You really are a remarkable specimen of willful reading comprehension problems combined with frantic projection of your cartoonish world view, complete with fantasy villains, onto everyone that might cause you to face reality.
I responded to someone who said it was time for the nation to do something to make people make more money. We all know what that requires: young people who are raised literate and productive in a stable household. Their is nothing "the nation" can do to cause that to happen. There is only the sub-cultures where that's a problem finally getting past the majority of its families deciding to be single-mother, under-educated nightmares of resentment. The GP's longing for "the nation" to do something about those pockets of family culture rot implies... doing something. Like what? We're too paralyzed by political correctness to tell people to stop having babies with random men and sending those babies out to wander the neighborhood as criminals. The GP is longing for government action, and I'm calling him out on it. YOU, of course, are doing what you always do, and pretending you don't have the IQ or reading skills to grasp the nature of the conversation. All so you can have nice, lazy, cowardly rant for whatever audience you think appreciates you playing dumb. At least you're predictable.
It's time the nation... did more to help people earn money during their lifetimes
Like, forcing parents to stay together to raise kids? Because the single greatest determining factor in a household's prosperity and a kid's eventual standard of living is: having both parents around, pooling resources and responsibilities as they raise and educate their kid(s). And yet in places like Baltimore's or Chicago's or Detroit's roughest, poorest, mostly-black neighborhoods, kids are 7-out-of-10 essentially raised by wolves, with a single mother who often has multiple children by multiple fathers. A perfect recipe for exactly the results we see: uneducated, essentially illiterate, unemployable (at anything past entry-level jobs at the very best) kids who will go on to produce more kids in the same condition. The result is a high rate of crime, low employment, and generally misery and resentment... none of which the government can fix, because the problem is cultural. Just like the somewhat different problems that plague insular local cultures like those in parts of poor (mostly) white Appalachia. The government CAN, however, make it worse, by handing out other people's money to those who live that way, rewarding the choice of household culture that creates and perpetuates it.
Never had your house broken into, your car windows smashed, a woman you know beaten and raped, your life threatened, your employer's warehouse robbed, your neighbor's kids threatened by MS-13 at school, or... man, I don't know where those rich people get the time to commit so much crime. To say nothing of those rich men driving around Chicago shooting up gang members. Probably from their Bentleys, using gold-plated guns, I suppose.
I would think those two points are pretty clear that Facebook is doing something illegal.
No, they're not. Because they're not renting properties to anybody. They're not even in that business. They're just allowing advertisers to shape where their ad money gets spent. If that same rental agent is (as they almost certainly are) also listing the rental in a dozen other places - like various apartment-finding apps/sites, etc - there are going to be prospective renters checking out the property from numerous directions. If the LANDLORD discriminates against those who actually contact them about the property, then that's where the laws kick in. Not paying to show an ad to somebody based on statistics or instincts about where that advertising money is best spent on a social media outlet is NOT the same as turning away somebody from a rental based on their demographics.
Is it fun, living in your little fantasy world where everyone you can't muster the intellectual honesty to actually debate on the substance... is a Russian? What are you, 12 years old? Or am I rounding up, here? Don't mean to insult other 12 year olds.
How is pointing out that a federal regulatory agency has the authority over an interstate matter "corrupt?" This isn't any different than the FAA having the authority to tell states/localities that no, they can't pass local laws controlling the airspace. That's not "corrupt" either - it's been legislatively established as such (in both cases) precisely so we don't end up with a patchwork train wreck of conflicting rules.
Yeah, except... there IS no deal, and he's not altering. Obama altered it, essentially by fiat, using a 1934 law aimed at a telephone company. You want to tell some small ISP in rural America that they need to dedicate essentially all of their resources to tending to traffic from Netflix? Legislate it. At the federal level, where such things must be done when they impact interstate matters like this.
CNN: "Interstellar space rock flies through solar system at alarming pace, possibly with Russian influence. Women and minorities disproportionately impacted by Trump administration's unwillingness to act."
You're hilarious. You make up some lovely crap, and then can't even recognize when someone is pointing out your foolishness. That sort of obtuseness is, I suppose, a hallmark of having a worldview built upon such conflicted, flimsy premises. You can get some help with that, you know? The first step is to stop being such a craven little coward when you post your fantasies. Give it a try! See what it's like not to be an invertebrate.
I'd say you're projecting a bit. Embarrassed by your own family history are you? Sounds that way. I've got nothing to be ashamed of. My family fought to free people from the sort of slave owners you're obviously uncomfortable about having in your own heritage. Get over it, they're all dead now - your family slave owners, and my family slavery abolishers.
Or, a modern black multi-millionaire sitting down for the national anthem at his boss's entertainment venue filled with fans of all colors might get transported back in time to meet some of the white men about to die horribly in their fight to end slavery. What's your point? Maybe we could get Martin L. King to transport forward in time to Chicago or Baltimore to witness hundreds of black guys killing each other every month over turf war in their business of poisoning other black kids with opiates. Or are you seeing a lot of modern white people falsely accusing black guys of rape as if it were 70 years ago?
No, you just proposed something that only comes to pass if you resort to that. Because if you are going to tell people they can't compete with each other to produce better things, and seek out people willing to pay for that better quality, then you're going to have to get the government involved in stopping them. Regardless, you're going to end up with a profit-driven black market anyway. Which you know. A "sensible" approach is to let the market actually work. Despite their lip service to your preferred method of running an economy, even the communist Chinese are relying on good old fashioned market influences to create prosperity and innovation.
In a just world, people who advocate for government-run centralized manufacturing of goods with no reward for being competitively better than the next guy, would get to time travel to the peak of Soviet culture, and enjoy some of their fabulous consumer products.
So, someone whose income tax rat is 0% (actually a NEGATIVE number because they get "refunds" on taxes they don't even pay), is paying income tax? Why listen to anything else you're saying when you lead with a lie like that?
People who make enough to itemize in high tax, high cost of living states are subsidizing both those within their state (via state taxes) as well as other states via federal taxes.
And they're also sticking it to people in other states by shifting part of their federal tax burden onto somebody else. Simply scrapping that incentive to raise state taxes is a good idea. If states really think it's a good idea to jack up their income taxes (as opposed to, say, their property taxes or corporate taxes, etc), then they should justify that to the people that live in that state without saying, "And you can avoid some of this cost by getting someone in another state to pay for some of your federal taxes! Isn't that great?"
So, the states that decide they want to follow that recipe inside their own borders get to stick somebody living somewhere else with part of the bill? How is that reasonable?
It is also simple math that you can give tax breaks to the middle class without giving any tax breaks to the wealthy.
Except, it's not the little guy who's buying new equipment for a small business, it's that "rich" business owner. It's not the little guy who's been keeping huge piles of cash outside of the US because of wildly high domestic tax rates. The whole idea is to get businesses buying new facilities and equipment and hiring people. Because when you have an historically high number of people who've given up looking for work, new business activity and a paycheck is FAR more of a big deal than getting $30 a week less in taxes taken out of a paycheck (that you don't have).
Right, the tax breaks for the "little guy" make up only a small portion of the impact of the bill because "the little guy" makes up only a VERY small portion of the taxes paid in the first place. How is this mysterious? It's simple math.
You're deflecting. When YOU personally get to dodge out on a bunch of your federal taxes while a guy in a DIFFERENT deep-blue state (which also "pays more than it receives") that manages to run its state more responsibly on lower local income tax rates, you are passing part of your federal tax burden off on that other person. Period. You're making it sound as if being a victim of your own state's profligate spending as its associated very high local tax rates makes you better than the person who lives a couple of states away where they're more efficient, and so that other person owes you some money in the form of picking up part of your personal federal tax bill. Get over yourself.
It must have taken you, what, an hour to compose your thoughts on that? I do see your point, though. Your refutation of reality sure is illuminating. I especially like your discussion of tax brackets, who pays them, and why you think that someone living in a state with lower local tax rates isn't getting screwed by those in another state who are writing off their higher local taxes on the federally taxed income. You've sure made a great case, thanks. Now, isn't it past your bedtime?
Slashdot Mirror
You really are a remarkable specimen of willful reading comprehension problems combined with frantic projection of your cartoonish world view, complete with fantasy villains, onto everyone that might cause you to face reality.
... doing something. Like what? We're too paralyzed by political correctness to tell people to stop having babies with random men and sending those babies out to wander the neighborhood as criminals. The GP is longing for government action, and I'm calling him out on it. YOU, of course, are doing what you always do, and pretending you don't have the IQ or reading skills to grasp the nature of the conversation. All so you can have nice, lazy, cowardly rant for whatever audience you think appreciates you playing dumb. At least you're predictable.
I responded to someone who said it was time for the nation to do something to make people make more money. We all know what that requires: young people who are raised literate and productive in a stable household. Their is nothing "the nation" can do to cause that to happen. There is only the sub-cultures where that's a problem finally getting past the majority of its families deciding to be single-mother, under-educated nightmares of resentment. The GP's longing for "the nation" to do something about those pockets of family culture rot implies
Then again, if it were far denser, it stands to reason it would be a lot more prosperous as well.
Like, say, the dense parts of Baltimore or St. Louis? Gotcha.
New York Times: "Apples chooses not to build a store on an empty stretch of ice shelf in Antarctica. Women and minorities hardest hit."
It's time the nation ... did more to help people earn money during their lifetimes
Like, forcing parents to stay together to raise kids? Because the single greatest determining factor in a household's prosperity and a kid's eventual standard of living is: having both parents around, pooling resources and responsibilities as they raise and educate their kid(s). And yet in places like Baltimore's or Chicago's or Detroit's roughest, poorest, mostly-black neighborhoods, kids are 7-out-of-10 essentially raised by wolves, with a single mother who often has multiple children by multiple fathers. A perfect recipe for exactly the results we see: uneducated, essentially illiterate, unemployable (at anything past entry-level jobs at the very best) kids who will go on to produce more kids in the same condition. The result is a high rate of crime, low employment, and generally misery and resentment ... none of which the government can fix, because the problem is cultural. Just like the somewhat different problems that plague insular local cultures like those in parts of poor (mostly) white Appalachia. The government CAN, however, make it worse, by handing out other people's money to those who live that way, rewarding the choice of household culture that creates and perpetuates it.
Apples and oranges. That's a density thing, whereas TFA is talking about affluence.
So, your take on Appalachia is that the people who live there are plenty wealthy, just not living close enough to each other?
Never had your house broken into, your car windows smashed, a woman you know beaten and raped, your life threatened, your employer's warehouse robbed, your neighbor's kids threatened by MS-13 at school, or ... man, I don't know where those rich people get the time to commit so much crime. To say nothing of those rich men driving around Chicago shooting up gang members. Probably from their Bentleys, using gold-plated guns, I suppose.
I would think those two points are pretty clear that Facebook is doing something illegal.
No, they're not. Because they're not renting properties to anybody. They're not even in that business. They're just allowing advertisers to shape where their ad money gets spent. If that same rental agent is (as they almost certainly are) also listing the rental in a dozen other places - like various apartment-finding apps/sites, etc - there are going to be prospective renters checking out the property from numerous directions. If the LANDLORD discriminates against those who actually contact them about the property, then that's where the laws kick in. Not paying to show an ad to somebody based on statistics or instincts about where that advertising money is best spent on a social media outlet is NOT the same as turning away somebody from a rental based on their demographics.
Is it fun, living in your little fantasy world where everyone you can't muster the intellectual honesty to actually debate on the substance ... is a Russian? What are you, 12 years old? Or am I rounding up, here? Don't mean to insult other 12 year olds.
How is pointing out that a federal regulatory agency has the authority over an interstate matter "corrupt?" This isn't any different than the FAA having the authority to tell states/localities that no, they can't pass local laws controlling the airspace. That's not "corrupt" either - it's been legislatively established as such (in both cases) precisely so we don't end up with a patchwork train wreck of conflicting rules.
Yes, just like the FAA can override local laws that try to regulate something that has been legislatively established as federal territory.
Yeah, except ... there IS no deal, and he's not altering. Obama altered it, essentially by fiat, using a 1934 law aimed at a telephone company. You want to tell some small ISP in rural America that they need to dedicate essentially all of their resources to tending to traffic from Netflix? Legislate it. At the federal level, where such things must be done when they impact interstate matters like this.
CNN: "Interstellar space rock flies through solar system at alarming pace, possibly with Russian influence. Women and minorities disproportionately impacted by Trump administration's unwillingness to act."
Why exactly is this good, without begging the question?
Would you consider it bad if you lived 10% less? No? How about 25%? When does bad kick in for you?
You're hilarious. You make up some lovely crap, and then can't even recognize when someone is pointing out your foolishness. That sort of obtuseness is, I suppose, a hallmark of having a worldview built upon such conflicted, flimsy premises. You can get some help with that, you know? The first step is to stop being such a craven little coward when you post your fantasies. Give it a try! See what it's like not to be an invertebrate.
I'd say you're projecting a bit. Embarrassed by your own family history are you? Sounds that way. I've got nothing to be ashamed of. My family fought to free people from the sort of slave owners you're obviously uncomfortable about having in your own heritage. Get over it, they're all dead now - your family slave owners, and my family slavery abolishers.
Or, a modern black multi-millionaire sitting down for the national anthem at his boss's entertainment venue filled with fans of all colors might get transported back in time to meet some of the white men about to die horribly in their fight to end slavery. What's your point? Maybe we could get Martin L. King to transport forward in time to Chicago or Baltimore to witness hundreds of black guys killing each other every month over turf war in their business of poisoning other black kids with opiates. Or are you seeing a lot of modern white people falsely accusing black guys of rape as if it were 70 years ago?
No, you just proposed something that only comes to pass if you resort to that. Because if you are going to tell people they can't compete with each other to produce better things, and seek out people willing to pay for that better quality, then you're going to have to get the government involved in stopping them. Regardless, you're going to end up with a profit-driven black market anyway. Which you know. A "sensible" approach is to let the market actually work. Despite their lip service to your preferred method of running an economy, even the communist Chinese are relying on good old fashioned market influences to create prosperity and innovation.
In a just world, people who advocate for government-run centralized manufacturing of goods with no reward for being competitively better than the next guy, would get to time travel to the peak of Soviet culture, and enjoy some of their fabulous consumer products.
Except they do.
So, someone whose income tax rat is 0% (actually a NEGATIVE number because they get "refunds" on taxes they don't even pay), is paying income tax? Why listen to anything else you're saying when you lead with a lie like that?
People who make enough to itemize in high tax, high cost of living states are subsidizing both those within their state (via state taxes) as well as other states via federal taxes.
And they're also sticking it to people in other states by shifting part of their federal tax burden onto somebody else. Simply scrapping that incentive to raise state taxes is a good idea. If states really think it's a good idea to jack up their income taxes (as opposed to, say, their property taxes or corporate taxes, etc), then they should justify that to the people that live in that state without saying, "And you can avoid some of this cost by getting someone in another state to pay for some of your federal taxes! Isn't that great?"
So, the states that decide they want to follow that recipe inside their own borders get to stick somebody living somewhere else with part of the bill? How is that reasonable?
It is also simple math that you can give tax breaks to the middle class without giving any tax breaks to the wealthy.
Except, it's not the little guy who's buying new equipment for a small business, it's that "rich" business owner. It's not the little guy who's been keeping huge piles of cash outside of the US because of wildly high domestic tax rates. The whole idea is to get businesses buying new facilities and equipment and hiring people. Because when you have an historically high number of people who've given up looking for work, new business activity and a paycheck is FAR more of a big deal than getting $30 a week less in taxes taken out of a paycheck (that you don't have).
Right, the tax breaks for the "little guy" make up only a small portion of the impact of the bill because "the little guy" makes up only a VERY small portion of the taxes paid in the first place. How is this mysterious? It's simple math.
You're deflecting. When YOU personally get to dodge out on a bunch of your federal taxes while a guy in a DIFFERENT deep-blue state (which also "pays more than it receives") that manages to run its state more responsibly on lower local income tax rates, you are passing part of your federal tax burden off on that other person. Period. You're making it sound as if being a victim of your own state's profligate spending as its associated very high local tax rates makes you better than the person who lives a couple of states away where they're more efficient, and so that other person owes you some money in the form of picking up part of your personal federal tax bill. Get over yourself.
It must have taken you, what, an hour to compose your thoughts on that? I do see your point, though. Your refutation of reality sure is illuminating. I especially like your discussion of tax brackets, who pays them, and why you think that someone living in a state with lower local tax rates isn't getting screwed by those in another state who are writing off their higher local taxes on the federally taxed income. You've sure made a great case, thanks. Now, isn't it past your bedtime?