|
News from the war on the poor
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2016-03-22 15:35:04
An experimental setup using lab animals is much, much easier. Studies involving humans are so much more complicated due to ethical concerns and regulations, control and experimental groups, and the fact that (at least to me) humans themselves are just difficult creatures.
As long as the system being worked on (muscles in this case) is analogous to humans then the research is valuable to human cases. Any positive results could then be used to help bolster the case to actually use human test subjects because getting permission to test on people can be difficult from what I understand.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 15:41:22
And now I want to become a rabbit massage therapist THANKS
there is a multiplying like rabbits/happy ending joke in there somewhere...
can we please get back to the war on the poor?...
they have so much more that we can take from them!
/steals candy from a baby
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2016-03-22 15:49:02
The current winners in the war on the poor: rabbits
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 15:51:18
[+]
By Blazed1979 2016-03-22 15:53:16
Everyone on these forums is most likely part of the "1%"
Its the 0.000000008 % who are the devils.
OWS chants of "we are the 99%" is a lie. they should really be chanting "we are the 0.01%".
Your house maids are probably in that 1% as well.
The 6 richest people in the world have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the planet.
6 / 7,500,000,000
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 15:53:28
this one is better... /declares war on the rabbits!
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 15:59:01
Its the 0.000000008 % who are the devils.
how are they devils again?
Bismarck.Misao
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 22620
By Bismarck.Misao 2016-03-22 16:03:42
Its the 0.000000008 % who are the devils.
how are they devils again?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3213
By Asura.Failaras 2016-03-22 16:33:09
Quote: Everyone on these forums is most likely part of the "1%" Are you talking about the 1% in the world or the 1% in the US?
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 16:45:44
I'm am the the 1%!!!
that posts on ffxiah....
and still plays ffxi...
there's me... and draylo and jeanpaul and a couple of other people...
>.>
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-22 16:48:30
Quote: Everyone on these forums is most likely part of the "1%" Are you talking about the 1% in the world or the 1% in the US? 1% of the world.
Which makes us the devils according to certain people. Because, you know, justification for those people's actions.
I mean, when to be considered to be part of the 1% of the world's population in terms of wealth equals about $32,400, which is easy to do in the US as long as you have a brain in your head and the will to do something more than minimum wage-type work.
Flipping burgers for a living does not qualify.
[+]
Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11372
By Garuda.Chanti 2016-03-22 20:18:28
Obviously, total amount paid is going to be greater for the wealthier. I'm curious as to what percentage of their income they have to pay. If your average joe is paying 20% of his income in taxes, while a rich guy is only paying 10%, it seems disingenuous to complain about him paying more.
From a tax code perspective, it goes the other way. The % goes up with more income, not down. Of course, at higher income levels you can do more (or hire experts who can do more) to move things in a way that you pay less, even from a % angle; I'd be very curious to see what the actual percentages look like.
Depends on which portion of the population we're talking about. People seem to think that "1% is super rich but that's not true at all. "1%" is just the successful upper middle class, true wealth doesn't start appearing until you hit 0.001% and doesn't get extreme until you've added another zero or two onto that number. Making $500K gross isn't wealthy, making $1M gross isn't even wealthy, it's not until your talking $10M or more gross that things get unbalanced. This is because how we attribute and perceive wealth changes. To ordinary people the paycheck they get from working is their idea of "wealth". I work 40 hours, I make X amount of money. For wealthy people, it's passive income dominates, they get paid because of wise decisions they or their parents made. Then for truly wealthy, it's passive income from trusts and other non-standard sources like foundations. They get taxed on whatever is dispersed from that trust to them but not on what the trust earns. So while an ordinary person views this as them "earning money", it's not treated like that because it's locked into the trust and not dispersed. Foundations get even murkier because you can attribute estate expenses, essentially rent / utility bills / food / ect.. to the foundation and not to the person. The foundation pays those expenses based on rules written up during it's inception and operates under a different tax code more similar to a non-profit then an ordinary person. In essence the wealthy person doesn't own their home, their car, their cloths or anything, the foundation owns them and allows the person to use them. Those foundations operate similar to trusts in that they have a board of directors / regents / ect.. that makes decisions about the trust / foundation, usually with the head of the family as the primary director / executive agency.
Ordinary people don't understand the nuances and their jealousy drives them to desire to steal from the wealthy. Government have a long history of stealing from successful merchants, all the way back to Egyptian times. Thus it's natural for the heads of wealthy families to seek to protect their family's future from government theft using any and all methods available.
Some interesting quotes from Margaret Thatcher
Quote: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
― Margaret Thatcher
Quote: “Do you know that one of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas.”
― Margaret Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher
Quote: “I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”
― Margaret Thatcher
Quote: “I do not know anyone who has gotten to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top, but it will get you pretty near.”
― Margaret Thatcher A LOT of stuff including quotes from Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher. So MUCH of that is right.
So much of that is WRONG.
You are so freaking close yet so far away.
By ScaevolaBahamut 2016-03-28 09:50:12
Probably based on the articles out recently siting the findings of the Tax Policy Center
trump tax planAll it stated was it will reduce revenue. That's not the only factor that goes towards the deficit.
He also stated a strong reduction of spending, which also affects the deficit.
To contribute one factor in the deficit as the sole instigator is dishonest at best. So, like I said, uneducated opinion.
Reducing tax rates and cutting spending has, in practice, been shown time and again to be a less effective way to balance a budget than stimulus to increase GDP and then just taking the government's cut.
But maybe you want to live in David Cameron's shithole UK?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-28 09:54:44
Probably based on the articles out recently siting the findings of the Tax Policy Center
trump tax planAll it stated was it will reduce revenue. That's not the only factor that goes towards the deficit.
He also stated a strong reduction of spending, which also affects the deficit.
To contribute one factor in the deficit as the sole instigator is dishonest at best. So, like I said, uneducated opinion.
Reducing tax rates and cutting spending has, in practice, been shown time and again to be a less effective way to balance a budget than stimulus to increase GDP and then just taking the government's cut.
But maybe you want to live in David Cameron's shithole UK? Doing both (reducing tax rates and cutting spending), yes. Doing one or the other (reducing tax rates or (most preferably) cutting spending), not really.
Stimulus only works when it's applied to the entire nation, not specific industries (like, say, the auto industry). Works better if it's applied towards individuals and not businesses (say, GWB's "Making Work Pay Refundable Tax Credit").
By Altimaomega 2016-03-28 11:27:25
Working people stimulate the economy?
Who knew!
By ScaevolaBahamut 2016-03-28 12:17:51
Quote: Doing both (reducing tax rates and cutting spending), yes. Doing one or the other (reducing tax rates or (most preferably) cutting spending), not really.
Examples?
Quote: Stimulus only works when it's applied to the entire nation, not specific industries (like, say, the auto industry).
Why? The auto bailout saved a ton of jobs (within GM and Chrysler themselves, dealerships, parts manufacturers/suppliers, etc.) at a final cost of like $9 billion, which is peanuts. Nothing wrong with a loan, especially when it's in the iddle of a complete economic meltdown you're trying to stop from getting worse.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-28 12:30:26
Quote: Doing both (reducing tax rates and cutting spending), yes. Doing one or the other (reducing tax rates or (most preferably) cutting spending), not really.
Examples? Actual examples or theoretical examples?
I can't give you actual examples because not one thing the government does directly effects the economy, it's a bunch of things that the government does that effects the economy as a whole. Both domestic and, in the case of the US, internationally.
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees. Reducing spending will lower the deficit which has a positive impact towards the economy as a whole, mainly paying down debt and not paying as much interest for said debt.
Why? The auto bailout saved a ton of jobs (within GM and Chrysler themselves, dealerships, parts manufacturers/suppliers, etc.) at a final cost of like $9 billion, which is peanuts. Nothing wrong with a loan, especially when it's in the iddle of a complete economic meltdown you're trying to stop from getting worse. That's one example on how it "could" go right, would you like an example of where it did go wrong. And the only reason why the auto bailout worked was because neither company was in real danger of completely closing down their businesses. They were both getting hit with negative cash flow, which happens all the freaking time in business. Instead of weathering the storm and making a few cutbacks, they instead asked the government for money. Which they received, first by the Bush Administration and later by the Obama Administration. Because, politics.
[+]
By ScaevolaBahamut 2016-03-29 09:31:21
\
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees.
This is exactly what Sam Brownback has been doing in Kansas, and it's been a disaster, because it turns out most business owners don't actually want to expand if their current operation is profitable and they'll just pocket the money instead.
Expanding your business involves a lot of additional work and risk beyond the simple additional capital, and if you DID want to expand getting the money to do so was always the easy part anyway.
Quote: Reducing spending will lower the deficit which has a positive impact towards the economy as a whole, mainly paying down debt and not paying as much interest for said debt.
High spending/revenue accomplishes the same thing and does it without turning the country into, well, the UK.
That's one example on how it "could" go right, would you like an example of where it did go wrong. And the only reason why the auto bailout worked was because neither company was in real danger of completely closing down their businesses. They were both getting hit with negative cash flow, which happens all the freaking time in business. Instead of weathering the storm and making a few cutbacks, they instead asked the government for money. Which they received, first by the Bush Administration and later by the Obama Administration. Because, politics.
Not to sidetrack, but I've long been wondering about this obsession with Solyndra. It was one bust out of how many...?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-29 09:55:32
\
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees.
This is exactly what Sam Brownback has been doing in Kansas, and it's been a disaster, because it turns out most business owners don't actually want to expand if their current operation is profitable and they'll just pocket the money instead.
Expanding your business involves a lot of additional work and risk beyond the simple additional capital, and if you DID want to expand getting the money to do so was always the easy part anyway.
Again, you cannot attribute just one action towards the economy as a whole. What happened in Kansas was not an "All things being equal" scenario.
Quote: Quote: Reducing spending will lower the deficit which has a positive impact towards the economy as a whole, mainly paying down debt and not paying as much interest for said debt.
High spending/revenue accomplishes the same thing and does it without turning the country into, well, the UK.
Do you really, honestly believe in that fluff? I mean, seriously! Should I point at historical numbers and current numbers and show that not only is that completely wrong, but even any skewed numbers you may consider would still make that statement completely wrong. Even if you pretend that Obama's "deficit" started on January 1st, 2016, Obama's statement and your analysis is still completely wrong. Not a day has gone by when Obama stepped foot on the White House has the deficit has gone down. Ever. And the high spending hasn't helped with the stagnate growth, has it? It also hasn't helped with consumer confidence either. Both are strong indicators of the health of the economy.
Protip: GDP growth was averaging ~2.5% per year up until Obama went into office.
That's one example on how it "could" go right, would you like an example of where it did go wrong. And the only reason why the auto bailout worked was because neither company was in real danger of completely closing down their businesses. They were both getting hit with negative cash flow, which happens all the freaking time in business. Instead of weathering the storm and making a few cutbacks, they instead asked the government for money. Which they received, first by the Bush Administration and later by the Obama Administration. Because, politics.
Not to sidetrack, but I've long been wondering about this obsession with Solyndra. It was one bust out of how many...?[/quote]
The problem with Solyndra is, Obama personally approved of this, where presidents usually don't even bother with little things like loan approval or such.
[+]
Alabama Republicans File Bill To Take Away Food Stamps If You Own A Car
Occupy Democrats - Liberal if you hadn't guessed.
The article has links.
Quote: Alabama Republicans are escalating their war against the poor, wasting precious state resources in a relentless campaign to make life harder for the people of Alabama. Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) has just proposed a new bill that would prevent people from receiving food stamps or financial support if they own cars and caps the number of years for assistance from five to three. “We want to get people working back in the workforce and not hanging out for public benefits because they can” drawled Orr, perpetuating the cruel myth that welfare recipients are simply lazy moochers – where in fact, two out of three welfare recipients are children, single mothers, or elderly. It would also require new photo IDs for EBT cards, the cost of which would run more than $10 million, and adds another layer of hoops for potential recipients to jump through before they can receive benefits – so much for small government.
The astonishingly heartless move was met with horror from Senate Democrats, one of whom, Sen. Roger Smitherman (D-Birmingham) was literally pounding the table in fury. “I’m going to do whatever I can to stop this. I am not going to let you do this to these people. I am not going to let people starve” he railed.
It’s particularly hurtful because it would force families to choose between being able to take their kids to school or being able to feed them. Worse, the bill assumes that people are simply waiting for jobs – but with a state 6.2% unemployment rate and some county rates reaching a shocking 15.3%, the jobs simply aren’t there. Possibly because – shocker – Republican rule has utterly gutted the budget with tax cuts and they now face a $200 million hole, which they are now trying to fill by cutting public services (like closing 31 DMVs in black areas) and killing government jobs.
Kimble Forrister, the executive director of nonprofit Alabama Arise points out that the bill won’t actually save any money, and does nothing but shame the poor and make their lives worse. “If you save money on benefits, all you can do is spend the money on other TANF recipients” she said.
|
|