ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Main rivals board

Loyal Coug

Hall Of Fame
Sep 27, 2003
7,967
995
113
Football Soundoff Board to be precise. After logging off here I went there just to check it out. Oh my.

2 quick conclusions:

1. The most right-wing sounding posters on this board would feel really "blue" over there.
2. College football fans in other parts of the country are not very civil or intelligent.

And some of these yahoos have 20,000+ and 30,000+ plus posts (and likes!).
 
My wife and I were talking about that. In the NW, the left is extreme in comparison to the rest of the nation. And the right is much more emboldened in most of the nation, than they are here.

What sparked our conversation was, we were in Hawaii and we met a gay couple (men) from Missouri. Had a good 1 hour conversation with them about everything under the sun. It amazed us how much of what they said was almost centrist, if not a slight bit right! If they lived in the NW, they'd either have to change their views or be skewered by the left! The PNW is a VERY left leaning part of the US. So your view seems rather normal.

And yes, I believe you are in Montana now and recognize that.
 
Last edited:
I t
I thought he was... isn't he?!?!?! lol <s

I think he's from Nimrod, Montana
Isn't Nimrod in Flathead County? How about Plentywood in Granite County or Stoner Place in Sweetgrass County? I have no idea what county these towns are in:)
 
It amazed us how much of what they said was almost centrist, if not a slight bit right! If they lived in the NW, they'd either have to change their views or be skewered by the left! The PNW is a VERY left leaning part of the US. So your view seems rather normal.

If you equate the NW and PNW to that limited geographic region that is west of the Cascade I'd agree. If it includes eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern Idaho, that generalization doesn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alpine Cougar
My wife and I were talking about that. In the NW, the left is extreme in comparison to the rest of the nation. And the right is much more emboldened in most of the nation, than they are here.

What sparked our conversation was, we were in Hawaii and we met a gay couple (men) from Missouri. Had a good 1 hour conversation with them about everything under the sun. It amazed us how much of what they said was almost centrist, if not a slight bit right! If they lived in the NW, they'd either have to change their views or be skewered by the left! The PNW is a VERY left leaning part of the US. So your view seems rather normal.

And yes, I believe you are in Montana now and recognize that.
Not sure why you would be surprised by two gay men being centrist. What is interesting to belong to a party you have to check all of the boxes. I am very much for a balanced budget for example. What I probably differ on with many republican's is which items should be sliced and diced.

I am in an industry that had zero regulations and caused the last recession/ depression of 2008. What "conservative-business free market" value allows a guy who ran Countrywide into the ground a golden parachute of over 160 million dollars? If I ran a company into the ground I walk away with zip. That is how the free market economy works. It wasn't catastrophic events that put Countrywide under, it was greed and deceit.

Then the answer to that is Dodd Frank..which actually made too big to fail even bigger. I will let you in on a little secret. There would have been two small pieces of legislation if they were enacted in say 2004 we would have never had the meltdown.

The first one would be eliminate the prepayment penalty, and the second is to have a product review board. If a product is too risky make the lenders lend those risky loans out of their own portfolio. But I digress.

So when conservatives for example say they want to balance a budget then off up a tax cut that widens the budget with no plan to make up the difference, I sometimes wonder if as liberal as I am I am not more conservative than the folks that voted for the tax cut.

But to a greater point about what Loyal offered up was the manner of discourse. That is more alarming than anything else.
 
Not sure why you would be surprised by two gay men being centrist. What is interesting to belong to a party you have to check all of the boxes. I am very much for a balanced budget for example. What I probably differ on with many republican's is which items should be sliced and diced.

I am in an industry that had zero regulations and caused the last recession/ depression of 2008. What "conservative-business free market" value allows a guy who ran Countrywide into the ground a golden parachute of over 160 million dollars? If I ran a company into the ground I walk away with zip. That is how the free market economy works. It wasn't catastrophic events that put Countrywide under, it was greed and deceit.

Then the answer to that is Dodd Frank..which actually made too big to fail even bigger. I will let you in on a little secret. There would have been two small pieces of legislation if they were enacted in say 2004 we would have never had the meltdown.

The first one would be eliminate the prepayment penalty, and the second is to have a product review board. If a product is too risky make the lenders lend those risky loans out of their own portfolio. But I digress.

So when conservatives for example say they want to balance a budget then off up a tax cut that widens the budget with no plan to make up the difference, I sometimes wonder if as liberal as I am I am not more conservative than the folks that voted for the tax cut.

But to a greater point about what Loyal offered up was the manner of discourse. That is more alarming than anything else.

Allow me to destroy a myth. Federal government tax extortion ("revenue"...as they say) is at record levels...and has been climbing for years. We don't have a "revenue" issue (from tax cuts), we have a spending problem. We can easily solve this by raising the retirement age and also getting government out of healthcare as much as possible. Wherever government spends massive money, the costs increase astronomically (namely education and health costs).

Have you ever seen this revealing graph?


Inflation+Chart.jpg




chart-final-taxes-oct_through_jan-fy_2017.jpg


https://www.investors.com/politics/...nues-record-high-april-paying-for-themselves/
 
Last edited:
If you equate the NW and PNW to that limited geographic region that is west of the Cascade I'd agree. If it includes eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern Idaho, that generalization doesn't work.
Agreed but Western WA and Western OR define our state, both in the rest of the nations generic view and politically.

To Ed, I'm surprised 2 gay guys are centrist because I know a boat load of gay guys that are in the NW/PNW that are anything BUT centrist. "Left" is too conservative a label.

But saying that, I know several people in the LGBTQ community in the Mid-west Okie/TX area and they aren't centrist but more Libertarian. But that goes to my point, and maybe more RuffRider's point. This area's version of Left/Progressive/Liberal are further on the spectrum, only rivaled by the North East... and even they have their own brand. That was my only point...
 
Allow me to destroy a myth. Federal government tax extortion ("revenue"...as they say) is at record levels...and has been climbing for years. We don't have a "revenue" issue (from tax cuts), we have a spending problem. We can easily solve this by raising the retirement age and also getting government out of healthcare as much as possible. Wherever government spends massive money, the costs increase astronomically (namely education and health costs).

Have you ever seen this revealing graph?


Inflation+Chart.jpg




chart-final-taxes-oct_through_jan-fy_2017.jpg


https://www.investors.com/politics/...nues-record-high-april-paying-for-themselves/
Just out of curiosity , what were the tax levels in the 50's, when America was great...and make it great again?

The graph doesn't show where the money is going? What do you think the expenditure craft shows?
 
Allow me to destroy a myth. Federal government tax extortion ("revenue"...as they say) is at record levels...and has been climbing for years. We don't have a "revenue" issue (from tax cuts), we have a spending problem. We can easily solve this by raising the retirement age and also getting government out of healthcare as much as possible. Wherever government spends massive money, the costs increase astronomically (namely education and health costs).

Have you ever seen this revealing graph?

https://www.investors.com/politics/...nues-record-high-april-paying-for-themselves/

I like your graphs. The bar graph would be even more useful if it had expenditures on there and also showed who was president during each year.

The line chart is revealing (although no news to me). The skyrocketing cost of higher ed is downright criminal - and so much of it is due to A) ballooning numbers and salaries of administrators, which has been the subject of numerous articles over the years in the Chronicle, and B) a country club mentality at many schools, including WSU, where fancy dorms, huge rec centers, and other "educational" items swell the cost of tuition and fees. And oh - gotta keep the freshman live on rule to pay for those new dorms!

That said, of course federal revenue is at record levels. The country is bigger, more people are retired, inflation, etc etc. It will rarely go down.

I completely agree that we have a spending problem, and agree that it is due to the elephants - SS and Medicare (but don't forget the military). But it is not "easily" solved. No elected official, D or R, has or is going to touch any of those items. Until we install term limits anyway. SS, by necessity, needs to be at least slowed down. Suspend the COLA's. Reduce payments or steepen the tax for high income individuals. Something.

Medicare in specific and health care in general is a monster. Are you going to vote for cutting/eliminating your parents' health care? Of course not. Should we institute the "Death Panels" the R's used to warn about? Of course not. Or are we? I referred to my (now departed) Dad's doctor as a one woman death panel. Every time Dad was in the hospital, she'd pull out the POLST (spelling?) form and try to get us to pull back farther on medical procedures in case of near-death events. Of course Mom always would check the "full every measure" box. Dad was completely out of it for years, mentally and physically, before finally passing away. I bet Medicare spent $100,000 keeping him alive that last year. How do we fix that?

And it's not just Medicare or health insurance in general. It's healthcare. New and better medicines come out all the time to fix what our fat society is breaking. How about we don't allow any high blood pressure, diabetes, heart or other medication for obese people? Why should my tax dollars pay for your poor health that you caused by being a fatty? Or smoking, or whatever?

Anyway, a cornucopia of issues, for which some mitigating solutions could be found, if a rational and compromising society was in evidence. But it is not.

Finally, your link on the record tax revenues in April, 2018 is clearly from a right-wing publication, as evidenced by the ending line: "We doubt we'll hear Democrats admitting to their flagrant lies and fabrications about the tax cuts. But we do hope that voters hold them to account this fall."

Yeah that comment serves to further the conversation. Pretty sure that "flagrant lies and fabrications" better describe a certain "R" person. Did you know that the Canadians burned down the White House in 1812?

And while I am surprised that April 2018 collections are higher than April 2017, the tax cuts can hardly be the reason. Federal tax revenues are accounted for on basically a cash basis. So the April 2018 revenues include everybody paying their 2017 tax bills, and 1st quarter 2018 estimates, which are usually based upon their 2017 taxes so as to avoid possible underpayment penalties! And while the tax cuts surely had some impact (lower withholding), You can hardly argue that those cuts, in 3 months, caused some incredible surge in hiring and overall income due to the trickle down. Now a nice, non-partisan analysis of those figures, and some additional historical comparison as well, would be very interesting and educational.

 
Just out of curiosity , what were the tax levels in the 50's, when America was great...and make it great again?

The graph doesn't show where the money is going? What do you think the expenditure craft shows?

This is another fallacy. Although the federal marginal tax rates were much higher in the 1950s...NO ONE pald even close to 91% of their income to the federales. No one. It just so happens that "rich" people are pretty damn smart with shielding their income. Surprise, huh?

Ed, I'm alarmed that you haven't done your homework on that one. There was an extensive study done a number of years ago that showed that no matter how high the marginal tax rates, the "rich" never pay more than ~20% of their yearly income to the feds. Again, they are pretty smart guys. So you might ask why does it matter if we have high marginal tax rates like in the 1950s then? Why should it matter? Do you know that answer to that question?
 
I like your graphs. The bar graph would be even more useful if it had expenditures on there and also showed who was president during each year.

The line chart is revealing (although no news to me). The skyrocketing cost of higher ed is downright criminal - and so much of it is due to A) ballooning numbers and salaries of administrators, which has been the subject of numerous articles over the years in the Chronicle, and B) a country club mentality at many schools, including WSU, where fancy dorms, huge rec centers, and other "educational" items swell the cost of tuition and fees. And oh - gotta keep the freshman live on rule to pay for those new dorms!

That said, of course federal revenue is at record levels. The country is bigger, more people are retired, inflation, etc etc. It will rarely go down.

I completely agree that we have a spending problem, and agree that it is due to the elephants - SS and Medicare (but don't forget the military). But it is not "easily" solved. No elected official, D or R, has or is going to touch any of those items. Until we install term limits anyway. SS, by necessity, needs to be at least slowed down. Suspend the COLA's. Reduce payments or steepen the tax for high income individuals. Something.

Medicare in specific and health care in general is a monster. Are you going to vote for cutting/eliminating your parents' health care? Of course not. Should we institute the "Death Panels" the R's used to warn about? Of course not. Or are we? I referred to my (now departed) Dad's doctor as a one woman death panel. Every time Dad was in the hospital, she'd pull out the POLST (spelling?) form and try to get us to pull back farther on medical procedures in case of near-death events. Of course Mom always would check the "full every measure" box. Dad was completely out of it for years, mentally and physically, before finally passing away. I bet Medicare spent $100,000 keeping him alive that last year. How do we fix that?

And it's not just Medicare or health insurance in general. It's healthcare. New and better medicines come out all the time to fix what our fat society is breaking. How about we don't allow any high blood pressure, diabetes, heart or other medication for obese people? Why should my tax dollars pay for your poor health that you caused by being a fatty? Or smoking, or whatever?

Anyway, a cornucopia of issues, for which some mitigating solutions could be found, if a rational and compromising society was in evidence. But it is not.

Finally, your link on the record tax revenues in April, 2018 is clearly from a right-wing publication, as evidenced by the ending line: "We doubt we'll hear Democrats admitting to their flagrant lies and fabrications about the tax cuts. But we do hope that voters hold them to account this fall."

Yeah that comment serves to further the conversation. Pretty sure that "flagrant lies and fabrications" better describe a certain "R" person. Did you know that the Canadians burned down the White House in 1812?

And while I am surprised that April 2018 collections are higher than April 2017, the tax cuts can hardly be the reason. Federal tax revenues are accounted for on basically a cash basis. So the April 2018 revenues include everybody paying their 2017 tax bills, and 1st quarter 2018 estimates, which are usually based upon their 2017 taxes so as to avoid possible underpayment penalties! And while the tax cuts surely had some impact (lower withholding), You can hardly argue that those cuts, in 3 months, caused some incredible surge in hiring and overall income due to the trickle down. Now a nice, non-partisan analysis of those figures, and some additional historical comparison as well, would be very interesting and educational.



"The skyrocketing cost of higher ed is downright criminal - and so much of it is due to A) ballooning numbers and salaries of administrators, which has been the subject of numerous articles over the years in the Chronicle, and B) a country club mentality at many schools, including WSU, where fancy dorms, huge rec centers, and other "educational" items swell the cost of tuition and fees. And oh - gotta keep the freshman live on rule to pay for those new dorms!"


Preach it brother! Also, the more money the federal government makes available for student loans, the more the tuition will increase. It is simple supply and demand. Remember that many universities have multi-billion dollar endowment funds while their students are- in many cases- being burdened with oppressive levels of student loan debt. It is a travesty.


"Finally, your link on the record tax revenues in April, 2018 is clearly from a right-wing publication, as evidenced by the ending line: "We doubt we'll hear Democrats admitting to their flagrant lies and fabrications about the tax cuts. But we do hope that voters hold them to account this fall.""

Loyal, either this is true or it is false about record tax revenues in April 2018. Show me if it is false. It doesn't matter what the source is then.
 
I v
"The skyrocketing cost of higher ed is downright criminal - and so much of it is due to A) ballooning numbers and salaries of administrators, which has been the subject of numerous articles over the years in the Chronicle, and B) a country club mentality at many schools, including WSU, where fancy dorms, huge rec centers, and other "educational" items swell the cost of tuition and fees. And oh - gotta keep the freshman live on rule to pay for those new dorms!"


Preach it brother! Also, the more money the federal government makes available for student loans, the more the tuition will increase. It is simple supply and demand. Remember that many universities have multi-billion dollar endowment funds while their students are- in many cases- being burdened with oppressive levels of student loan debt. It is a travesty.


"Finally, your link on the record tax revenues in April, 2018 is clearly from a right-wing publication, as evidenced by the ending line: "We doubt we'll hear Democrats admitting to their flagrant lies and fabrications about the tax cuts. But we do hope that voters hold them to account this fall.""

Loyal, either this is true or it is false about record tax revenues in April 2018. Show me if it is false. It doesn't matter what the source is then.[/QUOTE

I guess unfortunately the teaching and admin jobs can’t be off shored as well.
 
This is another fallacy. Although the federal marginal tax rates were much higher in the 1950s...NO ONE pald even close to 91% of their income to the federales. No one. It just so happens that "rich" people are pretty damn smart with shielding their income. Surprise, huh?

Ed, I'm alarmed that you haven't done your homework on that one. There was an extensive study done a number of years ago that showed that no matter how high the marginal tax rates, the "rich" never pay more than ~20% of their yearly income to the feds. Again, they are pretty smart guys. So you might ask why does it matter if we have high marginal tax rates like in the 1950s then? Why should it matter? Do you know that answer to that question?
So when you talk about our high tax rates of 2016 for example, did the rich people just get dumb and not shield their income ? Am I to believe people are/ we’re paying mid 30’s.

So what you want me to believe is that this tax cut will not produce an income shortfall and increase the deficit ? Am I reading this correctly ?
 
"The skyrocketing cost of higher ed is downright criminal - and so much of it is due to A) ballooning numbers and salaries of administrators, which has been the subject of numerous articles over the years in the Chronicle, and B) a country club mentality at many schools, including WSU, where fancy dorms, huge rec centers, and other "educational" items swell the cost of tuition and fees. And oh - gotta keep the freshman live on rule to pay for those new dorms!"


Preach it brother! Also, the more money the federal government makes available for student loans, the more the tuition will increase. It is simple supply and demand. Remember that many universities have multi-billion dollar endowment funds while their students are- in many cases- being burdened with oppressive levels of student loan debt. It is a travesty.


"Finally, your link on the record tax revenues in April, 2018 is clearly from a right-wing publication, as evidenced by the ending line: "We doubt we'll hear Democrats admitting to their flagrant lies and fabrications about the tax cuts. But we do hope that voters hold them to account this fall.""

Loyal, either this is true or it is false about record tax revenues in April 2018. Show me if it is false. It doesn't matter what the source is then.

I'm not disputing the number (April 2018 tax collections up from April 2017) at all. What I am disputing is the article attributing the increase in collections to the tax cuts put into effect 3 months earlier. That is just fantasy.

As you probably understand, the whole argument for cutting taxes is that people and corporations will spend and invest their tax savings in economy-stimulating things. Economy goes up, income goes up, thus more tax ends up getting collected. The 'ol Reagan trickle-down theory revived in 2018. Never mind that it was an utter failure under Reagan. Fact.

So, even if you believe in the above, no way in hell did the cuts spur enough economic activity in 3.5 months to not only create new taxes to offset the cuts themselves, but cause additional tax collections from all this activity and higher income, blah blah. There were clearly other factors at play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: longtimecoug
I like your graphs. The bar graph would be even more useful if it had expenditures on there and also showed who was president during each year.

The line chart is revealing (although no news to me). The skyrocketing cost of higher ed is downright criminal - and so much of it is due to A) ballooning numbers and salaries of administrators, which has been the subject of numerous articles over the years in the Chronicle, and B) a country club mentality at many schools, including WSU, where fancy dorms, huge rec centers, and other "educational" items swell the cost of tuition and fees. And oh - gotta keep the freshman live on rule to pay for those new dorms!

That said, of course federal revenue is at record levels. The country is bigger, more people are retired, inflation, etc etc. It will rarely go down.

I completely agree that we have a spending problem, and agree that it is due to the elephants - SS and Medicare (but don't forget the military). But it is not "easily" solved. No elected official, D or R, has or is going to touch any of those items. Until we install term limits anyway. SS, by necessity, needs to be at least slowed down. Suspend the COLA's. Reduce payments or steepen the tax for high income individuals. Something.

Medicare in specific and health care in general is a monster. Are you going to vote for cutting/eliminating your parents' health care? Of course not. Should we institute the "Death Panels" the R's used to warn about? Of course not. Or are we? I referred to my (now departed) Dad's doctor as a one woman death panel. Every time Dad was in the hospital, she'd pull out the POLST (spelling?) form and try to get us to pull back farther on medical procedures in case of near-death events. Of course Mom always would check the "full every measure" box. Dad was completely out of it for years, mentally and physically, before finally passing away. I bet Medicare spent $100,000 keeping him alive that last year. How do we fix that?

And it's not just Medicare or health insurance in general. It's healthcare. New and better medicines come out all the time to fix what our fat society is breaking. How about we don't allow any high blood pressure, diabetes, heart or other medication for obese people? Why should my tax dollars pay for your poor health that you caused by being a fatty? Or smoking, or whatever?

Anyway, a cornucopia of issues, for which some mitigating solutions could be found, if a rational and compromising society was in evidence. But it is not.

Finally, your link on the record tax revenues in April, 2018 is clearly from a right-wing publication, as evidenced by the ending line: "We doubt we'll hear Democrats admitting to their flagrant lies and fabrications about the tax cuts. But we do hope that voters hold them to account this fall."

Yeah that comment serves to further the conversation. Pretty sure that "flagrant lies and fabrications" better describe a certain "R" person. Did you know that the Canadians burned down the White House in 1812?

And while I am surprised that April 2018 collections are higher than April 2017, the tax cuts can hardly be the reason. Federal tax revenues are accounted for on basically a cash basis. So the April 2018 revenues include everybody paying their 2017 tax bills, and 1st quarter 2018 estimates, which are usually based upon their 2017 taxes so as to avoid possible underpayment penalties! And while the tax cuts surely had some impact (lower withholding), You can hardly argue that those cuts, in 3 months, caused some incredible surge in hiring and overall income due to the trickle down. Now a nice, non-partisan analysis of those figures, and some additional historical comparison as well, would be very interesting and educational.
Any conversation about overhaul of the health care system (including pharmaceuticals) that does not also include an overhaul of the insurance industry is pointless.

As for the "death panels" - they already exist, and have for a long time. They're called claims review and appeals. Those are the people who decide who lives and who dies, based on what procedures they're going to cover. They'll decide if an operation, transplant, treatment, drug, etc. is actually going to "benefit the patient"...although it's not necessarily clear how patient benefits are weighed against corporate profit.

We're well past the point of legislative fixes. It doesn't matter what name you put on it or which side of the aisle it comes from. The only way to actually fix the system is to burn it to the ground and start over. And, even though Americans' heads tend to start exploding whenever you even hint at socializing a system, it has worked pretty well for a long time in several countries.

(Tangent: Why are Americans so negative on socialism? We have so many socialist programs already in play, why do we bristle against new ones? I've long been amused by farmers railing against anything vaguely socialist....while they drive their truck filled with subsidized fuel on the way to cash their CRP checks.)
 
Any conversation about overhaul of the health care system (including pharmaceuticals) that does not also include an overhaul of the insurance industry is pointless.

As for the "death panels" - they already exist, and have for a long time. They're called claims review and appeals. Those are the people who decide who lives and who dies, based on what procedures they're going to cover. They'll decide if an operation, transplant, treatment, drug, etc. is actually going to "benefit the patient"...although it's not necessarily clear how patient benefits are weighed against corporate profit.

We're well past the point of legislative fixes. It doesn't matter what name you put on it or which side of the aisle it comes from. The only way to actually fix the system is to burn it to the ground and start over. And, even though Americans' heads tend to start exploding whenever you even hint at socializing a system, it has worked pretty well for a long time in several countries.

(Tangent: Why are Americans so negative on socialism? We have so many socialist programs already in play, why do we bristle against new ones? I've long been amused by farmers railing against anything vaguely socialist....while they drive their truck filled with subsidized fuel on the way to cash their CRP checks.)


Venezuela
 
So when you talk about our high tax rates of 2016 for example, did the rich people just get dumb and not shield their income ? Am I to believe people are/ we’re paying mid 30’s.

So what you want me to believe is that this tax cut will not produce an income shortfall and increase the deficit ? Am I reading this correctly ?


I'm asking the questions Ed. You answer those without questions and then we'll address your questions.

Capiche?
 
Damn... I thought I was going to pick up a new fishing buddy.

I've only heard good things about Montana, including there's nothing better then a clear night from the Montana sky. Would love to get out there sometime.
 
Any conversation about overhaul of the health care system (including pharmaceuticals) that does not also include an overhaul of the insurance industry is pointless.

As for the "death panels" - they already exist, and have for a long time. They're called claims review and appeals. Those are the people who decide who lives and who dies, based on what procedures they're going to cover. They'll decide if an operation, transplant, treatment, drug, etc. is actually going to "benefit the patient"...although it's not necessarily clear how patient benefits are weighed against corporate profit.

We're well past the point of legislative fixes. It doesn't matter what name you put on it or which side of the aisle it comes from. The only way to actually fix the system is to burn it to the ground and start over. And, even though Americans' heads tend to start exploding whenever you even hint at socializing a system, it has worked pretty well for a long time in several countries.

(Tangent: Why are Americans so negative on socialism? We have so many socialist programs already in play, why do we bristle against new ones? I've long been amused by farmers railing against anything vaguely socialist....while they drive their truck filled with subsidized fuel on the way to cash their CRP checks.)
I just had this convo with someone who sells health care benefits and has a few farmers in his portfolio. Why do farmers take money to not plant their crops? Let's call it what it really is instead of a "subsidy".
 
Allow me to destroy a myth. Federal government tax extortion ("revenue"...as they say) is at record levels...and has been climbing for years. We don't have a "revenue" issue (from tax cuts), we have a spending problem. We can easily solve this by raising the retirement age and also getting government out of healthcare as much as possible. Wherever government spends massive money, the costs increase astronomically (namely education and health costs).

Have you ever seen this revealing graph?


Inflation+Chart.jpg




chart-final-taxes-oct_through_jan-fy_2017.jpg


https://www.investors.com/politics/...nues-record-high-april-paying-for-themselves/
I like your graphs. The bar graph would be even more useful if it had expenditures on there and also showed who was president during each year.

The line chart is revealing (although no news to me). The skyrocketing cost of higher ed is downright criminal - and so much of it is due to A) ballooning numbers and salaries of administrators, which has been the subject of numerous articles over the years in the Chronicle, and B) a country club mentality at many schools, including WSU, where fancy dorms, huge rec centers, and other "educational" items swell the cost of tuition and fees. And oh - gotta keep the freshman live on rule to pay for those new dorms!

That said, of course federal revenue is at record levels. The country is bigger, more people are retired, inflation, etc etc. It will rarely go down.

I completely agree that we have a spending problem, and agree that it is due to the elephants - SS and Medicare (but don't forget the military). But it is not "easily" solved. No elected official, D or R, has or is going to touch any of those items. Until we install term limits anyway. SS, by necessity, needs to be at least slowed down. Suspend the COLA's. Reduce payments or steepen the tax for high income individuals. Something.

Medicare in specific and health care in general is a monster. Are you going to vote for cutting/eliminating your parents' health care? Of course not. Should we institute the "Death Panels" the R's used to warn about? Of course not. Or are we? I referred to my (now departed) Dad's doctor as a one woman death panel. Every time Dad was in the hospital, she'd pull out the POLST (spelling?) form and try to get us to pull back farther on medical procedures in case of near-death events. Of course Mom always would check the "full every measure" box. Dad was completely out of it for years, mentally and physically, before finally passing away. I bet Medicare spent $100,000 keeping him alive that last year. How do we fix that?

And it's not just Medicare or health insurance in general. It's healthcare. New and better medicines come out all the time to fix what our fat society is breaking. How about we don't allow any high blood pressure, diabetes, heart or other medication for obese people? Why should my tax dollars pay for your poor health that you caused by being a fatty? Or smoking, or whatever?

Anyway, a cornucopia of issues, for which some mitigating solutions could be found, if a rational and compromising society was in evidence. But it is not.

Finally, your link on the record tax revenues in April, 2018 is clearly from a right-wing publication, as evidenced by the ending line: "We doubt we'll hear Democrats admitting to their flagrant lies and fabrications about the tax cuts. But we do hope that voters hold them to account this fall."

Yeah that comment serves to further the conversation. Pretty sure that "flagrant lies and fabrications" better describe a certain "R" person. Did you know that the Canadians burned down the White House in 1812?

And while I am surprised that April 2018 collections are higher than April 2017, the tax cuts can hardly be the reason. Federal tax revenues are accounted for on basically a cash basis. So the April 2018 revenues include everybody paying their 2017 tax bills, and 1st quarter 2018 estimates, which are usually based upon their 2017 taxes so as to avoid possible underpayment penalties! And while the tax cuts surely had some impact (lower withholding), You can hardly argue that those cuts, in 3 months, caused some incredible surge in hiring and overall income due to the trickle down. Now a nice, non-partisan analysis of those figures, and some additional historical comparison as well, would be very interesting and educational.
social security adds nothing to the deficit
 
I just had this convo with someone who sells health care benefits and has a few farmers in his portfolio. Why do farmers take money to not plant their crops? Let's call it what it really is instead of a "subsidy".

And what is it really, Ed? Socialism? Welfare?

I have some knowledge of the CRP program (link below), and am not much of a fan. By definition the program focuses on marginal land, and IMHO often pays farmers to hold land idle that isn't worth farming anyway. You can see CRP acreage on the hilltops between Spokane and Pullman, for instance. Does it "conserve" land and increase habitat? Well sure. But the most sensitive acreage is not necessarily in the program. I think it should be scaled back and the per acreage payment levels scrutinized closely and probably reduced. And the eligible land scrutinized. if it isn't farmable anyway, why pay someone not to do what they aren't going to do anyway?

I guess we will see how many farmers are on this site pretty quick......... :eek:

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/
 
And what is it really, Ed? Socialism? Welfare?

I have some knowledge of the CRP program (link below), and am not much of a fan. By definition the program focuses on marginal land, and IMHO often pays farmers to hold land idle that isn't worth farming anyway. You can see CRP acreage on the hilltops between Spokane and Pullman, for instance. Does it "conserve" land and increase habitat? Well sure. But the most sensitive acreage is not necessarily in the program. I think it should be scaled back and the per acreage payment levels scrutinized closely and probably reduced. And the eligible land scrutinized. if it isn't farmable anyway, why pay someone not to do what they aren't going to do anyway?

I guess we will see how many farmers are on this site pretty quick......... :eek:

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/
You can call it what you want. What we do know it is tax dollars that are being spent that no one bats an eye. Not all that different than the lenders taking TARP money back in the day and not paying it back. Sterling Savings had their hand out, I do know that. and never fully repaid the money. People think because they change the name of govt assistance it somehow changes the nature of the funds. IMO
 
And what is it really, Ed? Socialism? Welfare?

I have some knowledge of the CRP program (link below), and am not much of a fan. By definition the program focuses on marginal land, and IMHO often pays farmers to hold land idle that isn't worth farming anyway. You can see CRP acreage on the hilltops between Spokane and Pullman, for instance. Does it "conserve" land and increase habitat? Well sure. But the most sensitive acreage is not necessarily in the program. I think it should be scaled back and the per acreage payment levels scrutinized closely and probably reduced. And the eligible land scrutinized. if it isn't farmable anyway, why pay someone not to do what they aren't going to do anyway?

I guess we will see how many farmers are on this site pretty quick......... :eek:

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/
Originally, a lot of the land that went in was areas prone to erosion - steeper slopes and bottomlands that flooded with some frequency. The only way that I see it really being much benefit as habitat is when larger pieces - like entire farms - were put in. I know a few who did that, and seeded several thousand acres over to CRP. And, yes...there are a lot more animals living there, although doubt very many of them qualify as threatened or endangered.

The other side of the program, and what was not mentioned in the link, was that by paying farmers to take land out of production, commodity surpluses have been reduced which in turn helps keep commodity prices higher. So, it becomes another back-door subsidy, where the government is paying to not produce as much wheat/corn/barley/etc. as we could, so that the portion we do produce is worth more.
 
Originally, a lot of the land that went in was areas prone to erosion - steeper slopes and bottomlands that flooded with some frequency. The only way that I see it really being much benefit as habitat is when larger pieces - like entire farms - were put in. I know a few who did that, and seeded several thousand acres over to CRP. And, yes...there are a lot more animals living there, although doubt very many of them qualify as threatened or endangered.

The other side of the program, and what was not mentioned in the link, was that by paying farmers to take land out of production, commodity surpluses have been reduced which in turn helps keep commodity prices higher. So, it becomes another back-door subsidy, where the government is paying to not produce as much wheat/corn/barley/etc. as we could, so that the portion we do produce is worth more.
Bingo....taking a little of the free out of the free market....
 
Originally, a lot of the land that went in was areas prone to erosion - steeper slopes and bottomlands that flooded with some frequency. The only way that I see it really being much benefit as habitat is when larger pieces - like entire farms - were put in. I know a few who did that, and seeded several thousand acres over to CRP. And, yes...there are a lot more animals living there, although doubt very many of them qualify as threatened or endangered.

The other side of the program, and what was not mentioned in the link, was that by paying farmers to take land out of production, commodity surpluses have been reduced which in turn helps keep commodity prices higher. So, it becomes another back-door subsidy, where the government is paying to not produce as much wheat/corn/barley/etc. as we could, so that the portion we do produce is worth more.
You are spot on. I have many family members on ranches in South Dakota. This idea of using it to help habitat is what they use when they need PR. But the majority of this is to control pricing. Prices get too high, open up a little land over a period of time. Prices get too low, close off land for a period of time. It's governments way of having a pressure relief valve on crop prices.
 
Originally, a lot of the land that went in was areas prone to erosion - steeper slopes and bottomlands that flooded with some frequency. The only way that I see it really being much benefit as habitat is when larger pieces - like entire farms - were put in. I know a few who did that, and seeded several thousand acres over to CRP. And, yes...there are a lot more animals living there, although doubt very many of them qualify as threatened or endangered.

The other side of the program, and what was not mentioned in the link, was that by paying farmers to take land out of production, commodity surpluses have been reduced which in turn helps keep commodity prices higher. So, it becomes another back-door subsidy, where the government is paying to not produce as much wheat/corn/barley/etc. as we could, so that the portion we do produce is worth more.
You also could mention the fact that CRP lands get seeded with the cheapest--usually non-native--seed available, rather than native grasses and forbs that would actually be good wildlife habitat. Crested wheatgrass is slightly better than worthless compared to native species, but 2 bucks a pound versus $20-30 means that's what farmers are going to plant.
 
Italian for "do you understand?". Spelling is different in Italian. Used mostly back east in Italian neighborhoods. Easier and quicker to say than "do you understand?".

We also used Capiche in the wildly ethically diverse small E WA farm towns. I grew up with it being a pretty general expression. Even more funny when you adopted the Luigi Mob accent and used "Capiche??" at the end of an emphatic discussion of why someone should do something.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT