• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

NFL may pull the plug on AZ Super Bowl if anti-gay bill passes

Started by bateman, February 25, 2014, 03:05:24 PM

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 05, 2014, 07:31:33 PM
Greetings, Ben Shockley!

Thank you for yet another enlightening evisceration of conservative retro-thought!

To P*B and FTF, I extend sympathies; this is like that dream where you are naked in front of the whole class and have no idea what to do.

Except that you're awake.  Sort of.

This comes as s bit of a disappointment. I gave you more credit than that. I really did.

BS and pudding are fond of accusing people of being racist, homophobes, etc. People whom they know nothing about. That's the tactic of a coward. I thought you were bright enough to understand that. 

Just as I wanted nothing to do with QK's  bizarre rants, I assumed you would extend the same courtesy regarding  BS and pudding.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: FightTheFuture on March 06, 2014, 12:57:10 AM
This comes as s bit of a disappointment. I gave you more credit than that. I really did.

BS and pudding are fond of accusing people of being racist, homophobes, etc. People whom they know nothing about. That's the tactic of a coward. I thought you were bright enough to understand that. 

Just as I wanted nothing to do with QK's  bizarre rants, I assumed you would extend the same courtesy regarding  BS and pudding.

Oh dear, off you go again. I'll try again (read slowly)..What other similarities do Mugabe and Obama have with each other; Other than both are Presidents and both black? It's what I asked, and as neither you or PB came up with an answer, the casual reader might be forgiven for thinking (in absence of any other similarities) those are the only ones. That you infer that is racist is up to you. That nothing else is on the table from you and PB could imply that's all you've got. Well? Is it?

NowhereInTime

Quote from: FightTheFuture on March 06, 2014, 12:57:10 AM
This comes as s bit of a disappointment. I gave you more credit than that. I really did.

BS and pudding are fond of accusing people of being racist, homophobes, etc. People whom they know nothing about. That's the tactic of a coward. I thought you were bright enough to understand that. 

Just as I wanted nothing to do with QK's  bizarre rants, I assumed you would extend the same courtesy regarding  BS and pudding.
I have made my position clear time and again that I believe there is an ingrained,  institutional classification of ethnic minorities and women by conservatives.  I don't even believe it's actual malice (though it is toward the President) but it is inherent. It is culture.  It is a fault of my own that I always have to pause and correct. 
The difference between libs & cons is that it matters to me to not be the straight WASP I am and treat others as if inferior whereas I don't think cons care about it and never factor it into their world view.
If I call out race or misogyny, (or in QK's case,  pedophilia) it is because I don't believe the con I'm debating seems aware of it as a factor.
As evidenced by many posters on this site, there are people uncomfortable with gay marriage; hence this very thread.  I believe they are wrong to fear a "gay take over" of America and will always point this out.

onan

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 05, 2014, 11:26:39 PM

That NY Times item you mentioned - here is a cut and paste:

"... In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr..."


Here is the cut and paste with the line you omitted:

In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he said in an interview.

And again you miss the point. So let me make it in even bigger letters:

Yes the ACLU did have some mental institutions closed due to poor patient care and erroneously believing that mentally ill patients were more safe with their civil rights than with medication. But they didn't de-institutionalize and cut funding.

I am not going to debate state versus federal. It is too easy to write a paragraph that sounds good, but much harder to research and write several paragraphs to address often misunderstood points.

There are lots of reasons patient numbers started to shrink prior to Reagan. The ACLU is one of them, a bigger one is Thorazine. That medication significantly reduced severe symptoms of several psychotic disorders and allowed for some patients to no longer need long term treatment. But for many mentally ill that medication wasn't enough.

http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/37146/A-History-of-Mental-Institutions-in-the-United-States/#vars!date=1910-01-03_08:54:59!

QuoteThe 1980s marked a period in which sweeping budget cuts led to a decline in services for the mentally ill. President Ronald Reagan helped institute a variety of cuts to social programs that affected a number of groups throughout the country. His administration supervised cuts throughout the decade that hampered support for the poor and mentally ill, among other groups. Prior to Reagan’s presidency, President Jimmy Carter helped establish the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980, which restructured federal community health center programs by increasing and strengthening links between local, state and federal governments, according to a history of mental health in the United States by the Minnesota Psychiatric Society. The act mandated the Community Mental Health Centers to increase a number of grant programs for the mentally ill, such as services for the severely mentally ill, the severely emotionally disturbed and increasing education and consulting needs. At the time he signed the act, Carter said the act was “the most important piece of federal mental health legislation” since President John F. Kennedy's Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Facilities Act in 1963. It was designed to reestablish many of the community programs from the Kennedy years and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society that had been cut or diminished during the Nixon presidency. However, Reagan repealed the act soon after taking office in 1981, because the federal support of Community Mental Health Centers ran counter to his goals to reduce spending and social programs, according to Alexandar R. Thomas, a sociology professor at Northeastern. In its stead, Reagan enacted the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Block Grant, which decreased funding by 30 percent in 1982, leading to major service reductions. Under this system, the federal government simply redistributed money to the states, but in smaller amounts, which increased the burden placed upon local and state governments, according to a 1994 journal article by Gerald Grob of Rutgers University. By 1985 the federal funds provided to the ADMS Block Grant covered only 11 percent of agency budgets, while states’ responsibility grew to 42 percent. --Compiled by Matt Birchenough;

Yorkshire pud

Oh C'mon Onan. You can't add omitted sentences that change context just like that without warning. PB will be really mad now. You then go on and add facts and stuff. Just because you're involved directly with the people who were/are affected doesn't give you right to know what you're talking about. Can't you just add a little bit of Marxism/ liberalism/Obama bashing and an nsky to balance things out?

Quote from: onan on March 06, 2014, 03:06:40 AM
Here is the cut and paste with the line you omitted...


That the NY Times quotes Brown is pointless - if it's even true, unless the point is to make it all Reagans fault.  Lib Media in action.  They didn't 'let people out', the ACLU's successful lawsuits required them to do it. 

It's like all these Dem's in an election year suddenly 'regretting their vote' for ObamaCare - even though they opposed ANY fix as recently as the Oct government 'shutdown' ("it's settled law" - except when Obama unilaterally changes it).  We're already hearing the ObamaCare mess really belongs to the Hoover Institution, and the flaws are due to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law - i.e. the Dem's are going to try to pin this disaster on someone else too.  30 years from now it will all be the Tea Party's fault.

And yes, it's true the ACLU didn't cut funding - they don't have elected seats in the legislature or the Congress.  But with their lawsuits they certainly did de-institutionalize.   

I'm willing to say this falls under the law of unintended consequences, but I'm not willing to agree it was all Reagan's fault.  Or even his idea.  And let's not forget the Congress was controlled by Tip O'Neill and the D's.  All legislation had to be passed by them.


But I get it.  Some want this to have started and ended with Reagan in the 1980's, none of the rest mattered, no one else was responsible in any way. 








onan

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 06, 2014, 04:46:08 AM

That the NY Times quotes Brown is pointless - if it's even true, unless the point is to make it all Reagans fault.  Lib Media in action.  They didn't 'let people out', the ACLU's successful lawsuits required them to do it. 

It's like all these Dem's in an election year suddenly 'regretting their vote' for ObamaCare - even though they opposed ANY fix as recently as the Oct government 'shutdown' ("it's settled law" - except when Obama unilaterally changes it).  We're already hearing the ObamaCare mess really belongs to the Hoover Institution, and the flaws are due to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law - i.e. the Dem's are going to try to pin this disaster on someone else too.  30 years from now it will all be the Tea Party's fault.

And yes, it's true the ACLU didn't cut funding - they don't have elected seats in the legislature or the Congress.  But with their lawsuits they certainly did de-institutionalize.   

I'm willing to say this falls under the law of unintended consequences, but I'm not willing to agree it was all Reagan's fault.  Or even his idea.  And let's not forget the Congress was controlled by Tip O'Neill and the D's.  All legislation had to be passed by them.


But I get it.  Some want this to have started and ended with Reagan in the 1980's, none of the rest mattered, no one else was responsible in any way.

You are right it isn't all Reagan's fault. It is yours as well. And anyone that thinks cutting funding for mental illness is a good idea.

Quote from: onan on March 06, 2014, 05:12:02 AM
You are right it isn't all Reagan's fault. It is yours as well. And anyone that thinks cutting funding for mental illness is a good idea.


Old lesson re-learned.  Ignore the Left-wing pressure groups and don't give in to them.  Their policies nearly always lead to failure and they refuse to ever take any responsibility or learn from it.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 06, 2014, 07:05:09 AM

Old lesson re-learned.  Ignore the Left-wing pressure groups and don't give in to them.  Their policies nearly always lead to failure and they refuse to ever take any responsibility or learn from it.
Failures like Tennesee Valley Authority. Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid.  National School Lunch Program. I happily take responsibility for these and many other left wing ideas to save and strengthen America.  What's your plan besides "lower taxes, smaller government", "leave me alone", and "burn the inner cities"?

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 05, 2014, 12:51:16 PM

Actually, I use our inner cities to denigrate the people whose policies created the current conditions there - the Lib's, and the people who continue that failed policy because they benefit from the votes they get for doing so - the 'Progressives'.
"Current conditions there..."?  Where, in San Francisco? New York? Boston? Miami? Charlotte?
I'll give you Detroit and Newark, but I'm taking Cincinnati and Columbus and Minneapolis and St Paul.
You get partial credit for Oakland, although even you have to admit to vast improvements there in the last ten years.
Chicago's a mixed bag: incredibly vibrant and successful but a high drug murder rate.  Hopefully the capture of El Chapo will stem a lot of that.
Otherwise, what the hell are you talking about?  Pittsburgh? No.  Philly? No.  Nashville? No.  St Louis? Only when Noory's in town.

wr250

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 06, 2014, 05:37:43 PM
"Current conditions there..."?  Where, Pittsburgh? No. 

pittsburg, yes. falkie lives there


Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 06, 2014, 05:37:43 PM
"Current conditions there..."?  Where, in San Francisco? New York? Boston? Miami? Charlotte?
I'll give you Detroit and Newark, but I'm taking Cincinnati and Columbus and Minneapolis and St Paul.
You get partial credit for Oakland, although even you have to admit to vast improvements there in the last ten years.
Chicago's a mixed bag: incredibly vibrant and successful but a high drug murder rate.  Hopefully the capture of El Chapo will stem a lot of that.
Otherwise, what the hell are you talking about?  Pittsburgh? No.  Philly? No.  Nashville? No.  St Louis? Only when Noory's in town.


If you think the ghettos in those places are coming around, I encourage you to invest there

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 06, 2014, 05:32:22 PM
... Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid...


The first two are underfunded Ponzi schemes.  Unsustainable at some point unless action is taken according to the Trustee Report.  Which means tax increases, benefit decreases, means testing.  None of us will get back close to what we've paid in

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/


Medicaid?   Between state employee pensions and Medicaid, our states are going to go broke.  Several are just about there.

You really do think we can go on borrowing and spending and making promises in exchange for votes the way we have been, don't you.

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 06, 2014, 05:32:22 PM
...  What's your plan...


I suggest we can't support the elderly AND the mentally ill AND the people who refused a free education and now have no job skills AND the legal and illegal immigrants AND the people who game the system AND the lazy AND the drunks and addicts AND all the bureaucrats AND take over the health care system.

Yes, we are a wealthy nation.  Yes, we still have the world's reserve currency and we can continue to borrow and print to pay for all of it - for awhile.  But it is not endless.  We'll never be able to pay for everything the Libs can dream up, all the people they need to vote for them. 

We're going to have to choose.  I would choose reorganizing and reducing government and laying off unneeded bureaucrats, cutting off the people who could and should be working, and those who come from elsewhere and are getting handouts.  Then we'd have money to focus on the Americans that really need it.



By the way, what's your plan?


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 07, 2014, 02:35:49 AM

cutting off the people who could and should be working, and those who come from elsewhere and are getting handouts.  Then we'd have money to focus on the Americans that really need it.



By the way, what's your plan?

If the figures in the US are similar to the UK (and I have no means to know one way or the other) the figures that show benefit (welfare) fraud is less than 3% of that of tax evasion..Guess who the government make a big deal about to target? You know which the highest profile tax avoider is in the last twelve months, the one that HMRC (Tax collectors) made sure was well briefed to the press? A small business in the West Midlands. It was so controversial and he'd defrauded the country of so much revenue it made the news once. Meanwhile in the revolving doors game, the ex head of HMRC is now a paid consultant of KPMG and HSBC (the Mexican drug money launderers in the USA) , where he advises both of the tax advantage tactics they can implement, that they all helped him devise when he worked at HMRC!

You want tax payers money back? I suggest you go after the ones who have orchestrated and grown fat on perpetuating the myth that poor people are the problem, and that if only they girded their loins, marched out of their hovel, and opened a business with magic beans and fairy dust like every other entrepreneur the world would smile again, and you wouldn't use them as a punch bag.

I'm guessing there is a point in there somewhere.


People who are defrauding the system, people legally getting handouts who could be and ought to be supporting themselves, and people cheating on their taxes are 3 separate issues.

They don't really have anything to do with each other than all 3 should be minimized with the goal of eliminating them.  I don't even understand why that is controversial.

wr250

[sarcasm]i think a 100% income tax should be levied worldwide on everyone and everything. then the money doled out equally to everyone. preferably by UN bureaucrats (cause we know they would never commit any kind of  scandalous behavior)  so if you a bill gates, or a subsistence farmer  in china , you get paid the same. that eliminates welfare, fraud, and everyone gets free insurance, no deductible,no co pay. the govt will take care of you from conception to death (provided of course your the 1st born, otherwise the govt kills you).
[/sarcasm]

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 07, 2014, 01:57:50 AM

If you think the ghettos in those places are coming around, I encourage you to invest there
"Ghettos".  More code.  Do you mean like Williamsburg Brooklyn?  The Flat Iron?  Do you mean Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati?  Do you mean Harlem?  Ask people in those areas that, just ten years ago were run down what their opinion is now.  You will hear them spit out the word "gentrification" like a curse because there is widespread redevelopment and investment in the "ghettos". 
I encourage to actually drive through some of these "inner cities" and "ghettos".  Its not 1977 anymore. The Bronx is no longer Burning.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 07, 2014, 02:35:49 AM

I suggest we can't support the elderly AND the mentally ill AND the people who refused a free education and now have no job skills AND the legal and illegal immigrants AND the people who game the system AND the lazy AND the drunks and addicts AND all the bureaucrats AND take over the health care system.

Yes, we are a wealthy nation.  Yes, we still have the world's reserve currency and we can continue to borrow and print to pay for all of it - for awhile.  But it is not endless.  We'll never be able to pay for everything the Libs can dream up, all the people they need to vote for them. 

We're going to have to choose.  I would choose reorganizing and reducing government and laying off unneeded bureaucrats, cutting off the people who could and should be working, and those who come from elsewhere and are getting handouts.  Then we'd have money to focus on the Americans that really need it.



By the way, what's your plan?
My plan would be to enhance Social Security so that people would retire no later than 65 (to open up jobs tht people still hold onto) and could do so with peace of mind that their benefits would stay in line with commodities pricing.

My plan would be to offer Medicare to all with a heavy early prevention promotion.  Not only would prevention screenings be encouraged through PSA's, they would be taught in our public schools as the best way to detect and defeat disease, something I don't think we do enough of now. Do you really want to cut the cost of health care?  Then lets eliminate late stage disease therapies through early detection.  You could greatly reduce hospital stays, treatments, and therapy costs. 

I would strongly push for minimum wage to be tied to commodity pricing, as that's where the rich are separating people from the American dream.  It would discourage predatory pricing due to the backside cost of supplementing pay.

How to pay for it?  The estate tax has to be re-established.  What an insult to the American work ethic that we created (thanks to Regan, Baker, Kemp, et al) oligarchy of inherited wealth. How does this sit with the idea of having to work (and work hard) to build a life if you can just be born into it?

We have to cut military spending.  Real cuts, not Washington cuts in increases, which is what Obama and Hagel are proposing.  Our "readiness" scenario involves us having to match the defense spending of the next fifteen militaries in the world.  Preposterous.  The people of this nation spend a fortune and still get 9/11.  Why do we need our Navy protect the world's trade lanes?  I heard some con the other night on C-Span mention this and the crowd cheered.  Idiotic.  More goods come into this country than leave, so where's China's Navy?  Vietnam's? Pakistan's? Let Wal-Mart pay for deployments, as they are the nation's largest importer. You get the point. Where's the money to pay for Iraq?  Afghanistan? Enough of being the world's policeman.

Say goodbye to the NSA.  The CIA would have all intel responsibility with a strong mandate to spy internationally, and the FBI would direct domestic operations.  Say goodbye to Sanctimony Joe's "Homeland" Security.  TSA? Only if the airlines paid for it.
How else? I would lower   corporate tax rates to 15%, but it would be FLAT.  No more skullduggery to hide wealth.  I would also pursue offshoring of American wealth.  If any business had been established in this country for more than 10 years, then discincorporated here only to reincorporate in, say, the Caymans? They would be taxed at the domestic rate.

Just the tip of the iceberg.  I would love to go on about ending our crippling addiction to killer drugs that drive up incarceration rates and drive down opportunity or to a true work from welfare opportunity that would involve the aforementioned minimum wage, job re-training, and daycare, but I'm sure your eyes are bleeding by now.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: wr250 on March 07, 2014, 07:59:10 AM
[sarcasm]i think a 100% income tax should be levied worldwide on everyone and everything. then the money doled out equally to everyone. preferably by UN bureaucrats (cause we know they would never commit any kind of  scandalous behavior)  so if you a bill gates, or a subsistence farmer  in china , you get paid the same. that eliminates welfare, fraud, and everyone gets free insurance, no deductible,no co pay. the govt will take care of you from conception to death (provided of course your the 1st born, otherwise the govt kills you).
[/sarcasm]
I get the sarcasm but I would like to state that, as a liberal and maybe even a socialist (depending on who's definiton we're using) that nonetheless I would support this system that rewards the creators of true goods and services with wealth and a path to a more comfortable life.  That said, did anyone notice that Gates and Buffet are leaving very little of their piles to their inheritors/descendants?  Both have said that they want their progeny to go forth and acheive on their own.  Admirable.
Don't know the Chinese farmer's opinion, though.

wr250

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 07, 2014, 10:55:25 AM
My plan would be to enhance Social Security so that people would retire no later than 65 (to open up jobs tht people still hold onto) and could do so with peace of mind that their benefits would stay in line with commodities pricing.

My plan would be to offer Medicare to all with a heavy early prevention promotion.  Not only would prevention screenings be encouraged through PSA's, they would be taught in our public schools as the best way to detect and defeat disease, something I don't think we do enough of now. Do you really want to cut the cost of health care?  Then lets eliminate late stage disease therapies through early detection.  You could greatly reduce hospital stays, treatments, and therapy costs. 

I would strongly push for minimum wage to be tied to commodity pricing, as that's where the rich are separating people from the American dream.  It would discourage predatory pricing due to the backside cost of supplementing pay.

How to pay for it?  The estate tax has to be re-established.  What an insult to the American work ethic that we created (thanks to Regan, Baker, Kemp, et al) oligarchy of inherited wealth. How does this sit with the idea of having to work (and work hard) to build a life if you can just be born into it?

We have to cut military spending.  Real cuts, not Washington cuts in increases, which is what Obama and Hagel are proposing.  Our "readiness" scenario involves us having to match the defense spending of the next fifteen militaries in the world.  Preposterous.  The people of this nation spend a fortune and still get 9/11.  Why do we need our Navy protect the world's trade lanes?  I heard some con the other night on C-Span mention this and the crowd cheered.  Idiotic.  More goods come into this country than leave, so where's China's Navy?  Vietnam's? Pakistan's? Let Wal-Mart pay for deployments, as they are the nation's largest importer. You get the point. Where's the money to pay for Iraq?  Afghanistan? Enough of being the world's policeman.

Say goodbye to the NSA.  The CIA would have all intel responsibility with a strong mandate to spy internationally, and the FBI would direct domestic operations.  Say goodbye to Sanctimony Joe's "Homeland" Security.  TSA? Only if the airlines paid for it.
How else? I would lower   corporate tax rates to 15%, but it would be FLAT.  No more skullduggery to hide wealth.  I would also pursue offshoring of American wealth.  If any business had been established in this country for more than 10 years, then discincorporated here only to reincorporate in, say, the Caymans? They would be taxed at the domestic rate.

Just the tip of the iceberg.  I would love to go on about ending our crippling addiction to killer drugs that drive up incarceration rates and drive down opportunity or to a true work from welfare opportunity that would involve the aforementioned minimum wage, job re-training, and daycare, but I'm sure your eyes are bleeding by now.

i can agree with some of this stuff. mainly i disagree with the wages and estate taxes. as far as wages go i would think that that would encourage businesses like walmart to cut pricing to save on employee costs, at the same time undercutting other businesses that dont have the resources walmart has. a local business with 4 employees cant afford to compete with walmart slashing prices. where walmart buys in bulk from manufacturers, often dictating pricing to the manufacturer, small businesses must buy from a distributor, and cant negotiate pricing. this results in a monopoly situation.

estate taxes, what would stop a person from distributing the wealth before they die, perhaps even over a period of (perhaps tens of) years before they die. they would then own very little, except perhaps some cash in a bank account they live off of. this is what i would do knowing i am going to retire, i would give everything to my kids, and let them pay the income taxes on it (any gift over 10,000 worth is taxable according to the IRS), then be rid of estate taxes upon my death.i would even sign my house over to one of my children (with a written agreement mind you for who pays  property taxes and such).

i have a few minor reservations about the medicare as you already know (mainly with people who refuse to show interest in their own health), but in general agree

/*edit*/
i would legalize pot on a national level. i would also  decriminalize hard drugs , to a point (amount in possession probably). i would do this to remove the money from the gangs that are now shooting each other and everyone else up (with lead bullets), for without the cash, they would cease to exist in any meaningful fashion. also would generate tax revenue, but the downside is most hard drug users show little interest in their own health. its a catch 22 in my opinions that i havent resolved.
aldous please forgive me , you at least show a interest in your health by exercising and eating healthy.
most of the druggies i personally know would rather laze around all day eating mcdonalds, and the only exercise they get is running from the cops.

wr250

aaaand all that said there is at least 1 thing we all agree on here.

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 07, 2014, 10:25:09 AM
"Ghettos".  More code.  Do you mean like Williamsburg Brooklyn?  The Flat Iron?  Do you mean Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati?  Do you mean Harlem?  Ask people in those areas that, just ten years ago were run down what their opinion is now.  You will hear them spit out the word "gentrification" like a curse because there is widespread redevelopment and investment in the "ghettos". 
I encourage to actually drive through some of these "inner cities" and "ghettos".  Its not 1977 anymore. The Bronx is no longer Burning.


Maybe you can tell me what politically correct term I should be using for the run down, crime ridden areas in our cities where businesses won't go,  where schools aren't good enough, where opportunity is lacking, and where too many are living on handouts.  'Ghetto' is a little out of fashion, and 'inner city' seems to set you off, both being 'code words' for those neighborhoods.

Oakland and San Francisco are local news for me, so I'm pretty sure most of these places are not the rosy picture you'd like us to believe.  Things are worse and getting worse, not better.


Anyway, I don't really like studies and statistics because experience has taught me that stats presented by the government, the media, and by people doing studies should be viewed with a high level of skepticism.   Too many of them don't even pass the smell test.  It's too easy to include this and exclude that and shape the desired result.

That said, for what it's worth, here is an article on a Brookings Institute study which found that the places with the widest income disparity between the rich and poor are in Democrat strongholds.  In other words the same people who've wrecked our inner cities also govern areas with the highest incomes.  Gee, who would have guessed that?  Maybe the Dem's should start their redistributionist schemes at home and the rest of us can see how that goes and whether we want to follow suit later.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/study-finds-highest-income-inequality-cities-voted-obama?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_campaign=income-inequality

How about "da 'hood"?

Actually, I am joking, but probably just sound like a racist asswipe.  Or possibly a bleeding-heart liberal/socialist.  It all depends on who's reading, I suppose.  I don't even know anymore.  It's so easy to step on someone's toes these days.  I got called out for daring to suggest on another thread that Whitley Streiber's abduction story strains credulity.

Onan has been slapped down for failing to recognize that Simple George is a "masterful interviewer" (no, really!).  Of course, the "slapdown" was an epic failure, but still....

NowhereInTime

Quote from: wr250 on March 07, 2014, 11:23:55 AM
i can agree with some of this stuff. mainly i disagree with the wages and estate taxes. as far as wages go i would think that that would encourage businesses like walmart to cut pricing to save on employee costs, at the same time undercutting other businesses that dont have the resources walmart has. a local business with 4 employees cant afford to compete with walmart slashing prices. where walmart buys in bulk from manufacturers, often dictating pricing to the manufacturer, small businesses must buy from a distributor, and cant negotiate pricing. this results in a monopoly situation.

estate taxes, what would stop a person from distributing the wealth before they die, perhaps even over a period of (perhaps tens of) years before they die. they would then own very little, except perhaps some cash in a bank account they live off of. this is what i would do knowing i am going to retire, i would give everything to my kids, and let them pay the income taxes on it (any gift over 10,000 worth is taxable according to the IRS), then be rid of estate taxes upon my death.i would even sign my house over to one of my children (with a written agreement mind you for who pays  property taxes and such).

i have a few minor reservations about the medicare as you already know (mainly with people who refuse to show interest in their own health), but in general agree

/*edit*/
i would legalize pot on a national level. i would also  decriminalize hard drugs , to a point (amount in possession probably). i would do this to remove the money from the gangs that are now shooting each other and everyone else up (with lead bullets), for without the cash, they would cease to exist in any meaningful fashion. also would generate tax revenue, but the downside is most hard drug users show little interest in their own health. its a catch 22 in my opinions that i havent resolved.
aldous please forgive me , you at least show a interest in your health by exercising and eating healthy.
most of the druggies i personally know would rather laze around all day eating mcdonalds, and the only exercise they get is running from the cops.
Either estate tax or taxable amounts over $10,000 gift would drive up revenue.  In any event, it would be an upswing in revenues that would offset the enhancement needs. I agree about the abuse of the healthcare system which is why prevention would be a strong part of the program.  Early detection and prevention would be the bulwarks of driving down costs while creating better, healthier quality of life for people.
I agree, too, about national legalization of Mary Jane.  Tax benefits aside, this really isn't great for people's health but it doesn't breed the level of crime that heroin, cocaine or crystal meth do. The hard stuff, though, is what's crippling this country.  Focused interdiction and true education programs to school kids (including some Scared Straight type of exposure to the effects of these drugs) would drive down supply to the point of prohibitive cost.  We need to give people alternatives to hiding in addiction, which is why I believe in strong job retraining programs and subsidized daycare so Moms and Dads can work without worrying about their children.  Esteem crushes addiction every time.  (Onan may disagree, but he's a professional; I'm an amateur.)
Speaking of revenue enhancements, I also believe we need to bring fairness back to retail.  Why is it fair  to require Target, Macy's, Home Depot, et al to collect taxes in the various states and pay while Amazon is just now starting to roll out?  And why is it my state's tax makes my price higher than the state next door?  And why is it that most online retailers still do not have to collect these taxes, thereby getting a price advantage over brick and mortar?
I propose a 5% national online sales tax.  All money goes to the federal government; the states get theirs in the brick and mortar, the feds get theirs online, and the playing field is leveled between b&m's and online services.

wr250

QuoteWhy is it fair  to require Target, Macy's, Home Depot, et al to collect taxes in the various states and pay while Amazon is just now starting to roll out?  And why is it my state's tax makes my price higher than the state next door?  And why is it that most online retailers still do not have to collect these taxes, thereby getting a price advantage over brick and mortar?
I propose a 5% national online sales tax.  All money goes to the federal government; the states get theirs in the brick and mortar, the feds get theirs online, and the playing field is leveled between b&m's and online services.

there is this pesky line in Article I,Section 9 of the US constitution:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

not that being unconstitutional has stopped any congress or state from passing laws anyways. usually boils down to someone bringing it to federal court to get the law tossed out. until then the govt collects or enforces the unconstitutional law

Damnit, Nowhere, stop injecting logic into the discussion!

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 07, 2014, 11:50:56 AM

Maybe you can tell me what politically correct term I should be using for the run down, crime ridden areas in our cities where businesses won't go,  where schools aren't good enough, where opportunity is lacking, and where too many are living on handouts.  'Ghetto' is a little out of fashion, and 'inner city' seems to set you off, both being 'code words' for those neighborhoods.

Oakland and San Francisco are local news for me, so I'm pretty sure most of these places are not the rosy picture you'd like us to believe.  Things are worse and getting worse, not better.


Anyway, I don't really like studies and statistics because experience has taught me that stats presented by the government, the media, and by people doing studies should be viewed with a high level of skepticism.   Too many of them don't even pass the smell test.  It's too easy to include this and exclude that and shape the desired result.

That said, for what it's worth, here is an article on a Brookings Institute study which found that the places with the widest income disparity between the rich and poor are in Democrat strongholds.  In other words the same people who've wrecked our inner cities also govern areas with the highest incomes.  Gee, who would have guessed that?  Maybe the Dem's should start their redistributionist schemes at home and the rest of us can see how that goes and whether we want to follow suit later.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/study-finds-highest-income-inequality-cities-voted-obama?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_campaign=income-inequality
Let's say for instance that I accept this conservative parsing of the Brookings study (which, let's be honest, was a way of saying the people in these cities were too ignorant to know that Dems are just "using them" for votes) then I would still say, "Of course!"  The type of wealth generated by the people in these cities is enormous.  There would be an income variance, but, to your credit, it is too high. That's why Mayor Bill DeBlasio is looking at ways in the heart of capitalism, NYC, to address this issue.
As to what to call them, call them "cities" or "urban".  Inner cities, first and foremost, is geographically incorrect in most cases.  It is a direct connotation of the mostly poor, mostly ethnic people that live there and it is derisive.  Ghetto is even worse.  I don't think anyone's used that with objectivity since Elvis.
The other side of that coin, though, is the continued ignoring of the plight of the poor whites in the hinterlands.  We deny that white people can be poor because it isn't their "culture" yet, watch an episode of "Cops".  Whisky Tango Heaven.  Ever been to Kentucky? West Virginia? Tennessee?  Mississippi? Alabama? The poverty problem for whites is desperate and widespread, yet due to centuries of race hatred all a Republican has to do is decry "welfare queens" (more code) and they win elections with the votes of white people on welfare. Stunning.

wr250

Quote from: West of the Rockies on March 07, 2014, 12:19:17 PM
Damnit, Nowhere, stop injecting logic into the discussion!

well logic has no place in politics, its all about the votes, look at the data !

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod