EPTThought it was a worthy bump.
unbelievable.
DHS: Recession fueling right-wing extremism - Page 25
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Thought it was a worthy bump. unbelievable. | ||
|
Disarray
United States1164 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10085 Posts
| ||
|
Bob123
Korea (North)259 Posts
 I wouldn't mind a bit if Sweden was led by a prime minister with a foreign background.Oh, and she's an idiot. Why even listen to her? Go McArthurism! | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 22 2009 11:46 Tyraz wrote: To deal with your 'education solution'. Charter schools cost REAL big bucks. Scholarships wont even amount to 10%; so 10% poor, the rest rich. Non-profit schools are actually supported ALOT by the Government. Education costs real money, if it costs billions for the federal government, what makes you think philanthropists are going to pick up the slack? There isn't one billion dollars of church or philanthropist money 'just floating around' for non-for-profit schools to 'just use'. Legal aid is TOTALLY the point. If a company skrews you over, then its not YOU in the defenders seat getting the free aid, thats for sure! Unless you make it a class action law suit, there is NO way you can take on a massive corporation with millions of dollars to throw at a protracted legal case. They have so much money, they can pretty much keep yo' poor ass in Court for the rest of yo' poor ass life. Politics: This has EVERYTHING to do with it; as it stands, marketing = elected. Marketing costs real big $$, and typically the way you get the real big $$ is with real big donations. Lobbying by corporations pretty much keeps most political parties as rich as they currently are. To address the minimum wage: Here you are grand-standing about how you 'pay more for better workers'; I am not going to argue with you on this point. But more, doesn't mean wages go UP. It just means theirs don't go down as fast... And YES, I HAVE done economics papers at university; don't worry, i know perfectly well how this all works. You see; there is this thing called 'inflation', and every year money devalues. It might not be legally possible (or there might be an outrage) to make wages go DOWN, but with no government intervention they sure as hell an't going UP. Why would a company put its wages UP, when there is no reason too? To give their works a 'pat on the back'? Companies are in the game for profit. End of story. Productivity is the amount it costs per unit. Wages are part of costs. Wages go down, productivity goes up. Thats how it works. To address your ignorance on land tax; land tax is a MAJOR reason people don't keep switching homes and buying and selling properties. Each time you do it, it costs you money. In Australia you have your 'Family home' which isn't taxed when you move home; but if your doing it for profit, then it costs. It is land tax that keeps the housing market under control. If it wasn't there, then people who are in rental properties would speculate on where housing prices would go up the most, and sell and move there. This pushes house prices WAY up. Firstly: you keep talking about non-for-profit schools. What about schools like Philips Exeter and Andover, as well as schools that are less reknowned? Those are decidedly not funded by the government at all, and yet not only are there lots of kids who attend these private schools, these kids tend to have higher than usual rates of admission to institutions of higher learning. And if the public education system is so high and mighty, then please tell me why American students have an advantage in math and science until 8th grade, upon which they fall far behind European and Asian systems? Here's a hint: it's not that its different between public and private, otherwise the difference wouldn't be because of grade. It's also not because all the "rich, elite, capitalist kids" transferred to other schools-those schools were accounted for. The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching. Second of all, you have done absolutely nothing but to create a straw man here to relate to my argument of pro bono and public defenders. All you have done is the "evil corporations against the poor individual" tactic which tends to be overplayed. Politics: I agree with you here. However, not only did I never talk about this, but you created my own argument for me. That's nice. Also, our solutions differ: while you propose to try and kill all the bacteria in the gangrened foot constantly to prevent reinfection, I propose just to cut off the foot and prevent it from spreading to the rest of the body. Okay, let me try this again. Instead of using the good old "corporations are out for profit, therefore they will cut workers wages down to pennies a day so they can make more money" argument that has been around since the 1860's, let's take a look at the backing behind "some of the economics papers that I've done in University." First of all, what actually happens during inflation? Prices rise as a whole, not wages go down. Stop getting the two mixed up. Secondly: when prices rise, and workers salaries stay the same, workers clearly aren't happy. If you aren't familiar with the concept of cost-push inflation, in which the inflation not only causes increased wages, but increased wages causes further inflation, then please consult your economics papers. I'm not saying that inflation doesn't hurt the consumer's ability to consume, and lower the standards of living, but if there were some miracle cure for inflation then people would be using it by now. And I will say that the solution is not to make inflation worse. And no, productivity does not work like that. You naturally assume that a loss of wages therefore increases profitability. But again, you assume that labor has no choice in its work, is unorganized, and unskilled. If any of those three conditions does not happen, which I'm pretty sure happens the overwhelming majority of the time, then your preconditions are ruined and so goes your entire argument. I won't go into labor markets here but suffice to say that having read Marx, he would consider your arguments to be highly flawed. And here you go off with your land tax again. First of all, you can't sell a rental property. Second of all, people do that anyways. Third of all, you seem to misunderstand what a land tax does. A land tax purpose isn't to deter people from buying and selling properties: otherwise people wouldn't move. The purpose of a land tax is to prevent people from speculating on land, and as a result by holding onto it, not letting other people have it to develop for further capital. This only works because the property market is inelastic. The land tax's job isn't that of a price control, although that may appear to be its direct effect. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On August 31 2009 19:49 Caller wrote: American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place.The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 31 2009 21:21 Zanno wrote: American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashion/01generationb.html 100k/year, job security, great pension and benefits? Sign me up. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
Firstly: you keep talking about non-for-profit schools. What about schools like Philips Exeter and Andover, as well as schools that are less reknowned? Those are decidedly not funded by the government at all, and yet not only are there lots of kids who attend these private schools, these kids tend to have higher than usual rates of admission to institutions of higher learning. And if the public education system is so high and mighty, then please tell me why American students have an advantage in math and science until 8th grade, upon which they fall far behind European and Asian systems? Here's a hint: it's not that its different between public and private, otherwise the difference wouldn't be because of grade. It's also not because all the "rich, elite, capitalist kids" transferred to other schools-those schools were accounted for. The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching. You were suggesting that private and charter schools pick up the slack. This is simply not feasible. Billions of dollars don't come out of no-where you know. Second of all, you have done absolutely nothing but to create a straw man here to relate to my argument of pro bono and public defenders. All you have done is the "evil corporations against the poor individual" tactic which tends to be overplayed. That was no strawman. It is my point, and i have no intention to burn it at any later date. You can quote me and i shall stand by it. It is only 'overplayed' because corporations keep doing it. Politics: I agree with you here. However, not only did I never talk about this, but you created my own argument for me. That's nice. Also, our solutions differ: while you propose to try and kill all the bacteria in the gangrened foot constantly to prevent reinfection, I propose just to cut off the foot and prevent it from spreading to the rest of the body. apologies for adding other points you didn't mention... other people did, and i couldn't be bothered quoting heeps of people. Okay, let me try this again. Instead of using the good old "corporations are out for profit, therefore they will cut workers wages down to pennies a day so they can make more money" argument that has been around since the 1860's, let's take a look at the backing behind "some of the economics papers that I've done in University." First of all, what actually happens during inflation? Prices rise as a whole, not wages go down. Stop getting the two mixed up. Secondly: when prices rise, and workers salaries stay the same, workers clearly aren't happy. If you aren't familiar with the concept of cost-push inflation, in which the inflation not only causes increased wages, but increased wages causes further inflation, then please consult your economics papers. I'm not saying that inflation doesn't hurt the consumer's ability to consume, and lower the standards of living, but if there were some miracle cure for inflation then people would be using it by now. And I will say that the solution is not to make inflation worse. And no, productivity does not work like that. You naturally assume that a loss of wages therefore increases profitability. But again, you assume that labor has no choice in its work, is unorganized, and unskilled. If any of those three conditions does not happen, which I'm pretty sure happens the overwhelming majority of the time, then your preconditions are ruined and so goes your entire argument. I won't go into labor markets here but suffice to say that having read Marx, he would consider your arguments to be highly flawed. At no point did i say that wages and inflation were the same. Real income goes down when inflation goes up and your wage stays the same; your money is worth less. Companies only give a shit about you being unhappy if they risk loosing you. That is, if there are alot of workers that are qualified in your position, then you are expendable. If it really worked the way you are suggesting, then illegal immigrants would not be working for under the minimum wage as it wouldn't be worth it  If there was no government intervention, then there would be no minimum wage. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that wages would plummet.And here you go off with your land tax again. First of all, you can't sell a rental property. Second of all, people do that anyways. Third of all, you seem to misunderstand what a land tax does. A land tax purpose isn't to deter people from buying and selling properties: otherwise people wouldn't move. The purpose of a land tax is to prevent people from speculating on land, and as a result by holding onto it, not letting other people have it to develop for further capital. This only works because the property market is inelastic. The land tax's job isn't that of a price control, although that may appear to be its direct effect. That is also the indirect effect of Land Tax. If there were no costs involved then people would speculate; they could become liquid assets. | ||
|
scwizard
United States1195 Posts
On August 31 2009 21:21 Zanno wrote: American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place. Bullshit. My mom is making excelent money as a public school teacher in the Bronx. Starting sallery is lower, but due to the teacher's union, the sallery gets quite high as you accumulate seniority. Same thing with a lot of public sector jobs with unions, such as cops. They get paid nothing starting out, but it goes up by a bunch for the experianced cops. I think it's completely dumb btw. On August 31 2009 19:04 BlackJack wrote: I think it's laughable that this forum seemed to lend more credence to the argument that our last President was involved in a plot to line two skyscrapers with explosives and demolish them with thousands of innocent people inside than the argument that our current President wasn't born in this country. imo both groups are out of their mind. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3785 Posts
On September 01 2009 02:27 scwizard wrote: Bullshit. My mom is making excelent money as a public school teacher in the Bronx. Starting sallery is lower, but due to the teacher's union, the sallery gets quite high as you accumulate seniority. Same thing with a lot of public sector jobs with unions, such as cops. They get paid nothing starting out, but it goes up by a bunch for the experianced cops. I think it's completely dumb btw. Yes, but those jobs are also very stressful. In the same league as lawyers and the like: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/92667/the_most_stressful_jobs_in_america.html http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/myth.htm http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/0-9/4health/stress/saw_work.html Blah blah blah, so on, and so forth. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Another really interesting video, nothing new, but I want to see our conservative posters response to it. | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 01 2009 05:28 D10 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzUzR-ymS2U Another really interesting video, nothing new, but I want to see our conservative posters response to it. In the media you find "liberals" and "conservative" grouped togheter, respectively, and then assumptions are made about the whole group based on some anecdotal evidence. | ||
|
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
BoB123 Why does it matter so much to the americans where a person is born anyway (except that's the rules for presidency are in the constitution or whatever)~~; Isn't america the promised land for everyone? I wouldn't mind a bit if Sweden was led by a prime minister with a foreign background. Oh, and she's an idiot. Why even listen to her? Go McArthurism! Yes its a big deal in America or at least its supposed to be. Its not the promised land, its just a place to be a fuck up or go somewhere in. Up to how you play your cards. I personally believe(backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we don't want some foreigner being eligible for our highest office. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 01 2009 05:55 Alizee- wrote: I personally believe(backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we don't want some foreigner being eligible for our highest office. I personally believe (backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we should, at least, tacitly permit slavery and then give the voting individuals of slave-holding states more power than their free state counterparts by allowing them to utilize 3/5 of their slave population when it comes time to apportion Representatives and Electors. | ||
|
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
On September 01 2009 06:15 Mindcrime wrote: I personally believe (backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we should, at least, tacitly permit slavery and then give the voting individuals of slave-holding states more power than their free state counterparts by allowing them to utilize 3/5 of their slave population when it comes time to apportion Representatives and Electors. Pretty terrible comparison of two completely unrelated things. Very distasteful I might add. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 01 2009 07:49 Alizee- wrote: Pretty terrible comparison of two completely unrelated things. Very distasteful I might add. The point is that something is not automatically "correct" just because it was written into the Constitution and that your justification for the birth requirement of the office of the President needs work. | ||
|
scwizard
United States1195 Posts
On September 01 2009 03:06 ghrur wrote: Yes, but those jobs are also very stressful. In the same league as lawyers and the like: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/92667/the_most_stressful_jobs_in_america.html http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/myth.htm http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/0-9/4health/stress/saw_work.html Blah blah blah, so on, and so forth. Probably accurate. Also I'm not saying that teachers shouldn't make a bunch of money, just that it shouldn't be so weighted against new teachers. On September 01 2009 05:28 D10 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzUzR-ymS2U Another really interesting video, nothing new, but I want to see our conservative posters response to it. He provides no evidence, other than a what is maybe a bit of anecdotal evidence, that conservatives do this more than liberals. Also I have anecdotal evidence that both sides do this. Finally his comments about death panels are really unfair. there are some conservatives that think Obama plans to kill people using evil death panels because he's an evil person, and other conservatives who are worried that seniors attending voluntary end of life counseling will be pressured into making certain decisions by government workers. Sarah Palin is surprisingly among the later, although to be fair she does egg on the former. The reasons they believe this is because there is good empirical evidence of veterans being pressured into making certain decisions through pamphlets, and there is also a logical reason to think that the government might desire people to make such decisions for the purpose of cutting costs. | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On September 01 2009 10:38 scwizard wrote: Probably accurate. Also I'm not saying that teachers shouldn't make a bunch of money, just that it shouldn't be so weighted against new teachers. He provides no evidence, other than a what is maybe a bit of anecdotal evidence, that conservatives do this more than liberals. Also I have anecdotal evidence that both sides do this. Finally his comments about death panels are really unfair. there are some conservatives that think Obama plans to kill people using evil death panels because he's an evil person, and other conservatives who are worried that seniors attending voluntary end of life counseling will be pressured into making certain decisions by government workers. Sarah Palin is surprisingly among the later, although to be fair she does egg on the former. The reasons they believe this is because there is good empirical evidence of veterans being pressured into making certain decisions through pamphlets, and there is also a logical reason to think that the government might desire people to make such decisions for the purpose of cutting costs. Sarah Palin formerly made this end of life counseling a priority for her administration: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/13/palin-deathpanel-flipflop/ She's simply attacking Obama in any way she can. Don't try to make anything she says sound reasonable or well thought out, because she's so obviously, painfully ignorant, you will only make yourself look stupid in the process. | ||
|
scwizard
United States1195 Posts
| ||
RaGe
Belgium9942 Posts
On September 01 2009 11:12 Louder wrote: Sarah Palin formerly made this end of life counseling a priority for her administration: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/13/palin-deathpanel-flipflop/ She's simply attacking Obama in any way she can. Don't try to make anything she says sound reasonable or well thought out, because she's so obviously, painfully ignorant, you will only make yourself look stupid in the process. Yeah it's pretty obvious she's trying to make herself look like the ideal opposition presidential candidate for the next term. I'm pretty sure if Palin ever wins a presidential election she'll be the dumbest president the US ever had/will have. She would seriously have the power to fuck up the world. | ||
| ||
