The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
04-28-2021, 12:11 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
https://electionwiz.com/2021/04/28/a...-mask-mandate/
“Vail School Board violates Arizona open meeting law, refuse to hear from the people, and goes home. So, the People hold quorum, call their own meeting to order, elect a new School Board, and immediately vote to CANCEL the mask mandate – along with voting to disallow any medical procedure being forced on the children or employees. This is how you take back power from a tyrannical government.
Great work to the parents of the students in Vail School District.”
Arizona School Board Flees, Parents Elect New Board, Vote To End Mask Mandate
“Vail School Board violates Arizona open meeting law, refuse to hear from the people, and goes home. So, the People hold quorum, call their own meeting to order, elect a new School Board, and immediately vote to CANCEL the mask mandate – along with voting to disallow any medical procedure being forced on the children or employees. This is how you take back power from a tyrannical government.
Great work to the parents of the students in Vail School District.”
Reply
0
0
04-28-2021, 12:13 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
I agree that the purpose of money is to act as a liquid means of exchanging goods, labor. But you neglected to mention property and other finite resources. If those things simply existed freely in nature, as they once did, it would be as simple as individuals trading goods and services. Capitalism favors those who own property.
I was trying to dance around it because its so divisive, but the counter to "taxation is theft", is "property is theft". If you think taxation is unfair, the same should be said for property.
Again, just clarifying, Im not seriously advocating the elimination of property. Just like I wouldn't advocate the elimination of taxes.
I was trying to dance around it because its so divisive, but the counter to "taxation is theft", is "property is theft". If you think taxation is unfair, the same should be said for property.
Again, just clarifying, Im not seriously advocating the elimination of property. Just like I wouldn't advocate the elimination of taxes.
Reply
0
0
04-28-2021, 12:33 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,608
Taking this a step further, I suppose it's possible to construct a wagon from only timber which one finds on the ground, and using only rocks which one has cracked and sharpened as tools. But it would be far more efficient to construct wagons out of timber which someone else has harvested and cut at a mill, using saws and hammers and chisels and nails which a blacksmith has forged in his shop (using iron extracted by miners, who in turn were also using tools created by millwrights), and so on.
But to set up that whole operation to build just the one single wagon which I need myself would be tremendously wasteful. So instead, my town has one carriage shop in it, in which wagons are made for all who need them. The carriage-builder, in turn, doesn't need to spend time planting and harvesting his own crops, growing his own livestock, etc. He pays other people for these things, using the money which he generates from wagon-building.
Replace "Capitalism" with "Nature," and we'll be in agreement.
Regardless of the economic system in place, if a person occupies a piece of land which is rich in some natural resource (and has the means to defend it), then they will always be in an advantageous position over a person whose land is poor in resources.
The same is true of a pride of lions which inhabit a region rich in zebras and natural springs. Or of a tree which has the good fortune to have sprouted from a seed which fell upon fertile ground in an area with moderate temperatures and good rainfall.
Reply
0
0
04-28-2021, 01:08 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
In the past you could just go get resources. Sure, there were people that were trying to stake claim to this and that, but there was a lot of available land. You could walk into the jungle and walk out rich. That continues to become more difficult as time goes by because these resources are finite.
If property were literally free and infinite, there would be no problem. It would be just an exchange of work, where things were mostly fair and equal. But thats not how it it, and thats my point. The existence of property means that there is an inherent stratification of classes, where there are those who own property, and those who only have their labor to offer. The property is scarce, the labor is not. If left unchecked, this stratification will continue to grow until you have serfdom or slavery.
I agree with you that it is natural as well. Like the whole idea of hording food for survival. People are getting obese for the same reason that people are getting super wealthy, its a natural desire to collect, consume, etc.
Its also apparently natural that societies will form classes, since that seems to have happened all over the world, and exists in the natural world as well. But do we really want to live like animals, or like some ancient monarchy? I dont find the idea of something being natural a compelling reason to do anything.
If property were literally free and infinite, there would be no problem. It would be just an exchange of work, where things were mostly fair and equal. But thats not how it it, and thats my point. The existence of property means that there is an inherent stratification of classes, where there are those who own property, and those who only have their labor to offer. The property is scarce, the labor is not. If left unchecked, this stratification will continue to grow until you have serfdom or slavery.
I agree with you that it is natural as well. Like the whole idea of hording food for survival. People are getting obese for the same reason that people are getting super wealthy, its a natural desire to collect, consume, etc.
Its also apparently natural that societies will form classes, since that seems to have happened all over the world, and exists in the natural world as well. But do we really want to live like animals, or like some ancient monarchy? I dont find the idea of something being natural a compelling reason to do anything.
Reply
0
0
04-28-2021, 01:41 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,608
In the past you could just go get resources. Sure, there were people that were trying to stake claim to this and that, but there was a lot of available land. You could walk into the jungle and walk out rich. That continues to become more difficult as time goes by because these resources are finite.
He looks down, and sees that he has stubbed his toe on some Means of Production just randomly lying there on the ground. And he thinks to himself "cool, free Means of Production," but in a way which our minds cannot comprehend, because as I said earlier, his society is pre-literate.
If property were literally free and infinite, there would be no problem. It would be just an exchange of work, where things were mostly fair and equal. But thats not how it it, and thats my point. The existence of property means that there is an inherent stratification of classes, where there are those who own property, and those who only have their labor to offer. The property is scarce, the labor is not. If left unchecked, this stratification will continue to grow until you have serfdom or slavery.
Well, no. Which is why we (mankind) developed organizational strategies such as free market capitalism. They allow us to live at a higher standard than those who lack them.
Reply
1
1
04-28-2021, 02:21 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
So, while I'm not sure what your definition of "the past" is in this context, I now have in my head the image of a proto-human member of a pre-literate culture walking along the Savannah one day, and he suddenly feels a pain in his foot.
He looks down, and sees that he has stubbed his toe on some Means of Production just randomly lying there on the ground. And he thinks to himself "cool, free Means of Production," but in a way which our minds cannot comprehend, because as I said earlier, his society is pre-literate.
He looks down, and sees that he has stubbed his toe on some Means of Production just randomly lying there on the ground. And he thinks to himself "cool, free Means of Production," but in a way which our minds cannot comprehend, because as I said earlier, his society is pre-literate.
At the most fundamental level, were talking about an issue with human nature. That can be abstracted to an issue with culture. If the culture is all about short term profits at any cost, it is probably not going to bode well for long term sustainability. Thats how the rivers end up polluted and children end up losing limbs in a factory. We have to protect our environment and our people some how.
Basically, I just dont think laissez faire economic policies are the optimal solution for maximizing benefit to society. Unless maybe we can have some kind of big culture shift, and people can come to terms with their natural illogical behavior. But that seems very unlikely.
Reply
0
0
04-28-2021, 02:54 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,608
So, 100% serious question here: When you earlier said that, in earlier years, "You could walk into the jungle and walk out rich," was that not a simplification?
I mean, what would an example be of this happening?
I mean, what would an example be of this happening?
Reply
0
0
04-28-2021, 03:16 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
But my point was that there was a time when Joe Smchoe could go out and get some land and make it big for themselves. Very recently people have staked their claims in the cyber domain, a little less recently, there was the whole of the North American continent ripe with untapped resources. It makes sense that prior to the 1900s we got away with so little regulation and basically no taxes. Now most of that has been mostly consolidated into the hands of few people.
Reply
0
0
04-28-2021, 03:42 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,608
Reply
0
0
04-28-2021, 04:11 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
Isnt that the American dream? or did that never happen?
I havent done much research, but maybe everybody that capitalized on the resources of north america were already wealthy. If anything I would think that is only further supporting the idea that capitalism favors property owners.
I was talking about in the US. I should have been more specific.
Im honestly not really sure where youre coming from.
Why dont you tell me this. Do you think income and corporate taxes should be abolished entirely? or dramatically reduced?
Should we remove all regulations designed to protect workers and the environment?
I havent done much research, but maybe everybody that capitalized on the resources of north america were already wealthy. If anything I would think that is only further supporting the idea that capitalism favors property owners.
Tell that to the citizens of ancient Rome. They paid income tax, personal property tax, slave tax, estate tax, wealth tax, and so on. One of the biggest motivations for the development of the Roman system of roads was that it allowed the emperors to increase their tax base.
Im honestly not really sure where youre coming from.
Why dont you tell me this. Do you think income and corporate taxes should be abolished entirely? or dramatically reduced?
Should we remove all regulations designed to protect workers and the environment?
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 08:37 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Isnt that the American dream? or did that never happen?
I havent done much research, but maybe everybody that capitalized on the resources of north america were already wealthy. If anything I would think that is only further supporting the idea that capitalism favors property owners.
I was talking about in the US. I should have been more specific.
Im honestly not really sure where youre coming from.
Why dont you tell me this. Do you think income and corporate taxes should be abolished entirely? or dramatically reduced?
Should we remove all regulations designed to protect workers and the environment?
I havent done much research, but maybe everybody that capitalized on the resources of north america were already wealthy. If anything I would think that is only further supporting the idea that capitalism favors property owners.
I was talking about in the US. I should have been more specific.
Im honestly not really sure where youre coming from.
Why dont you tell me this. Do you think income and corporate taxes should be abolished entirely? or dramatically reduced?
Should we remove all regulations designed to protect workers and the environment?
Im so glad i never paid attention in school, and when I did, it redpilled me from all the bullshit being spewed...
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 08:57 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
I will say, it's very tempting to move to the democratic party; you can get away with murder and treason -- no one bats an eye -- and your peers will fully cover it up for you.
CUOMO NURSING HOME COVERUP “FAR GREATER THAN PREVIOUSLY KNOWN” - NEW YORK TIMES
by Kevin Ryan
The New York Times is reporting today that the Cuomo administration’s coverup of New York’s nursing home death toll is “far greater than previously known.”
The Times says that the administration repeatedly overruled state health officials’ attempts to release the data in a sustained effort to prevent the true death toll from becoming known by the public or state lawmakers.
According to newly unearthed documents:
• When the New York Health Department first prepared a report on the issue in the spring of 2020, the final version was rewritten by senior advisers to Cuomo to say that admissions from hospitals “were not a driver of nursing home infections or fatalities,” and to remove the accurate death toll and replace it with a lower death count.
• Another report was prepared at the same time for the scientific community by nearly a dozen health officials that put the death toll far higher than what the administration was saying publicly at the time. It also said 35% of all deaths “were nursing home residents.” It was never published.
• Instead, a report was released falsely claiming that just 21% of all deaths in New York were from nursing homes, a percentage better than almost every other state. It became a talking point for the governor.
• When the public began to notice that Cuomo’s version of the death toll only included people who physically died at a nursing home, and did not include those who died after being rushed to the hospital, state lawmakers and reporters began asking about the missing figures. In early September, the Health Department drafted a letter with the data and sent it to Cuomo’s office for approval. But approval never came. It was not sent to legislators.
• A time-consuming audit was then ordered by the administration. But just as the audit was completed showing the real death toll, Cuomo “threw another wrench in the system” and asked for further analysis of the data. After that analysis, which did not change the overall figures, the Health Department once again tried to release the nursing home data, saying in a November draft letter that it was “writing to share the findings of the New York State Department of Health’s analysis of nursing home fatality data.” The letter was never sent.
The full data on nursing home deaths was not released until this year, and it showed that the Cuomo count undercounted the true toll by as much as 50%. As of this month, more than 15,500 New York nursing home residents died of the virus.
The Cuomo administration’s handling of nursing home death data now is the subject of a federal investigation and an impeachment inquiry. In addition, the state attorney general, Letitia James, is also looking into sexual misconduct accusations against the governor. And a separate investigation is looking into whether Cuomo misused state resources to write his book on the pandemic.
The scandals have so far not prompted the governor to resign or even admit any wrongdoing. But they are beginning to take a toll on his re-election chances, as currently only 34% of voters now say they will vote for Cuomo, vs. 52% who say they would “prefer someone else”.
Those interested in a full accounting of Cuomo’s leadership in New York, I highly recommend this book by Unbiased America alumnus Matt Palumbo (who is now a New York Times Bestselling Author!)
by Kevin Ryan
The New York Times is reporting today that the Cuomo administration’s coverup of New York’s nursing home death toll is “far greater than previously known.”
The Times says that the administration repeatedly overruled state health officials’ attempts to release the data in a sustained effort to prevent the true death toll from becoming known by the public or state lawmakers.
According to newly unearthed documents:
• When the New York Health Department first prepared a report on the issue in the spring of 2020, the final version was rewritten by senior advisers to Cuomo to say that admissions from hospitals “were not a driver of nursing home infections or fatalities,” and to remove the accurate death toll and replace it with a lower death count.
• Another report was prepared at the same time for the scientific community by nearly a dozen health officials that put the death toll far higher than what the administration was saying publicly at the time. It also said 35% of all deaths “were nursing home residents.” It was never published.
• Instead, a report was released falsely claiming that just 21% of all deaths in New York were from nursing homes, a percentage better than almost every other state. It became a talking point for the governor.
• When the public began to notice that Cuomo’s version of the death toll only included people who physically died at a nursing home, and did not include those who died after being rushed to the hospital, state lawmakers and reporters began asking about the missing figures. In early September, the Health Department drafted a letter with the data and sent it to Cuomo’s office for approval. But approval never came. It was not sent to legislators.
• A time-consuming audit was then ordered by the administration. But just as the audit was completed showing the real death toll, Cuomo “threw another wrench in the system” and asked for further analysis of the data. After that analysis, which did not change the overall figures, the Health Department once again tried to release the nursing home data, saying in a November draft letter that it was “writing to share the findings of the New York State Department of Health’s analysis of nursing home fatality data.” The letter was never sent.
The full data on nursing home deaths was not released until this year, and it showed that the Cuomo count undercounted the true toll by as much as 50%. As of this month, more than 15,500 New York nursing home residents died of the virus.
The Cuomo administration’s handling of nursing home death data now is the subject of a federal investigation and an impeachment inquiry. In addition, the state attorney general, Letitia James, is also looking into sexual misconduct accusations against the governor. And a separate investigation is looking into whether Cuomo misused state resources to write his book on the pandemic.
The scandals have so far not prompted the governor to resign or even admit any wrongdoing. But they are beginning to take a toll on his re-election chances, as currently only 34% of voters now say they will vote for Cuomo, vs. 52% who say they would “prefer someone else”.
Those interested in a full accounting of Cuomo’s leadership in New York, I highly recommend this book by Unbiased America alumnus Matt Palumbo (who is now a New York Times Bestselling Author!)
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 10:13 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
The party of diversity, inclusion, and pronouns:
Hey Twitter,
Care to explain why this is trending?
After Congressman Tim Scott's response to Biden's address, "Uncle Tim" was and is STILL trending on Twitter.
Is this not hate speech according to your standards?
Is this not racist?
If you're a Democrat and the first thing you think of when seeing Tim Scott is "Uncle Tom", you might have some series issues in your heart and soul.
Hey Facebook and Instagram,
I hope, by the standards you've made, have been taking down posts targeting Tim Scott...
Care to explain why this is trending?
After Congressman Tim Scott's response to Biden's address, "Uncle Tim" was and is STILL trending on Twitter.
Is this not hate speech according to your standards?
Is this not racist?
If you're a Democrat and the first thing you think of when seeing Tim Scott is "Uncle Tom", you might have some series issues in your heart and soul.
Hey Facebook and Instagram,
I hope, by the standards you've made, have been taking down posts targeting Tim Scott...
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 10:21 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
I am, and have been for some time, been a member of the Gallup poll. I can usually tell what results they are looking for based on the wording of the questions. That said, I also know they cherry pick respondents based on the results they want, because I have been excluded from the latest polls on sleepy Joe. I trust polls about as much as I do the current administration, which is to say not a bit.
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 10:57 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,608
Early in the history of America, a small number of people did "strike it rich" in various ways. For every one who did, that tens of thousands chased that same dream right into the poorhouse or the grave.
In other words, basically the same paradigm as we've seen in recent decades, starting with the late 70s / early 80s PC revolution, leading into the dot-com era, and most recently, the Age of Apps.
The 18th and 19th centuries had their share of Elon Musks and Sergey Brins. They went on to found great empires like Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel.
But then, as today, such stories were the exception. The average pioneer who headed west in search of fame and fortune failed just the same as the average web-commerce site or the average "killer iphone app."
Corporate taxes are kind of a joke, in the literal sense. It's become quite popular for people to point out that, for many reasons, many if not most corporations in the US already pay little to no tax. The fact is that they're just better equipped than most individuals to hire clever lawyers and accountants. And, of course, they are able to exert considerable influence into the creation of the tax laws to begin with.
When corporate taxes do work "as intended," they have the effect of incentivizing corporations to decrease their exposure to US taxation by moving as much as possible offshore.
So, yes, I believe that corporate taxes should be abolished entirely.
Personal income tax, as much as I find it distasteful, is necessary to some extent, regardless of whether you separate medicare / social security taxes out as an independent group or not. (The fact is that there is no actual separation of these monies after they are collected.)
Government spending is far too high. The US government already spends more than it collects in revenue, so there's no strict, logical reason for why revenue (in the form of personal income tax) could not be decreased without affecting spending.
What I WOULD like to see happen would be for Federal spending to be decreased radically, and for personal income taxes to be reduced to a level commensurate.
Yes.
In other words, basically the same paradigm as we've seen in recent decades, starting with the late 70s / early 80s PC revolution, leading into the dot-com era, and most recently, the Age of Apps.
The 18th and 19th centuries had their share of Elon Musks and Sergey Brins. They went on to found great empires like Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel.
But then, as today, such stories were the exception. The average pioneer who headed west in search of fame and fortune failed just the same as the average web-commerce site or the average "killer iphone app."
When corporate taxes do work "as intended," they have the effect of incentivizing corporations to decrease their exposure to US taxation by moving as much as possible offshore.
So, yes, I believe that corporate taxes should be abolished entirely.
Personal income tax, as much as I find it distasteful, is necessary to some extent, regardless of whether you separate medicare / social security taxes out as an independent group or not. (The fact is that there is no actual separation of these monies after they are collected.)
Government spending is far too high. The US government already spends more than it collects in revenue, so there's no strict, logical reason for why revenue (in the form of personal income tax) could not be decreased without affecting spending.
What I WOULD like to see happen would be for Federal spending to be decreased radically, and for personal income taxes to be reduced to a level commensurate.
Yes.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 04-29-2021 at 11:07 AM.
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 11:06 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,608
There are, of course, alternatives to market capitalism. You could build a cabin in the mountains of Idaho and raise your own food, just be careful not to fall in with the Aryan Nation and then illegally modify any shotguns.
You could start a church, attract hundreds of faithful and convince them to sign over their money and property to the church, and then use that to build an agrarian commune in northern Guyana.
Or the church thing again, but in central Texas, but then again be careful of the illegally-modified firearms thing.
And so on. There are many alternatives to participating in the mainstream economy. It's just that most of them are less desirable than participating in the economy, in terms of having access to the running water and sanitation, medical care, and other things which a market economy is able to provide.
You could start a church, attract hundreds of faithful and convince them to sign over their money and property to the church, and then use that to build an agrarian commune in northern Guyana.
Or the church thing again, but in central Texas, but then again be careful of the illegally-modified firearms thing.
And so on. There are many alternatives to participating in the mainstream economy. It's just that most of them are less desirable than participating in the economy, in terms of having access to the running water and sanitation, medical care, and other things which a market economy is able to provide.
Reply
0
0
