Theme: Subsidy

  • Untitled

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-15 21:43:00 UTC

  • Furthermore, in general, if we were to separate ethnically european americans fr

    Furthermore, in general, if we were to separate ethnically european americans from not, the country would turn a healthy profit and be able to afford dividends (redistributions) and carry no debt. Research is plentiful if you have the knowledge to read it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-12 14:19:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951820973011062784

    Reply addressees: @RyanRoach5 @CurtisHouck @RichLowry @joanwalsh

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951820612921708544


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @RyanRoach5 @CurtisHouck @RichLowry @joanwalsh Again. It’s over your head. Deal with it. You’re an Island 120 wannabe, and as far as I can tell you lack the basic understanding to hold such discussions. Immigrants cost – minimum of 15k, and as much as 15k per year. Meanwhile ‘ethnic europeans’ are a profitable resource.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/951820612921708544


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @RyanRoach5 @CurtisHouck @RichLowry @joanwalsh Again. It’s over your head. Deal with it. You’re an Island 120 wannabe, and as far as I can tell you lack the basic understanding to hold such discussions. Immigrants cost – minimum of 15k, and as much as 15k per year. Meanwhile ‘ethnic europeans’ are a profitable resource.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/951820612921708544

  • Again. It’s over your head. Deal with it. You’re an Island 120 wannabe, and as f

    Again. It’s over your head. Deal with it. You’re an Island 120 wannabe, and as far as I can tell you lack the basic understanding to hold such discussions. Immigrants cost – minimum of 15k, and as much as 15k per year. Meanwhile ‘ethnic europeans’ are a profitable resource.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-12 14:18:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951820612921708544

    Reply addressees: @RyanRoach5 @CurtisHouck @RichLowry @joanwalsh

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951811443996868608


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951811443996868608

  • Bringing money to ‘bad people’ merely feeds bad behavior. Basic economic law: an

    Bringing money to ‘bad people’ merely feeds bad behavior. Basic economic law: anything you subsidize will increase. Bad people bringing money to worse people produces malincentives at source and destination. Bringing bad people to good people is costly.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-12 13:21:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951806339289878528

    Reply addressees: @RyanRoach5 @CurtisHouck @RichLowry @joanwalsh

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951718518776410112


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951718518776410112

  • My answer to Why do politicians and the very rich benefit the most in a socialis

    My answer to Why do politicians and the very rich benefit the most in a socialist society? https://www.quora.com/Why-do-politicians-and-the-very-rich-benefit-the-most-in-a-socialist-society/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=94e389da


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-29 01:53:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946559661863469056

  • “Who is secure in all his basic needs? Who has work, spiritual care, medical car

    “Who is secure in all his basic needs? Who has work, spiritual care, medical care, housing, food, occasional entertainment, free clothing, free burial, free everything? The answer might be nuns and monks, but the standard reply is ‘prisoners’” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
  • “Who is secure in all his basic needs? Who has work, spiritual care, medical car

    “Who is secure in all his basic needs? Who has work, spiritual care, medical care, housing, food, occasional entertainment, free clothing, free burial, free everything? The answer might be nuns and monks, but the standard reply is ‘prisoners’” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
  • “Who is secure in all his basic needs? Who has work, spiritual care, medical car

    “Who is secure in all his basic needs? Who has work, spiritual care, medical care, housing, food, occasional entertainment, free clothing, free burial, free everything? The answer might be nuns and monks, but the standard reply is ‘prisoners’”

    Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-27 06:14:00 UTC

  • Telling people that the redistributive spigot will be brought to an end, and the

    Telling people that the redistributive spigot will be brought to an end, and then creating opinion through repetition, by intent, is not going to make people confident. The question is, why do we want their confidence. Who negotiates better? USA, China, Russia?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-26 03:06:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/945490964013043713

    Reply addressees: @conradhackett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942642961833226240


    IN REPLY TO:

    @conradhackett

    No confidence in Trump
    🇲🇽Mexico 93%
    🇪🇸Spain 92%
    🇸🇪Sweden 90%
    🇩🇪Germany 87%
    🇹🇷Turkey 82%
    🇬🇧UK 75%
    🇨🇦Canada 75%
    🇦🇺Australia 70% https://t.co/9O2jGJENoq

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942642961833226240

  • The Alternative To Increased Taxes And Fixed Redistributoin

    Assuming: Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400), Your first car costs 30,000(550), and Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and Your home 350,000(1,400/M), That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees. that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest. If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes. That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year. Yeah. that’s not cheap. So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options: 1) An increase of 1030 in taxes. 2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%) 3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years. Ok, so, of these optoins, 1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates. 2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small. 3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.) So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living? Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008? Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity. We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject. Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant. This is trivially easy to accomplish – really. And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.