You are, but it's hard when there's no graph.
I feel like we're getting off topic. So, another law I might pass. Supporting the poor. Give them food and shelter.
General c
- Thread starter Professor_jplap
- Start date
You are, but it's hard when there's no graph.
I feel like we're getting off topic. So, another law I might pass. Supporting the poor. Give them food and shelter.
So you want the rights of the law abiding individual to be restricted, but it'll be okay because the state powers have to put their guns into their lockers when they punch the clock, too?
If you pass something like that as a law then it forces us through power of the government to give our resources away to others. We have a enough laws like that, already. There are plenty of systems that exist outside of government laws and government funding that help the poor, the hungry, and the downtrodden. And if you haven't thought about this before: some people want to homeless and enjoy it. I only give to a few charities that actually do good and don't just pay themselves with most of the money I donate.
I agree that we're getting off topic. I apologize to anyone following the thread who may have been annoyed by my posts.
One solution would be if the government were to give money to the poor in exchange for something, perhaps them going to school. Then, instead of it being solely transfer payments (money being given in exchange for nothing), it would be the government essentially purchasing human capital, which is a factor of production. You could also argue that then the money could be considered government purchases, which is a part of aggregate demand and GDP.
Even better, than the way that the human capital is being applied is that the people are getting jobs (or at least looking for work) once they are more educated. That would decrease the amount of poverty, if it worked, while simultaneously increasing aggregate supply.
Just a thought. Though, I do think we should try to refrain from outright refuting people's ideas. That is a cycle I don't think any of us would want to start.
For the government to give away money it would have to come from somewhere, and where it comes from is the taxpayer. Governments don't produce anything of value and don't generate their own revenue like a free market economy does. What you're suggesting already exists in our country and it's called a Pell Grant. However education does not equal success. Most of us here are from 13 to 30 and that makes us the most educated of all the generations before us. And 12 years of that education since childhood, knowing more about science, language, and technology than the others before us, can't even get us better than a minimum wage job right out of grade school.
As almost everyone these days can get into a post-high school institution then the number of people out there who have degrees makes that degree less valuable. A degree used to be like a Tapu Lele GX -now it's on the verge of becoming something like a potion or big malasada: seems nice to have but doesn't get you much and just takes up space and time. The trend of government grants and issuing student loans have made colleges see students more as a payday than a duty to educate, so tuition rates just rise and rise but the returns on college education aren't as grand as the money put into them.
There shouldn't be anything wrong with bringing someone to task when they've said something. This is how we went from living in caves to posting on an internet forum, but it's a step back when you avoid discourse or controversy.
I would have to agree with more of a strict law of obtaining guns, a side note of this could be the illegal sell of these weapons as well. I wouldn't want to ban guns all together, because I have fear when that happens the government will start taking advantage of that. That might be just my fear.
I want a holiday where all you do is screech. If you listen closely...you can hear me.
I do apologize, but it seems we will have to agree to disagree. I know I have a problem with only looking at what is good for the economy as a whole, not necessarily for individual people, since I've only taken macro economics, and that has greatly opened me up to looking at policies objectively. In terms of the general economy, more educated people is better, since it raises human capital, a factor of production, thereby increasing production. Basically, more workers=more stuff being made.
I acknowledge that this will also decrease wages, since there will be a larger labor supply. However, there will be more jobs overall, since companies will higher more to take advantage of cheaper labor. Also, the decrease in wages will be slightly offset by the increase in aggregate supply. When there's more stuff for sale, it becomes cheaper, so then the wages will be able to buy more products with each dollar. It's not enough to completely keep wages effectively the same, but does decrease it a bit.
I guess the bigger question is this: do we want more jobs, or better paying ones?
I get the feeling this was supposed to be a fun little game, but you quacks made it serious. Why must you ruin fun?
Yeah, I need to apologize for that.
I would pass a law that would give a 1 term limit to anyone in congress or the house, Ban lobbying for most situations, fix up some gun loopholes (while respecting the 2nd amendment at the same time), all around tax cuts for everyone, severely cut government spending on frivolous projects (but provide more money for public K-12 education), make college cheaper by not guaranteeing student loans, force the government onto a budget that works, and make it easier for people to compete with each other economically (The idealistic version of capitalism)
Obviousl;y, I included more than 1 example but you get the point, shrink and streamline the powers of government and provide more rights and freedoms to the people.
Obviousl;y, I included more than 1 example but you get the point, shrink and streamline the powers of government and provide more rights and freedoms to the people.
Eh... As a person that loves Japanese import sports cars... that's not going to happen (unless there becomes a Japanese tesla than maybe...)
Well, government is supposed to be by the people for the people but somewhere along the way, we forgot that. We should be marching down the streets demanding change for these things but most people think they have to accept it because of the money required to do anything, so in a way, government is supposed to be the solutions to our problem, since they are put into place by us. Without the people, there is no government.
So, the government is not supposed to solve all of our personal problems. It is, however, supposed to implement policies that better the country/it's economy as a whole. The things that most of us are suggesting are simply fiscal policies. Some of them benefit the economy more, some of them are more focused on individuals. There is no correct answer when it comes to politics. If there were, we wouldn't have parties.
One way I like to think of politics is that it's choosing when not to do what's best for the economy. If we wanted to truly just maximize our economy's success, we would have no minimum wage or trade restrictions. However, we still have those. That's because we value having a nicer life more than the economy doing well, which is perfectly fine. What I'm trying to say is that it's all really opinion, and we should try to keep in mind that we all have valid reasons for what we believe.
Here's an analogy: Nobody is going to disagree about what Greninja GX does, but people will definitely disagree about whether it's good or not.
One way I like to think of politics is that it's choosing when not to do what's best for the economy. If we wanted to truly just maximize our economy's success, we would have no minimum wage or trade restrictions. However, we still have those. That's because we value having a nicer life more than the economy doing well, which is perfectly fine. What I'm trying to say is that it's all really opinion, and we should try to keep in mind that we all have valid reasons for what we believe.
Here's an analogy: Nobody is going to disagree about what Greninja GX does, but people will definitely disagree about whether it's good or not.
We can go just go back to bows and arrows as a whole community.
Government is supposed to be an entity of limited power, not an arbiter for what we should all be doing in our lives. The republic was established on over a thousand years worth of political, social, and moral philosophies. The only people who really march down the streets these days, with a couple of exceptions, are pushing out ideas that are counter to the principals of the republic and whose utterances have caused the deaths of millions of people. Remember the temptation of power: when you're asking your government to come in and dictate how to do something do you think they'll be nice and go away when its over?
You can't buy anything "military level" at Walmart even in states with fairly lax gun laws like the one I live in. The only firearms being sold at Walmart that I've seen are pretty low cost (and I assume low quality) shotguns and entry-level hunting rifles
In fact, Walmart quit selling AR-15s (which isn't even a military level rifle; it's a semi-auto only civilian market rifle using a similar design to a military rifle) at least two years ago
Last edited: