• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

Conservative said:
Since Fuel taxes go into the General fund how do you know that politicians are using them for the roads? Just another naive comment on your part
Click to expand...

Now you know why I like to argue and only discover fallacies instead of having to actually do some research:

Revenue for the Highway Trust Fund is derived almost entirely from federal gas taxes and distributed to all 50 states. It covers nearly 80% of the capital costs of federally-funded transportation projects, with states carrying the remainder. From 2008 to 2010, Congress transferred $34.5 billion from general fund revenues to make up the funding shortfall. This stopgap measure was necessary to continue projects that are already in the works.

Source: Five myths about your gasoline taxes - CNN.com
Click to expand...

It is much simpler.
 
danielpalos said:
Nope; we are Only discussing relative poverty in the US.

Why do you believe any private sector in the US would be worse off if every customer could not claim to be in poverty (of money)?
Click to expand...

Why don't you define poverty in this country? What the hell is poverty of money? Where does personal responsibility rest in your world? You think that people below a certain income level yet have a cell phone, computer, HD TV, Car, and a roof over their head are in poverty?
 
Conservative said:
Why don't you define poverty in this country? What the hell is poverty of money? Where does personal responsibility rest in your world? You think that people below a certain income level yet have a cell phone, computer, HD TV, Car, and a roof over their head are in poverty?
Click to expand...

Poverty is already defined in the US; as you would know, if you had any clue or any Cause regarding this topic.

What do you believe a "poverty" of "money" may refer to regarding this topic and our Institution of money based markets.

Personal responsibility starts with our elected representatives in their office of Public Trust, bearing true witness instead of false witness to our own laws. Any Thing else could be considered a mitigating circumstance for Persons in our republic, but especially for the least wealthy.
 
danielpalos said:
Poverty is already defined in the US; as you would know, if you had any clue or any Cause regarding this topic.

What do you believe a "poverty" of "money" may refer to regarding this topic and our Institution of money based markets.

Personal responsibility starts with our elected representatives in their office of Public Trust, bearing true witness instead of false witness to our own laws. Any Thing else could be considered a mitigating circumstance for Persons in our republic, but especially for the least wealthy.
Click to expand...

I asked you to define poverty and then answer the question I posed. Does the amount of money someone makes really matter if they have limited if any expenses or choose to have luxury items vs. necessities? Seems that liberals only focus on what someone else makes and not the expenses of that person.
 
Conservative said:
I asked you to define poverty and then answer the question I posed. Does the amount of money someone makes really matter if they have limited if any expenses or choose to have luxury items vs. necessities? Seems that liberals only focus on what someone else makes and not the expenses of that person.
Click to expand...

Poverty is already defined, as explained previously, along with the explanations for your other questions.

Your last question had to do with relative poverty. It is still a form of poverty.
 
danielpalos said:
That was not the point; fuel taxes are used for road infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the point that you were making, and I'm telling you that regardless of what the taxes are supposed to be used for, the politician reallocate tax revenues however they see fit. I'm thinking it's the reason that the US has the crumbling infrastructure problem that it does. Not that insufficient money was collected, no, the money that was collected was diverted from it's intended and promised purpose for other BS. Now, the government wants to take even more money for infrastructure. How much you wanna bet they divert that money too?

So in essence, the statement you made is pretty much false. The fuel taxes collected don't go, at least not as much as they should, to road infrastructure. That's MY point. Did you miss it? :)
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, that's the point that you were making, and I'm telling you that regardless of what the taxes are supposed to be used for, the politician reallocate tax revenues however they see fit. I'm thinking it's the reason that the US has the crumbling infrastructure problem that it does. Not that insufficient money was collected, no, the money that was collected was diverted from it's intended and promised purpose for other BS. Now, the government wants to take even more money for infrastructure. How much you wanna bet they divert that money too?

So in essence, the statement you made is pretty much false. The fuel taxes collected don't go, at least not as much as they should, to road infrastructure. That's MY point. Did you miss it? :)
Click to expand...
The problem is that our spending allocations are rarely determined based on need, but rather on who is deciding what gets funded - Representative A offers to support the bill if it includes funding for project X in their home district - this helps them get re-elected, especially if they get a few nice campaign contributions from companies who benefited (and lobbied) for that specific spending choice.

In the end, funding goes where the leaders want it, rather than where it is needed. Sometimes the two are accidentally the same place.


Maybe I'm too cynical...
 
danielpalos said:
Poverty is already defined, as explained previously, along with the explanations for your other questions.

Your last question had to do with relative poverty. It is still a form of poverty.
Click to expand...

That is a book definition not one rooted in reality. I am done with your silly games and simple one sentence responses that say and offer nothing. I will be here when you grow up and realize how little you truly know
 
The Mark said:
The problem is that our spending allocations are rarely determined based on need, but rather on who is deciding what gets funded - Representative A offers to support the bill if it includes funding for project X in their home district - this helps them get re-elected, especially if they get a few nice campaign contributions from companies who benefited (and lobbied) for that specific spending choice.

In the end, funding goes where the leaders want it, rather than where it is needed. Sometimes the two are accidentally the same place.


Maybe I'm too cynical...
Click to expand...

No, I think you are spot on.
 
Anthony60 said:
I tried running that through Google Translator and still have no idea what you are saying.
Click to expand...
I think he means that US financial markets are for some reason known to him as a "stable free trade area". Whatever that means.
 
The Mark said:
I think he means that US financial markets are for some reason known to him as a "stable free trade area". Whatever that means.
Click to expand...

Your guess is as good as mine. For all I know he is referring to a farm stand at a horse stable.
 
Anthony60 said:
Your guess is as good as mine. For all I know he is referring to a farm stand at a horse stable.
Click to expand...
I think he means "stable" as in...relatively unchanging.

But I'm not so sure about the "free trade area" part.

Do we have free trade in the USofA?
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, that's the point that you were making, and I'm telling you that regardless of what the taxes are supposed to be used for, the politician reallocate tax revenues however they see fit. I'm thinking it's the reason that the US has the crumbling infrastructure problem that it does. Not that insufficient money was collected, no, the money that was collected was diverted from it's intended and promised purpose for other BS. Now, the government wants to take even more money for infrastructure. How much you wanna bet they divert that money too?

So in essence, the statement you made is pretty much false. The fuel taxes collected don't go, at least not as much as they should, to road infrastructure. That's MY point. Did you miss it? :)
Click to expand...

You need to cite your contentions, otherwise, you may be just be appealing to ignorance:

Revenue for the Highway Trust Fund is derived almost entirely from federal gas taxes and distributed to all 50 states.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
That is a book definition not one rooted in reality. I am done with your silly games and simple one sentence responses that say and offer nothing. I will be here when you grow up and realize how little you truly know
Click to expand...

I am referring to the official weights and measures and the Standard fixed by our federal Congress. Why not get a clue and a Cause.
 
danielpalos said:
It helps if you understand concepts involved.
Click to expand...

The concepts, I have no problem with. It's the way you are wording things that is difficult to understand. I'm guessing that English is not your first language, so you may be sticking words in there that don't make sense. But then you also seem to make statements that are against statism, while also making statements to support it. And the capitalization seems to be a little off.

But go ahead, I'll try and figure it out. Without a spell checker, my posts would be much more difficult to read.
 
Anthony60 said:
The concepts, I have no problem with. It's the way you are wording things that is difficult to understand. I'm guessing that English is not your first language, so you may be sticking words in there that don't make sense. But then you also seem to make statements that are against statism, while also making statements to support it. And the capitalization seems to be a little off.

But go ahead, I'll try and figure it out. Without a spell checker, my posts would be much more difficult to read.
Click to expand...

No. Your reading comprehension seems inadequate to the task if you have any problems with the words involved, and you are not asking for clarification. Simple incompetence in that manner should void any standing.
 
danielpalos said:
Yes, capitalism Only has stable markets to work with due to Socialism bailing it out via States and statism.
Click to expand...

Stable markets? Where have you been living the last 5 years. The markets are anything but stable. What happens when QE ends all together?
 
JRSaindo said:
Stable markets? Where have you been living the last 5 years. The markets are anything but stable. What happens when QE ends all together?
Click to expand...

It is all relative; how much more stable are regions without the benefit of socialism bailing out capitalism? How stable are the markets in Mogadishu?
 
danielpalos said:
It is all relative; how much more stable are regions without the benefit of socialism bailing out capitalism? How stable are the markets in Mogadishu?
Click to expand...

Stability has no relative comparison. It is either stable or isn't. Mogadishu has nothing to do with the S&P 500. When trillions in new currency get printed, it creates asset bubbles like we are seeing. Productive sectors are the losers, speculators are the winners. So again I ask, what happens when the Fed ends QE and interest rates rise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom