|
|
On October 31 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid. What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone. Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind.
I was in Nevada where that happened, now I'm in Oregon and I have no clue how the public education school system works here yet, I am not a part of it.
It wasn't the teachers union lying about money in Nevada it was simply they had no money for basic school items at certain schools, where other schools had money coming out of their ears for basically anything beyond the means, and they weren't complaining about it they were exploiting the fuck out of it.
I have no doubt the teachers union can be corrupt some times, But I still love teachers and education, and I am not informed on prop 32, so I have no comments on that.
|
On October 31 2012 12:25 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:20 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:17 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. There's a balance to be struck. You can't have a 100% capitalist society and you can't have a 100% socialist society. Sure. So how about, 70% capitalism, 30% government? I think 30% is enough to provide education, order, defense, and social services. What do you think? Sorry, I'm not sure how those percentages would translate into real life terms. :p I think he's insinuating a 30% flat tax.
No, I'm talking about government spending as a percentage of GDP. I don't believe in a flat tax, I believe in a progressive tax with a negative income tax to substitute social spending.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:32 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid. What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone. Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind. I was in Nevada where that happened, now I'm in Oregon and I have no clue how the public education school system works here yet, I am not a part of it. It wasn't the teachers union lying about money in Nevada it was simply they had no money for basic school items at certain schools, where other schools had money coming out of their ears for basically anything beyond the means, and they weren't complaining about it they were exploiting the fuck out of it. I have no doubt the teachers union can be corrupt some times, But I still love teachers and education, and I am not informed on prop 32, so I have no comments on that.
Prop. 32 basically cripples unions from donating to campaigns while still allowing businesses to donate without much hindrance. The left are up in arms trying to fight it because if they don't, that's pretty much it for them. I'm all for campaign finance reform, but not when it's so one-sided.
|
On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer.
Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them.
The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service.
|
On October 31 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:32 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid. What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone. Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind. I was in Nevada where that happened, now I'm in Oregon and I have no clue how the public education school system works here yet, I am not a part of it. It wasn't the teachers union lying about money in Nevada it was simply they had no money for basic school items at certain schools, where other schools had money coming out of their ears for basically anything beyond the means, and they weren't complaining about it they were exploiting the fuck out of it. I have no doubt the teachers union can be corrupt some times, But I still love teachers and education, and I am not informed on prop 32, so I have no comments on that. Prop. 32 basically cripples unions from donating to campaigns while still allowing businesses to donate without much hindrance. The left are up in arms trying to fight it because if they don't, that's pretty much it for them. I'm all for campaign finance reform, but not when it's so one-sided.
Prop 32 aligns California law with the federal laws already in place, which state that if you want to spend someone's income on political contributions to buy votes, you have to have their explicit consent. This is absolute common sense and no one except union special interests would believe it's right to take money out of people's paychecks to pay for political contributions they may not agree with.
I don't know why people even make a distinction between corporations and unions. I regard them both as simply, "individuals organized for profit." People still have this 1920's vision of unions that has no relation to the current reality, modern public unions are the same and in many cases more powerful than corporations.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:32 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid. What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone. Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind. I was in Nevada where that happened, now I'm in Oregon and I have no clue how the public education school system works here yet, I am not a part of it. It wasn't the teachers union lying about money in Nevada it was simply they had no money for basic school items at certain schools, where other schools had money coming out of their ears for basically anything beyond the means, and they weren't complaining about it they were exploiting the fuck out of it. I have no doubt the teachers union can be corrupt some times, But I still love teachers and education, and I am not informed on prop 32, so I have no comments on that. Prop. 32 basically cripples unions from donating to campaigns while still allowing businesses to donate without much hindrance. The left are up in arms trying to fight it because if they don't, that's pretty much it for them. I'm all for campaign finance reform, but not when it's so one-sided. Prop 32 aligns California law with the federal laws already in place, which state that if you want to spend someone's income on political contributions to buy votes, you have to have their explicit consent. This is absolute common sense and no one except union special interests would believe it's right to take money out of people's paychecks to pay for political contributions they may not agree with. I don't know why people even make a distinction between corporations and unions. I regard them both as simply, "individuals organized for profit." People still have this 1920's vision of unions that has no relation to the current reality, modern unions are the same and in many cases more powerful than corporations.
Yes, but what Prop. 32 basically does is give the big finger to unions. Sorry if I rather not have corporations/businesses dictating my politics than a more even ground. If you want campaign finance reform, cripple both sides and put a limit on all contributions.
I've said this before, but I will always trust teachers over corporations and businesses. They're supporting this proposition for a reason, and that reason is definitely not to help the masses.
Edit: And stating that unions are 'in many cases more powerful than corporations' when corporations nationwide spend 15 times more on campaigns than unions do is insane. Not to mention how much weaker unions have been getting over the years. The California Teacher's Union just happens to be pretty big, but then again there are a ton of teachers in California.
|
They aren't just "pretty big," they are the largest special interest in the whole state, they run this state.
And you are really not understanding this issue. You still view things in a corporation vs. union dichotomy. What I'm talking about are PUBLIC unions, government unions. These are the one's that are the problem, they have far more power because as I stated before, government doesn't have a profit incentive. Government has a vote incentive, and they get votes by giving money to people. The unions are bankrupting this state, their pensions are absolutely massive. My home town has already declared bankruptcy purely because of union pensions which are unsustainable. They are bankrupting many states. And there is no way to fight them except to reform the laws, because they are the one's dictating the laws with overwhelming political funding.
|
On October 31 2012 12:44 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:32 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid."
There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid. What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone. Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind. I was in Nevada where that happened, now I'm in Oregon and I have no clue how the public education school system works here yet, I am not a part of it. It wasn't the teachers union lying about money in Nevada it was simply they had no money for basic school items at certain schools, where other schools had money coming out of their ears for basically anything beyond the means, and they weren't complaining about it they were exploiting the fuck out of it. I have no doubt the teachers union can be corrupt some times, But I still love teachers and education, and I am not informed on prop 32, so I have no comments on that. Prop. 32 basically cripples unions from donating to campaigns while still allowing businesses to donate without much hindrance. The left are up in arms trying to fight it because if they don't, that's pretty much it for them. I'm all for campaign finance reform, but not when it's so one-sided. Prop 32 aligns California law with the federal laws already in place, which state that if you want to spend someone's income on political contributions to buy votes, you have to have their explicit consent. This is absolute common sense and no one except union special interests would believe it's right to take money out of people's paychecks to pay for political contributions they may not agree with. I don't know why people even make a distinction between corporations and unions. I regard them both as simply, "individuals organized for profit." People still have this 1920's vision of unions that has no relation to the current reality, modern unions are the same and in many cases more powerful than corporations. Yes, but what Prop. 32 basically does is give the big finger to unions. Sorry if I rather not have corporations/businesses dictating my politics than a more even ground. If you want campaign finance reform, cripple both sides and put a limit on all contributions. I've said this before, but I will always trust teachers over corporations and businesses. They're supporting this proposition for a reason, and that reason is definitely not to help the masses. Edit: And stating that unions are 'in many cases more powerful than corporations' when corporations nationwide spend 15 times more on campaigns than unions do is insane. Not to mention how much weaker unions have been getting over the years. The California Teacher's Union just happens to be pretty big, but then again there are a ton of teachers in California.
You have convinced me to call all of my family in California and make sure they know whats up  .
jdseesmore, I'm really not buying the whole unions are bankrupting everyone, sorry.
|
On October 31 2012 12:09 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:08 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:03 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:00 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them.
2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc.
3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. "crutches of poverty".... I honestly stopped reading there. So how many flat screen TV's and how many premium cable channels must you lack before you're considered to be in the "crutches of poverty"? Honest question. You honestly think every poor person is sitting around watching NFL on an LCD screen? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HwSlJ.gif) For instance, some 62% of households earning less than $20,000 annually owned between two and four televisions, according to the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy. About one-third of the lowest income households had either LCD or plasma TVs. So no, not every poor person has an LCD TV. Just around 33%. Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:07 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:05 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 12:03 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:00 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
[quote]
You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. "crutches of poverty".... I honestly stopped reading there. So how many flat screen TV's and how many premium cable channels must you lack before you're considered to be in the "crutches of poverty"? Honest question. You honestly think every poor person is sitting around watching NFL on an LCD screen? Every? No. But a lot of them do. Just as an anecdote that your post reminded me of: We had a 70' flatscreen at our shelter. We extended the lights-out curfew one time when I was there. It was the Packers Monday Night game. JUST SAYIN' Hahah nice. Anyway, just keep in mind I'm talking about poverty before outside assistance. I'm talking about the status people would be in if it wasn't for government or some form of organizational assistance.
Regarding the TVs and other electronics, this is really a function of how cheap electronics are. I have two 40 inch LCD TVs, one of which I bought 3 years ago the other I bought last winter (both brand new). The price had fallen by about 33% over that time.
On the other hand, things like health care and gas are becoming more expensive. Food is cheap if you're willing to eat junk, but decent food is expensive. College is expensive.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/squeezed-dry-why-americans-work-so-hard-but-feel-so-poor/241252/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/30-million-in-poverty-arent-as-poor-as-you-think-says-heritage-foundation/242191/
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
They aren't just "pretty big," they are the largest special interest in the whole state, they run this state.
And you are really not understanding this issue. You still view things in a corporation vs. union dichotomy. What I'm talking about are PUBLIC unions, government unions. These are the one's that are the problem, they have far more power because as I stated before, government doesn't have a profit incentive. Government has a vote incentive, and they get votes by giving money to people. The unions are bankrupting this state, their pensions are absolutely massive. My home town has already declared bankruptcy purely because of union pensions which are unsustainable. They are bankrupting many states. And there is no way to fight them except to reform the laws, because they are the one's dictating the laws with overwhelming political funding.
jd, I have no doubt that we face many problems with pensions and union influence; however, what I am saying is that if we want campaign finance reform, we should have one that's all-encompassing. Crippling only the unions will give a major edge to corporations and businesses who I don't want to be the ones our politicians pander to.
And as far as Prop. 32 goes, it is pretty much a corporation vs. union dichotomy.
|
On October 31 2012 12:51 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:44 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:32 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid. What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone. Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind. I was in Nevada where that happened, now I'm in Oregon and I have no clue how the public education school system works here yet, I am not a part of it. It wasn't the teachers union lying about money in Nevada it was simply they had no money for basic school items at certain schools, where other schools had money coming out of their ears for basically anything beyond the means, and they weren't complaining about it they were exploiting the fuck out of it. I have no doubt the teachers union can be corrupt some times, But I still love teachers and education, and I am not informed on prop 32, so I have no comments on that. Prop. 32 basically cripples unions from donating to campaigns while still allowing businesses to donate without much hindrance. The left are up in arms trying to fight it because if they don't, that's pretty much it for them. I'm all for campaign finance reform, but not when it's so one-sided. Prop 32 aligns California law with the federal laws already in place, which state that if you want to spend someone's income on political contributions to buy votes, you have to have their explicit consent. This is absolute common sense and no one except union special interests would believe it's right to take money out of people's paychecks to pay for political contributions they may not agree with. I don't know why people even make a distinction between corporations and unions. I regard them both as simply, "individuals organized for profit." People still have this 1920's vision of unions that has no relation to the current reality, modern unions are the same and in many cases more powerful than corporations. Yes, but what Prop. 32 basically does is give the big finger to unions. Sorry if I rather not have corporations/businesses dictating my politics than a more even ground. If you want campaign finance reform, cripple both sides and put a limit on all contributions. I've said this before, but I will always trust teachers over corporations and businesses. They're supporting this proposition for a reason, and that reason is definitely not to help the masses. Edit: And stating that unions are 'in many cases more powerful than corporations' when corporations nationwide spend 15 times more on campaigns than unions do is insane. Not to mention how much weaker unions have been getting over the years. The California Teacher's Union just happens to be pretty big, but then again there are a ton of teachers in California. You have convinced me to call all of my family in California and make sure they know whats up . jdseesmore, I'm really not buying the whole unions are bankrupting everyone, sorry.
So you go by your gut instead of actually looking up the facts and statistics. Standard. As I said, my home town declared bankruptcy just this year due to government pensions. The reason California had a reduced credit rating is because of union pensions. All the facts are there waiting to be looked at. But don't buy it if it doesn't conform to your ideology.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:51 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:44 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:32 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:
[quote]
That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid. What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone. Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind. I was in Nevada where that happened, now I'm in Oregon and I have no clue how the public education school system works here yet, I am not a part of it. It wasn't the teachers union lying about money in Nevada it was simply they had no money for basic school items at certain schools, where other schools had money coming out of their ears for basically anything beyond the means, and they weren't complaining about it they were exploiting the fuck out of it. I have no doubt the teachers union can be corrupt some times, But I still love teachers and education, and I am not informed on prop 32, so I have no comments on that. Prop. 32 basically cripples unions from donating to campaigns while still allowing businesses to donate without much hindrance. The left are up in arms trying to fight it because if they don't, that's pretty much it for them. I'm all for campaign finance reform, but not when it's so one-sided. Prop 32 aligns California law with the federal laws already in place, which state that if you want to spend someone's income on political contributions to buy votes, you have to have their explicit consent. This is absolute common sense and no one except union special interests would believe it's right to take money out of people's paychecks to pay for political contributions they may not agree with. I don't know why people even make a distinction between corporations and unions. I regard them both as simply, "individuals organized for profit." People still have this 1920's vision of unions that has no relation to the current reality, modern unions are the same and in many cases more powerful than corporations. Yes, but what Prop. 32 basically does is give the big finger to unions. Sorry if I rather not have corporations/businesses dictating my politics than a more even ground. If you want campaign finance reform, cripple both sides and put a limit on all contributions. I've said this before, but I will always trust teachers over corporations and businesses. They're supporting this proposition for a reason, and that reason is definitely not to help the masses. Edit: And stating that unions are 'in many cases more powerful than corporations' when corporations nationwide spend 15 times more on campaigns than unions do is insane. Not to mention how much weaker unions have been getting over the years. The California Teacher's Union just happens to be pretty big, but then again there are a ton of teachers in California. You have convinced me to call all of my family in California and make sure they know whats up . jdseesmore, I'm really not buying the whole unions are bankrupting everyone, sorry. So you go by your gut instead of actually looking up the facts and statistics. Standard. As I said, my home town declared bankruptcy just this year due to government pensions. The reason California had a reduced credit rating is because of union pensions. All the facts are there waiting to be looked at. But don't buy it if it doesn't conform to your ideology.
That wouldn't have had anything to do with any of the pension scandals California has had, would it?
|
On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service.
No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing.
For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures.
The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending.
|
On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending.
Oh shit, knowledge bombs being dropped!
On October 31 2012 12:54 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
They aren't just "pretty big," they are the largest special interest in the whole state, they run this state.
And you are really not understanding this issue. You still view things in a corporation vs. union dichotomy. What I'm talking about are PUBLIC unions, government unions. These are the one's that are the problem, they have far more power because as I stated before, government doesn't have a profit incentive. Government has a vote incentive, and they get votes by giving money to people. The unions are bankrupting this state, their pensions are absolutely massive. My home town has already declared bankruptcy purely because of union pensions which are unsustainable. They are bankrupting many states. And there is no way to fight them except to reform the laws, because they are the one's dictating the laws with overwhelming political funding. jd, I have no doubt that we face many problems with pensions and union influence; however, what I am saying is that if we want campaign finance reform, we should have one that's all-encompassing. Crippling only the unions will give a major edge to corporations and businesses who I don't want to be the ones our politicians pander to. And as far as Prop. 32 goes, it is pretty much a corporation vs. union dichotomy.
If approved, Proposition 32 will:
Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates
Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them
Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_"Paycheck_Protection"_Initiative_(2012)
Again, all of these are reasonable and imo common sense. It takes a real stretch of reason to oppose any of these measures.
|
On October 31 2012 13:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending. Oh shit, knowledge bombs being dropped! Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:54 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
They aren't just "pretty big," they are the largest special interest in the whole state, they run this state.
And you are really not understanding this issue. You still view things in a corporation vs. union dichotomy. What I'm talking about are PUBLIC unions, government unions. These are the one's that are the problem, they have far more power because as I stated before, government doesn't have a profit incentive. Government has a vote incentive, and they get votes by giving money to people. The unions are bankrupting this state, their pensions are absolutely massive. My home town has already declared bankruptcy purely because of union pensions which are unsustainable. They are bankrupting many states. And there is no way to fight them except to reform the laws, because they are the one's dictating the laws with overwhelming political funding. jd, I have no doubt that we face many problems with pensions and union influence; however, what I am saying is that if we want campaign finance reform, we should have one that's all-encompassing. Crippling only the unions will give a major edge to corporations and businesses who I don't want to be the ones our politicians pander to. And as far as Prop. 32 goes, it is pretty much a corporation vs. union dichotomy. If approved, Proposition 32 will: Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics Taken from ballotpedia. Again, all of these are reasonable and imo common sense. It takes a real stretch of reason to oppose any of these measures.
Misclick - editting
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 13:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending. Oh shit, knowledge bombs being dropped! Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:54 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
They aren't just "pretty big," they are the largest special interest in the whole state, they run this state.
And you are really not understanding this issue. You still view things in a corporation vs. union dichotomy. What I'm talking about are PUBLIC unions, government unions. These are the one's that are the problem, they have far more power because as I stated before, government doesn't have a profit incentive. Government has a vote incentive, and they get votes by giving money to people. The unions are bankrupting this state, their pensions are absolutely massive. My home town has already declared bankruptcy purely because of union pensions which are unsustainable. They are bankrupting many states. And there is no way to fight them except to reform the laws, because they are the one's dictating the laws with overwhelming political funding. jd, I have no doubt that we face many problems with pensions and union influence; however, what I am saying is that if we want campaign finance reform, we should have one that's all-encompassing. Crippling only the unions will give a major edge to corporations and businesses who I don't want to be the ones our politicians pander to. And as far as Prop. 32 goes, it is pretty much a corporation vs. union dichotomy. If approved, Proposition 32 will: Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_"Paycheck_Protection"_Initiative_(2012)Again, all of these are reasonable and imo common sense. It takes a real stretch of reason to oppose any of these measures.
I'm telling you to stop feeding off bullshit. You honestly think corporations and businesses would support something that would hurt them?
Prop. 32's real purpose is to cripple labor unions politically. It would do this by prohibiting unions from using payroll deductions for political purposes, with or without a worker's permission. Corporations — and this is particularly deceptive — also would be covered by the ban. But they generally don't raise political money with payroll deductions. They do it either by dipping into their corporate treasuries or by putting the squeeze on highly paid executives. The unions' sole source of political money, however, is payroll deductions. "We're strongly in favor of wiping out special-interest influence in politics," says Derek Cressman, regional director of California Common Cause, a reform group that opposes Prop. 32. "We just don't think Prop. 32 does that. It wipes out one particular interest. All you'd be doing is proportionately increasing the influence of every other interest. Businesses. Wealthy people." If Prop. 32's conservative backers — starting with the Republican Lincoln Club of Orange County — had sincerely wanted to protect the union members' paychecks from involuntary siphoning for undesired political causes, they could have merely proposed making it simpler for the workers to opt out of the deduction system. Currently they can, but it's usually not easy. But that isn't Prop. 32's goal. It's to render unions — private and public sector — politically impotent. Exempted from Prop. 32 are tons of business entities: limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships, limited partners.... And, of course, it wouldn't affect billionaires.One very rich Republican activist, Charles Munger Jr., has donated nearly $22 million to a committee pushing Prop. 32 and opposing Gov. Jerry Brown's tax initiative, Prop. 30. As for all the exemptions, Prop. 32 spokesman Jake Suski says, "We're going as far as federal law allows, as far as constitutionally possible." "At the end of the day," Suski adds, "Prop. 32 isn't about reshaping the balance of power between special interests. It's about putting more power in the hands of individual citizens. It empowers individuals" — union members — "to decide whether they want to contribute." It certainly would put more power in the hands of such citizens as Charley Munger. John Logan, director of labor studies at San Francisco State, says business interests already outspend unions on politics by 2½ to 1 in California. "If this were to pass," the professor says, "it would make the distortion of elections by big money even worse than it is. It would be physically impossible for unions to raise money. But it would have no impact on business or billionaires." As a solution to special-interest influence in politics, Prop. 32 is a self-serving sham. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/17/local/la-me-cap-prop32-20121018
I hate money in politics with a passion, regardless of who's paying, but give me fair campaigns and elections, not skewed ones please.
|
On October 31 2012 10:32 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
edit: Also, sam, could you please make your own thread and stop hijacking the politics thread with your philosophizing?
No, sorry, my opinion about US politics is that it needs to be hijacked by philosophizing because nobody is even asking the right questions to begin with. If you try to do politics without philosophy that just means you've already assumed a stupid philosophy and you just don't want to talk about it.
People are allowed to talk their half-assed philosophy about libertarianism or abortion or the "role of the state" or their silly little "state of nature" stories or whatever, I think it's reasonable that I be allowed to talk about mine. If people don't want philosophical discussions, they shouldn't provoke me by asking about what a "useful" life would be, or whether or not fiat currency has "real" value, because I have very involved opinions about these things. Keep in mind this most recent discussion arose out of a discussion about flat tax; I didn't just come in here and bring it up myself (something you'll notice I pretty much never do - these little "outbursts" generally escalate from smaller arguments about other things).
On October 31 2012 12:06 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it. This isn't an opinion. Studies show both. Studies also show that social stratification is required to have a functioning society. In our society, we use wealth to define stratification (for the most part). Income discrepencies aren't only useful, I would argue they are imperative. I don't think it's a bad thing to keep them small, but to do away with them would obviously be disastrous to our nations productivity. Haha, I am not sam!zdat and don't argue for communism
hah, I'd love to know what "communism" was so that I could argue for it 
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 13:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:32 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
edit: Also, sam, could you please make your own thread and stop hijacking the politics thread with your philosophizing? No, sorry, my opinion about US politics is that it needs to be hijacked by philosophizing because nobody is even asking the right questions to begin with. If you try to do politics without philosophy that just means you've already assumed a stupid philosophy and you just don't want to talk about it. People are allowed to talk their half-assed philosophy about libertarianism or abortion or the "role of the state" or their silly little "state of nature" stories or whatever, I think it's reasonable that I be allowed to talk about mine. If people don't want philosophical discussions, they shouldn't provoke me by asking about what a "useful" life would be, or whether or not fiat currency has "real" value, because I have very involved opinions about these things. Keep in mind this most recent discussion arose out of a discussion about flat tax; I didn't just come in here and bring it up myself (something you'll notice I pretty much never do - these little "outbursts" generally escalate from smaller arguments about other things). Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:06 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it. This isn't an opinion. Studies show both. Studies also show that social stratification is required to have a functioning society. In our society, we use wealth to define stratification (for the most part). Income discrepencies aren't only useful, I would argue they are imperative. I don't think it's a bad thing to keep them small, but to do away with them would obviously be disastrous to our nations productivity. Haha, I am not sam!zdat and don't argue for communism hah, I'd love to know what "communism" was so that I could argue for it
I still hate you for degrading atheism.
|
On October 31 2012 13:16 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 10:32 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
edit: Also, sam, could you please make your own thread and stop hijacking the politics thread with your philosophizing? No, sorry, my opinion about US politics is that it needs to be hijacked by philosophizing because nobody is even asking the right questions to begin with. If you try to do politics without philosophy that just means you've already assumed a stupid philosophy and you just don't want to talk about it. People are allowed to talk their half-assed philosophy about libertarianism or abortion or the "role of the state" or their silly little "state of nature" stories or whatever, I think it's reasonable that I be allowed to talk about mine. If people don't want philosophical discussions, they shouldn't provoke me by asking about what a "useful" life would be, or whether or not fiat currency has "real" value, because I have very involved opinions about these things. Keep in mind this most recent discussion arose out of a discussion about flat tax; I didn't just come in here and bring it up myself (something you'll notice I pretty much never do - these little "outbursts" generally escalate from smaller arguments about other things). On October 31 2012 12:06 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it. This isn't an opinion. Studies show both. Studies also show that social stratification is required to have a functioning society. In our society, we use wealth to define stratification (for the most part). Income discrepencies aren't only useful, I would argue they are imperative. I don't think it's a bad thing to keep them small, but to do away with them would obviously be disastrous to our nations productivity. Haha, I am not sam!zdat and don't argue for communism hah, I'd love to know what "communism" was so that I could argue for it I still hate you for degrading atheism.
All smart people know that agnosticism is more rational than atheism.
7-0 Me 
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 13:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:16 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 13:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 10:32 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
edit: Also, sam, could you please make your own thread and stop hijacking the politics thread with your philosophizing? No, sorry, my opinion about US politics is that it needs to be hijacked by philosophizing because nobody is even asking the right questions to begin with. If you try to do politics without philosophy that just means you've already assumed a stupid philosophy and you just don't want to talk about it. People are allowed to talk their half-assed philosophy about libertarianism or abortion or the "role of the state" or their silly little "state of nature" stories or whatever, I think it's reasonable that I be allowed to talk about mine. If people don't want philosophical discussions, they shouldn't provoke me by asking about what a "useful" life would be, or whether or not fiat currency has "real" value, because I have very involved opinions about these things. Keep in mind this most recent discussion arose out of a discussion about flat tax; I didn't just come in here and bring it up myself (something you'll notice I pretty much never do - these little "outbursts" generally escalate from smaller arguments about other things). On October 31 2012 12:06 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity?
And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states.
And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it. This isn't an opinion. Studies show both. Studies also show that social stratification is required to have a functioning society. In our society, we use wealth to define stratification (for the most part). Income discrepencies aren't only useful, I would argue they are imperative. I don't think it's a bad thing to keep them small, but to do away with them would obviously be disastrous to our nations productivity. Haha, I am not sam!zdat and don't argue for communism hah, I'd love to know what "communism" was so that I could argue for it I still hate you for degrading atheism. All smart people know that agnosticism is more rational than atheism. 7-0 Me
If I had to be totally honest, I'm not sure whether or not I'm atheist or agnostic. I just don't care if there's a God or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
