|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.
|
On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.
What measures that don't involve a physical presence? They obviously don't care about any court orders.
|
On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.
I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that?
Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state...
This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though.
|
On April 30 2014 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them. I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that? Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state... This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though.
That's ultimately the issue. It's a volatile situation that won't necessarily end without shots being fired if the government takes any physical action. The best course of action is likely to just let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot.
|
On April 30 2014 03:08 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them. I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that? Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state... This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though. That's ultimately the issue. It's a volatile situation that won't necessarily end without shots being fired if the government takes any physical action. The best course of action is likely to just let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot.
Residents who fear for their lives probably don't want to just "let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot."
Judging by what has already been said that 'solution' doesn't preclude gun fights either?
There are plenty 'volatile' situations police and other forces deal with everyday. People have been 'justifiably' shot for much less than what these militia's are doing.
So basically because they are well armed and ready to shoot we should let them do what they want? Because they would respond with violence if the government intervened?
They have essentially invaded/occupied a congressional district. Do they have to expand to the whole county, state, or region before it would be appropriate to take 'physical action'?
Put another way if they show signs of not falling apart but expanding how long would you wait to take action?
|
|
|
On April 30 2014 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them. I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that? Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state... This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though.
Yeah the guy is like a role model for em with a background like that.
And to be honest when militia start shooting live rounds at police trying to remove them I would say shooting back is very much justified.
|
On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw. You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion. But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts? Yeah that could happen. I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact. So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll. But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with... Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'. Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it. ex. But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down. OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters. This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not? Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group". So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return? ikr? Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest: ~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list. Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.Source Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats. SourceSeveral of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list. I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario.
From the CNBC article:
United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.
Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?
|
On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw. You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion. But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts? Yeah that could happen. I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact. So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll. But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with... Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'. Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it. ex. But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down. OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters. This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not? Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group". So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return? ikr? Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest: ~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list. Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.Source Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats. SourceSeveral of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list. I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario. From the CNBC article: Show nested quote +United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background. Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?
A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?
|
On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw. You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion. But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts? Yeah that could happen. I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact. So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll. But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with... Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'. Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it. ex. But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down. OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters. This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not? Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group". So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return? ikr? Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest: ~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list. Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.Source Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats. SourceSeveral of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list. I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario. From the CNBC article: United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background. Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that? A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?
Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?
|
On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw. You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion. But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts? Yeah that could happen. I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact. So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll. But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with... Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'. Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it. ex. But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down. OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters. This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not? Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group". So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return? ikr? Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest: ~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list. Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.Source Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats. SourceSeveral of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list. I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario. From the CNBC article: United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background. Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that? A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue? Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?
Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues?
If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly?
And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those.
If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed the Obama administration an important victory in its effort to reduce power plant pollution in 27 Midwestern and Appalachian states that blows downwind and leads to unhealthy air.
The decision caps a decades-long effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to find a legally acceptable way to ensure that states are good neighbors and don't contribute to pollution problems in downwind states, where environmental officials can do nothing to control it. The rule upheld Tuesday was EPA's third attempt to solve the problem.
In a 6-2 decision, the court upheld a rule adopted by the EPA in 2011 to limit emissions that create smog and soot that drifts into the air above states along the East Coast.
The ruling means that the polluting states will be forced to reduce smokestack pollution that sullies the air in downwind states. Industry and upwind states had fought the effort and paint it as another attempt by the administration to shut down coal-fired power plants.
Source
|
On April 30 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw. You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion. But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts? Yeah that could happen. I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact. So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll. But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with... Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'. Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it. ex. But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down. OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters. This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not? Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group". So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return? ikr? Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest: ~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list. Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.Source Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats. SourceSeveral of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list. I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario. From the CNBC article: United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background. Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that? A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue? Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue? Show nested quote +Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues? If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly? And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those. If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made.
Well if you want real progress you'll have to get rid of the partisans who don't want to listen to the other side. Maybe start with yourself?
|
On April 30 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion.
[quote]
Yeah that could happen. I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact. So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll. But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with... Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'. Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it. ex. But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down. OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters. This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not? Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group". So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return? ikr? Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest: ~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list. Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.Source Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats. SourceSeveral of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list. I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario. From the CNBC article: United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background. Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that? A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue? Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue? Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues? If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly? And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those. If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made. Well if you want real progress you'll have to get rid of the partisans who don't want to listen to the other side. Maybe start with yourself?
Ah well why would you go and say something like that, I thought we were making progress? Did you read my comment on Harry Reid?
stupid ass Harry Reid gave these nutjobs cover for insanity like that with his dumbass 'domestic terrorist' comment.
+ Show Spoiler +I could of picked better terms than 'stupid ass' 'dumbass' and 'nutjobs' and I would add 'dangerous' to Harry's 'terrorist' comment in retrospect along with some other nuance.
That sound like a partisan to you? Or what I said about your last comment? If every 'partisan' thought and talked like that he probably wouldn't be leader would he?
I don't appear to be the one that isn't truly listening?
|
On April 30 2014 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact.
So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll.
But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with...
Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'. Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it. ex. But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down. OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters. This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not? Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group". So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return? ikr? Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest: ~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list. Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.Source Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats. SourceSeveral of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list. I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario. From the CNBC article: United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background. Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that? A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue? Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue? Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues? If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly? And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those. If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made. Well if you want real progress you'll have to get rid of the partisans who don't want to listen to the other side. Maybe start with yourself? Ah well why would you go and say something like that, I thought we were making progress?
Are you trolling or really that stupid?
Your big idea was to stop Republicans. You reworded my complaint about Democrats to be more friendly to your side. Then called for coming together as if you just set the table in a way that at all resembled fair. Piss off and stop PMing me.
|
On April 30 2014 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 03:08 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them. I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that? Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state... This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though. That's ultimately the issue. It's a volatile situation that won't necessarily end without shots being fired if the government takes any physical action. The best course of action is likely to just let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot. Residents who fear for their lives probably don't want to just "let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot." Judging by what has already been said that 'solution' doesn't preclude gun fights either? There are plenty 'volatile' situations police and other forces deal with everyday. People have been 'justifiably' shot for much less than what these militia's are doing. So basically because they are well armed and ready to shoot we should let them do what they want? Because they would respond with violence if the government intervened? They have essentially invaded/occupied a congressional district. Do they have to expand to the whole county, state, or region before it would be appropriate to take 'physical action'? Put another way if they show signs of not falling apart but expanding how long would you wait to take action?
It's because this has become a highly politicized engagement. Ideally, this would be a repeat of Shay's Rebellion, but now we have a large part of the electorate that would use this wrongfully as "an abuse of power."
|
On April 30 2014 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it.
ex. [quote]
OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters.
This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not?
Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group". So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return? ikr? Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest: ~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list. Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.Source Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats. SourceSeveral of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list. I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario. From the CNBC article: United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background. Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that? A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue? Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue? Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues? If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly? And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those. If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made. Well if you want real progress you'll have to get rid of the partisans who don't want to listen to the other side. Maybe start with yourself? Ah well why would you go and say something like that, I thought we were making progress? Are you trolling or really that stupid? Your big idea was to stop Republicans. You reworded my complaint about Democrats to be more friendly to your side. Then called for coming together as if you just set the table in a way that at all resembled fair. Piss off and stop PMing me.
If you wanted to re-frame the Republican one similarly I would of probably signed on to that too (I think I alluded to this). I admit the tone was a response to your tone from several posts ago and not the immediate one which was responded to directly (which is only an explanation not an excuse) so I apologize.
|
This discussion is seriously off. Do you know how many people are born in middle class famillies and how many in rich families ? Do you seriously think you can compare ? Volatility is statistical noise... Do you know how we measure social mobility ? We measure the chance that someone born in middle class or lower has to become part of the 1% in comparaison to the chance that someone born in a 1% familly has to achieve the same result.
If the goal is to evaluate meritocracy, then that s the type of measure that is relevant and not "volatility".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that was originally bought up because of this danglars post:
He draws his conclusions in that section from the observations he quotes. Quoted elsewhere in the thread is the amazing interchange of the rich in today's observed society. You write about the top 1%, which has amazing turnover. Time and time again the income changes in the top 1%, but never the identities. IRS records show that the top 400 taxpayers has a turnover of about 98% in a decade. Those earning in excess of a million are more likely than not to have earned that for only 1 year of a decade. The rich aren't getting richer and preserving their class, it belongs to the newly rich and the previous 1% are now poorer.
so yea
|
MILWAUKEE (AP) — A federal judge in Milwaukee has struck down Wisconsin's voter Identification law, saying it unfairly burdens poor and minority voters.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman issued his long-awaited decision Tuesday. It invalidates Wisconsin's law.
Wisconsin's law would have required voters to show a state-issued photo ID at the polls. Supporters said it would cut down on voter fraud and boost public confidence in the integrity of the election process.
But Adelman sided with opponents, who said it disproportionately excluded poor and minority voters because they're less likely to have photo IDs or the documents needed to get them.
Wisconsin's law was only in effect for a 2012 primary before a Dane County judge declared it unconstitutional.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
