Five reported dead in northeast Las Vegas police ambush
Poll
 | 13 votes (21.66%) | ||
| | 4 votes (6.66%) | ||
| | 1 vote (1.66%) | ||
| | 3 votes (5%) | ||
| | 3 votes (5%) | ||
| | 29 votes (48.33%) | ||
| | 3 votes (5%) | ||
| | 4 votes (6.66%) |
60 members have voted
There are only two kinds of people in the world, producers and consumers. The consumers cannot exist without the producers.
Not exactly. We are all consumers. And almost all producers (there are many nontradable goods and services that we produce).Quote: mickeycrimmThere are only two kinds of people in the world, producers and consumers. The consumers cannot exist without the producers.
But anyway: what does it have to do with profit or elections? If you think "producer=capitalistic enterprise", then pray tell me how the producers are elected?
If you think "producer=profit", tell me where is the profit in the production of public goods?
One that does not depend on as much or more luck than at the craps table.Quote: kubikulannSure. You never met people who work hard, are honest and intelligent, and still remain all their life in the social class where they were born? You really believe that all those billionaires are "intelligent, honest and hard working"? Just one question: which planet do you live on?
Forty-seven percent do not pay income taxes, and 47 million take food stamps.Quote: mickeycrimmI forgot to say something about the 47% lie. That number is a monument to lying with statistics.
Quote: SanchoPanzaForty-seven percent do not pay income taxes, and 47 million take food stamps.
47 million on food stamps would be about 14% of the population of this country. Do your kids pay income tax? Take the kids out of the equation and tell me what the real number is.
Quote: SanchoPanzaForty-seven percent do not pay income taxes
And? In and off itself this is meaningless. I am sure you can work out why.
Quote: kubikulannNot exactly. We are all consumers. And almost all producers (there are many nontradable goods and services that we produce). But anyway: what does it have to do with profit or elections? If you think "producer=capitalistic enterprise", then pray tell me how the producers are elected?
If you think "producer=profit", tell me where is the profit in the production of public goods?
By the late 1980's the eastern side of the Bering Sea had been fished down to the point that quotas were placed on the fisheries to insure the survival of the Amerian fishing industry. Meanwhile the western side of the Bering was teaming with fish. Gorbachev got the idea that his fishermen didn't know how to fish. So he proposed a joint venture with American fishermen. The Amercans jumped at the chance to fish the western side and work with the Russian fishermen. They would receive half the catch.
But a huge problem developed right off the bat. The Americans were paid on production. The more fish they caught the more money they made. The Russian fishermen drew a salary. It didn't matter if they caught one fish or 100,000 fish, they were paid the same. The Russian fishermen had no incentive to produce....so they didn't. The Americans did all the work and had to give up half the catch.
The joint venture died within a year.
Quote: SanchoPanzaForty-seven percent do not pay income taxes, and 47 million take food stamps.
Too many people not paying income tax because they have too low of an income to pay any income taxes is a symptom of a troubled economy, not a reason to look down on those people. Chances are many of them DO pay many taxes...
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505
The problem with singling groups out just because they get this or that is this--we do nothing to fix the reason they are getting this or that. The stimulus failed but we really didn't take much action after that because neither the President or Congress is willing to work hard together on our behalf. They are too busy trying to build their legacies and stay in office for as long as possible.
Quote: mickeycrimmBy the late 1980's the eastern side of the Bering Sea had been fished down to the point that quotas were placed on the fisheries to insure the survival of the Amerian fishing industry. Meanwhile the western side of the Bering was teaming with fish. Gorbachev got the idea that his fishermen didn't know how to fish. So he proposed a joint venture with American fishermen. The Amercans jumped at the chance to fish the western side and work with the Russian fishermen. They would receive half the catch.
But a huge problem developed right off the bat. The Americans were paid on production. The more fish they caught the more money they made. The Russian fishermen drew a salary. It didn't matter if they caught one fish or 100,000 fish, they were paid the same. The Russian fishermen had no incentive to produce....so they didn't. The Americans did all the work and had to give up half the catch.
The joint venture died within a year.
That was hilarious Mickey. Not sure if it was the same program or not but I have a friend who went over to teach the Russians how to fish. Our guys finally got bored and wanted to go into a bar and get drunk as fisherman are sometimes known to do. They had to hire ex-kgb guard just to feel safe enough to get drunk over there and be an american. Russian sex for hire merchants everywhere, he is much funnier than I.
I wanted to chime in as you brought up a topic I'm familiar with. When I lived on a boat in ports around the great land, when the Russian boats came in they were not only rude as hell, their boats could be smelled a long ways away. The boats and permits all belong to the church up there [the russian orthodox]. As you said it doesn't make any difference to the guys fishing if they do a good job or not, the money all goes to the church [ which is tax exempt] and the church deals out the money as they see fit.
About the lousy product they produce and the stinking manner in which they kept their vessels, someone coined the phrase "without ownership there cannot be pride'. I witness the same philosophy with housing, and have always told my kids 'people just don't respect what they don't earn".
There is no "looking down on them" here. They "look down" on themselves.Quote: RonCToo many people not paying income tax because they have too low of an income to pay any income taxes is a symptom of a troubled economy, not a reason to look down on those people.'
Half the nation is a bit more than "singling groups out."Quote: RonCThe problem with singling groups out just because they get this or that is this--we do nothing to fix the reason they are getting this or that. The stimulus failed but we really didn't take much action after that because neither the President or Congress is willing to work hard together on our behalf. They are too busy trying to build their legacies and stay in office for as long as possible.
Quote: thecesspitQuote: sanchopanzaForty-seven percent do not pay income taxes
And? In and off itself this is meaningless.
Not in the context of the 2012 campaign.
Quote: SanchoPanzaNot in the context of the 2012 campaign.
Actually, it was. The meaningful part was not the raw number '47%' with conservatives use as some sort of excuse to this day. The meaningful part is that there is some percentage of the electorate (way lower than the number who don't pay income taxes) that are looking for the free lunch. In any taxation system with wealth redistribution, there will be net consumers. It's part and parcel of having a welfare system. The debate on -how big- that should be was lost and simplified to the '47%' soundbite. Which was meaningless. Apart from the meaning of being able to spin it so it looked like Romney had no clue, and the neo-Conservatoves had the scape goat for their election loss.
Quote: thecesspitApart from the meaning of being able to spin it so it looked like Romney had no clue, and the neo-Conservatoves had the scape goat for their election loss.
I don't know what kind of conservative I am, but I knew from the beginning that the Republican primary process picked a weak candidate for the second election in a row. The 47% thing just helped him on his way to where he seemed headed anyway...towards defeat.
Definitely, considering that 92 million Americans of working age are not even in the work force. No doubt that a good-sized proportion, most likely well over half, would want to work.Quote: thecesspitThere is some percentage of the electorate (way lower than the number who don't pay income taxes) that are looking for the free lunch.
Quote: RonCI don't know what kind of conservative I am, but I knew from the beginning that the Republican primary process picked a weak candidate for the second election in a row. The 47% thing just helped him on his way to where he seemed headed anyway...towards defeat.
You see, some republicans seem to suggest he was always gonna lose as the media is against you, and 'the 47%' would just vote free lunch and Democrat. Which is a terribly simplistic way to look at it.
Romney was really weak. He went against a weak president with a poor economy and lost. In fact, the needle didn't even shift. That's a terrible result, and needs better answers than '47%' BS.
In short, I'm agreeing with you.
Good story.Quote: mickeycrimmBy the late 1980's the eastern side of the Bering Sea had been fished down to the point that quotas were placed on the fisheries to insure the survival of the Amerian fishing industry. Meanwhile the western side of the Bering was teaming with fish. Gorbachev got the idea that his fishermen didn't know how to fish. So he proposed a joint venture with American fishermen. The Amercans jumped at the chance to fish the western side and work with the Russian fishermen. They would receive half the catch.
But a huge problem developed right off the bat. The Americans were paid on production. The more fish they caught the more money they made. The Russian fishermen drew a salary. It didn't matter if they caught one fish or 100,000 fish, they were paid the same. The Russian fishermen had no incentive to produce....so they didn't. The Americans did all the work and had to give up half the catch.
The joint venture died within a year.
A few comments, though.
1. Which economic system led to the exhaustion of a natural resource? Free enterprise. The placing of quotas is government intervention to prevent looting for profit.
2. The problem of both the Russians and the Americans is that both had wrong incentives. The ones producing too little, the others too much.
The better system would have been to pay producers according to an objective that is not maximal short-term production / profit. That is, quotas.
3. You don't need a "profit" system to interest the worker in the output. On the contrary: surplus being distributed to them makes them more interested in cost-effectiveness and survival. But survival in the long-term (so protecting their resource) instead of short-term (aka profit).
Quote: mickeycrimmJust a few thoughts on some of the things in this thread. First of all I don't believe anything that is published in the New York Times. Franklin Roosevelt would have been a one term president if he had proposed that Social Security be based on the stock market. You have to remember that folks back then were living in a depression that was caused by the stock market. Stocks only lost 20% of their value in the crash of 1929. The market didn't bottom out until four long years later. Roosevelt would have been tarred and feathered and ran out of town if he tried to base Social Security on the stock market.
You are probably correct, but the fact remains that the stock market is the best way to grow wealth over the long term. Much like gambling, the short term is a wild ride, with many ups and downs (and in this case "short term" is really anything under 10 years). But in the long term you will make money (which is the opposite of casino gambling).
I just wish I could control my own SS contributions and invest them as I saw fit. Of course, I'm planning for a retirement completely without any SS benefits. If I get any, they will just supplement my gambling bankroll in old age.
The overall effect of this targeting/suppression is unknowable. What we do know is that groups on the other side of the political spectrum were allowed to organize. Along with that came stories of the death of the Tea Party movement and the upswing of the liberal movement. All of this was not targeted at active conservative voters, but at people who only start to pay attention as the election nears. Stories like "the number of Tea Party related organizations is on the decline" can effect those voters.
I think we can safely state that most of modern American news outlets lean considerably to the left and will abandon journalistic integrity and abuse constitutional protections to promote their agenda/religion. The juxtaposition of the Romney dog story and the Hillary "we were broke" story show that ... Hillary and Bill made $12 million their first year out of the White House ... not exactly in touch with Americans.
These same outlets were the ones championing the "rise of liberal organizations", Romney's dog, and the 47%.
So, if the question is, which had a greater effect ... the 47% story or the IRS suppression effort and subsequent liberal press reporting ... I think the answer is obvious. If the IRS and the media were anything resembling non-partisan, I'm not sure modern American liberalism could survive in the mainstream.
Quote: kubikulannGood story.
A few comments, though.
1. Which economic system lead to the exhaustion of a natural resource? Free enterprise. The placing of quotas is government intervention to prevent looting for profit.
2. The problem of both the Russians and the Americans is that both had wrong incentives. The ones producing too little, the others too much.
The better system would have been to pay producers according to an objective that is not maximal short-term production / profit. That is, quotas.
3. You don't need a "profit" system to interest the worker in the output. On the contrary: surplus being distributed to them makes them more interested in cost-effectiveness and survival. But survival in the long-term (so protecting their resource) instead of short-term (aka profit).
Kudos to you, Kub, for caring so much about your fellow man. Unfortunately, classless societies can't exist for a pretty simple reason. I think Walter Cronkite gave the best answer as to why communism failed "it goes against human nature." If you want to turn a producer into a non-producer then pay him the same as the non-producers. No longer having the incentive to produce I guarantee you he will no longer produce.
and fish...Quote: mickeycrimmKudos to you, Kub, for caring so much about your fellow man.
Individual inequality can't disappear, maybe. Class inequality is something different. You in America believe in so-called social elevator, but the data don't give you reason. America is one of the most unequal societies, and the first factor is the class in which you have been born.Quote: mickeycrimmUnfortunately, classless societies can't exist for a pretty simple reason.
Let us admit that (although it is just one statement by someone I dont know and with no factual argument). But then these people usually follow by stating that capitalism is some natural thing to do, or the destiny of human nature, or such. Quite ridiculous for something that is at most 200 years old and covers the world only for the last 30-40 years. Even Christianism (quite older isn't it?) is based on communist principles. Read what Jesus says of the rich. Of equality. Etc. If it were "against human nature", would it have had such a success? Item, would communism (NOT sovietism) have had so much appeal worldwide?Quote: mickeycrimmI think Walter Cronkite gave the best answer as to why communism failed "it goes against human nature."
Agreed.Quote: mickeycrimmIf you want to turn a producer into a non-producer then pay him the same as the non-producers. No longer having the incentive to produce I guarantee you he will no longer produce.
What has it to counter absence of profit, though? Again, there is confusion of profit with revenue. I know it: I had to look up in the dictionary the French word "rentabilité" and all they proposed was "profitability" so I made use of "cost-effectiveness" though it is not the exact meaning I intended. Maybe the language is the reason for that confusion in Anglo-Saxon minds, and this irrational attachment to profit. You use the word for two different things.
Quote: MrWarmthIf the IRS and the media were anything resembling non-partisan, I'm not sure modern American liberalism could survive in the mainstream.
Rupert Murdoch figured out how the media works. I wish more of the rightwing would stop being ignorant, and stop blaming the media for choices the right failed to make.
The clue is, if the media is full of leftwing people it's because the rightwing never got interested in enough numbers to participate to the same extent. Either with bodies or investment.
Guess whose fault that is?
Quote: bobsimsThough he lost by the skin of his teeth. Out of 150 million-or whatever it was- voters, if 200,000 had changed their vote he would have won. Nobama was the first president in history to be re-elected with fewer votes than he was elected with. He lost 24 out of 50 states.
Is Karl Rove here? It was a landslide in electoral votes. He won.
Couple hundred votes change in Florida and its President Gore. Big deal, Bush won by a slimmer margin then Obama.
Bush won. Obama won. That all that matters.
Get ready for President Hillary.
Quote: bobsimsNobama was the first president in history to be re-elected with fewer votes than he was elected with.
First president in history... since Roosevelt.
Or, first president in history since every state decided electors by popular vote.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/19/barack-obama-first-president-re-elected
Quote: terapinedCouple hundred votes change in Florida and its President Gore. Big deal, Bush won by a slimmer margin then Obama.
I suppose it's come to a competition between Bush Derrangement Syndrome and Obama Derrangement Syndrome.
Quote: terapinedIs Karl Rove here? It was a landslide in electoral votes. He won.
Couple hundred votes change in Florida and its President Gore. Big deal, Bush won by a slimmer margin then Obama.
Bush won. Obama won. That all that matters.
Get ready for President Hillary.
If the people vote for 8 more years of trickle up economics, Wall Street and bankster whoredom, globalism, shipping jobs overseas and open borders they deserve everything they get, and more.
Quote: Dalex64First president in history... since Roosevelt.
Or, first president in history since every state decided electors by popular vote.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/19/barack-obama-first-president-re-elected
Just not true.
Roosevelt was elected in 1932 with 22,821,277 votes and reelected in 1936 with 27,752,648 and 46 out of 48 states as compared to 26 out of 50 and fewer votes-with a majority Republican Congress to boot. He won by the skin of his teeth. Just ask Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz and Hoyer what a great victory it was. In any event he has proven to be a worse failure than his fellow open borders, corporate whore globalist Bush.
Quote: bobsimsJust not true.
Roosevelt was elected in 1932 with 22,821,277 votes and reelected in 1936 with 27,752,648 and 46 out of 48 states as compared to 26 out of 50 and fewer votes-with a majority Republican Congress to boot. He won by the skin of his teeth. Just ask Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz and Hoyer what a great victory it was. In any event he has proven to be a worse failure than his fellow open borders, corporate whore globalist Bush.
And in 1940 he won with less electoral votes than 1936, and in 1944 he won with less electoral votes than 1940. Or was this pattern just to look for the first reelection?
Quote: WizardFive reported dead in northeast Las Vegas police ambush from the Las Vegas Review Journal.
I'm surprised nobody posted about this yet, so I'll be the first.
The question for the poll is why do you think there are so many random mass shootings in the the US?
Quote: GreasyjohnQuote: WizardFive reported dead in northeast Las Vegas police ambush from the Las Vegas Review Journal.
I'm surprised nobody posted about this yet, so I'll be the first.
The question for the poll is why do you think there are so many random mass shootings in the the US?
(Post was in a "quote" format somehow. Corrected to a response.)
Quote: tringlomaneAnd in 1940 he won with less electoral votes than 1936, and in 1944 he won with less electoral votes than 1940. Or was this pattern just to look for the first reelection?
Who brought electoral votes into it?
If someone wins all 50 states by a single vote does that make a 50 vote plurality out of 150 million votes cast a "landslide"?
Maybe if you believe in open borders, globalism, corporate, banking and Wall St. bailouts and the failed trickle-up insanity of "Yes We Can".
The majority are on to the scam-as you will see evident the night of November 7.
Quote: bobsimsWho brought electoral votes into it?
And in 1940 he won with less popular votes than 1936, and in 1944 he won with less popular votes than 1940. Or was this pattern just to look for the first reelection?
Is that better?
Both patterns existed.
Only one president has ever been re-elected with fewer votes than he was first elected with. The one that just got re-elected by the skin of his teeth with a Republican majority Congress that will thankfully give him ZERO.
Those left wing teacher union propagandists really "learned" you good.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Your grandchildren will live in a bankrupt, violent, corrupt Third World toilet, fed soylent green in their favela by the Politburo.
Be proud of yourself.
