I'm still hung up on the fact that we're facing a future where we have too many people for the available work and resources and we're still incentivizing people to have children. WTF?
How about - and I'm just throwing this out - we pay people some amount (say $100,000) to have their tubes tied. Then, when they want to have kids, they have to pay the $100,000 back. This way we don't have unwanted babies; we don't have babies cause people think it's cool and that "society" will pay for it; and people who want kids can afford them. At least to the point of paying back the original incentive.
You and I may be happy with this. But a lot of people will not. People need a sense of purpose; a desire to be needed; to be valuable. Some may find value in free time to pursue artistic endeavors; many will not.
You need to come up with an alternative to welfare. A good many people will not be happy (or good neighbors) with nothing to do. A sense of purpose is important.
It's time to start thinking about how a society which want a social safety net can incentivize people people to not have children they can't afford.
How do we NOT support breeding?
This is as important - if not more important - than universal basic income.
It's interesting reading Mein Kampf. It's like reading just another tract from a leftist revolutionary; it's drivel similar in tone and intent to other cafe revolutionaries of the time.
Am I cherry picking when I call bullsh!t on the media?
Example: The definition of HIV changes from a T-cell count of 250-150. (or something like that) Obviously changing the definition will change the "amount" of people who are considered HIV positive. 6 months later the media breathlessly announces a surge in HIV cases.
My objection is the lack of honesty in the media. Not that the medical establishment changed the definition of what is, or what is not, HIV positive.
You're talking about the entire presidential term. I was talking about the statements following : 187,000 job growth in the past month
under the Bush administration this was called "anemic".
under the Obama administration this is called "good".
I'm referring to the adjectives used to describe the monthly report. As you stated there are a lot of variables when we are comparing 8 year periods of job growth.
I was referring to what CNN and other media outlets were saying about job growth at the time. We're not comparing job growth over all. There are numerous factors affecting job growth. And I'm not talking about professional economists and quants were saying.
I'm only referring to the adjectives and focus made by the media on the monthly job figures. If "x" is anemic because the job growth is doesn't keep up with population growth than that adjective should be used when a different president is in office. I would prefer that no adjective was used. People should be looking at employement, GDP stats in the same way they review ERA and RBIs in baseball.
Notice all media reports of "unexpectedly" low GDP or employment growth over the last 8 years. Guaranteed that "unexpected" will not be the adjective used over the next 4 years.
I do understand nuance. I also understand and work with numbers for a living. I see hypocrisy in the description.
We have lots of unemployment and suicides in this country. (5% unemployment, using the same standards as the 1990s. Bullsh!t)
There hasn't been a peep about this from the media. What do you think the chances are that we'll be seeing an uptick of articles regarding homelessness, unemployment and suicides due to free-market / or "America-First" policies (depending upon which way the Trump administration goes.
It does mean something but I don't really see how it applies here.
Gender equality social warriors in Sweden (I think) got the bright idea that clearing snow from streets as opposed to sidewalks was a symbol male dominance. To solve the gender inequality clearing sidewalks was to be considered of equal priority to clearing the streets.
That does not make sense. Businesses are kept separate for a whole slew of legal and tax related reasons. Giving below market loans is not keeping the entities separate.
You can live on yogurt, parmessian cheese, home made peasant bread, soppresatta, olives, cornichons, salad and wine, never go to fast-food places and still be concerned about excess weight - even if you walk 10,000+ steps a day and go to the gym 4-5 days a week.
I know because the above is my diet and my exercise routine, has been for years, and I'm constantly monitoring my caloric input.
socialism is not in favor of individual rights. It's a collectivist, not an individualist philosophy.
Lenin, Trotsky and Che have mocked the concept of individualism. And this, of course, doesn't take into account Stalin, Mao and others who murdered millions.
Social Democrats do not, in my opinion, strengthen individual rights. They strengthen some group but not the smallest of minorities - the individual. Defending the individual against the predations of the state had been one of the goals of classical liberals - but no longer. Just look at the abomination of identity politics - humans only have value (or less value) depending upon the group to which they belong.
I guess you don't realize how unbelievably bigoted and racist you sound. Do you say the same the same thing about farmers and laborers from other countries who are immigrating here?
You do realize we are importing people by the millions who, according to you, are intellectually incapable to cope in the modern workplace.
There's also white people being pulled over because they're white.
I cannot tell you how many times I was pulled over in Far Rockaway, Queens because - why else would a white guy be there than to buy drugs or sell guns?
I was stopped practically every day for a couple of week until my car was recognized and then... nothing.
Was it right? No.
One solution is to NOT have checks for drunk driving. To stop checks for seat belts, etc... These intrusions are not caused by police but by the civilian authorities (read your elected officials) who demand a crack down after an accident. Or, want to raise revenue.
On a side note? What is far -right? Is it the neo-nazis or free-market, pro-gay marriage libertarian outfits? What is the definition of far - right? Or is it simply - they disagree therefore they are far right?
So. Then. Change the game. Don't have the federal government give hand outs. Have welfare and support taxes come solely from the states. That way the Blue States won't be subsidizing the Red State. Soon enough Red Staters will see the error of their way that all of America will turn blue.
At least if your assumptions hold true.
So. If you truly believe what you just wrote start pushing to have all welfare and subsidies be provided by the states themselves - and in a few short years... your dream of a blue america will be realized.
Too bad Gore tried to cheat in Florida by wanting to recount only select counties as opposed to the entire state. That attempt was cheating. That is the only cheating we can be sure of.
The other - potential - cheating was from the media declaring that Florida went for Gore. 1000s of people left the voting line in the Florida Panhandle (a reliably Republican area). Bush would have won by way more that 0.5% of the vote if those 1000s of voters stayed on line.
Florida law stated that if the SoS and Governor signed off that the count was legitimate. (True in the other states as well) Al Gore didn't like the agreed upon procedure so he went to the Florida Supreme Court and then it went to the Federal Court.
Let's say that the Supreme Court did not intervene. Then what?
The electors from Florida would not have counted. Then what?
It would have gone to the US House of Representatives. Then what? You guessed it.
It's not the regulation that is necessarily important but the consequences for lying and deceiving. You don't necessarily need a regulation. You need consequences for deception.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm referring to welfare payments. People get extra money when they have kids. This "incentive" needs to be removed.
I like. I really do.
That may be a solution. I don't know.
I'm still hung up on the fact that we're facing a future where we have too many people for the available work and resources and we're still incentivizing people to have children. WTF?
How about - and I'm just throwing this out - we pay people some amount (say $100,000) to have their tubes tied. Then, when they want to have kids, they have to pay the $100,000 back. This way we don't have unwanted babies; we don't have babies cause people think it's cool and that "society" will pay for it; and people who want kids can afford them. At least to the point of paying back the original incentive.
You and I may be happy with this. But a lot of people will not. People need a sense of purpose; a desire to be needed; to be valuable. Some may find value in free time to pursue artistic endeavors; many will not.
You need to come up with an alternative to welfare. A good many people will not be happy (or good neighbors) with nothing to do. A sense of purpose is important.
It's time to start thinking about how a society which want a social safety net can incentivize people people to not have children they can't afford.
How do we NOT support breeding?
This is as important - if not more important - than universal basic income.
It's interesting reading Mein Kampf. It's like reading just another tract from a leftist revolutionary; it's drivel similar in tone and intent to other cafe revolutionaries of the time.
What was the lie?
Show me the cherry picking.
Am I cherry picking when I call bullsh!t on the media?
Example: The definition of HIV changes from a T-cell count of 250-150. (or something like that) Obviously changing the definition will change the "amount" of people who are considered HIV positive. 6 months later the media breathlessly announces a surge in HIV cases.
My objection is the lack of honesty in the media. Not that the medical establishment changed the definition of what is, or what is not, HIV positive.
You're talking about the entire presidential term. I was talking about the statements following : 187,000 job growth in the past month
under the Bush administration this was called "anemic".
under the Obama administration this is called "good".
I'm referring to the adjectives used to describe the monthly report. As you stated there are a lot of variables when we are comparing 8 year periods of job growth.
I was referring to what CNN and other media outlets were saying about job growth at the time. We're not comparing job growth over all. There are numerous factors affecting job growth. And I'm not talking about professional economists and quants were saying.
I'm only referring to the adjectives and focus made by the media on the monthly job figures. If "x" is anemic because the job growth is doesn't keep up with population growth than that adjective should be used when a different president is in office. I would prefer that no adjective was used. People should be looking at employement, GDP stats in the same way they review ERA and RBIs in baseball.
Notice all media reports of "unexpectedly" low GDP or employment growth over the last 8 years. Guaranteed that "unexpected" will not be the adjective used over the next 4 years.
I do understand nuance. I also understand and work with numbers for a living. I see hypocrisy in the description.
We have lots of unemployment and suicides in this country. (5% unemployment, using the same standards as the 1990s. Bullsh!t) There hasn't been a peep about this from the media. What do you think the chances are that we'll be seeing an uptick of articles regarding homelessness, unemployment and suicides due to free-market / or "America-First" policies (depending upon which way the Trump administration goes.
We've always been at war with Oceania.
When Bush was president 200,000 new jobs was considered anemic as it didn't cover the rise in working age adults.
Now, with a greater population 187k is considered great. A sign that the economy is truly booming.
Wait a year, when Trump is president, and anything under 200,000k will be considered anemic again.
Remember we've always been at war with Eastasia.
It does mean something but I don't really see how it applies here.
Gender equality social warriors in Sweden (I think) got the bright idea that clearing snow from streets as opposed to sidewalks was a symbol male dominance. To solve the gender inequality clearing sidewalks was to be considered of equal priority to clearing the streets.
Who knew that this would fv(k things up?
That does not make sense. Businesses are kept separate for a whole slew of legal and tax related reasons. Giving below market loans is not keeping the entities separate.
Maybe loss of manufacturing jobs and horrible jobless economy?
You can be overweight on a Mediterranean diet,
You can live on yogurt, parmessian cheese, home made peasant bread, soppresatta, olives, cornichons, salad and wine, never go to fast-food places and still be concerned about excess weight - even if you walk 10,000+ steps a day and go to the gym 4-5 days a week.
I know because the above is my diet and my exercise routine, has been for years, and I'm constantly monitoring my caloric input.
Clearly suicides in Cuba are not a reflection on modern socialist management styles. Che! Che! Che!
No libertarian, no free-market conservative. No small government Republican idealizes the 1950s. Stop making things up.
socialism is not in favor of individual rights. It's a collectivist, not an individualist philosophy.
Lenin, Trotsky and Che have mocked the concept of individualism. And this, of course, doesn't take into account Stalin, Mao and others who murdered millions. Social Democrats do not, in my opinion, strengthen individual rights. They strengthen some group but not the smallest of minorities - the individual. Defending the individual against the predations of the state had been one of the goals of classical liberals - but no longer. Just look at the abomination of identity politics - humans only have value (or less value) depending upon the group to which they belong.
Liberals and Socialism is antithetical to each other. A socialist can call himself a liberal but he's not. He's just appropriating the name.
I guess you don't realize how unbelievably bigoted and racist you sound. Do you say the same the same thing about farmers and laborers from other countries who are immigrating here?
You do realize we are importing people by the millions who, according to you, are intellectually incapable to cope in the modern workplace.
What do you propose we do about this?
There's also white people being pulled over because they're white.
... nothing.
I cannot tell you how many times I was pulled over in Far Rockaway, Queens because - why else would a white guy be there than to buy drugs or sell guns?
I was stopped practically every day for a couple of week until my car was recognized and then
Was it right? No.
One solution is to NOT have checks for drunk driving. To stop checks for seat belts, etc... These intrusions are not caused by police but by the civilian authorities (read your elected officials) who demand a crack down after an accident. Or, want to raise revenue.
On a side note? What is far -right? Is it the neo-nazis or free-market, pro-gay marriage libertarian outfits? What is the definition of far - right? Or is it simply - they disagree therefore they are far right?
So. Then. Change the game. Don't have the federal government give hand outs. Have welfare and support taxes come solely from the states. That way the Blue States won't be subsidizing the Red State. Soon enough Red Staters will see the error of their way that all of America will turn blue.
... your dream of a blue america will be realized.
At least if your assumptions hold true.
So. If you truly believe what you just wrote start pushing to have all welfare and subsidies be provided by the states themselves - and in a few short years
Too bad Gore tried to cheat in Florida by wanting to recount only select counties as opposed to the entire state. That attempt was cheating. That is the only cheating we can be sure of.
The other - potential - cheating was from the media declaring that Florida went for Gore. 1000s of people left the voting line in the Florida Panhandle (a reliably Republican area). Bush would have won by way more that 0.5% of the vote if those 1000s of voters stayed on line.
Florida law stated that if the SoS and Governor signed off that the count was legitimate. (True in the other states as well) Al Gore didn't like the agreed upon procedure so he went to the Florida Supreme Court and then it went to the Federal Court.
Let's say that the Supreme Court did not intervene. Then what?
The electors from Florida would not have counted. Then what?
It would have gone to the US House of Representatives. Then what? You guessed it.
Republican majority. Then what?
President George Bush.
It's not the regulation that is necessarily important but the consequences for lying and deceiving. You don't necessarily need a regulation. You need consequences for deception.