp said:

I am not trolling.  Everything works better when you provide control to people with skin in the game.  Whenever you remove the element of the potential for personal loss from the equation, it creates bad incentives.  

I don't think we get to this point where we have this giant welfare/warfare state if people making the decisions had skin in the game.  

Sounds like no, these are not "regular people," since they're beneficiaries of the "welfare/warfare" state and are "net receivers of tax $$".

Interesting that you group "welfare" and "warfare" together -- actually I guess we should add active duty military to the "not regular people" category, since their income and benefits come out of the federal budget?

So -- no one too poor. No one who serves in the military. No one with any government job. No one who benefits too much from any government assistance (do things like ag subsidies count? Maybe farmers aren't regular people either?).

What about wealthy people who can hire clever accountants so that they pay little in taxes -- Trump had at least a few years where he paid no federal income taxes. Should he be allowed to vote? Or does he get a pass because he's anti-woke and shares your hatreds?

Ordinary people who support trump…

PVW said:

Sounds like no, these are not "regular people," since they're beneficiaries of the "welfare/warfare" state and are "net receivers of tax $$".

Interesting that you group "welfare" and "warfare" together -- actually I guess we should add active duty military to the "not regular people" category, since their income and benefits come out of the federal budget?

So -- no one too poor. No one who serves in the military. No one with any government job. No one who benefits too much from any government assistance (do things like ag subsidies count? Maybe farmers aren't regular people either?).

What about wealthy people who can hire clever accountants so that they pay little in taxes -- Trump had at least a few years where he paid no federal income taxes. Should he be allowed to vote? Or does he get a pass because he's anti-woke and shares your hatreds?

terp appears to be under the impression that there is a large population of people who pay no taxes at all, of any kind.

wonder where he got that idea?

it's a mystery.

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

Sounds like no, these are not "regular people," since they're beneficiaries of the "welfare/warfare" state and are "net receivers of tax $$".

Interesting that you group "welfare" and "warfare" together -- actually I guess we should add active duty military to the "not regular people" category, since their income and benefits come out of the federal budget?

So -- no one too poor. No one who serves in the military. No one with any government job. No one who benefits too much from any government assistance (do things like ag subsidies count? Maybe farmers aren't regular people either?).

What about wealthy people who can hire clever accountants so that they pay little in taxes -- Trump had at least a few years where he paid no federal income taxes. Should he be allowed to vote? Or does he get a pass because he's anti-woke and shares your hatreds?

terp appears to be under the impression that there is a large population of people who pay no taxes at all, of any kind.

wonder where he got that idea?

it's a mystery.

the right wingers like to point only to federal income tax. 

Forgetting that if we consider Medicare and Social Security and sales taxes, virtually everyone pays taxes. 

 almost all of us have "skin in the game"

PVW said:

terp said:

I personally will vote and donate with the regular people.

Who are these "regular people?"

terp said:

Voters should have skin in the game. That is, the people who pay taxes should be voting. Those who are net receivers of tax $$ could maintain eligibility by paying a fee. Let's say, they would pay a fee to make them at least neutral.

I see. So, someone is someone gets their student loans forgiven a "regular person"? What about someone a service job where they make so little they owe no taxes? Someone who is injured at work due to employer negligence, and so can't work and is now on disability and unemployment? Someone who is retired and collecting social security? 

terp said:

I am not trolling.  Everything works better when you provide control to people with skin in the game.  Whenever you remove the element of the potential for personal loss from the equation, it creates bad incentives.  

I don't think we get to this point where we have this giant welfare/warfare state if people making the decisions had skin in the game.  

Sounds like no, these are not "regular people," since they're beneficiaries of the "welfare/warfare" state and are "net receivers of tax $$".

Interesting that you group "welfare" and "warfare" together -- actually I guess we should add active duty military to the "not regular people" category, since their income and benefits come out of the federal budget?

So -- no one too poor. No one who serves in the military. No one with any government job. No one who benefits too much from any government assistance (do things like ag subsidies count? Maybe farmers aren't regular people either?).

What about wealthy people who can hire clever accountants so that they pay little in taxes -- Trump had at least a few years where he paid no federal income taxes. Should he be allowed to vote? Or does he get a pass because he's anti-woke and shares your hatreds?

If you can't get your own house in order, why should you get a say in everyone else's lives?  Why do you get a say in how to spend the $$?  The main problem with the system here is that the government spends $$ they don't have and they are not accountable for how its spent.  The reason why we're in the place we're in is that there is this dominant force in our economy and in our lives that really isn't accountable for anything.  Who lost their jobs after 9/11, the Iraq Wars and the torture, after ISIS ran around causing havoc, the spying scandals, etc?  There is no accountability.  When they screw up, it must be because they need more $$.

The voters want free stuff.  I mean look at the SOTU, the main theme was "I'm going to give you free stuff".  Anyone with any sense will wonder, well how are we going to pay for all of that? But if you are a receiver of those benefits, you are not inclined to think about where the money comes from.  

The welfare and warfare state go hand in hand.  Good point though.  Government workers should not be eligible to vote either.   Now you're thinking! 

Regarding the wealthy, if they don't pay income taxes, they don't vote.  Of course, if they want to pay the fee, they can vote.  Most of them win regardless of who gets elected, so it really doesn't matter that much. 

Don’t you have Government Budget discussions in Congress, where accountability for spending is laid under glaring lights? And proposed funding is oh so carefully shredded  in endless debates before being grudgingly passed by both Houses so public servants and programs etc can be paid for the next year?? 
I don’t quite understand Terp’s point about accountability. 
Also, as a retiree and pensioner, I deserve to be able to comment on government services - roads, rates, rubbish, hospitals, transport, libraries, etc. I still pay full taxes on most goods and services, and on investments.  I use all kinds of government services, like any other citizen, and I help design new services; I volunteer, and I help some very lonely people keep healthy and active.  I don’t bludge. (Even if i did, it shouldn’t matter)
I’m an active member of our democracy - why shouldn’t I have a full vote? 

terp said:

I am not trolling.  Everything works better when you provide control to people with skin in the game.  Whenever you remove the element of the potential for personal loss from the equation, it creates bad incentives.  

I don't think we get to this point where we have this giant welfare/warfare state if people making the decisions had skin in the game.  

Let's look at Ukraine as a great example.  Many Americans approve of our funding Ukraine. There are some huge threads on this board where people who argue against it are painted as "Putinistas".  The reason why people are defending this funding of incredible loss of life is because they do not perceive it costs them anything.   If we were going to send our troops there and even conscript, I bet quite a few of those folks would change their minds.  If there were a blanket tax of say $1k to every American family to pay for the support, people would be against that policy.  And maybe we'd be trying to broker peace rather than throwing gasoline on the fire. 

However, in our system, the Intelligence community works with the politicians and the media to propagandize the war "oh no! another Hitler!  If we don't stop him now he'll be in our doorstep in Millburn before you know it!"  We then borrow/print the $$ to fund the war and we get things like inflation.  Most people don't make these connections, so when the politicians tell us that we're "Paying ourselves as it creates American jobs", most Americans think all is well.  Everybody wins, the military contractors, the politicians, the media. The only losers are the American people and the Ukrainian/Russian people who die and get maimed in this war.  

In other words, given that Ukraine is a faraway country of which we know very little, we should have let Putin have his way.

We're starting to see what Europe absent a reliable U.S. commitment looks like - countries rearming as fast as they can.

Maybe we should back away from our commitment to protect NATO countries from nuclear attack.  It will be fun watching more countries acquire nuclear weapons.

I very much disagree with terp's view of who actually has "skin in the game", but that's not news -- plenty of posts over the years between us that illustrate that. Instead of re-arguing those points, I'll note two things:

- The cops, teachers, students, stay-at-home parents, park rangers, and millions of other citizens terp dismisses as not being "regular people" and who he would like to see disenfranchised hardly seem to be the "political elite" he claims are responsible for all that ails the country

- To the question of whether voting restrictions are primarily about ensuring accurate vote counts or whether they're an attempt to exclude the "wrong" sorts of people, I think we have our answer.

joanne said:

Don’t you have Government Budget discussions in Congress, where accountability for spending is laid under glaring lights? And proposed funding is oh so carefully shredded  in endless debates before being grudgingly passed by both Houses so public servants and programs etc can be paid for the next year?? 
I don’t quite understand Terp’s point about accountability. 
Also, as a retiree and pensioner, I deserve to be able to comment on government services - roads, rates, rubbish, hospitals, transport, libraries, etc. I still pay full taxes on most goods and services, and on investments.  I use all kinds of government services, like any other citizen, and I help design new services; I volunteer, and I help some very lonely people keep healthy and active.  I don’t bludge. (Even if i did, it shouldn’t matter)
I’m an active member of our democracy - why shouldn’t I have a full vote? 

joanne, that's how it used to work in our Congress too, really it did, but obviously not anymore. And i have no idea how we'll get back to having a legislature that takes responsibility and does its job instead of whatever they're doing now - grandstanding, and saying yes or no without examination based only on which party made the proposal.  Ugh : (

Also, "bludge"?

mjc said:

joanne, that's how it used to work in our Congress too, really it did, but obviously not anymore. And i have no idea how we'll get back to having a legislature that takes responsibility and does its job instead of whatever they're doing now - grandstanding, and saying yes or no without examination based only on which party made the proposal.  Ugh : (

Also, "bludge"?

Bludging is like slacking off, avoiding work, or sponging, if I recall my Neighbours and Home & Away correctly.

terp said:

If you can't get your own house in order, why should you get a say in everyone else's lives?  Why do you get a say in how to spend the $$?  The main problem with the system here is that the government spends $$ they don't have and they are not accountable for how its spent.  The reason why we're in the place we're in is that there is this dominant force in our economy and in our lives that really isn't accountable for anything.  Who lost their jobs after 9/11, the Iraq Wars and the torture, after ISIS ran around causing havoc, the spying scandals, etc?  There is no accountability.  When they screw up, it must be because they need more $$.

The voters want free stuff.  I mean look at the SOTU, the main theme was "I'm going to give you free stuff".  Anyone with any sense will wonder, well how are we going to pay for all of that? But if you are a receiver of those benefits, you are not inclined to think about where the money comes from.  

The welfare and warfare state go hand in hand.  Good point though.  Government workers should not be eligible to vote either.   Now you're thinking! 

Regarding the wealthy, if they don't pay income taxes, they don't vote.  Of course, if they want to pay the fee, they can vote.  Most of them win regardless of who gets elected, so it really doesn't matter that much. 

I'm just amazed that you're actually doubling down on this idiocy. I'm otherwise embarrassed to actually comment on why this is ridiculous, even as a practical matter, forget morally..

ridski said:

Bludging is like slacking off, avoiding work, or sponging, if I recall my Neighbours and Home & Away correctly.

Hey, what are you saying about my mid-work day MOL timestamps?

PVW said:

ridski said:

Bludging is like slacking off, avoiding work, or sponging, if I recall my Neighbours and Home & Away correctly.

Hey, what are you saying about my mid-work day MOL timestamps?

Just say you haven't changed your clocks yet.

ridski said:

Just say you haven't changed your clocks yet.

OR your work style could be fluid, so you can dip into MOL  more often, a bit like I do 

I thought ‘bludge’ was a bit more international these days, it’s made its ways into official govt documentation. The phrase used most often for welfare policy is ‘lifters or leaners’ - if you don’t need it in any way (not even parental support or utility rebates) you’re a lifter, if you accept government $$ for anything except mineral exploration then you’re a leaner (you lean on the govt to be able to exist). Yeah, a bludger is a slacker.

"for anything except mineral exploration"

(where is the emoji that was tearing its hair out?)

drummerboy said:

terp said:

If you can't get your own house in order, why should you get a say in everyone else's lives?  Why do you get a say in how to spend the $$?  The main problem with the system here is that the government spends $$ they don't have and they are not accountable for how its spent.  The reason why we're in the place we're in is that there is this dominant force in our economy and in our lives that really isn't accountable for anything.  Who lost their jobs after 9/11, the Iraq Wars and the torture, after ISIS ran around causing havoc, the spying scandals, etc?  There is no accountability.  When they screw up, it must be because they need more $$.

The voters want free stuff.  I mean look at the SOTU, the main theme was "I'm going to give you free stuff".  Anyone with any sense will wonder, well how are we going to pay for all of that? But if you are a receiver of those benefits, you are not inclined to think about where the money comes from.  

The welfare and warfare state go hand in hand.  Good point though.  Government workers should not be eligible to vote either.   Now you're thinking! 

Regarding the wealthy, if they don't pay income taxes, they don't vote.  Of course, if they want to pay the fee, they can vote.  Most of them win regardless of who gets elected, so it really doesn't matter that much. 

I'm just amazed that you're actually doubling down on this idiocy. I'm otherwise embarrassed to actually comment on why this is ridiculous, even as a practical matter, forget morally..

I just want people to pay their fair share.  I thought that would be a popular take with this crew. 

PVW said:

I very much disagree with terp's view of who actually has "skin in the game", but that's not news -- plenty of posts over the years between us that illustrate that. Instead of re-arguing those points, I'll note two things:

- The cops, teachers, students, stay-at-home parents, park rangers, and millions of other citizens terp dismisses as not being "regular people" and who he would like to see disenfranchised hardly seem to be the "political elite" he claims are responsible for all that ails the country

- To the question of whether voting restrictions are primarily about ensuring accurate vote counts or whether they're an attempt to exclude the "wrong" sorts of people, I think we have our answer.

I don't think the current system has served people's interests very well.  I think a lot of this stuff sounds good in the short term.  

I am on the record as saying I don't think democracy works.  We are on the primrose path.  We've gotten here with voting rights being what they are. 

Any other situation, we do what the people who are paying think we should do.  If someone takes me out to dinner I don't go and ask for the most expensive bottle of wine.  When my kids go to school, it has to be within my budget.  Whenever you take away the cost of the decision out of the decision making you tend to make bad choices.  And that is where we are. That is why we have a student loan crisis, a health care crisis, a coming federal budget and inevitable dollar crisis and why we are able to afford to be in every country's business. 

I know I'll get lectured about how the government's budget is different from a household budget. But come on.  Do people really think we can continue on this trajectory indefinitely?  We are adding $1 Trillion to the debt every 100 days? 

And the SOTU includes tons of spending. But don't worry!  We'll tax the billionaires at 25% and get $50 Billion a year.  That won't even pay for the bloodshed in Ukraine. 

I'm sorry. Any kid going into 6 figures of debt for a humanities degree probably shouldn't vote.  I don't want to discriminate so, the students probably shouldn't vote unless they are paying their way through school.  ****, I worked my way through school and they still shouldn't have let me vote.