StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 08:42 AM) Drugs like pot sure, but not the heavies like crack or heroin or meth. The bigger problem IMO is that those people eventually get caught. They'll have a record and will never get a job and will always be on government assistance. So why not just make it a requirement that they can't? Our liberal government is all about telling people what's good/bad for you, so let's apply that to this situation. I'd be in favor of decriminalizing all of it. The War on Drugs hurts users, costs billions and helps suppliers. But it goes back to the point that it's the same proportion of people on public assistance and not that use drugs, both hard and soft. It's just that poorer people tend to use crack and wealthier people tend to use coke. Throwing users in jail doesn't help users, doesn't get them clean and doesn't help society. Besides, what does cutting off their public assistance do? What greater good to society would that lead to? How do their children get fed and clothed? And it comes at the costs of invading the privacy of the 90% of people on public assistance that aren't users, and it comes at substantial financial costs. It'd be an economic and civil rights loser. It's not the job of public assistance programs to enforce law. Unreasonable searches are not in the public interest.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) IMO all that is talking about extremes. Can you go from really poor to really rich without any help. Maybe not. But that ignores the reality that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet had help, but some of that may have been of their own doing. But either way, people can improve their lot in life from having nothing or having to work two jobs and barely scraping by to getting themselves more educated and qualified and getting a solid career. They may never be rich, but they can be comfortable in life. The problem is most people make huge mistakes in life that they then have to pay for. Having kids too early, being caught up in crime which screws up future employment, choosing not to finish school, etc. Well, yeah, that sucks for them, but it's not like the system kept them from living a comfortable life. No one is saying it's easy. You gotta work for it, but I can't agree that it's not possible. The idea that anyone makes it entirely on their own is part of the myth. Anyone who is successful has some help at some point. From friends, family, society, even government. There is nothing wrong with that; we are social animals and our brains have developed to work together. It also doesn't imply that no one succeeds based on merit, that it's all luck and chance. I'll pull the quote from one of Google's founders: And, of course, I vehemently disagree with the idea that anyone who fails to succeed fails because of "huge mistakes" in life. Unless being born into a poor neighborhood with crap schools and crap prospects is a huge mistake, while being born to wealthy parents that can send you to a school New Trier or Neuqua Valley and then on to the Ivy Leagues is the result of your own hard work and determination and lack of mistakes. The point is that normal, hard-working people that come from crap backgrounds with crap support can work hard, finish school, and "do the right things" while still losing at capitalism lottery, while others can be born into wealth, skate through life, produce nothing of value and b**** about high taxes. Our economy isn't some great sorting system of pure personal merit (nor should it be, but that's a different argument!), and blaming the poor for being poor is simply another form of blaming the victim. When the greatest predictor of your socioeconomic class is the one you were born into, it says something about how much merit really gets rewarded. It's also worth noting that money isn't the only privilege you can inherit--strong family support, social status and access, legal, community support and endorsement of education. These are all generalities, of course. We can all point to someone who started out with the odds stacked against them and ended up very successful. We can all point to someone who's poor and lazy. We can all find stories of welfare fraud, and we can all find stories of people who were born into wealthy families and still worked hard and provided a lot of value to society. I'll pull a quote from a Washington Post article addressing some of the arguments against inheritance tax:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) If it's a small number then it wouldn't be a big deal. And on what basis would that be unconstitutional? For some statistics on drug usage rates between welfare and non-welfare (statistically insignificant): http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-t...ion-eligibility It's also been ruled unconstitutional in at least one Federal court. Basically, it's an unnecessary invasion of privacy that doesn't really serve any public interest. Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 - Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2000 Besides, I thought you were more liberal on this issue and favored decriminalization or legalization?

I want to commend Hampton Inn & Suites for making what appears to be genuine efforts to increase efficiency, reduce energy usage and use recyclable or biodegradable materials where possible. I know the first two can simply make sense from a financial perspective (convince guests they don't need new towels & sheets everyday=less laundry costs), but it doesn't just stop there. The materials at their breakfast buffets are all biodegradable (made from corn starch I'm pretty sure). Messages around their hotels promoting conservation and environmental awareness. Building LEED-certified hotels with solar water heating. Credit where credit is due. And the rooms are really nice for the price to boot!

Two full-length tracks from the Foo Fighter's upcoming album: http://www.antiquiet.com/news/2011/03/foo-...-arlandria-mp3/ also didn't realize Pat Smear had rejoined. Time to bust out some Germs tunes!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 10:23 PM) And yet this is the product of 80 years of social welfare. That alone should be telling. Your post was early, today is April 1st! eta seriously though, that's an interesting interpretation. I'd say that it's the product of 30 years of supply-side economics failure for everyone but the uber-wealthy, since that correlates much better with wage stagnation and the funneling of wealth to the tippy top. But I guess somehow assistance for the poor makes the uber-wealthy keep all of the economic gains of the last several decades?

Mike Huckabee wants all Americans forced to watch televised Christian preaching at gunpoint

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 05:16 PM) Eh, we've had this argument before. From my personal experience looking at the Chicago public welfare scene, it is like that. There are certainly people out there who work their asses off and still have problems getting ahead. But they're a minority. And really, those people don't even get much public aid, which is part of the problem with the system. Those people, who do work their ass off and have jobs and have kids and still have trouble don't get the assistance they need. But there's a very large number of people out there who do just accept their check, take it, and stick their hand out again. I met/learned about countless numbers of them at various public housing projects in the city. Yeah but nation-wide statistics don't support extrapolating your personal experiences to the entire system. The whole "welfare queen" meme just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Most people on public assistance of some variety work. People can better their lives, sure. That doesn't address massive inherited privilege disparities and how much harder millions of Americans have to work. It is also simply not true that hard work and elbow grease can and will get you ahead--like I said, millions of working poor bust their asses day-in, day-out (because they're likely working more than one job) without hitting the capitalism lottery. And looking at the statistics, hundreds of millions of Americans have worked hard over the last several decades to see no net gain. Meritocracy does not really exist in this country. The giant wealth gap and low tax rates don't seem to support that. Haven't you also railed against stimulus spending and budget deficits? Not sure why a drug test is necessary. It's not like their cheap or that a huge number of people on public assistance are drug addicts. I believe studies have shown that it'd be a net economic loser, aside from being unconstitutional and unnecessary. Well, if the system currently in place (?) isn't designed to handle the problem, then we don't really have the system I'm looking for. I'd also guess that we'd be pretty far apart on what that system should be.

QUOTE (forrestg @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) I hope the sox erect a statue in his honor or honor him in some way. His 2005 season played an immense part in winning the season. Hell, honor that whole team for their contributions.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 03:59 PM) I agree there, I thought all the bailouts were bulls***. And we still haven't really protected ourselves from the Wall Street screwing us all again.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 03:06 PM) You can say EXACTLY the same thing about the top of the top of the top. Except when their fortunes are on the line, everyone in government picks up the phone. They get bailed out and lose nothing. They have probably even fewer qualms with asking the government to make sure the deck is stacked in their favor. They have absolutely no qualms accepting public money, public favors, things that can be turned into money, etc. IMO that's why it's important to point out that "CLASS WARFARE!" and redistribution of wealth doesn't only mean taking from the rich to give to the poor.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 03:03 PM) But see, this is the attitude which kills any real reform in this area. It's not a one side fix. It's not just saying the rich have exploited the system to be more rich. Sure it is. There's more than enough wealth, hell, there's more than enough idle wealth and productive people right now to provide food, shelter, clothing, education etc. if we wanted a full-blown socialist state. You can't fix a system that overwhelming favors the wealthy on the backs of the poor. Hell, just look at some of the articles I've posted in the Financial thread in the last couple of days--employers are lamenting labor laws that don't allow them to "hire" desperate people for zero pay so that they can add to their resume while employers add to their profits. See, this I find incredibly insulting. The idea that the working poor don't bust their asses just to survive, that they don't work just as hard or harder and that they just want to sit around and accept public money is just absurd. People simply can't better themselves when more and more jobs are shipped overseas or simply downsized, placing a larger burden on the remaining employees. They can't better themselves and climb up the grand meritocracy ladder when wages have been stagnant for their entire adult lives while the cost of living sure as hell hasn't. The middle class is disappearing into the lower classes. I would not be opposed to large-scale government works programs at times like these to utilize idle labor and materials to build things we need anyway like infrastructure, not just digging and filling holes. That's basic Keynesian economics. I would be in favor of a stronger social safety net that required some minimum input from all citizens who would utilize it that would enable workers to have some semblance of power, an ability to leave a job if conditions became intolerable without facing destitution/foreclosure/etc. But since our government is a bought-and-paid-for plutarchy, that's probably not going to happen.

this is the saddest commercial I've ever seen http://www.values.com/inspirational-storie...-You-Can-Let-Go

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 08:36 AM) Here's my view of this whole thing. Tax the piss out of the rich. I have no problem with this. Maybe not the 90% tax rate we had before, but get it up to 50-60%, whatever. But at the same time, allow small businesses to flourish. Get people to be business owners again, not just workers. You guys have posted all of these graphs about the rise in CEO/top 1% pay. I wonder what the correlation is to the "big box" stores and other large businesses gobbling up the smaller shops. Basically without the successful (though not insanely rich) business owners, their wealth has gone to a few people. I'd love for the government to somehow devise a way to make small to medium size businesses the preferable way to own a business. I think we'd get more people employed at better wages. Obviously you can't do it retroactively (forcing huge companies to become smaller), so maybe you just offer a ton of financial incentives for companies under a certain number of employees. I have no idea how we'd switch to that kind of economic system, but I think that should be the goal. Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume that the greatest years for the middle class was back in the day when we had a lot more small to medium size businesses that were local or regional. I agree with the general vibe of this post very much. Wealth is being funneled in ever-increasing amounts to an ever-decreasing pool of people. That system cannot sustain itself.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 07:23 AM) Because the rest of the nation is stuck on enslavement, er I mean, entitlement programs. These programs don't improve lifestyles. They stagnate them. Yeah, it's not like the ultra-wealthy systematically exploit social safety nets to keep wages low and profits high! But keep continuing to ignore the gigantic wealth gap. Ignore 400 people controlling close to half the wealth in the country. Ignore stagnant wages for decades for most Americans and sky-rocketing executive pay. Those aren't the real problems. The real problems are poor people on food stamps! They're enslaved somehow!

The verdict is in: The Thatcher-Reagan-Blair-Clinton model of capitalism is a failure.

This article's a little old, but I thought it highlighted an interesting idea--workplace democracy and employee ownership, a form of socialism working entirely within a capitalist society. Is John Lewis the best company in Britain to work for?

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) In case you hadn't heard, Drunk Driving Laws are killing Small Businesses. http://coloradoindependent.com/81829/video...illers%E2%80%99 go Tea Party! edit: LOL apparently Hale owns a bar in Montana. The text, for anyone who doesn't want to watch the video.

Does Cantor believe that the House has that ability? I mean, we've seen plenty of newly elected GOP governors think they can run a state like their own personal kingdom, but Cantor's been around for at least a little while.

Does the House actually have the ability to bypass the Senate and, presumably, Presidential signature by "decree"?

Can class warfare only be waged against the rich and not by the rich?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 08:54 AM) At least in my head, I connected that much more to Nietzsche and indirectly to the concepts of Eugenics. See my edit. Rand very clearly had a lot of Neitzsche in her philosophy. I realize that some other Germans used it too, but that honestly didn't cross my mind here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) Really? That's your choice of words here? It's a shot at Rand, though I guess I really don't know ss2k5's opinion of her. eta: Rand ripped a good chunk of her philosophy from Nietzsche, even if she only ever recognized Aristotle (A=A!!!). Atlas Shrugged is more a less a description of her envisioned Übermensch, John Galt.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 08:43 AM) The thing I find jaw-dropping is that you're posting an article about how bad it is that states have to rely literally on the fortunes of less than a thousand people for their income because they so totally skew the nations' income distributions, but your conclusion is "those people should be taxed less and everyone else should be taxed more. That way their incomes go even higher". Well, it fits with the idea of giving ADM more subsidies and cutting food stamps is a better way to feed the poor...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 08:34 AM) The more you depend on "spreading the wealth around" aka making people's existence entirely dependent on a narrowing amount of successful people, the worse recessions get and the harder hit those now government/rich dependent classes will be. Not to mention the idea that taxes are going to create a middle class somehow is just insane. We've been doing this for like 75 years now, and all we have done is created a much larger dependent lower class instead of a functioning independent middle class. People don't move up the ladder from "spreading the wealth around". That is a myth. You've got reality backwards here. We do have a narrowing amount of "successful" people because our current system does a fantastic job of redistributing wealth to a very, very small handful of people in the country. Should I post the graph again showing average workers' earnings only going up 4.3% over the last 20 years? Or the graphs showing how all of the wealth generated in this country in the past several decades has been funneled to a few hundred/ thousand people while pretty much everyone else has been stagnant? The idea isn't to confiscate wealth from the Übermenschen producers and give it to the looters. The idea is to stop the huge income and wealth disparity from continuing to widen in this country as we see those at the very tippy top take an incredibly disproportionate share of the wealth.