quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
The thing to do is encourage governments to instigate programs to reduce the population to levels they can support.
Butch

That's kinda chilling there, Butch.

quote:

not in disagreement in the least, but at the same time I would add, and im confident we are pretty much in agreement here, it is for situations like that we should also be turning to family, friends, neighbors, the local churches and charities.

to the extent that we cannot, don't or wont do those things speaks to how the impersonal government, and somewhat liberal policies have interfered with, and caused the breakdown of traditional, conservative methods of help and support.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
The thing to do is encourage governments to instigate programs to reduce the population to levels they can support.
Butch

That's kinda chilling there, Butch.

I think Butch might have chosen some poor words, there.

Encouraging birth control is a good idea. Mandating it isn't.

However, I think Butch has spoken out against the death penalty (I could be wrong). That would certainly reduce the population. So, we seem to have contradiction.

Then, there are the obvious issues that the original wording could be twisted to support, which you picked up on, DS. I am positive, though, that that was not what was meant.

I believe that there is a "tipping point" (which we may have already reached) as far as the amount of people specific countries and, ultimately, the globe, can support. The argument is: Are we there? Are we close? It's an interesting discussion.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

but not morally wrong when corporations do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

bounty!

quote:

not in disagreement in the least, but at the same time I would add, and im confident we are pretty much in agreement here, it is for situations like that we should also be turning to family, friends, neighbors, the local churches and charities.

to the extent that we cannot, don't or wont do those things speaks to how the impersonal government, and somewhat liberal policies have interfered with, and caused the breakdown of traditional, conservative methods of help and support.

America is no longer Ozzie & Harriet nor Father Knows Best. Contemporary families are fractured.

Prior to the New Deal traditional and conservative method for supporting the needy was to ignore them or to look down upon them as low-lives. During the Irish migrations of the 1840s and the Italian/Jewish migrations of 1880s - 1920s the ghetto poor received help from Progressive soap kitchens and care-givers, which was insufficient imo. Today, we still have impoverished communities. Conservatives blame the people in those communities generally for having weak moral fiber and being economically lazy. But, the Clintons reformed welfare by disqualifying many people who needed help (imo) An even more insidious cause of distress is the economic system we have turned to: trickle down economics which just doesn't trickle down, the exportation of manufacturing to foreign slave labor, the accumulation of idle wealth offshore and non-productively in the Wall Street Casino. The flow of wealth is upward. The rich have gotten richer and poor communities are still neglected like their people were rabid dogs.

quote:

But it doesn't change the insanity of our current tax law. Companies are never going to voluntarily give away 35% of their profits. To expect them to do so - is lunacy.

Right now, expecting companies to pay 35% - highest in the world - and shrilly demagoging on it is ridiculous. Lefties should take a lessen and set it at a flat 15%, no deductions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Phydeaux!

quote:

But it doesn't change the insanity of our current tax law. Companies are never going to voluntarily give away 35% of their profits. To expect them to do so - is lunacy.

Right now, expecting companies to pay 35% - highest in the world - and shrilly demagoging on it is ridiculous. Lefties should take a lessen and set it at a flat 15%, no deductions.

Those who want to cut corporate tax rates are uninformed or disingenuous to point to statutory rates or artificially high effective rates like Pfizer's to argue that corporate taxes are too high. As my Center on Budget and Policy Priorities colleague Chye-Ching Huang says here, the big problem with taxing multinationals today is "stateless income": profits that aren't taxed anywhere. Cutting the corporate rate doesn't bring that income into the U.S. tax base or greatly reduce multinationals' search for "tax havens" (countries with very low or zero corporate tax rates); it mostly just costs public revenue on the profits that the government would otherwise tax.


STATELESS MONEY:

U.S. Senate scrutiny of Apple Inc.’s tax strategies turned the spotlight on a unit with $30 billion in profit since 2009 that’s incorporated in Ireland, controlled by a board in California, and doesn’t pay taxes in either place.

Apple officials acknowledged yesterday at a congressional hearing that the entity -- a key subsidiary in Apple’s offshore tax strategy -- is managed and controlled in the U.S., yet it still isn’t paying U.S. federal income taxes.

The shifting of profits by multinational companies is costing the U.S. and Europe at least $100 billion per year in lost tax revenue, according to Kimberly Clausing, an economics professor at Reed University in Portland, Oregon.

Apple & Google

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

bounty!

quote:

not in disagreement in the least, but at the same time I would add, and im confident we are pretty much in agreement here, it is for situations like that we should also be turning to family, friends, neighbors, the local churches and charities.

to the extent that we cannot, don't or wont do those things speaks to how the impersonal government, and somewhat liberal policies have interfered with, and caused the breakdown of traditional, conservative methods of help and support.

America is no longer Ozzie & Harriet nor Father Knows Best. Contemporary families are fractured.

Prior to the New Deal traditional and conservative method for supporting the needy was to ignore them or to look down upon them as low-lives. During the Irish migrations of the 1840s and the Italian/Jewish migrations of 1880s - 1920s the ghetto poor received help from Progressive soap kitchens and care-givers, which was insufficient imo. Today, we still have impoverished communities. Conservatives blame the people in those communities generally for having weak moral fiber and being economically lazy. But, the Clintons reformed welfare by disqualifying many people who needed help (imo) An even more insidious cause of distress is the economic system we have turned to: trickle down economics which just doesn't trickle down, the exportation of manufacturing to foreign slave labor, the accumulation of idle wealth offshore and non-productively in the Wall Street Casino. The flow of wealth is upward. The rich have gotten richer and poor communities are still neglected like their people were rabid dogs.

you'll have to provide a citation for that statement. I know it's the sort of thing leftists get with their koolaid, but I'd like you to provide evidence it's actually true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

bounty!

quote:

not in disagreement in the least, but at the same time I would add, and im confident we are pretty much in agreement here, it is for situations like that we should also be turning to family, friends, neighbors, the local churches and charities.

to the extent that we cannot, don't or wont do those things speaks to how the impersonal government, and somewhat liberal policies have interfered with, and caused the breakdown of traditional, conservative methods of help and support.

America is no longer Ozzie & Harriet nor Father Knows Best. Contemporary families are fractured.

Prior to the New Deal traditional and conservative method for supporting the needy was to ignore them or to look down upon them as low-lives. During the Irish migrations of the 1840s and the Italian/Jewish migrations of 1880s - 1920s the ghetto poor received help from Progressive soap kitchens and care-givers, which was insufficient imo. Today, we still have impoverished communities. Conservatives blame the people in those communities generally for having weak moral fiber and being economically lazy. But, the Clintons reformed welfare by disqualifying many people who needed help (imo) An even more insidious cause of distress is the economic system we have turned to: trickle down economics which just doesn't trickle down, the exportation of manufacturing to foreign slave labor, the accumulation of idle wealth offshore and non-productively in the Wall Street Casino. The flow of wealth is upward. The rich have gotten richer and poor communities are still neglected like their people were rabid dogs.

you'll have to provide a citation for that statement. I know it's the sort of thing leftists get with their koolaid, but I'd like you to provide evidence it's actually true.

http://www.slayerment.com/poor-people-choose-be-poor

quote:

First, you seem to believe we're still in the early 1900's. We're not. There is a lot of oportunity around here and people who don't take advantage of it can be described as making poor choices.

Second, so your entire moral philosophy in life is based from this one guy's blog. It's a pretty poor attempt to justify your over arching statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Phydeaux!

quote:

But it doesn't change the insanity of our current tax law. Companies are never going to voluntarily give away 35% of their profits. To expect them to do so - is lunacy.

Right now, expecting companies to pay 35% - highest in the world - and shrilly demagoging on it is ridiculous. Lefties should take a lessen and set it at a flat 15%, no deductions.

Those who want to cut corporate tax rates are uninformed or disingenuous to point to statutory rates or artificially high effective rates like Pfizer's to argue that corporate taxes are too high. As my Center on Budget and Policy Priorities colleague Chye-Ching Huang says here, the big problem with taxing multinationals today is "stateless income": profits that aren't taxed anywhere. Cutting the corporate rate doesn't bring that income into the U.S. tax base or greatly reduce multinationals' search for "tax havens" (countries with very low or zero corporate tax rates); it mostly just costs public revenue on the profits that the government would otherwise tax.


STATELESS MONEY:

U.S. Senate scrutiny of Apple Inc.’s tax strategies turned the spotlight on a unit with $30 billion in profit since 2009 that’s incorporated in Ireland, controlled by a board in California, and doesn’t pay taxes in either place.

Apple officials acknowledged yesterday at a congressional hearing that the entity -- a key subsidiary in Apple’s offshore tax strategy -- is managed and controlled in the U.S., yet it still isn’t paying U.S. federal income taxes.

The shifting of profits by multinational companies is costing the U.S. and Europe at least $100 billion per year in lost tax revenue, according to Kimberly Clausing, an economics professor at Reed University in Portland, Oregon.

Apple & Google

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

By Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy April 15 at 2:11 PM
A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_superpacs-830a_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Nnanji !

quote:

First, you seem to believe we're still in the early 1900's. We're not. There is a lot of oportunity around here and people who don't take advantage of it can be described as making poor choices.

Second, so your entire moral philosophy in life is based from this one guy's blog. It's a pretty poor attempt to justify your over arching statements.

You asked for a link. I gave you a link. Now you give me shit about the link. Asswipe!

Actually, my moral philosophy is based upon Liberation Theology.

You think prosperity blossomed for everyone after the early 1900s? You think the elite classes don't have hoards of lobbiests tilting the playing field to protect their riches, get tax breaks and government favors for their interests, and generally exploit the poor and working class, wringing every last drop of sweat and blood from them? Shit! And where the fuck is "around here" where there is so much opportunity?

Jesus Christ on a popcycle, search for your own damn links. Are you an idiot!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

By Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy April 15 at 2:11 PM
A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_superpacs-830a_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

I read that. I've always been against the McCain-Fingold law.