Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
My colleagues are all getting closeups of Lindsay Lohan's snatch and my editor sends me to this?

any word on people who may be offering to fill Senator Craig's seat?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
any word on people who may be offering to fill Senator Craig's seat?

You needed that one so badly you couldn't wait for a straight line?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You needed that one so badly you couldn't wait for a straight line?

you've been gone, so you don't know, but things got tough for me. I was posted Eva's photo at the mere mention of intelligence.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
You say "Who can...lecture you on poverty." I think anyone *can* lecture on it, but to get people listening to you, I think the speaker needs to take action and not just use words. Donating or fundraising to alleviate poverty or giving time instead (building/constructing, etc.) Unless the speaker has some unique theory on the topic, without the action the words alone won't be so effective. As for Gore, isn't he truly spending time and money on this issue and dedicating himself to it? Who can doubt that? I don't think his flying a jet is going to derail his whole agenda but it wouldn't hurt to walk the walk and also try not to give fodder to hecklers like Drudge, no?

I completely agree with you on both of those points. For me, it is especially frustrating with Edwards -- I don't necessarily agree with some of his positions, and I like Obama for the nomination, but he is the only national politician who seems to be concerned about the issue enough to try to come up with solutions. And he has been working the issue since the end of the last election, knowing that it is not a "popular" issue among the chattering classes.

Does the fact that he lives in a mansion change his commitment? No. Is someone an idiot -- him, or his staff, or Elizabeth, or whoever picked the barber and approved the price -- for getting a $400 haircut, and thereby handing a club to the people who hate him and are scared that he will get the poor and working class to start voting in accordance with their economic interests? Absolutely.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Serious question -- when is it ever ok to talk about the need* to start reducing the consumption of fossil fuels? Let's assume that Ed Begley, Jr. (the dude rides an exercycle to generate power to listen to Amy Goodman on Pacifica radio) is enough of a Not Hypocrite for you, and let's assume that the SUV-driving, private jet-flying former Vice President can't. Where is the line? If I fly commercial, am I ok? Do I have to drive a hybrid? Do I have to compost, or is mere compliance with the Podunkville recycling ordinance ok?

Related serious question -- when is it ok to talk about helping the poor? Let's assume that you agree that Mother Theresa, or your average Franciscan priest, can lecture you on poverty, and that the fancy haircuttted John Edwards may not. Who can? Can Ralph Nader? Can I? What tax bracket must I be in? My haircuts are cheap, but I have 100 channels of HBO in digital, and my cable bill could probably pay rent for a migrant farm worker's family.

And, just for Diane Keaton, a cheap attempt at making a Republican look bad because Hank is making a Dem look bad: Or is this sort of disconnect between one's life and one's political positions one of those things that is OKWRDI? You know, like listening to Ronald Reagan (or Newt Gingrich, or any of the current GOP presidential candidates other than Mitt) talk about family values? Or fiscal responsibility?

*assuming, for the purposes of this question, that there is such a need

I don't think anyone has a problem with those causes. The problem is the hypocricy. I should drive a hyprid when you are taking private jets? Go fuck yourself.*

* Not you, the fucking morons actually doing this

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob

Does the fact that he lives in a mansion change his commitment? No. Is someone an idiot -- him, or his staff, or Elizabeth, or whoever picked the barber and approved the price -- for getting a $400 haircut, and thereby handing a club to the people who hate him and are scared that he will get the poor and working class to start voting in accordance with their economic interests? Absolutely.

Whether it changes his commitment is not the point. The point is that he wants to redistribute the income of the middle class to help the poor. If he wants to give money himself, great. It's his, he should do with it what he wants. But if taxes are raised for this cause, it doesn't effect him. It does, however, effect you, me, and others a whole lot less fortunate than us.

On a related point, Ben Stein (yes the Ben Stein that worked in the Nixon White House) is pushing a big tax on the rich. When asked "who is rich" his response was those that make $5MM or more a year. He also stated that those that make a couple hundred on the costs are by no means rich. I agree with this latter point. The former point is attractive too, only because it doesn't effect me. But it does effect those making $5MM. And trust me, they don't think they are rich (at least not on the coasts). They think the guys in the next bracket up are rich.

So the real issue is, where is the "rich line" drawn and who gets to draw it? There is no good answer for this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think anyone has a problem with those causes. The problem is the hypocricy. I should drive a hyprid when you are taking private jets? Go fuck yourself.*

* Not you, the fucking morons actually doing this

I don't drive a hybrid because I don't like them. When they make one that's as comfortable as my truck, I'll buy one. That decision will have nothing to do with Al Gore.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Whether it changes his commitment is not the point. The point is that he wants to redistribute the income of the middle class to help the poor. If he wants to give money himself, great. It's his, he should do with it what he wants. But if taxes are raised for this cause, it doesn't effect him. It does, however, effect you, me, and others a whole lot less fortunate than us.

On a related point, Ben Stein (yes the Ben Stein that worked in the Nixon White House) is pushing a big tax on the rich. When asked "who is rich" his response was those that make $5MM or more a year. He also stated that those that make a couple hundred on the costs are by no means rich. I agree with this latter point. The former point is attractive too, only because it doesn't effect me. But it does effect those making $5MM. And trust me, they don't think they are rich (at least not on the coasts). They think the guys in the next bracket up are rich.

So the real issue is, where is the "rich line" drawn and who gets to draw it? There is no good answer for this.

First, John Edwards' campaign is doomed, for many reasons, one of which is that his wife is dying. He's going to collapse.

Second, the transfer would be from middle class people to financial planners.

Third, as more and more of the "coupla hundred" crowd on the coasts move into their own businesses, which has been a trend, the tax revenues Edwards' loathsome kind seek will become illusory. The IRS can't audit everyone. How many doctors do you know who have everything paid for by their practices?

People are realizing that the IRS can't catch everyone and the social contract or "honor code" that had most of us paying taxes truthfully is eroding under economic pressures, class ambition and consumption addiction.

John Edwards is a 70s Democrat joke. A lightweight plastic shyster. Loathsome but hardly frightening or worthy of conetmpt (even though I've wished him dead myself many times).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I completely agree with you on both of those points. For me, it is especially frustrating with Edwards -- I don't necessarily agree with some of his positions, and I like Obama for the nomination, but he is the only national politician who seems to be concerned about the issue enough to try to come up with solutions. And he has been working the issue since the end of the last election, knowing that it is not a "popular" issue among the chattering classes.

Does the fact that he lives in a mansion change his commitment? No. Is someone an idiot -- him, or his staff, or Elizabeth, or whoever picked the barber and approved the price -- for getting a $400 haircut, and thereby handing a club to the people who hate him and are scared that he will get the poor and working class to start voting in accordance with their economic interests? Absolutely.

The simplest cure for poverty is less poor people. Why we're not carpet bombing the impoverished with free birth control and incentives for not reproducing is beyond me. Nixon offered a $20k living wage in the late 60s as a substitute for all social welfare programs (I'm simplifying, but that was the thrust). I believe the GOP rejected it as wildly liberal. It's time to bring it back. Literally pay the abject poor not to reproduce. Why not?

Alternatively, if these right wing freaks must counsel women on alternatives to abortion, why not also offer them an economic incentive to put the child up for adoption to a family that wants and can afford it? Offer the impoverished and pregnant $5,000.00 to give the child up.

The idea is to get as few children being born into poverty as possible. Why not try a new angle?

[Diane_Keaton]

Club: "The problem is the hypocricy. I should drive a hyprid when you are taking private jets? Go fuck yourself."

Is that the only thing you take from Gore's message and work? That we should drive hybrids?

Sebby: "The simplest cure for poverty is less poor people. Why we're not carpet bombing the impoverished with free birth control and incentives for not reproducing is beyond me. .... Literally pay the abject poor not to reproduce. "

Sorry but I don't see how "less poor people" is a "cure" for the poverty that made them poor. I'd say ineffective/corrupt government is a big factor. Nations with shitloads of oil should never have such abyssmal poverty but they do. Putting latex on the men will not change this at all. Same goes for countries rich in other resources (gems). None of it the fault of the American right wing, sorry.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Is that the only thing you take from Gore's message and work? That we should drive hybrids?

Sorry but I don't see how "less poor people" is a "cure" for the poverty that made them poor. I'd say ineffective/corrupt government is a big factor. Nations with shitloads of oil should never have such abyssmal poverty but they do. Putting latex on the men will not change this at all. Same goes for countries rich in other resources (gems). None of it the fault of the American right wing, sorry.

There is no wealth redistribution cure for poverty. Nor is there a market or political/governmental cure. See: Communism, Socialism. The best we have is band-aids like welfare, which I support. What we need is a plan that also stops new poor from being created. There will always be people with a lot and people with none. That's the human animal in action. Using that reality as a baseline, isn't the better course to try to lower the population of the poor? If there are less poor people reproducing there are less poor people.

"Curing" poverty in the sense any politician or policy wonk talks about is just, I don't know... Some sort of crazy utopian gibberish. Nonsense that makes people think such a war on human nature is even worth fighting. Its one of those dumb fictions a lot of people refuse to give up because they don;t want to look at reality and what we are and what kind of societies we naturally create. Silliness. Yes, we can and should do something about it. But curing it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There is no wealth redistribution cure for poverty. Nor is there a market or political/governmental cure. See: Communism, Socialism. The best we have is band-aids like welfare, which I support. What we need is a plan that also stops new poor from being created. There will always be people with a lot and people with none. That's the human animal in action. Using that reality as a baseline, isn't the better course to try to lower the population of the poor? If there are less poor people reproducing there are less poor people.

"Curing" poverty in the sense any politician or policy wonk talks about is just, I don't know... Some sort of crazy utopian gibberish. Nonsense that makes people think such a war on human nature is even worth fighting. Its one of those dumb fictions a lot of people refuse to give up because they don;t want to look at reality and what we are and what kind of societies we naturally create. Silliness. Yes, we can and should do something about it. But curing it?

my grandpa came here from Italy. He and my gramdma were really poor, but they had 5 poor kids. One was my mom.

I think most middle class people could tell a similar story.

Since lots of the poor kids are conceived when their moms are young, how are you going to fight it? sterilization? Euthensia? Do you just mean the dark people?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There is no wealth redistribution cure for poverty. Nor is there a market or political/governmental cure. See: Communism, Socialism.

Sebby, the point is not about advocating redistribution or government handouts. It's that governments actually hamper their citizens from their earning potential. Agree that "curing" poverty is not going to happen and it's silly to believe so, but it's silly to only allow conception by non-poor people (like that's going to happen). You are thinking of crowded cities in countries like India and you assume there's "too many" poor people but factor in the entire country's land mass and the country isn't exactly overpopulated. They're packed in the cities for economic reasons. You should know all this already, so I don't know why you're so hung up on reproduction as a solution. Unless you just can't stop thinking about sex no matter what the context.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The simplest cure for poverty is less poor people. Why we're not carpet bombing the impoverished with free birth control and incentives for not reproducing is beyond me. Nixon offered a $20k living wage in the late 60s as a substitute for all social welfare programs (I'm simplifying, but that was the thrust). I believe the GOP rejected it as wildly liberal. It's time to bring it back. Literally pay the abject poor not to reproduce. Why not?

Alternatively, if these right wing freaks must counsel women on alternatives to abortion, why not also offer them an economic incentive to put the child up for adoption to a family that wants and can afford it? Offer the impoverished and pregnant $5,000.00 to give the child up.

The idea is to get as few children being born into poverty as possible. Why not try a new angle?

What you're talking about is the negative income tax Milton Friedman first came up with and Nixon adopted. It's one of the smartest ideas the man ever had.

It didn't pay people not to have babies; it just didn't provide a system that paid more to a mother who had more children. If you truly want to provide an economic incentive for putting children up for adoption, which is really nothing more than trafficking in children, why not just let the mothers put them up for auction on Ebay, and charge a withholding tax on the proceeds?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What you're talking about is the negative income tax Milton Friedman first came up with and Nixon adopted. It's one of the smartest ideas the man ever had.

It didn't pay people not to have babies; it just didn't provide a system that paid more to a mother who had more children. If you truly want to provide an economic incentive for putting children up for adoption, which is really nothing more than trafficking in children, why not just let the mothers put them up for auction on Ebay, and charge a withholding tax on the proceeds?

ebay? on ebay you have to post pictures and lots of the really poor are ugly. not saleable.