kruker wrote:Mayor of Providence wants to tax students @ $150 a semester. That's not going to work.

A far cry from when I went to school there and Mayor Buddy Cianci (who was arrested and imprisoned both before and afterward) was a silent-partner owner in the bars that served us. Sometimes he would show up and hang out, as the night before Election Day in '94... he predicted his margin of victory within one point of what it turned out to be. Almost like he knew.

dajafi wrote:

kruker wrote:Mayor of Providence wants to tax students @ $150 a semester. That's not going to work.

A far cry from when I went to school there and Mayor Buddy Cianci (who was arrested and imprisoned both before and afterward) was a silent-partner owner in the bars that served us. Sometimes he would show up and hang out, as the night before Election Day in '94... he predicted his margin of victory within one point of what it turned out to be. Almost like he knew.

I was in Providence in 2002, and all over downtown were signs with "Thank You Buddy". He came and hung out in the bar with the Northeast Political Science Association peoplel.

I have to believe that someone out there is working on a Cianci biography, and that it's going to be fucking great.

I miss the days of asbestos and lead paint. I'm tellin ya, that $#@! made a body strong and resilient. That's why the kids these days are such sickly wimps... no tasty lead paint chips in their early diet to build up that resilience. And it's a shame kids these days will never know the joy of relaxing at recess with a couple of Camel unfilters.

Werthless wrote:If we had true freedom, then people could join into cooperatives and share resources. They would be free to do so. But if these people tried to enforce their sharing onto unwilling others, then we wouldn't have freedom then, would we?

well, we'd probably have some softy complaining about a few people forcing their NOT sharing on others

allentown wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:I listened to my daily 5 minutes of crazy(tm) today in the car. Hannity said something like 'Freedom, i.e. free-market capitalism', as though freedom MEANT capitalism. Do people really believe that is the meaning of freedom?

It's not how I would define it, but I can see what he means. Capitalism can be defined as simply a system of voluntary transactions, where individuals make their own decisions about what to buy, produce, and trade. Free market capitalism can thus be considered freedom in the economic realm.

If we had true freedom, then people could join into cooperatives and share resources. They would be free to do so. But if these people tried to enforce their sharing onto unwilling others, then we wouldn't have freedom then, would we?

Unregulated laissez faire capitalism results in freedom only for those with a ton of money, who control the means of production. If you start with, or devolve to, a condition of extreme wealth inequality, then you can wind up with the brutal conditions and lack of choices seen for the masses in Britain during the early industrial age and in the mining communities and company towns in the US. Child labor was prevalent, work places were dirty and dangerous, and working hours were very long and labor was very tough. Workers could not get a decent wage, consumers could by only from monopolies, products were adulterated, the rich could set up debtors prisons, assault and hang unionizers, etc. It was a very grim world. Workers were pretty much equivalent to serfs or slaves. Not at all what most of us would regard as freedom.

So are you saying that life was altogether worse before the industrial revolution? That seems to be your claim, that capitalism was not an improvement over the previous times. Also, that the surge in productivity seen in the last 200 years would have likely occurred under any number of systems, the previous thousands of years notwithstanding.

I laughed at the absurdity of ASU not giving Obama an honorary degree. Apparently, he's done enough to be invited to give the commencement speech. Here are some excerptsfrom his speech:

President Crow and the board of regents will soon learn about being audited by the I.R.S.

I come here not to dispute the suggestion that I haven’t achieved enough in my life. First of all, Michelle concurs with that assessment. She has a long list of things I have not yet done waiting for me when I get home.

But more than that, I come to embrace the notion that I haven’t done enough in my life. I heartily concur. I come to confirm that one’s title, even a title like president of the United States, says very little about how well one’s life has been led — and that no matter how much you’ve done, or how successful you’ve been, there’s always more to do, always more to learn, and always more to achieve.

Werthless wrote:

allentown wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:I listened to my daily 5 minutes of crazy(tm) today in the car. Hannity said something like 'Freedom, i.e. free-market capitalism', as though freedom MEANT capitalism. Do people really believe that is the meaning of freedom?

It's not how I would define it, but I can see what he means. Capitalism can be defined as simply a system of voluntary transactions, where individuals make their own decisions about what to buy, produce, and trade. Free market capitalism can thus be considered freedom in the economic realm.

If we had true freedom, then people could join into cooperatives and share resources. They would be free to do so. But if these people tried to enforce their sharing onto unwilling others, then we wouldn't have freedom then, would we?

Unregulated laissez faire capitalism results in freedom only for those with a ton of money, who control the means of production. If you start with, or devolve to, a condition of extreme wealth inequality, then you can wind up with the brutal conditions and lack of choices seen for the masses in Britain during the early industrial age and in the mining communities and company towns in the US. Child labor was prevalent, work places were dirty and dangerous, and working hours were very long and labor was very tough. Workers could not get a decent wage, consumers could by only from monopolies, products were adulterated, the rich could set up debtors prisons, assault and hang unionizers, etc. It was a very grim world. Workers were pretty much equivalent to serfs or slaves. Not at all what most of us would regard as freedom.

So are you saying that life was altogether worse before the industrial revolution? That seems to be your claim, that capitalism was not an improvement over the previous times. Also, that the surge in productivity seen in the last 200 years would have likely occurred under any number of systems, the previous thousands of years notwithstanding.

You don't get the industrial revolution without a massive increase in state power. Capitalism isn't a challenge to state power, they go hand in hand.

Well, which term are you using then (capitalism, laissez faire free market capitalism, or the corporatist union of business and government we see today)? Allentown complained that capitalism leads to tons of horrible outcomes. Specifically, the point was about laissez faire free market capitalism, which entails, by definition, minimal government interference. Now you say that capitalism isn't unaccompanied by state power. I agree, to an extent. There needs to be a mechanism for contract enforcement, a clearinghouse of property disputes, in order for capitalism to thrive. Absent these institutions, it's always easier for a central authority to weild them. Economic development is often preceded by an appreciation for rule of law, and some agreed upon concept of property. This can occur through custom and self enforcement, or if in a larger society, by force from a larger government entity. It's hard to develop beyond a simple economy without contract laws or customs. Without the support of contracts, economic transactions on a large scale just aren't very likely to occur.

Allentown attributes the evils of sweatshops to capitalism, and my point is that even this wretched transition from 3rd world to 1st world economies was an improvement over the previous existence.

There is a new demarcation between those accepting the recession's realities and those resistant to it.

Call it a tale of two economies. Private-sector workers -- unionized and nonunion alike -- can largely see that without compromises they may be forced to join unemployment lines. Not so in the public sector.
...
A study in 2005 by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public-sector worker earned 46% more in salary and benefits than comparable private-sector workers. The gap has only continued to grow. For example, state and local worker pay and benefits rose 3.1% in the last year, compared to 1.9% in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
...
Some five million private-sector workers have lost their jobs in the last year alone, and their unemployment rate is above 9% according to the BLS. By contrast, public-sector employment has grown in virtually every month of the recession, and the jobless rate for government workers is a mere 2.8%.

The conditionssurrounding the stimulus plan also perpetuate these realities, as the wages of public health care workers were deemed untouchable by the stimulus dispensers.

Werthless wrote:Well, which term are you using then (capitalism, laissez faire free market capitalism, or the corporatist union of business and government we see today)? Allentown complained that capitalism leads to tons of horrible outcomes. Specifically, the point was about laissez faire free market capitalism, which entails, by definition, minimal government interference. Now you say that capitalism isn't unaccompanied by state power. I agree, to an extent. There needs to be a mechanism for contract enforcement, a clearinghouse of property disputes, in order for capitalism to thrive. Absent these institutions, it's always easier for a central authority to weild them. Economic development is often preceded by an appreciation for rule of law, and some agreed upon concept of property. This can occur through custom and self enforcement, or if in a larger society, by force from a larger government entity. It's hard to develop beyond a simple economy without contract laws or customs. Without the support of contracts, economic transactions on a large scale just aren't very likely to occur.

Allentown attributes the evils of sweatshops to capitalism, and my point is that even this wretched transition from 3rd world to 1st world economies was an improvement over the previous existence.

There's no such thing as laissez faire free market capitalism. That's my point.

Democrats doing just a fantastic job changing the "culture of corruption" on Capitol Hill.

jerseyhoya wrote:Democrats doing just a fantastic job changing the "culture of corruption" on Capitol Hill.

Yeah, I basically came to the conclusion a decade ago that I'd cast my lot with the crooks whose social/fiscal/philosophical ideology most closely aligns with mine.

White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.

"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country."

Mr. Kerlikowske's comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate -- and likely more controversial -- stance on the nation's drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.

The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment's role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said.

Werthless wrote:

allentown wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:I listened to my daily 5 minutes of crazy(tm) today in the car. Hannity said something like 'Freedom, i.e. free-market capitalism', as though freedom MEANT capitalism. Do people really believe that is the meaning of freedom?

It's not how I would define it, but I can see what he means. Capitalism can be defined as simply a system of voluntary transactions, where individuals make their own decisions about what to buy, produce, and trade. Free market capitalism can thus be considered freedom in the economic realm.

If we had true freedom, then people could join into cooperatives and share resources. They would be free to do so. But if these people tried to enforce their sharing onto unwilling others, then we wouldn't have freedom then, would we?

Unregulated laissez faire capitalism results in freedom only for those with a ton of money, who control the means of production. If you start with, or devolve to, a condition of extreme wealth inequality, then you can wind up with the brutal conditions and lack of choices seen for the masses in Britain during the early industrial age and in the mining communities and company towns in the US. Child labor was prevalent, work places were dirty and dangerous, and working hours were very long and labor was very tough. Workers could not get a decent wage, consumers could by only from monopolies, products were adulterated, the rich could set up debtors prisons, assault and hang unionizers, etc. It was a very grim world. Workers were pretty much equivalent to serfs or slaves. Not at all what most of us would regard as freedom.

So are you saying that life was altogether worse before the industrial revolution? That seems to be your claim, that capitalism was not an improvement over the previous times. Also, that the surge in productivity seen in the last 200 years would have likely occurred under any number of systems, the previous thousands of years notwithstanding.

Well, the industrial revolution was late 1700s-early 1800s. Much of what atown mentioned was still around a century after... US child labor laws came to be in the late 1930s, there were still "coal towns" until the 1960s (my mother grew up in a "coal town"... these "shanty towns" weren't just where all the miners et al lived, but essentially a somewhat isolated company-created community with it's own economy, an economy mostly controlled by the coal company).

Soda Tax

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

...

"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.

...

Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.

Bolded what will effect a large segment of BSG-land

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Soda Tax

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

...

"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.

...

Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.

Bolded what will effect a large segment of BSG-land

Why not just end the subsidy on corn, and call it day?

Soda is so cheap these days (at the grocery store, a 2 liter costs a buck or two) that it's hard to argue that increasing the tax a few pennies will make much difference.

TenuredVulture wrote:Why not just end the subsidy on corn, and call it day?

That would make too much sense.

Soda is so cheap these days (at the grocery store, a 2 liter costs a buck or two) that it's hard to argue that increasing the tax a few pennies will make much difference.

I don't think opposition to this tax is one of "affordability."

Edit to add: It's funny. If all of the governments -local, state, and federal- just took 1 tax and divided up the revenue, the American people would rebel. I just don't think people realize the extent to which taxes are taken from our wallets. As it stands now, governments scheme to nickel and dime us into paying taxes in such a way that no single tax is an onerous amount. Taken collectively (excise, income, sales, property, capital gains, social security, payroll), people tolerate the level of taxation.

For LOLZ
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (and others) have been getting ticketed for parking in their own driveways.