Ranting and Raving Corner
Quote: sodawaterThat's well and good in theory, but this is reality. People are losing jobs; families will lose homes. AC is on its way to becoming another Detroit. South Jersey has no other industry to absorb the tens of thousands of jobs that will be lost, and the state has nowhere else to get all the tax revenue the AC casinos provided.
You could say let the free market reign but there should be limits. In a purely capitalist system, the logical course is one winner. One corporation with all the money, resources, jobs, products, and power. The reason this is the logical endgame of capitalism is the simple fact that it's much easier to make money if you already have money.
Do we want a society dominated by one Umbrella Corp., its shareholders and executives ruling the country like a feudal oligarchy?
Or do we want a society that redistributes wealth, plans its economy to some degree, and makes sure there is a safety net for "economic losers."
All you have to do is look at the quality of life in partially socialist Europe and Scandinavia to see which system works best for most people.
A socialist country like Germany destroys the USA in every quality of life measure we have: life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, depression rate, crime rate, suicide rate, gun violence rate, etc etc etc.
The one thing the USA has over socialist Germany is that if you are one of the very lucky few who do get rich, you're set. You live like a king. You have power unimaginable.
But that doesn't maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. Billionaires who store up millions of lifetimes' worth of consumption in their bank accounts are never going to use that money to its fullest.
The difference between $10,000 and $20,000 a year is a HELL of a lot bigger than the difference between $1.11 million and $1.12 million per year.
TL, DR: Wealth has diminishing utility and thus to maximize its utility it should be redistributed fairly. The rich stand on the shoulders of society to create their wealth. Their employees use our roads, our schools, our hospitals. They can afford to give a little back.
Hey genius:
Germany is NOT a socialist country. It's been run by right-wing or centrist capitalists since the socialist government was defeated in May, 1945. It is a very capitalist country with secure borders, low debt and no racist government sanctioned employment/college admission policies against white people. Oh and NO citizenship is given to third-worlders who sneak into the country and pop out a baby.
Tell me again who is more socialist, them or us under President Crackhead?
Quote: MrVAh, but where would the crack smoking slum denizens go under your scenario?
Politically it might be best to keep them where they are so they only prey upon themselves.
What, move them lock, stock and key to Haddonfield?
They'd have to go somewhere, and fact is, nobody wants them.
Oh somebody wants them. One of our 2 major parties wouldn't be "major" anymore without them. They may be parasites and predators to you but to Democrats they are "The Base".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
Quote: 1BBYou spelled Absecon correctly but were you thinking of Brigantine as the island?Quote: beachbumbabsI will never understand why AC didn't invest in buying the entire island (can never remember the spelling..Absecon?)
Actually, Absecon Island has some very nice real estate toward the southern end of the island. AC is the northernmost town, followed by Ventnor, Margate, and Longport. Most of AC is a rathole, and some of Ventnor is lower-middle class. The southern end of Ventnor, and all of Margate and Longport have many multimillion dollar homes and townhouses.
Quote: bobsimsQuote: sodawaterThat's well and good in theory, but this is reality. People are losing jobs; families will lose homes. AC is on its way to becoming another Detroit. South Jersey has no other industry to absorb the tens of thousands of jobs that will be lost, and the state has nowhere else to get all the tax revenue the AC casinos provided.
You could say let the free market reign but there should be limits. In a purely capitalist system, the logical course is one winner. One corporation with all the money, resources, jobs, products, and power. The reason this is the logical endgame of capitalism is the simple fact that it's much easier to make money if you already have money.
Do we want a society dominated by one Umbrella Corp., its shareholders and executives ruling the country like a feudal oligarchy?
Or do we want a society that redistributes wealth, plans its economy to some degree, and makes sure there is a safety net for "economic losers."
All you have to do is look at the quality of life in partially socialist Europe and Scandinavia to see which system works best for most people.
A socialist country like Germany destroys the USA in every quality of life measure we have: life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, depression rate, crime rate, suicide rate, gun violence rate, etc etc etc.
The one thing the USA has over socialist Germany is that if you are one of the very lucky few who do get rich, you're set. You live like a king. You have power unimaginable.
But that doesn't maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. Billionaires who store up millions of lifetimes' worth of consumption in their bank accounts are never going to use that money to its fullest.
The difference between $10,000 and $20,000 a year is a HELL of a lot bigger than the difference between $1.11 million and $1.12 million per year.
TL, DR: Wealth has diminishing utility and thus to maximize its utility it should be redistributed fairly. The rich stand on the shoulders of society to create their wealth. Their employees use our roads, our schools, our hospitals. They can afford to give a little back.
Hey genius:
Germany is NOT a socialist country. It's been run by right-wing or centrist capitalists since the socialist government was defeated in May, 1945. It is a very capitalist country with secure borders, low debt and no racist government sanctioned employment/college admission policies against white people. Oh and NO citizenship is given to third-worlders who sneak into the country and pop out a baby.
Tell me again who is more socialist, them or us under President Crackhead?
Affirmative action started in the USA during the Kennedy administration. Germany DOES have an affirmative action program as well. The idea that anyone born in the USA is a citizen of the USA has been around since the 1700s. Obama smoked weed, not crack. You're not doing very well here...
Quote: DaddydocActually, Absecon Island has some very nice real estate toward the southern end of the island. AC is the northernmost town, followed by Ventnor, Margate, and Longport. Most of AC is a rathole, and some of Ventnor is lower-middle class. The southern end of Ventnor, and all of Margate and Longport have many multimillion dollar homes and townhouses.
Yeah, I was going to make a little joke there but I love the Jersey Shore. Brigantine has nice homes and beaches as well if you don't mind being a little crowded.
Doesn't matter when it started. It is still a flawed and corrupt practice.
The idea that anyone born in the USA is a citizen of the USA has been around since the 1700s./q]
Correct again. I do feel this is right. However, nothing says we have to allow the parents of the new citizen to stay.
edit: Sorry the quotes are all jacked up.
AC never had "a cash cow". It was state legislation and state revenue.
I wonder if the woman in that article will go back to the Dominican Republic and be a housekeeper or be a hotel owner?
Quote: bobsimsHey genius:
Germany is NOT a socialist country.
Socialist or not, I'd like to congratulate Germany on winning the World Cup.
Ausgezeichnet!
What's the World Cup?Quote: WizardSocialist or not, I'd like to congratulate Germany on winning the World Cup.
Oh ya, that soccer thing.
Quote: sodawaterDo we want a society dominated by one Umbrella Corp., its shareholders and executives ruling the country like a feudal oligarchy?
Or do we want a society that redistributes wealth, plans its economy to some degree, and makes sure there is a safety net for "economic losers."
These are my only choices?
I never got the 'economic inequality' thing. If Bill Gates (or George Soros, or your favorite Koch brother) gets a raise, it doesn't come out of my pocket.
Seems to me economic mobility is what is important. Hope and Change, remember?
Quote: CalderThese are my only choices?
I never got the 'economic inequality' thing. If Bill Gates (or George Soros, or your favorite Koch brother) gets a raise, it doesn't come out of my pocket.
Seems to me economic mobility is what is important. Hope and Change, remember?
Except if you don't control certain things economic inequality grows and becomes hereditary and you have a permanent underclass as well as a permanent class of rich people.
If you make education more expensive for university level and worse in poor areas for primary education then you've effectively gotten rid of chances for poor people to get an education and thus have drastically reduced the possibility for upward mobility. The rich people then send their children to expensive private schools and have no problem paying for university education so they can effectively buy their children a step up.
Economic mobility is what is important but it is intrinsically linked with economic inequality.
Quote: TwirdmanExcept if you don't control certain things economic inequality grows and becomes hereditary and you have a permanent underclass as well as a permanent class of rich people.
Hi, T!
I'm not sure what things you want to 'control', but what's wrong with inherited wealth? Ask any grandma what she wants to do with her money, and she says "Leave it to my grandchildren." It's her money, right?
What permanent class of rich people are you worried about? Where are all those Hearsts, Vanderbilts, and Rockefellers? Never underestimate the ability of the next generation to squander their inheritance. It all gets recycled.
University education? Who can't go to college? Anyone will give you a loan....that's a big reason college so expensive. Uncle Sam underwrites the loan, so there's no market pressure on tuition. I'd argue upward mobility is hampered by easy money funding art history degrees.
What I read about in my neck of the woods is a shortage of skilled welders, from Wisconsin west to the oil fields of North Dakota. I'm not sure a Harvard welding degree is any more prized than one from Waukesha County Technical College....and you won't be paying for it for 15 years.
Quote: CalderHi, T!
I'm not sure what things you want to 'control', but what's wrong with inherited wealth? Ask any grandma what she wants to do with her money, and she says "Leave it to my grandchildren." It's her money, right?
What permanent class of rich people are you worried about? Where are all those Hearsts, Vanderbilts, and Rockefellers? Never underestimate the ability of the next generation to squander their inheritance. It all gets recycled.
What I read about in my neck of the woods is a shortage of skilled welders, from Wisconsin west to the oil fields of North Dakota. I'm not sure a Harvard welding degree is any more prized than one from Waukesha County Technical College....and you won't be paying for it for 15 years.
Hate to point this out to you man but the names you choose aren't great to prove your point since the Hearst and Rockefeller are still quite rich heck even the Vanderbilt name still exist and are fairly well off. To add to that list you also have the Waltons and the Kennedys. I mean I guess if you want to argue wealth eventually disappearing there is the Rotschilds.
Also for poor people even technical school and trade schools are fairly expensive. I mean I knew plenty of people who couldn't even really afford to go to trade schools. The goal should be for everyone to be able to get some type of education whether that be university or trade school.
Oh along with that and how you talk about upward mobility is what is important upward mobility in the US is lower then it is in much of the developed world so along with income inequality we are also losing the fight on upward mobility.
Quote: bobsimsQuote: sodawaterThat's well and good in theory, but this is reality. People are losing jobs; families will lose homes. AC is on its way to becoming another Detroit. South Jersey has no other industry to absorb the tens of thousands of jobs that will be lost, and the state has nowhere else to get all the tax revenue the AC casinos provided.
You could say let the free market reign but there should be limits. In a purely capitalist system, the logical course is one winner. One corporation with all the money, resources, jobs, products, and power. The reason this is the logical endgame of capitalism is the simple fact that it's much easier to make money if you already have money.
Do we want a society dominated by one Umbrella Corp., its shareholders and executives ruling the country like a feudal oligarchy?
Or do we want a society that redistributes wealth, plans its economy to some degree, and makes sure there is a safety net for "economic losers."
All you have to do is look at the quality of life in partially socialist Europe and Scandinavia to see which system works best for most people.
A socialist country like Germany destroys the USA in every quality of life measure we have: life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, depression rate, crime rate, suicide rate, gun violence rate, etc etc etc.
The one thing the USA has over socialist Germany is that if you are one of the very lucky few who do get rich, you're set. You live like a king. You have power unimaginable.
But that doesn't maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. Billionaires who store up millions of lifetimes' worth of consumption in their bank accounts are never going to use that money to its fullest.
The difference between $10,000 and $20,000 a year is a HELL of a lot bigger than the difference between $1.11 million and $1.12 million per year.
TL, DR: Wealth has diminishing utility and thus to maximize its utility it should be redistributed fairly. The rich stand on the shoulders of society to create their wealth. Their employees use our roads, our schools, our hospitals. They can afford to give a little back.
Hey genius:
Germany is NOT a socialist country. It's been run by right-wing or centrist capitalists since the socialist government was defeated in May, 1945. It is a very capitalist country with secure borders, low debt and no racist government sanctioned employment/college admission policies against white people. Oh and NO citizenship is given to third-worlders who sneak into the country and pop out a baby.
Tell me again who is more socialist, them or us under President Crackhead?
Germany has socialized medicine - sort of. They have the system that Obama is trying to set up here - and people cry socialist. So which country is more socialist? Germany or President Not-Crackhead's country?
Germany has the lowest average work week in the 26 countries measured by the Organisation for Cooperation and Economic Development. It's about 7.5 hours short of that in the U.S. Germany also has a minimum of 20 paid vacation days for full-time employees, and usually more. That's 20 more days than what the U.S. requires. So which country is more socialist?
Maybe it's because Germany doesn't focus on making CEOs and large-scale stockholders rich at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. Maybe it's because Germany's biggest government expenditure isn't corporate welfare.
And maybe Germany's borders are more secure because their borders are smaller and not under constant attack from a third world country to the south who exploit a loophole in the Constitution that says anyone who was born here is a citizen. (Not sure if it's a loophole or if it's just a holdover from when the Constitution was crafted, but...well, that's what happens when the Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution and is damn near impossible to change.)
Quote: hwccdealerNot sure if it's a ... holdover from when the Constitution was crafted
Born here = US citizen: that's a holdover from the end of slavery in the US. You had the problem then of Emancipation without Citizenship, untenable really. The simplest thing was to make a constitutional amendment that if you were born here, you were a citizen. Worked OK for the time.
Quote: 14th Amentment, 1868Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside
Quote: odiousgambitBorn here = US citizen: that's a holdover from the end of slavery in the US. You had the problem then of Emancipation without Citizenship, untenable really. The simplest thing was to make a constitutional amendment that if you were born here, you were a citizen. Worked OK for the time.
I'm familiar with the amendment. I wasn't sure if the principle was in the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment. It was fine and dandy at the time for solving the emancipation issue but, as with many things, it was a wee bit shortsighted.
