Slashdot Mirror
'The Hillary Leaks' - Wikileaks Releases 19,252 Previously Unseen DNC Emails (zerohedge.com)
Reader schwit1 writes: The state department's release of Hillary emails may be over, but that of Wikileaks is just starting. Moments ago, Julian Assange's whistleblower organization released over 19,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the Democratic National Committee. This is part one of their new Hillary Leaks series, Wikileaks said in press release.:"Today, Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee -- part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finance Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year."
The emails released Friday cover a period from January 2015 to May 2016. They purportedly come from the accounts of seven key DNC staffers: Andrew Wright, Jordon Kaplan, Scott Comer, Luis Miranda, Robert Stowe, Daniel Parrish and Allen Zachary.
A quick scan of the emails focus on Bernie Sanders and dealing with the fallout of many Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton and calling the system "rigged." Many of the emails exchanged between top DNC officials are simply the text of news articles concerning how establishment democrats can "deal" with the insurgent left-winger. Update: 07/22 17:41 GMT by M :Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for the leak.
The emails released Friday cover a period from January 2015 to May 2016. They purportedly come from the accounts of seven key DNC staffers: Andrew Wright, Jordon Kaplan, Scott Comer, Luis Miranda, Robert Stowe, Daniel Parrish and Allen Zachary.
A quick scan of the emails focus on Bernie Sanders and dealing with the fallout of many Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton and calling the system "rigged." Many of the emails exchanged between top DNC officials are simply the text of news articles concerning how establishment democrats can "deal" with the insurgent left-winger. Update: 07/22 17:41 GMT by M :Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for the leak.
When Assange previously was given front-page status on slashdot for having a cache of Hillary emails to release, I said I figured he was going to do it to help Bernie Sanders win the election. After all, if Hillary were to actually fall out somehow before November, Sanders would be the only choice the party could present. Being as every poll that ever asked voters about Sanders vs Trump showed Sanders completely wiping the floor with Trump, this strongly suggests that Assange has a favorite here.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This is about the DNC, may be about Hillary, but she never sent them. Hillary might be slimy and rotten as the DNC but really she isn't the one orchestrating them.
It's not a secret that Clinton is a rather vile person, so whatever rude and dirty things she says to other Democrats is of no consequence.
The question is, is there anything in there that's incriminating? If not, it doesn't really matter.
So I can't even hazard a guess as to what's gonna happen this election. The US has a choice between a politician so sleezy as to be a caricature of a cliche politician, and a narcicistic psychopath who would quite happily plunge the world into world war 3 if someone makes fun of the size of his hands.
I mean, really? W. T. F.?
The only real option is if the entire country banded together and voted for an independent, but I just don't see that happening cause all the majority of people can see is the romantic idea of what their "team" represents, rather than look at what's actually happening.
The last 30 years we have been fucked in ways no one could have imagined. This is the status quo these days. The only difference today is they are not using lube anymore.
I do love how random commentators, particularly anonymous ones, love telling people what everyone else is purported to want.
Such class
Hmm. If you could be honest with yourself for a minute you'd accept the truth that everyone in America wants it for free. The only difference is that democrats want a safety net that they can't afford, whereas Republicans simply want their roads, their military, and their Medicare and want to live tax-free, apparently paying for the programs with manna from the sky.
They haven't nominated Hillary yet. Her coronation is next week at the Democratic National Convention. Which means it's still conceptually possible that they could nominate someone else.
They won't, of course. But it's still theoretically possible. In some other universe where criminals get charged for their crimes.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I suppose Hilary's private email server has saved her from being published by Wikileaks.
A previous poster suggested something incriminating would catapult Sanders into the DNC nomination spot.
If nothing actually incriminating is found, but something unfavorable is revealed, that would then help The Donald.
And what you want is the freedom to choose whether you want to have a home or whether you want to eat.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Small point of order: Slavery requires no consent from the slave. Having a job means there's a *voluntary* consent between you and the employer.
You also failed to mention the act of self-employment (contracting, consulting, proprietorship, etc).
That said, there is still the small semi-slavery that is excess taxation, excess regulation, etc., although people tend to disagree on what constitutes 'excess' in these cases.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It might be easier to deal with.
I sell my expertise and time to the highest bidder so I can afford to purchase the things I want. My skills and time are worth more to the market than any handout will every be. It's not slavery at all.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
So if you have to pay for the things you need and want, you are a slave.
The path to freedom, according to you is for those that have earned a lot of money to give up the money they worked for so that you can be "Free".
In other words. The "Slaves" should pay for the freemen to be free?
WTF?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Getting paid to work is not slavery, the word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Hmm. If you could be honest with yourself for a minute you'd accept the truth that everyone in America wants it for free. The only difference is that democrats want a safety net that they can't afford, whereas Republicans simply want their roads, their military, and their Medicare and want to live tax-free, apparently paying for the programs with manna from the sky.
Damn...where are my mod points when I need them? Well put!
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
> You give 40+ hours of your week away to corporate bosses, just so you can feed yourself. That's called slavery.
So you think that sitting in your air-conditioned office posting on Slashdot and getting paid $100K for doing so is just exactly like slavery https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma...
Sometimes I wish you whiny little spoiled liberals could spend six seconds on the whipping post in order to start getting a clue how incredibly fortunate you are. I EXPECT you to be a whiny, spoiled brat, but when you start saying that your experience of sitting here posting on Slashdot is *slavery*, just like people who are chained up and whipped, you cross the line and I'm going to call you on it. Your ridiculous "I'm a victim because I didn't get a free iPhone 6" crap trivializes the real suffering of actual victims, and it's deeply offensive.
A friend recently showed me 20 acres of land in Texas for $8000.00. Sure there are no utilities and it is in the middle of nowhere, but it's cheap.
Through your own sweat, you could build a little house and live off the grid and off of the land.
I realize that the cost of that "freedom" from my corporate bosses would require lots of sweat equity.
My corporate job provides me with benefits, paid time off, and a relatively stable life. I willingly trade some freedom for those benefits - absolutely no one is forcing me to take that deal.
Where the brainwashing has occured is on the Democratic side. Every year Democrats convince more people that more things are "rights" and therefore the people are entitled to those goods and services - without having earned them.
The people forced to provide those goods and services for those that haven't earned them are the real slaves.
So now you tell me personally what I want eh?
Thanks for informing me, I clearly didn't know what I wanted before...
want to live in a society where the government dictates everything from on high
You mean like who I'm allowed to have sex with? What women are allowed to do with their bodies?
You'd almost think they were to the point of micromanaging bathrooms.
You just gave me Forrester Whitaker eye. Thanks.
The highest bidder isn't as important to me, as the ability to exercise and develop my crafts, and not be chained. Certainly I serve others, but the money isn't the highest priority. Living well, doing things for my family, friends, colleagues, and my discipline are also important, too.
There is such a thing as wage slavery, and it has to do with the fact I have gifts that others either don't have, or have no means to develop into a "highest bidder" market. The market for these individuals doesn't even guarantee vacation, or even full-time hours to gain meaningful benefits from.
Worse, they could be in contractor hell, essentially employees but for an IRS definition, unable to get taxes withheld, benefits of any kind, and sometimes payment on terms that bankruptcy lawyers know all too well.
We don't have to be Darwinian. We can be kind.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
In some other universe where wealthy and/or powerful criminals get charged for their crimes.
FTFY
You have a choice to work for a corporation, small business or, gasp, start your own business.
A socialist society is actually a hearken back to the days of serfdom. Where the king owned all the land and all the animals, etc. The lords were given jurisdiction over various regions. People would toil in their fields, but the Lords and King always got their share of whatever you did.
Capitalism grew out of those days as people wanted the freedom to do as they wanted. To decide how hard they would or would not work. What sort of work they did. To own their own destiny. People rebelled against being serfs.
Yes, people complain that "corporations own them". There are lots and lots of employers out there. You get to decide who you work for. Or even work for yourself. Move to Socialism, and you end up with a very small elite ruling class (equivalent to a monarch and lords) ruling over every detail of your life. No choice at all. They decide what products are good for us and will be made. They decide the allocations of what is manufactured and not. They decide the winners and losers. We evolved away from that non-free system centuries ago. Yet, human laziness, jealousy and greed (of the lazy and jealous) wants to return to the chains of serfdom. People like Hillary are more than eager to be at the top of the heap and relish the power they'd have.
Because if you look at who the emails are from, according to TFS, none are from Hillary. The headline is clickbait.
We are more than willing to pay a fair tax for the essentials that the government is needed for. What we don't agree with is waste, inefficiencies and wealth redistribution programs.
His Kind? What is he... an alien? Is he apart of the underground gathering of Crab People plotting to rule the world? These are questions that need serious answers. I believe you are the only one who can provide them. Please. Show us the way, O Wise One.
Of course slavery requires consent of the slave. A slave who refuses to work is no slave at all, only a victim of abuse and probably eventually murder.
That the violence in a rigged economy is homelessness and starvation not directly imposed by any specific individual does not fundamentally alter the fact that consent is often coerced.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If you search for the top senders a 'noreply' is on there.
If you start digging through the e-mail sources there's some pretty interesting (but politically boring) data in there.
Someone is running "CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.4" in 2016. It was released on 28-Mar-2013 and has had Bug fixes since then
https://messages.whitehouse.go...
Is not resolvable from the outside it seems.
Since these are private communications - not government data - and each email is a creative work by the author, would this potentially be subject to copyright infringement, to the "value" of the communications (which may only arguably be $10-20 a piece if you count time spent x nominal billing rate), triple damage for intentional distribution, times the number of downloads (or x1 if it was uploaded to a torrent, and then copyright infringement applied to all who are torrenting)? Could several of the key documents be registered and then, if subsequently distributed by others, in for the $150,000 per infringement violation - and could that be applied to any organization which disseminates [even non-fair-use excerpts] of the works?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The only difference is that democrats want a safety net that they can't afford, whereas Republicans simply want their roads, their military, and their Medicare and want to live tax-free, apparently paying for the programs with manna from the sky.
So Democrats want a safety net they can't afford while Republicans want tax breaks they can't afford. Meanwhile a lot of the Republicans also want to have our government run as a theocracy, having our laws based on morals gleaned from their experience handling snakes and speaking in tongues.
After the showing at the RNC this week, I think we're beyond Theocracy and heading straight into Fascist Dictatorship territory...
Being a contractor is awful. I charge 3x as much as someone in house, deduct a lot of expenses that I wouldn't otherwise be able to do, and get to choose my hours (within reason). I work 60 hours a week for 30 weeks a year, and I spend the rest of the year traveling, having a good time, and playing in a band (as a hobby, not a passion or to try to get rich/famous).
Please, please, please save me from this nightmare.
Wow, you guys are really, really stupid. The NC case was about government-owned bathrooms. The government has every right to dictate who uses which bathroom in a government-owned facility. Go read the NC law itself, it's about government facilities, and is absolutely about the government telling people which bathroom they have to use. This is exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Moron.
First... Im not super-confident that many Republican legislatures WOULD certainly outlaw "unnatural" sex. However... Republicans definitely overwhelmingly want to outlaw gay marriage, which is the height of regulating people's private and religious lives. This to me is not any more or less odious than regulating my bedroom.
And you're obviously managing this well, and perhaps can charge a decent amount, profiting well net-of-expenses. Others aren't so lucky, and corporations flaunt personnel numbers while cutting their pension liabilities, and other costs of employment in doing so. They've also shaken the employment market, and make US Labor Dept employment numbers obscured by the 1099ers in the workforce. Overall, I'd say contracting can be fun and lucrative, but it also stacks the deck on the side of contracting organizations, rather than the labor supply, and also shifts a lot of costs to government burdens, as well.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Yep, in Star Trek, that's the universe where most Star Trek episodes occur: the universe where humans are generally benevolent, intelligent, and ethical beings, and also highly competent at their work.
Star Trek did show our universe a few times; it's called the "mirror universe", and in it, humans are generally evil, imperialistic assholes who'll stop at nothing to gain more power.
My new ultimate goal in life is to invent a device which allows me to "slide" into that other universe.
I've heard:
Democrats are tax and spend. Republicans are borrow and spend.
In that context, Democrats slightly better, at least they realize there's a cost.
What women are allowed to do with their bodies?
But what if the fetus is female? Shouldn't she have some say in what to do with her body?
After all, fair is fair. Let's have all the dirty laundry aired.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The "global political spectrum" is irrelevant. They are running for President of the United States not President of the Globe.
...I think Hilary and Bill are as dirty-rotten & blatantly corrupt as the day is long...but if we've had what now, 2 dumps of "info" from the leaks and AFAIK nothing has jumped up obviously to bite her in the ass?
I have to either
a) commend them on the rigor of their operational security, or
b) expect that all the very best bits are still yet to come in Sept or Oct, when the splash will be large enough.
I honestly don't know which I hope. I really, truly don't want her as president, but then I don't want Trump EITHER.
I'm hoping for the enormous asteroid 2016.
-Styopa
The label "wage slavery" and the phenomenon to references certainly exist. I don't think it's good, but I think the label trivializes actual slavery. I think underpaying people can certainly be exploitive, but I don't think this should be conflated to what actual slaves were/are subjected to (e.g. being treated as property). Slaves could be (and were sometimes) murdered and raped by their masters with accountability. Slaves were split up from their families.
I am increasingly feeling that importance of various leaks is being diminished constantly and consistently. At this moment it's starting to feel that it's utterly irrelevant what new information comes out about Hillary and/or Trump. The supporters of both have made up their minds and they basically plain DON'T CARE. Can anything be done about it? No idea.
He did exactly what I wanted. He moved the party platform to the left. That was also his stated goal. He never expected to win. This was slowest about keeping Clinton on her toes. Worked, too.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm not trying to diminish the horror of real slavery, but the analogy sticks. Consider that full-time slavery and part-time slavery are vectors from each other.
Perhaps "wage submission" is a better way to describe it, but the connotation of no-choice still applies.
The captives on a ship in the Indonesian Ocean are slaves, we can agree. Those in submission to the only job in their neighborhood they can get, Burger King, are voluntarily submitting to the Burger King franchise's policies, and in a way, a meaningful way, they are slaves to both the wages and the policies, as the alternatives are not viable for them-- they must submit or migrate or starve.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
ROTFL,
It's the republicans in state government telling the democrats in a city government that the city cannot permit those nasty transsexuals to use the public bathroom of their choice.
To wit:
Tell us again how a city government should not set a policy for its own bathrooms and state government is staying out of it, not taking over it.
Good luck policing that law. Guess they'll do a "package" inspection at the door now, for security reasons of course.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
They are only slaves to the choices they freely made. Ranging from where they live, what they did to educate themselves and how far they are willing to travel to get a job that isn't at the neighborhood Burger King.
Choices have consequences and sometimes the consequence is only being able to work at a Burger King for minimum wage.
It'll be huuuuge! And luxurious. Just like Atlantic City.
Earned is the correct word to use to refer to resources that were paid for with earnings.
I don't withhold my resources (ie my retained earnings) in order to extract labor from people. I've always just offered to pay people a fee for their labor, which happens to be the same way I earn most of my money.
If you don't have any resources I'd suggest a two step approach:
1) Perform labor for a fee
2) Don't spend all the money you were paid for your services
Now I do admit that it is far easier if you can just replace step 1) with "Have someone give you some of their stuff", I can assure you that not working and getting paid only works if the percentage of parasites is sufficiently small. Too many parasites and the host dies.
Earned is a funny word to use for those who withhold resources from those who have none in order to extract labor from them.
Where do you imagine those resources came from? Someone worked to create them.
It is a fundamental requirement of society that we each contribute as much to society as we consume, over our lifetimes. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. We measure that with money, but money itself is meaningless. Oh, we may be nice enough to carry a few people out of charity, but when that "few" goes beyond the legitimately disabled, the whole thing unravels.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Those born into choices often don't understand the context of those that don't, weren't born into choices, tried, failed, or have been subjugated.
Consider those that won't even be on a computer today, because of so many reasons. They seem like wallpaper on the streets of towns and cities across the country. Their struggles are many, and choices, few.
Some struggle mightily, and might get by, and might not get by, for reasons not within their control. You can chest-thump and espouse that everything is in their control, but it doesn't change the fact that the reality is different than that.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
So. If I risk money and invent a thing, and hire people to make it and pay them an agreed upon wage and after some years I get rich ...
I am now a slave owner that has earned nothing?
There is a reason that loser fucks continue to be loser fucks.
It is because there is no way to convince them that they have any power over their own lives.
They are scared that if they concede that they have power over their lives that they will suddenly be responsible for their own happiness.
They are not happy and get their only "Joy" from blaming others.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
You realize that you have no freedom, right?
You are right, we used to have freedom until you nanny state lefties decided what we can eat, watch, drive, build and fly on our own property. California is the worst for over regulation.
You give 40+ hours of your week away to corporate bosses, just so you can feed yourself.
37.5 hours on average. I can more than feed myself. I can travel to exotic places, stay at 5 star resorts, buy my fiancee a nice diamond solitaire engagement ring and support numerous charities and ministries.
That's called slavery.
No, it is called a job or a career.
Getting a handout and not needing to slave at a job would GIVE YOU MORE FREEDOM.
No, it would indenture me to be a slave of the state by requiring me to hand over more of my money. Someone has to work to produce. We cannot all be welfare bums.
It astounds me that you right-wingers have been brainwashed so hard you're basically stockholm'd zombie slaves to capitalism.
Yeah, sorry but I have a nice 6 figure salary, 5 weeks of vacation and a nice benefits package. I do sometimes work overtime but rarely.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Historical revisionism is apparent. Luckily, the US is alone in swallowing this revisionist bull. The rest of us know the reality.
Apparently, you skipped school during the history lesson. It is not revisionist. It is an accurate description of serfdom which eventually morphed into mercantilism and trade guilds and eventually we ended up with entrepreneurship and capitalism. Capitalism is the great equaliser. It allows the low born to rise up through society and become part of the ruling class. Some of the "old money" rich want to see a return to serfdom and that is why they are systematically trying to destroy the middle class to prevent the lower classes from having an avenue to escape poverty. They want to stay rich themselves but keep any more people from pulling themselves out of the muck of poverty.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
So what you are saying is that Donald Trump is more in touch with all American voters when he says he is going to build a wall and make somebody else pay for it?
His Kind? What is he... an alien? Is he apart of the underground gathering of Crab People plotting to rule the world?
*gasp!* THAT'S IT!! It all makes sense now. ALL of it!!!
Where do you imagine those resources came from? Someone worked to create them.
Who created land?
They haven't nominated Hillary yet. Her coronation is next week
I didn't know that nominating the primary candidate with the most votes of any party in a democratic election was a "coronation". Did Kings also win the most votes? It's been a while since I read up on monarchies, guess I forgot that detail.
14 states had anti-sodomy laws on the books until SCOTUS put an end to that shit in Lawrence v Texas 13 years ago. 13 years ago, that's it. That's not too long ago, and you can be sure that most of those states wouldn't have changed the law unless forced to do so by the courts.
And while it may now be legal to have sex with whoever you want, in many states you can be fired or evicted because your bigoted boss or landlord is upset that you're having said sex. What good is that freedom if you can lose your job and your home for exercising it?
Unless you're a farmer (and that's about the hardest job around), what are you going to do with unimproved land?
Assuming you want not just land, but housing or a shop, with utilities and so on, then we're back to "where did those resources come from".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The republicans are saying the government should stay out of it, not take over it.
Um, no dude. The Republicans are literally legislating bathroom usage. In other words they are taking it over.
We mostly agree. You have the brain power to have accomplished these things, and have given value to your life. There are a significant number of those that started with nothing, and still have nothing, and have had subjugation to overcome their entire lives. It transcends racial, cultural, ethnic, and other boundaries.
To be on /., you have to have a lot of skills that you may believe are simple but for some, not so. The issues are many. Your high-value gets you paid, and you know what to do with the 1099 and your life. Others are not equipped to do so--- for the aforementioned wide variety of reasons. Their choices are fewer, yet they need the same basics you and I do, and the system is rigged against them, to exploit them, and to rob them of even basic dignities.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Her coronation
Yeah, how dare they nominate someone who earned more votes and delegates than her opponent? They should just give Bernie the nomination because you like him.
In some other universe where criminals get charged for their crimes.
In this universe you have to identify something they did that you can prosecute them for first.
That the violence in a rigged economy is homelessness and starvation...
...and that affects the business proprietor, welfare queen, or consultant... how?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You still have you rights should you choose to express them. Thats the meaning of inalienable. You just have an elected tyranny which seeks to punish you for expressing those rights.
Dummy? That land is 8k for a reason. Where are you going to get water to grow food? There's a reason nobody settled there, ya know? The reason the America southwest was settled was the govt paid to irrigate and developer land. It wasn't bootstrappy capitalists. You know why house prices are going up? Developers ran out of free land they could build on that you and me paid for. Christ..
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I didn't know that nominating the primary candidate with the most votes of any party in a democratic election was a "coronation"
It has the "coronation" feel to it because it's been a foregone conclusion since before Sanders suddenly woke up one morning and decided he was a Democrat and joined the party so he could push Hillary into a more publicly-visible lefty posture. He had no chance of beating the Clinton machine and the fully assembled corporate, media, and entertainment industry backers that had already picked her, and he knew it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Because if you look at who the emails are from, according to TFS, none are from Hillary. The headline is clickbait.
They're not from her, but they're directly or indirectly all ABOUT her and the DNC's unwavering Coronate Hillary position. What else did you think was going to be the focus of the matter? Yoga and wedding plans? Right.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Outcomes dont determine whether an act is 'slavery' or more accurately an immoral imposition on the rights of a human. The act of imposing is the immoral act. If government takes all the profit from running a business therefore making that business insoluble, (such as $15 minimum wage making entry level workers un-hireable) The government has only indirectly hurt the employee, by harming the rights of the employer to operate his business in an equitable manner. More to the point, If the employee votes to enable or encourage the government to impose heavy demands (such as comprehensive medical coverage) on said business owner, the employee is immorally imposing mob rule impositions on the minority business owner (if he were part of a majority he obviously would have won the majority vote) and the only one harmed by the resulting poor economy would be the business owner since the employee is complicit.
*sigh* I think you have that wrong. Those born into situations where people tell them they have no choices tend to get angry when you try to help them out by pointing out paths that they could use to better themselves. Parties that rely on keeping said people angry or content do their best to keep it that way.
No matter what you have been lead to believe by your echo chamber (and yes we all have an echo chamber) there are many people that live good lives without the internet. Don't let a tool become your life, its still just a tool.
Some people will not get by, the only way to tell if it is in their control or not is to push them to (or off) the brink. Arguments revolving around proving someone doesn't have the will to do 'X' are inherently worthless unless you are willing to prove it. The only way to help everyone get by is to take choices away from those who fail to get by.
So, given all this I have a moral solution for you. Anyone that can't get by should be given a free small plot of land, a reasonable set of tools, one year of food and the freedom to make their choices in life.
Been an employee and a contractor. Contractor is so much better and more freeing. I never once thought, Oh if I could only have my taxes withheld... I got to dictate terms for my jobs, I got the benefit of tax exemptions which pay for my working vehicle. All expenses are tax write offs. It was downright pleasant and for once my time put into being better at a job, paid me directly instead of paying my boss. Also, it was government which took the opportunity away from me, forcing me back into an hourly position so they could get that 40% cut from my weekly check.
https://drive.google.com/file/...
Nothing really new but combing thru all this stuff may be fun...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
then we're back to "where did those resources come from".
The point, which you are trying to blithely assume away, is that ultimately somebody took those resources for free and used them to live off the labour of those who didn't.
Yeah, I guess that explains the doubled deficit over the last ~8 years.
I'm not accusing you of diminishing the horror of real slavery. I am saying that the term "wage slavery" does. And even if the conditions of wage slavery and real slavery were the same (and they aren't), the reasons for those conditions are important. The only reason a person is a real slave is because a person has proclaimed ownership over them and this ownership is recognized by whatever society they are in. A wage slave may be stuck working for their current employer, but their situation is not caused by their employer, nor would the sudden death of their employer help their situation, it would probably make it worse by providing even fewer options for employment, and leaving them in an even more desperate situation.
There are male and female bathrooms because males and females are anatomically different because they are different sexes and have methods of expelling bodily waste which are different! The two sexes also each have personal and individual rights and needs for privacy.
Different AC, but when I moved into my apartment, I didn't ask if it was setup for a male or female bathroom because toilets are identical. And when I go to a public restroom there are doors which enable all sorts of privacy. What kind of bathrooms are you going to?
They already ARE in desperate situations, as many minimum-wage earners (or even close by in some areas) are beholden to their jobs. US and state federal laws protect some, but for others, they really ARE beholden to their employers, on an inclining scale.
Work with a few, directly, to understand their concerns, and how they are sucked dry of things like withholdings for uniforms, arcane unpaid travel to sites, and more.
Slavery doesn't necessarily mean chattel. And the subtleties can be gruesome.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Governments did outlaw "unnatural sex" in many states until the US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v Texas in 2003 that essentially reversed a previous decision from 1986.
Republicans didn't have an exclusive on intolerance for "unnatural sex".
OT: but in star trek, the enterprise crew are not the humans of the future.
the kingons are. in fact, its hard to tell many humans from klingons, if you ignore the obvious diff in looks and language.
the dog-eat-dog view is widely held by humans. 'its not enough that I win; you must also lose'. that summarizes much of humanity, sad to say.
there's no chance people will progress to star trek level of kindness, justice and understanding. we don't have it in us, by in large. the good humans are the tiny tiny minority in this world.
I don't take pleasure in saying this. but its just true, that's all.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It is the Democrats telling business that all sexes should be able to use the male or female bathrooms.
How is a bathroom male or female? Last I checked, most have sinks, and most have doors which hide toilets which are 100% identical. How much can people talk about nothing?
Men's rooms generally have urinals. They generally stink like urinals mixed with a lot of poo smell. Ladies rooms do not have urinals and fancier establishments have places for sitting down and talking as well as a makeup table with a large mirror.
I generally spend as little time as possible in public men's rooms because of the odour.
They are nowhere near identical or you simply travel in different social circles than I do. I know something about what lady's rooms look like based on what I hear from my fiancee and other ladies. Oh, I forgot, this is slashdot so most of you do not know any ladies besides your mother.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
More than half of American workers are either self-employed or work for a small, privately-held business. The Fortune 500 and government employ about the same percentage of the US labor force, about 17%.
If you work as a corporate "wage slave", that's your own choice, and perhaps your own lack of skills. The majority of Americans don't even work for "corporate bosses", and most of those who do probably do so by choice.
You get housing and food if and only if you do something productive, something that your fellow Americans value enough that they are willing to pay your for it.
Actually, Democrats just want everyone else to pay for their safety net.
timately somebody took those resources for free and used them to live off the labour of those who didn't.
How do you use unimproved land to live off the labor of others? No, really? It produces no income or other value unless you either work it or improve it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
#DNCLeaks was trending number 2 and then disappeared.
No, sorry, you pretty much have it 100% wrong.
You seem to think the problem with healthcare is that everyone is not 'included'. That is very very wrong, and pretty much what the healthcare industry wants you tho think, congratulations at swallowing the hook, line, and sinker.
The problem with healthcare is that an essential service, and one which is NOT optional for people, is run at a massive private PROFIT for the incumbents.
They have, for a long time, worked with the government to massively regulate out any form of competition, and are currently working to regulate in all users to maximise profits.
The WHOLE reason Us healthcare (and many others) is so catastrophically overprices and inefficient is that it is run PURELY for profit, and regulated for protection of that profit. Whoever people have little choice about using healthcare - your other choice is being sick or death..
People think regulations are used to control the providers, however it is almost exactly the opposite - regulations exist to stop competition from new providers, and to make sure only the massive incumbents are allowed, and hence there is no real competition.
Compare the costs of healthcare to unregulated services available in Asia, which often provide better service, with the same or more advanced capabilities, BETTER patient outcome records, and at a much MUCH lower price... Good examples are South Korea and Thailand private medical services.
Your governments and your Health companies (providers, insurers, and overseers) and using your health to empty your wallets, and letting the people without enough cash simply suffer, as a scare tactic so they can squeeze the rest harder. Land of the free! ra ra!
How do you use unimproved land to live off the labor of others?
You rent it to someone who needs it.
The very essence of freedom is the freedom to fail. Without that possibility, you're not free and you won't try as hard to do anything. Most successful people have failed many times before hitting a success. It's not how many times you get knocked down, it's how many times you get back up and keep trying.
You do realize that under obama the national debt has skyrocketed more than all the presidents before him? Democrats are tax, BORROW and spend. That gives the edge to the republicans. Though I don't like the borrow bit from them either.
This. If you got boy-parts, you go to the little boys' room. If you got girl-parts, you go to the little girls' room. If you don't like that, you go to the "family bathroom". Simple.
or if you're in some of the....rougher.... schools, there are no stall/doors/privacy. You do your business all out in the open, before God and the other occupants.
WTF??? This is patently absurd.
Klingons have a rich warrior culture that values honor above all else. They made that abundantly clear in countless episodes.
Humans (in this universe we inhabit) do not have a warrior culture, and definitely do not value honor. If we did, we would not be about to elect Trump or Hillary (or almost anyone else that was running).
The Klingons most resemble various old traditional cultures, such as the Japanese Samurai culture, which of course is long dead.
The ST race that was meant to most resemble modern humans is the Ferengi: profit above all. However, even the Ferengi had some real values; they thought it was important to properly assist underdeveloped cultures to develop economically and technologically, so that they could become good trading partners. Bombing them into submission was not part of their ethic.
No, I think the Terran Empire depicted in several ST episodes (not just "Mirror, Mirror", but also an excellent ENT 2-parter called "In a Mirror, Darkly") is a very accurate depiction of modern human culture transposed into a future with warp drive.
But I do agree with your final assessment about good humans being the tiny tiny minority.
They won't, of course. But it's still theoretically possible. In some other universe where criminals get charged for their crimes.
Fortunately in this universe that decision is left up to legal authorities instead of lynch mobs.
Clinton isn't a completely unique situation, the closest examples seem to be Alberto Gonzales, John O'Neill, and Bryan Nishimura. All three removing classifier material, Gonzales and O'Neill weren't charged and Nishimura got 2 years probation.
All three involved no intent to distribute to unauthorized parties. Gonzales and O'Neill were essentially careless while Nishimua was deliberate.
I see Clinton as belonging with Gonzales and O'Neill, all three mishandled docs while performing their official duties and non attempted to expose the docs on purpose.
Nishimua is the only one who was deliberately taking docs out of classified systems, and he only got 2 years probation.
Given those precedents the decision not to prosecute seems quite defensible.
It's also kinda funny how I can barely remember hearing a peep about Gonzales when he arguably had more intent to break the law than Clinton. There's no evidence that Clinton was trying to send classified info on her mail server, but Gonzales, the Attorney General, clearly knew he had classified info when he carried it in his briefcase and took it home.
I stole this Sig
A Republican nut-job shows himself!
It wasn't about anything besides making life miserable for trans people, you religious moron.
It's worse than that: the law references birth certificates, so a "package inspection" isn't going to catch people who have had transition surgery. So this means they need to require everyone to carry around a birth certificate and present it when using the restroom, and they need police at every public restroom on government property to check this.
Needs it for what exactly? You keep asserting that unimproved land has some mystical value, but I'm not seeing it. The majority of such land in the US is owned by the government - local, state, and national parks. There are a few huge private ranches, to be sure, but they're more trophies/status symbols than wealth. There's some unimproved land in the US that's actually rented out, but that's mostly "reverse sharecropping" that more-or-less pays for the property taxes, and again not a source of meaningful income.
Land becomes valuable when you build something useful on it (and not always then).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Needs it for what exactly?
Everyone needs land, if only for a place to stand.
mystical value
Market rental value. It's only zero until someone wants to use it.
Land becomes valuable when you build something useful on it
Or someone else builds something near it.
Well, when you consider that the safety net (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, and the interest on the debt racked up) consumes 100% of all Federal revenues - it looks like the Democrats have won.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
They already ARE in desperate situations, as many minimum-wage earners (or even close by in some areas) are beholden to their jobs
I think I already implied that when I said losing their current job would leave them in a *more* desperate situation (i.e. that their situation was already desperate).
US and state federal laws protect some, but for others, they really ARE beholden to their employers, on an inclining scale.
They are certainly dependent on their employers. Whether our society unfairly forces people to be dependent on their employers is another question. But actual slaves are not dependent on their owners, which is why so many slaves tried to escape (i.e. they were much better off without them).
If I go to a third world country and start handing out $1 bills to everyone, those people might come to depend on me. That doesn't mean it is my fault that they only have $1. I am the reason they don't have $0. I am not saying that employers are being charitable, or that they are not sometimes exploitive. I am saying that the employer regardless of how good or bad they are, are providing another option that the workers can refuse if another better opportunity comes along. Actual slaves do not have that option.
Wage slaves are still free to choose the best option out of whatever limited options they have. Even exploitive employers are increasing rather than decreasing those options.
If the foxconn plant in China closes the ratio of labor supply to demand has just increased, driving the price of labor even further down, and those workers will now be forced to work in an even worse plant getting paid even less money.
Work with a few, directly, to understand their concerns, and how they are sucked dry of things like withholdings for uniforms, arcane unpaid travel to sites, and more.
Being a wage slave is different than beign a victim of fraud, even if those 2 things can and often do go together.
The workers in Dubai are probably actually just slaves (rather than just wage slaves). They are victims of fraud. Their contracts are not honored. Their passports are confiscated. They are not allowed to leave. The justice system is rigged against them. They are wage slaves in that they make low wages, but they are not *just* wage slaves.
Slavery doesn't necessarily mean chattel. And the subtleties can be gruesome.
Not anymore. Thanks to "wage slavery", it can also refer to poor people in America making minimum wage.
I think it should be possible to feel empathy for people in a difficult situation, and want to do something to help those people without needing to conflate the situation they are in slavery. At the same time it is important to recognize that there is still actual slavery happening in the world today even if it is not labelled as such.
The people forced to provide those goods and services for those that haven't earned them are the real slaves.
That's really quite consistent with the definition of slavery. To the extent that the fruits of your labor are confiscated, you are enslaved.
If, between local, state and federal government, 60% of your income is confiscated, you are 60% enslaved.
This assertion does not break down just because some of the confiscated funds are directed back to you in the form of government benefits. Traditional slaves received meager food, clothing and housing benefits too.
Am I an anarchist who believes we should all be 0% enslaved? No, I have a gut feeling that society would thrive best if we were all about 17% enslaved.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Some of those choices were made when these people were still children. It's much harder for a child born into a broken home with no culture of education to break the mold, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and become a great student. It's not as hard for a child to make good choices when they were born into an affluent family that was able to give them the tools to make good choices.
I think making people accountable for their choices is a good thing when it is actually fostering better choices. When you are holding people accountable for the choices they made as children, and the choices their parents made, especially when those consequences are a primary roadblock to making good decisions, is cruel.
To me this is like punishing people for being obese by withholding healthy food from them.
And if someone cannot provide this, he's supposed to starve to death, I assume?
You are aware that the fraction of people accepting this fate without instead trying to kill you and take what's yours is rather low, yes?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not at all. But if you cannot provide value to your fellow human beings and failed to prepare for that situation (by saving and insurance), you necessarily rely on charity and you logically always lose your freedom to choose.
The fraction of people who end up in that situation is exceedingly small in societies in which people understand that the only way to actually have freedom is to contribute value to society and save for a rainy day. Societies where large numbers of people don't understand that end violently no matter what.
You act like this is an option for everyone. "have insurance and save for a rainy day"?! Many people live paycheck to paycheck. Even if they don't, it's not always just one rainy day they encounter; maybe the saying, "When it rains, it pours." stuck around because life often seems to go that way?
...because she's stated that she would back prosecuting him if he came back to the USA. (This is one of the few, main points that I disagree with her policy myself, BTW).
So if Hillary gets elected, he's got at least another four years before he can try to come back under a (possibly) different president.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Not at all. There are always people depending for their survival on charity or welfare or "entitlements", sometimes through no fault of their own. That's a given. What AC and I are pointing out is that calling that situation "freedom" is ludicrous. AC called it a "gilded cage", although it's usually not even gilded.
The twist is red tape in the bedrooms from the "freedom" and "small government" party. For added hilarity there's the strange fear of the impossible with worries about Sharia law by the people who are actually trying to enforce something similar with pointless red tape in the bedrooms.
The Republican party was not always like this. People keep on using "1950s values" as an insult but they've actually gone backwards in some ways since then due to a fringe taking things over.
I have never been able to get my head around the way American politics is mainly about insignificant nonsense and hysterical posturing. So, people seem to be up in arms, basically because Mrs Clinton is a Clinton; I think we know that it is not about whether she is honest, competent, experienced. Nor is it about whether she get money from the wrong kind of rich people etc. After all, it would be so very hard to find a politician in the US who is not far too close to big money and whose character is several shades less than the purest white, and I find it highly surprising that the crap there undoubtedly is on Trump is not mentioned at all. But even more purprising is it that there are so many who eem to shut down their mental faculties and refuse to even think for a moment about the things he is promising - which he clearly can't deliver, and just as clearly has not spent any thought on how to implement.
SAy he gets elected - how long will it take before the wild excitement turns to disappointment and then outright hate? And when that happens, will he continue in style and whip up more shit against whoever is a convenient scapegoat - the Mexicans, the Muslims, whatever? Be careful what you wish for.
People get angry because despite your good intentions, it actually insults them to some degree as well as most of the time being completely impractical.
An example of impractical is savings. There used to be a bunch of non- practicing financial gurus going around saying if you just put $10 a week in savings that it would be some fortune in 20-30 years due to compound interest. They would use 3% or more for the interest rate and mathematically it was sound. The problem is that unless you already had a lot of savings, you cannot find any savings or investment vehicles paying close to that kind of interest and most of the practical choices (bank account) actually charged you more than the interest they would pay to deal with such a small balance.
Another is go to college. That's easier done when fresh out of highschool before you have to work 2 low paying jobs to get by and support a family. You used to be able to work your way through college but costs now, along with mandatory dorm living for the first year or two has done away with that and with interest rates, you are likely to waste any increased income for the first 20 years paying for the school loans.
It is not just making the right choices, making them at the right time in life is key too.
This is not to say that people do not have the ability to better themselves. They certainly do in most cases. It just isn't always as simple as it seems on paper. When something seems simple and is pointed out to someone else, it gets a bit insulting because they likely already ran into some road block in trying it.
That's really a non point. The people who claimed that land originally are long dead and gone by several generations or more.
Anyone with land today have either paid for it themselves or it has been passed down in inheritance and paid for by taxes to government. Your premise is that it belongs to society. Society already accounts for it via taxes and if you don't pay them, they take it from you.
He likely did that so he would not appear to be an ignorant twit who has to rely on false accusations to make a point. However, i would like to thank you for coming in and spouting that ignorant crap just to keep the talking points alive.
This bathroom law, just like any other law will only come into play when there is a complaint or obvious infraction which would likely cause a complaint. Birth certificates can have their gender changed in all 50 states so someone actually doing the change are unaffected after the change.
What would happen is someone would complain about some pervert in the bathroom. They would investigate and if in the correct bathroom sent about their way. It is only meant to stop perverts from preying on people in areas they should be safe from this shit.
And yes. .. it has already happened in several places where a pervert claimed to identify as a female in order to get into a women's restroom.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
"Most successful people have failed many times before hitting a success." - Avoiding debts by using limited liability or by you or your company declaring bankruptcy is a type of welfare. It may well be that limited liability is necessary to encourage entrepreneurs and limit the consequences of failure, but don't take full advantage of it and then ask the government - and the rest of us who haven't run away from debts - to leave you alone.
Unfortunately for your argument, there's not really much evidence that raising the minimum wage causes problems - in fact pretty much everywhere it's been increased we've seen quite the opposite effect. Minimum wage salaries are typically only responsible for a tiny percentage of the cost of the products or services being sold, and the cost of doubling them can easily be passed on to the customer. Meanwhile, doubling the wages of a large fraction of the population considerably increases the size of the customer pool, and thus the available profits for the business.
As for "harming the rights of the employer to operate his business in an equitable manner", what world are you living in? The vast majority of the US economy consists of corporations that have pocketed 99% of all the productivity gains of their employees for the last several decades, while worker wages have remained largely stagnant. That's hardly operating a business in an equitable manner.
If you want to talk about the government immorally imposing demands on society - how about we start with the completely artificial strong property laws that allow a tiny percentage of the population to concentrate the vast bulk of societies wealth into their own hands over the course of generations? Without those laws individuals can only accumulate as much wealth as they can personally defend, insuring a far more equitable wealth distribution. If we're going to have such laws, then we need counterpoint laws to prevent the terrible excesses that they enable.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"There is lots of food just growing out in parks, along trails, and in small streams and creeks. There are people who choose to be homeless and free."
That was a practical option when most people were employed in farming (or, indeed, in hunter-gathering), and you could find some spare land not owned by anyone else. (Or at any rate not owned by anyone you couldn't cheat out of their land.) As you observe there are still some people in modern economies who can live that way. But I suggest that in, for example, the UK or the USA that life style can only sustain relatively few people, and that if large numbers of people tried it now there would be widescale failure of resources and/or fighting over scarce resources. See the posts above by ultranova and Christopher C.
Sorry. I actually meant to type "WOULDN'T," as in they would certainly outlaw it if they could.
"the kingons are"
ITYM Ferengi.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I disagree. It is my government which has conflated two somewhat disparate ideas into one. When a person goes to a chapel and swears before God that he will love, honor, etc., that is a religious ceremony. When you get a marriage license, combine your assets, joint-file taxes and all that other business, that is the contractual marriage. Government has decided that legal marriage is necessarily constrained by The tenets of a certain subset of Christian versions of holy matrimony. Government should get completely out of the "marriage" business and offer only civil unions regardless of the sex of the two entering into the agreement.
I love your kind. On one hand expect everyone to "save and have an insurance", on the other hand you're fine with paying people barely enough to get by.
The only reason you allowed slavery to be abolished is that it is more expensive to feed and shelter slaves than what you have to pay now.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's really a non point.
Many people these days are trying to figure out exactly how the elite are screwing them over. The private monopolisation of land and natural resources is one of the ways. It makes no difference that today's landlords are not the original expropriators, they are still extracting unearned income from the nation.
Society already accounts for it via taxes and if you don't pay them, they take it from you.
It depends where you live. The landlords always try to use their considerable political clout to move taxation off land and onto labour. The entire rental value of the unimproved land should be taxed. Not many places do that.
Ted Cruz didn't got booed off the stage of the Republican convention because the audience disliked his politics: it was because - for the reasons Cruz gave - he wasn't going to endorse Trump as the Republican candidate. I'll grant you that if there was a popularity contest in the Senate, Cruz would probably be in the 101st position.
Disclaimer: that's the first - and probably the last - time I've defended Ted Cruz. If I lived in the US and my only choice was to vote for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, I'd probably go to the nearest desert and stick my head in the sand. As it happens, I live in the UK, and we have our own problems with political clowns and demagogues. It's interesting that Donald Trump's former campaign manager had such a low opinion of Trump's supporters that he thought they'd have problems understanding words like "demagogue" and "denominator". And that he has sufficent science expertise to be able to call Stephen Hawking a "so-called genius".
Property taxes were one of the first taxes in the U.S. .over the years, even at lower values, more taxes than the current value of the land would have been paid. I'm not sure it is important to distinguish between the rental value in this regard. Government generally exempts itself from its own property taxes but they don't give land away any more.
I am not sure I follow you.
People get angry because that is what they have been told they are supposed to do. Despite deplorable conditions peasants in medieval settings were not as unhappy as you would think they should be...
http://www.voxeu.org/article/h...
As for being insulted that is not any of my concern. If you find your life in a deplorable state and you find someone offering suggestions as insulting then you are probably not motivated enough to fix your life so all I can say is that I am sorry I caused you pain by helping you see your options. Please move your bitching into the worthless Empathy Line to the left and we we know not to help out any more.
The $10 a week at 3% thing is pretty bad advice on face and I can only presume only the mathematically challenged would buy into it. That is like $520 saved a year or $15,600 over 30. To parley that into riches would take Hillary style luck (read corruption). So the whole thing is stupid on face.
That being said your, 'no investments for the poor person' line just just as silly. A quick search of the internet shows banks in my area offering things like 'rewards checking' that (comes with a couple minor stipulations like having direct deposit set up) but offer in the 2%-3% range on up to some mid-level amount of cash ($10,000-$20,000). That should easily get you started.
As for collage I love how you mix 'got myself into bad financial straights' with collage is unfavorable. Yes, if you have already got yourself in a hole anything you do will (at least temporarily) make the whole deeper. What you should be doing is looking for things that might make it worse in the short term but have long term payouts.
Looking again at my local area a 2 year community collage degree is about $6k. Many of them transfer to my local 'real' collage and are equivalent of the first two years of a four year degree (I know as this is what I did). So if you haven't already dug yourself into a hole this is really not that bad. If you have dug yourself into a hole then you look into loans, grants, or companies that offer tuition help to employees.
Again just in my local area a 2 year degree is good for some low level technical job. Probably talking $25k-$35k for a helpdesk/operations position. Most of these companies with cover some tuition reimbursement so if you want to do better the $21k (and two more years) to get a BS isn't that hard.
Yes, you are talking about 2-4 years of hard work and little leisure time. That being said compared to work even 100 years ago it really isn't 'hard' work.
Now, I know there are other paths. If you are fit and/or good with dirty jobs I have a friend who swears by sanitation worker positions. I have a relative who has done really well using the military as a stepping stone to being a mechanic. There are a million ways to success but all of them take some discipline.
Your 'right time' argument is true but doesn't look at the whole picture. Life is compound. Every good thing you do makes your life easier, every bad thing makes it harder. So the sooner you make good choices the better off you will be.
As for the 'road blocks' I can only be insulting and channel Yoda 'There is no try, there is only dew.' or wait was that a commercial... Seriously don't buy into the anger and hopelessness. Remember in the richest country in the world 10% of those born into the lowest 20% of earners makes their way to the highest 20% of earners. Your life is yours to make better!
Property taxes were one of the first taxes in the U.S.
In the early days property was one of the few sources of wealth. Only property owners were worth taxing.
Property taxes have several desirable characteristics: they are hard to evade, they cannot be shifted onto others, they are fairly easy to assess and they are fairly constant. If they are high enough they discourage speculation and hoarding. They keep land prices affordable and they encourage wide ownership and development.
over the years, even at lower values, more taxes than the current value of the land would have been paid. I'm not sure it is important to distinguish between the rental value in this regard.
The sale value largely depends on the rental value. The rental value depends not only on the land itself but on its surroundings. Improvements to the surroundings made by the community increase the rental value of the land through no effort of the landowner. That increment rightly belongs to the community.
Nonsense. If the value of land increases, it belongs to the current owner. The rental value has less impact than the use value. For instance farmland valued at commercial real estate values can make taxing costs more than production revenue. This is important because you can build a factory almost anywhere but you cannot go without food or the products agriculture supports.
Seeing how property taxes are generally a percentage of value, it is already accounted for in the assessment. The assessment happens anytime the property is sold, when it's zoning use is changed, or biannualy in my area whichever comes first.
The land is still paid for and not free. It is not important to distinguish these differences.
I think you've drifted into confusion between the rental value and the sale value, also the unimproved value and the improved value. Property taxes are generally assessed on the sale value which includes improvements.
I am saying that a landowner should, in effect, rent the land from the community at its market rate as unimproved land. If he makes improvements that should not affect the 'ground rent'.
If he sells it with improvements, for more than he bought it for, he can keep the profit. He earned it.
If the community builds a city round it and rezones it as suitable for millionaires' mansions, that should affect the ground rent.
That may mean it is no longer viable as cattle pasture (or whatever) in which case the owner can either build mansions or sell it to a mansion builder.
If he sells, should he keep the profit? He didn't really earn it, it was created by the community. But the community is recovering the additional value through the increased ground rent, so perhaps we can consider the profit as compensation for having to move.
Property taxes are assessed at the value if sold today at the time of the assessment. All improvements and other values including rental if any will be covered in that valuation.
You do not own anything if you are renting it. It is absurd to think otherwise. But the city or jurisdiction gets more by assessing based on the sale value. If they build a mall or upscale restaurant near it and the value increases, it will be reflected in the next assessment and the community benefits. Everything you are trying to accomplish is already accounted for.
You do not own anything if you are renting it. It is absurd to think otherwise.
It depends what is meant by 'own' of course. If you can dispose of something as you want and prevent others from using it you 'own' it even if those rights are conferred by a contract with the community rather than by a promise from God or the strength of your arm. You said yourself if you stop paying your tax they will take your land.
Everything you are trying to accomplish is already accounted for.
Some jurisdictions come close I suppose but what I am proposing (the idea comes primarily from Henry George if you missed it) is less a material change than a different way of thinking about it, which can lead to a better way of doing it.
First your comprehension is a bit rusty. I claimed nothing about what the compound interest would be other than to take the $15k that you actually saved and turn it into anything substantial in 30 years would take luck that is... suspect. I figured anyone could run some math an see where it could take them. Obviously I was wrong so lets start with a goal. Figure your goal is to buy a house worth $150,000 in 30 years. Saving $10 a week means you would need a >12% annually compounded interest rate every year to make it. This is obviously silly, unless you have some connection somewhere (read illicit dealings) you can get 2%-7% pretty reliably. Anything more appears to be luck (ya sure), and soon followed by the other kind of luck that wipes you out.
I will not 'slashdot' any of my local banks but I can tell you that I have an account with a $5 minimum, no fees (if you take e-statements), and if I have set up auto-deposit, and use my debit card a few times a month I get 2-3% on up to $15,000. This was attractive when I was a starving collage kid and its still attractive now that I am doing better. So they exist I would suggest looking around your local banks to see what they offer.
Yes, if someone has no money that is not locked down they have no options in regards to savings. If this is the case why would you even care what interest rates you could get as they won't do you any good. This sounds more like parroting someones talking points then real concerns. If this is your situation the name of the game then is reduction of costs and short-term boosts in earnings. If someone can put back $10 a week it would help them weather emergencies better and that is far more important than getting interest on a bank account anyway (3% interest earned isn't anything compared to your >15% interest you will pay on the credit card you use to bail your ass out of a jam).
Yes, I read your collage rant. Yes I responded to parts of it by telling you how people can succeed. Yes, everything is easier when you haven't dug yourself into a hole (hmm.. prety sure I already said that). Few holes are bigger than caring for another life for 18 years. You discount that collage is doable while looking out from the bottom of a large debt (what having kids should be considered). If you haven't made some really bad choices you can work your way through collage, I did, recently. So in general yes, collage is good and affordable if you are willing to work for it. If you are 70 years old with a mountain of dept then collage wont help you a bit.
Yes, I read your post more than once. Perhaps you should consider that you discount advice too rapidly and respond like your case is the general case everyone runs into. You move into attacking people because they are unable to provide you with magic faerie dust that fixes your particular situation. People get pissed at me because I don't offer the worthless 'you did all you could' crap that is so common now. My friends bring real financial concerns to me and we talk about strategies of dealing with them. They don't come to me for a shoulder to cry on, that would be my wife's department. Empathy is for end of life situations and breakups. Everything else deserves careful consideration and an action plan.
Other points
- Mandatory dorms - read about community collages, no dorms, cheep
- Interest rates - don't take loans unless you really have to
- Interest on 20 years of school loans - This I didn't touch as it seemed obvious. Get a decent degree when you have few costs, it shouldn't be that expensive. Even if you had to take loans to cover the whole cost your talking sub $30k. Increase in earnings should cover this in a few years. Pay it off BEFORE you increase your life style. Get a degree in something desired, not basket weaving.
Perhaps people get tired of trying to help because suggestions to a general problem are always shot down with specifics from someone who has already spent a large portion of their life getting themselves into trouble. The base suggestion
You left out their choice of who their parents are.
Because if you look at who the emails are from, according to TFS, none are from Hillary. The headline is clickbait.
They're not from her, but they're directly or indirectly all ABOUT her and the DNC's unwavering Coronate Hillary position. What else did you think was going to be the focus of the matter? Yoga and wedding plans? Right.
So fucking what? It's not a Hillary scandal. Political parties have inside favorites - film at 11:00.
Are you seriously arguing that having a populous that can afford your products is an impediment to small businesses? And obviously the majority of the benefit goes to the majority stakeholders in the economy - the majority benefit of *any* economic growth goes to them - anything that helps people, and doesn't specifically exclude or disadvantage them, will tend to benefit them most.
Yes, it does make for some additional difficulty for startups, but the alternative (baring direct income assistance) is to say that the most disadvantaged people should continue to be required to work 60-80 hours per week to have any chance of getting ahead. Because that's the reality of the current situation.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.