jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
fta:
And, as the Daily Caller pointed out last week, the federal government has spent billions — close to $100 billion, actually, since just fiscal 2012 — on “science” that is undergirded by failed models. About a month earlier, the Daily Caller also noted that the models were unable to “predict CO2 would green the Western U.S.”
Yet the modeling template marches on, even as, Michaels and Wojick note, “the climate science research that is done appears to be largely focused on improving the models.”
Get that? Climate scientists are spending more energy and resources trying to upgrade their flawed models than they are trying to understand the climate itself. And it’s a good bet that what most climate scientists will consider improved modeling will be programs that predict even greater warmth.
Bleh. What do you think it means to 'upgrade' the models? That seems like exactly what they should be doing. Not everything needs to be spun so horribly.
-
You think child neglect and abuse are hardly obscure situations
This will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS be the case. People will have good, very successful, parents. Other people will have terrible, very successful parents. Other people will have good, but not 'successful' parents and even others will have terrible, not successful parents. What should we do about that? How will regulating CEO pay help those kids?
-
luck has much to do with it. there is not nearly as much upward economic mobility as most people believe. the economic strata you were born into will very, very likely be the highest strata you will obtain in your lifetime. that truth is only getting more evident with each passing year. the sperm (or womb) lottery is a really important predictor of ones financial and social destiny.
While this could be true -- the absolute amount of people moving out of their strata -- the most important thing about the country and economy is not *whether* people do it, but that the *opportunity* exists to do so.
-
some faces to go with the rhetoric: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/feeling-let-down-and-left-behind-with-little-hope-for-better.html?_r=0
I mean, I really do feel for these folks. I do. I grew up in New York's version of Appalachia in the Southern Tier. But the world has changed. We are no longer the only country in the world capable of large-scale manufacturing because the infrastructure of the rest of the developed world has been destroyed by WWII. The problem is NOT that CEOs make $xxx. The problem is that the 'good old days' were never sustainable. They're not coming back.
The fact that these folks are lamenting their troubles while spending money in a vape shop gives some insight into this, doesn't it? I mean, the one guy talks about how one bad decision shouldn't doom him to failure (of course it shouldn't, depending on the severity of the one bad choice - nobody disagrees with that), then goes on to list at least three mistakes he's made while spending money smoking -- he's not *really* trying, is he? And I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there shouldn't be a safety net of some sort. But CEO pay has (almost) nothing to do with their lot in life.
On another note: I am not comfortable with the amount of money that CEOs make (I would honestly be embarrassed to be making the amount some of these guys make while simultaneously firing people and cutting expenses), but am TOTALLY uncomfortable with the idea that government should have ANYTHING to do with setting limits on that. If shareholders (owners) are good with it, then why shouldn't I be?
-
often times justifiably so. what positive consequences result from someone making 100's of millions per year? it's more than they can ever likely spend. it's money not going to those who would spend it immediately because of need. there is a diminishing return on incentivizing those making those salaries above a threshold. and it leads to short term planning in many cases because c level execs can get rich and get out. damned be the future. all in all, it's counterproductive.
What you keep on missing is that the "100's of millions per year" won't go to other workers. It will go to the corporation's bottom line.
-
so, in conclusion, it's the circle jerks opinion that 2/3 of the us population are worthless, low life, good for nothing, lazy scumbags, that are unwilling to pull their own weight.
why do any of you choose to live in a country that is full of these people?
It's actually the circle jerk's opinion that 2/3 of the US population have (and continue to make) poor financial decisions. Why you feel the need to ascribe words like "worthless", "low-life", and "scumbags" to that is your issue.
-
Regarding the Marquette situation that TYTT referenced earlier.
George Orwell Call Your Office: Marquette Demands Ritual Apology From Embattled ProfessorThere’s nothing like a good show trial to build confidence in the academy’s commitment to academic freedom. Marquette University is demanding that embattled professor John McAdams apologize for criticizing a colleague as a condition for keeping his job. And what outrage did McAdams commit? He tried to protect the academic freedom and free speech of conservative students:.You read that correctly. Rather than discipline the instructor who silenced a conservative student, the university suspended the whistleblower. Now it’s reportedly extending the suspension through the fall 2016 semester and demanding that he apologize as a condition of returning to work. My former colleagues at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) are right to label the forced apology “an age-old inquisitorial tactic used to violate freedom of conscience through compelled speech.”McAdams — to his immense credit — is not backing down. Here’s his response:I would say that it’s astonishing that a Catholic university punish a professor for defending the right of students to advocate the church’s teaching on marriage, but politically correct nonsense is par for the course even (especially) at many religious colleges.McAdams should be applauded — and supported — for his lonely, courageous stand.Are we SURE that the reason for the punishment from the university is for defending the right of the conservative student to express his opinion?
Something just seems kind of fishy... For example, I COULD see the university taking this action if the discipline is for something like 'outing' a colleague on the basis of an illegally recorded conversation. I'll point out that I don't really know what the actual stated *reason* from the university is for the discipline, but that I could understand the action if my 'scenario' was the reason.
I DO know that I don't care enough about this to try and find out
-
You mean the party guys/varsity letter winners from high school who couldn't get a real job - whose real skill is knowing a lot of people to rope in as opposed to actually understanding the economy?
You're such an ass. Really and truly. Wake the eff up.
-
Moral in the philosophical sense. If one believes that something is the right course of action, they should thusly have a moral backing for their "ought" statement. Given that a case has been presented for a specific rate of taxation, it's more than fair to ask the presenter what the moral underpinnings of their position are. That's more than relevant to the conversation: rather it's essential, and it certainly isn't boring.
As to the concept "personal morality", personal moralities should always be logically consistent in order to be valid, so I would still be asking the same questions.
So then why does Dorkington's : "People who earn that much money can afford it, and there are lots of people who could use that help." justification not work for you? I know that's not EXACTLY what he said, but it's pretty clear that this is what he means.
I don't agree with him, but this diversion from "What's the right tax rate?" to "Morally justify taxation" isn't really adding to the discussion, it's taking away from it. It was interesting to see a back and forth about flat taxes, progressive taxes, and then to look at a candidate's proposal. Discussion has now ceased, based on "Morally justify taxation!", which isn't helpful, particularly because he DID justify it in the philosophical sense, just not using the language you want, I think.
-
Then how about discussion? I'm still waiting for you to establish a moral basis for taxation.
Well.. To be fair: He never was attempting to establish a moral basis for taxation. TYTT is actually the one who introduced the concept into this discussion, which (imo) really isn't a super fun thing to talk about, because there isn't such a thing. How can you establish a 'moral' basis for any taxation, let alone one for a very specific (read 52%) percentage? After all, aren't morals personal? My morals aren't the same as TYTT's or DC Tom's or Dorkington's. It's a silly point to get caught up on becuase it doesn't really matter if it's moral or not. It just 'is'.
It's almost as silly as trying to point out a minor detail on an message board debate between two anonymous people you don't know.
-
I heard him on Adam Carolla. Sounds pretty good. Why not?
Sure. Let's hire a lawyer, professor and one term Senator to be the President. What could go wrong?
Edit: In my opinion one of the legitimate criticisms of President Obama is the fact that his resume wasn't really up to par. He had never actually had to get something done before. He's great at giving speeches, inspiring people and getting elected, but doesn't appear to have the leadership abilities required to bring people together to get things done -- I, personally, won't ever make that mistake again. Unfortunately, it eliminates almost everyone in the field for me, but, I couldn't, in good conscience, ever cast a vote for Ted Cruz in 2016. His resume doesn't work for me, independent of any personal political agreement or disagreement.
-
You win the leap of the day!
-
Nice, I guess Obamacare isn't the job killer partisan Republicans was saying it was...
Yes. This one number in one week of the year describes the effect of a health insurance law on labor entirely.
-
The ignorance here is simply astounding. Your "history" of climate forecast is wholly superficial. And did you ever stop to consider something without precedent is taking place right now with the level of C02 emissions? The science behind its impact is supported by a consensus above 90% of the scientific community. How anyone can be on the side of "do nothing" given the consequences, is mind boggling
I agree. The ignorance here IS simply astounding.
-
it's amazing that you cann definitively say it is not manmade and simultaneously definitively say that it is cyclical. your bias is showing, sir. that is not analysis.
I find it amazing that ANYONE can say ANYTHING definitively about such a complicated thing as climate change. Particularly when the leading thinkers on climate change were telling us we were headed to an ice age 40 years ago. I mean, climate change is going to happen no matter what we do. So now we've decided on POLICY solutions about a problem that we've never actually been right about predicting?
-
From what I can tell, that seems to be a reasonable assessment of the concept in general. Can any AGW proponents clarify further?
1- I'm not necessarily an AGW proponent.
2- One way:'Companies' will be issued carbon credits allowing them to pollute 'x' amount. Companies that got 'cleaner' would pollute less, and could then sell their excess credits to 'dirtier' companies , with the goal being an overall reduction in carbon 'credits' being issued per year. The idea is that some companies can reduce their carbon emissions much more cheaply than others, and this provides an incentive for those who can cut emissions in the most efficient ways to do so.
-
I donate my entire paycheck to a charity set up to help people who donate their entire paycheck to charity...
Is that the Human Fund?
Money. For People.
-
I am not a huge fan of that news either, but im just passing alog what this gentlemen told me
Did you notice I used "whilst" though?
Her roll concerns me because what does she know about football and or hockey!? She was a freaking waitress!!!
As far as exact people who report to her, I honestly do not recall but I remmeber thinking "wow those are some big names that are forced to report to Kim and not Terry or someone who knows what the hell they are doing"
What does Terry know about football or hockey!? He was a freaking guy who bought some land and sold it!
-
Unlike the top of the very government that's going to save you from these horrible indiscretions. Right?
I mean... It's just f*&(*ng amazing with these people, isn't it? I shouldn't be amazed anymore, but the inability to connect dots among the populace is just breathtakingly astounding.
-
So let me get this straight. A rich guy moves into a neighborhood (whether he lives in that neighborhood or not) and then in some other buoilding the rent goes up (assuming that's what happened--seem to be quite a few subject matter experts here). The renters protest the rent going up and the rich guy feels bad and joins the protest...and the rich guy is the douche?
I'm not sure anyone here is the douche except the reporter for pinning the "problem" of rising rents on rich people.
I guess it's not class warfare when you attack rich liberals (no idea if Brand is a liberal) for their money.
JA- He's protesting something that he is DIRECTLY contributing to.
It's not a class warfare attack. It's an (at best) a "do as I say, not as I do" attack and/or an "Russell Brand doesn't even have the slightest notion of why rents go up" attack. You can argue with the word "douche", but substitute "hypocrite" or "ignoramus" if you'd like.
-
So what if he's rich and joining in some cause he believes in about raising rents. That cause may be valid or not but why is his wealth an issue?
I am white. If I'm at a racism protest, does a reporter who asks if I'm white get the board BJ that this reporter is getting from so many posters?
Just surprised so many people find this class warfare so appealing.
JA - I think you're missing the part about Russell Brand just bought (or is renting) an apartment (at, presumably, a very high $$ amount) in the very neighborhood that is experiencing this issue of rising rents forcing out folks who have lived there for a period of time. Renting a fancy apartment doesn't make him a douche, per se, it's his total lack of understanding that he is contributing, directly, to the very thing that he is protesting against that has people laughing at him and calling him names. It's the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" meme.
-
Fair enough. I'm welcoming the education though. Like I've said before, I care more about results. I have opinions on how to get to those results, but if my opinions are wrong, so be it. If someone else's opinions are correct in how to get to those results, then I'm all for it. I'm not the sort of guy who sticks to my guns when proven wrong.
What 'results' are you looking for? Specifically?
-
I've wondered the last few years why university gets a free pass on their whacked out tuition's. I compare it to other business endeavors. Unlike manufacturing for example there is almost no capital investment required once they have the university actually built. No constant buying and upgrading of equipment. Certainly no R&D to remain competitive. No investment in inventory. Everyone just accepts it because that's just the way it is. I guess when getting government loans are so easy to get that inflates the prices. Just like the housing bubble.
I think you would be shocked to see what kind of development is actually happening at universities these days. I visited High Point University earlier this year. They have a steak house on campus that is part of the meal plan. Like a legitimate, high-end steak house. Part of tuition increases are this type of frivolous nonsense.
I also happen to head down to Quinnipiac University pretty regularly as well. The 'dorms' that these kids live in today are palaces. The amount of new development around these places is astounding.
Additionally, government keeps guaranteeing ever larger portions of loans -- allowing universities to increase tuition (people wouldn't be able to afford tuition hikes without these ever-increasing loan amounts), forcing politicians who 'care' to rail about how burdensome college education is, so they increase loan guarantees, allowing universities to increase tuition, forcing politicians who 'care' to rail about how burdensome college education is, so the increase loan guarantees, etc...
The merry-go-round has to end soon...
-
Or: the gov't just seizing assets without being accused of a crime should be, you know, not allowed in the first place? I don't know; too radical an idea?
2/3 of US would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by jjamie12
Awesome! Sounds like things are great in Gatorland.
Edit: Damn, you guys move the goalposts around. How will capping CEO pay help anyone except the shareholders of those companies?