leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 11 Posted July 11 4 hours ago, JDHillFan said: For anyone that wants to do a little extra. The liberal wing of the Dem party suggested the wealthy paying more was the answer. It’s true, JB, KH, Liz Warren, Oprah and more suggested this was the way. Our local libs ran with that, parrot the talking points, and if Fergie is the example, rage against the machine from the 19th hole at an exclusive golf club drinking an ice cold import while planning his next trip to a Cuban beach devoid of actual Cubans. It would be simple and effective to get to work on saving the world, but we don’t hear much about that. Maybe they mean the other wealthy, not the “them” wealthy. Thanks for this PSA about the Gift fund est 1843. This will help the few who want to help the many. 4 hours ago, JDHillFan said: For anyone that wants to do a little extra. Ps: Kudos to you for doing the Lord’s work here, JD.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 11 Posted July 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The liberal wing of the Dem party suggested the wealthy paying more was the answer. It’s true, JB, KH, Liz Warren, Oprah and more suggested this was the way. Our local libs ran with that, parrot the talking points, and if Fergie is the example, rage against the machine from the 19th hole at an exclusive golf club drinking an ice cold import while planning his next trip to a Cuban beach devoid of actual Cubans. It would be simple and effective to get to work on saving the world, but we don’t hear much about that. Maybe they mean the other wealthy, not the “them” wealthy. Thanks for this PSA about the Gift fund est 1843. This will help the few who want to help the many. Ps: Kudos to you for doing the Lord’s work here, JD. We've been over this. Donating to the general fund is a drop in the ocean. Won't make bit of difference especially with this admin. The deficit requires systemic tax and spending reform to make a dent. This admin is taxing less and spending more while worsening the deficit. And no, it's not just "the others" that must pay more. If the recent bill didn't pass, I'd pay more as well. I was firmly against the bill knowing that I'd pay less. That's not totally selfless. I want other Americans to have access too health care and other social programs. That helps me by lowering the crime rate and lessening the risk of communicable diseases, not to mention providing easy access to ERs without waiting hours to be seen. Cuba was fantastic trip. The Cubans have many serious problems and the gov't is inept partly due to the embargo but also due to their flawed system. It's valuable to me to see a very different culture and the regular people are amazing. Their history is one of massive exploitation which is extremely difficult to emerge from. Many other caribbean islands face the same challenges under democratic govts. Jamaica, for example has massive poverty.. Would you discourage the millions of Americans that go there to abstain? Tourist dollars are a lifeline so tip well if you go. My golf club is not exclusive. It's accessible financially to a large swath of folks. It costs less than owning and maintaining a pontoon boat. We have members from all walks of life and races unlike the clubs in WNY that had "blackball" policies when I was growing up. I fear we are returning to those bad old days. I still play public courses as I did almost exclusively as a teen. Regular players at those courses can play ours by walking up and paying a greens fee. There are clubs where this isn't so. I'm not a member of those. So keep believing I'm a limousine liberal. You're incorrect once again. I too want a better America and Im willing to pay what it costs. So is Oprah and she'll pay much more. meanwhile Edited July 11 by Joe Ferguson forever
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 11 Posted July 11 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: We've been over this. Donating to the general fund is a drop in the ocean. Won't make bit of difference especially with this admin. The deficit requires systemic tax and spending reform to make a dent. This admin is taxing less and spending more while worsening the deficit. And no, it's not just "the others" that must pay more. If the recent bill didn't pass, I'd pay more as well. I was firmly against the bill knowing that I'd pay less. That's not totally selfless. I want other Americans to have access too health care and other social programs. That helps me by lowering the crime rate and lessening the risk of communicable diseases, not to mention providing easy access to ERs without waiting hours to be seen. Cuba was fantastic trip. The Cubans have many serious problems and the gov't is inept partly due to the embargo but also due to their flawed system. It's valuable to me to see a very different culture and the regular people are amazing. Their history is one of massive exploitation which is extremely difficult to emerge from. Many other caribbean islands face the same challenges under democratic govts. Jamaica, for example has massive poverty.. Would you discourage the millions of Americans that go there to abstain? Tourist dollars are a lifeline so tip well if you go. My golf club is not exclusive. It's accessible financially to a large swath of folks. It costs less than owning and maintaining a pontoon boat. We have members from all walks of life and races unlike the clubs in WNY that had "blackball" policies when I was growing up. I fear we are returning to those bad old days. I still play public courses as I did almost exclusively as a teen. Regular players at those courses can play ours by walking up and paying a greens fee. There are clubs where this isn't so. I'm not a member of those. So keep believing I'm a limousine liberal. You're incorrect once again. I too want a better America and Im willing to pay what it costs. So is Oprah and she'll pay much more. You're the definition of a limousine liberal, in thought, word and deed. You constantly talk about educated, affluent liberals, and the math supports the notion that if you moved collectively, as a group, significant progress could be made. Start with a few billionaires contributing billions, move on to those with hundreds of millions, contributing hundreds of millions, move on to tens of millions giving tens of millions, single digit millionaires doing their part, phasing out as you go. You collectively could make a huge dent, but instead decide to wait until the government compels you to do it. It's a really odd thing to witness. 1 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 11 Posted July 11 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: We've been over this. Donating to the general fund is a drop in the ocean. Won't make bit of difference especially with this admin. The deficit requires systemic tax and spending reform to make a dent. This admin is taxing less and spending more while worsening the deficit. And no, it's not just "the others" that must pay more. If the recent bill didn't pass, I'd pay more as well. I was firmly against the bill knowing that I'd pay less. That's not totally selfless. I want other Americans to have access too health care and other social programs. That helps me by lowering the crime rate and lessening the risk of communicable diseases, not to mention providing easy access to ERs without waiting hours to be seen. Cuba was fantastic trip. The Cubans have many serious problems and the gov't is inept partly due to the embargo but also due to their flawed system. It's valuable to me to see a very different culture and the regular people are amazing. Their history is one of massive exploitation which is extremely difficult to emerge from. Many other caribbean islands face the same challenges under democratic govts. Jamaica, for example has massive poverty.. Would you discourage the millions of Americans that go there to abstain? Tourist dollars are a lifeline so tip well if you go. My golf club is not exclusive. It's accessible financially to a large swath of folks. It costs less than owning and maintaining a pontoon boat. We have members from all walks of life and races unlike the clubs in WNY that had "blackball" policies when I was growing up. I fear we are returning to those bad old days. I still play public courses as I did almost exclusively as a teen. Regular players at those courses can play ours by walking up and paying a greens fee. There are clubs where this isn't so. I'm not a member of those. So keep believing I'm a limousine liberal. You're incorrect once again. I too want a better America and Im willing to pay what it costs. So is Oprah and she'll pay much more. meanwhile I am going to jump on two statements you made that prove you have never had any serious thoughts about the solution- higher taxes mean safer places when all of the high crime areas of the US are high tax places. Secondly the "drop in the ocean" is a start and any idea worth doing needs a starting point, liberalism always seems to have a starting point of everyone having to do it so if it fails they can't be blamed. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 11 Posted July 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You're the definition of a limousine liberal, in thought, word and deed. You constantly talk about educated, affluent liberals, and the math supports the notion that if you moved collectively, as a group, significant progress could be made. Start with a few billionaires contributing billions, move on to those with hundreds of millions, contributing hundreds of millions, move on to tens of millions giving tens of millions, single digit millionaires doing their part, phasing out as you go. You collectively could make a huge dent, but instead decide to wait until the government compels you to do it. It's a really odd thing to witness. non sequitur. It's not going to happen collectively, especially at the very top where it matters most. There are a few that might but they also know it won't work without legislation and are lobbying it for it without success. I contribute to my civic club which is trying to fill in the USAID holes and to church charities. In good company with Bill and Melinda Gates. I drive a Subaru and I'm more than satisfied with it. Edited July 11 by Joe Ferguson forever
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 11 Posted July 11 1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I am going to jump on two statements you made that prove you have never had any serious thoughts about the solution- higher taxes mean safer places when all of the high crime areas of the US are high tax places. Secondly the "drop in the ocean" is a start and any idea worth doing needs a starting point, liberalism always seems to have a starting point of everyone having to do it so if it fails they can't be blamed. Science. In this case social science. Within the criminological literature, there has been considerable research devoted to understanding the relationship between homicide and social protection, both within the United States and utilizing cross-national samples. Despite the measure of social welfare or social protection used, the results have shown a consistent significant negative relationship between social welfare and homicide. Within the United States, for example, the significant negative relationship between social protection and homicide has been found across standard metropolitan statistical areas (DeFronzo, 1983; Messner, 1986), cities (Sampson, 1987), and even a specific city over time (Chamlin et al., 2002). Cross-nationally, the research has found significant negative relationships between social protection and homicide utilizing different measures of welfare spending, including a decommodification index (Messner and Rosenfeld, 2006; Savolainen, 2000), percent GDP spent on health care and education (Pratt and Godsey, 2002), welfare spending (Gartner et al., 1990; Pratt and Godsey, 2002), and the amount of social welfare spent in US dollars for each nation (Savage et al., 2008). Regarding their study, Rogers and Pridemore conclude that: One key aspect of social protection is that it is meant to act as a safety net for citizens in times of economic downturn or provide a better living standard for citizens who live below or near the poverty line. Ultimately, the aim of social protection is not to reduce inequality but to address absolute deprivation by raising the standard of living of those who live in poverty to a level that provides the minimum necessities to survive day to day. The moderating effect of social protection found within this paper supports this view. We found that nations with higher levels of social protection not only have lower rates of homicide, but also that the strength of the association between poverty and homicide in these nations is weaker. Therefore,while there are many more direct goals of social protection, one important indirect effect of providing greater social protection is a reduction in violent crime.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 11 Posted July 11 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: non sequitur. It's not going to happen collectively, especially at the very top where it matters most. There a few that might but they also know it won't work without legislation and are lobbying it for it without success. I contribute to my civic club which is trying to fill in the USAID holes. In good company with Bill and Melinda Gates. I drive a Subaru and I'm more than satisfied with it. Bill Gates is an interesting subject. He could give away 95% of his fortune to the government and remain one of the richest people in the history of the world. He could give 10% directly to the government, today, and remain one of the wealthiest of some extraordinarily wealthy people on the planet at this time. Instead, he does things on his time, in his way, based on his discretion while icing the government completely out of the equation beyond what he is compelled to give. He gives both selflessly and selfishly. There's the trouble, and there are few other issues that don't quite square what he says with what he actually does. In that regard, yes, you're in that company. The problem is that you and he collectively refuse to do that which you demand that others do. You participate in the Annual Civic Club Car Wash and Cotillion and complain about people like you who don't want to do what people like you want everyone else to do. Anyway, you're correct that we've been through this before and that's just the nature of many liberals. 2 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I am going to jump on two statements you made that prove you have never had any serious thoughts about the solution- higher taxes mean safer places when all of the high crime areas of the US are high tax places. Secondly the "drop in the ocean" is a start and any idea worth doing needs a starting point, liberalism always seems to have a starting point of everyone having to do it so if it fails they can't be blamed. Correct. 2
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 11 Posted July 11 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Science. In this case social science. Within the criminological literature, there has been considerable research devoted to understanding the relationship between homicide and social protection, both within the United States and utilizing cross-national samples. Despite the measure of social welfare or social protection used, the results have shown a consistent significant negative relationship between social welfare and homicide. Within the United States, for example, the significant negative relationship between social protection and homicide has been found across standard metropolitan statistical areas (DeFronzo, 1983; Messner, 1986), cities (Sampson, 1987), and even a specific city over time (Chamlin et al., 2002). Cross-nationally, the research has found significant negative relationships between social protection and homicide utilizing different measures of welfare spending, including a decommodification index (Messner and Rosenfeld, 2006; Savolainen, 2000), percent GDP spent on health care and education (Pratt and Godsey, 2002), welfare spending (Gartner et al., 1990; Pratt and Godsey, 2002), and the amount of social welfare spent in US dollars for each nation (Savage et al., 2008). Regarding their study, Rogers and Pridemore conclude that: One key aspect of social protection is that it is meant to act as a safety net for citizens in times of economic downturn or provide a better living standard for citizens who live below or near the poverty line. Ultimately, the aim of social protection is not to reduce inequality but to address absolute deprivation by raising the standard of living of those who live in poverty to a level that provides the minimum necessities to survive day to day. The moderating effect of social protection found within this paper supports this view. We found that nations with higher levels of social protection not only have lower rates of homicide, but also that the strength of the association between poverty and homicide in these nations is weaker. Therefore,while there are many more direct goals of social protection, one important indirect effect of providing greater social protection is a reduction in violent crime. i can't tell if you are trolling me with this correlation means causation garbage. Countries that have social protections were already low crime before they gave any protections, the low crime came first before anyone discussed helping them unless you are dumb enough to believe people wanted to pay murderers not to murder and thought it would work. As for the last line, violent people are poor because they poor impulse control, not poor people are violent because they don't have money. Give it some thought and it is obvious, the correlation is there for obvious reasons. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 11 Posted July 11 13 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: i can't tell if you are trolling me with this correlation means causation garbage. Countries that have social protections were already low crime before they gave any protections, the low crime came first before anyone discussed helping them unless you are dumb enough to believe people wanted to pay murderers not to murder and thought it would work. As for the last line, violent people are poor because they poor impulse control, not poor people are violent because they don't have money. Give it some thought and it is obvious, the correlation is there for obvious reasons. he studies include US metro areas. I think social scientists have thought more deeply on this subject than you're capable of.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 11 Posted July 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Bill Gates is an interesting subject. He could give away 95% of his fortune to the government and remain one of the richest people in the history of the world. He could give 10% directly to the government, today, and remain one of the wealthiest of some extraordinarily wealthy people on the planet at this time. Instead, he does things on his time, in his way, based on his discretion while icing the government completely out of the equation beyond what he is compelled to give. He gives both selflessly and selfishly. There's the trouble, and there are few other issues that don't quite square what he says with what he actually does. In that regard, yes, you're in that company. The problem is that you and he collectively refuse to do that which you demand that others do. You participate in the Annual Civic Club Car Wash and Cotillion and complain about people like you who don't want to do what people like you want everyone else to do. Anyway, you're correct that we've been through this before and that's just the nature of many liberals. It's our money. We are entitled I'll stick with Bill and Melinda. We all want to assist causes that target our aid priorities. It's our money, it's our choice, it's our right. And we believe it's morally sound. You can stick with Homer Simpson. And if that carwash pays for aid to a flooded regional area, I tink that's just fine (We don't do carwashe). Wine tastings get bigger bucks. Edited July 11 by Joe Ferguson forever
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 11 Posted July 11 14 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: he studies include US metro areas. I think social scientists have thought more deeply on this subject than you're capable of. you think simply because it is there job they have thought better about them I have? Understood, which is why you argued that COVID shots for a 5 year old was a good idea.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 11 Posted July 11 34 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: you think simply because it is there job they have thought better about them I have? Understood, which is why you argued that COVID shots for a 5 year old was a good idea. ya know, these aren't just typos. It's barely discernible. Yes, I think they know more than you.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 11 Posted July 11 17 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I'll stick with Bill and Melinda. We all want to assist causes that target our aid priorities. It's our money, it's our choice, it's our right. And we believe it's morally sound. Glad to hear how you laid that out. This reflects the thinking of every compassionate, charitable conservative I know. Our money. Our choice. Our right. Where we take different paths is: I recognize that in addition to what I give, there is what I keep for things that are important to me. Retirement. Legacy. Children. Travel. Family. Once I earn the money, figure the charities I wish to donate to, and pay my taxes, I'm done with the dialogue. You, on the other hand, follow exactly the same path but then attempt to cloak yourself in righteousness by pointing the finger at everyone who should pay more, excluding yourself. It really just boils down to a lot of wealthy and really wealthy people talking a good game but never actually intending to participate. Nothing new here. 17 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: You can stick with Homer Simpson. And if that carwash pays for aid to a flooded regional area, I tink that's just fine (We don't do carwashe). Wine tastings get bigger bucks. Amen.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 11 Posted July 11 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: excluding yourself. nope. including myself. kinda tears down your argument.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 11 Posted July 11 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: nope. including myself. kinda tears down your argument. Nope, not on the terms as you've laid them out. There is literally no reason to wait until the government forces you to contribute when you can start today. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 11 Posted July 11 2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Nope, not on the terms as you've laid them out. There is literally no reason to wait until the government forces you to contribute when you can start today. i'll pay more in taxes when elon does. In the meantime, I'll support whom I choose.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 12 Posted July 12 23 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: i'll pay more in taxes when elon does. In the meantime, I'll support whom I choose. I know you keep thinking you’re eventually going to make sense, but with each comment, you sound more like the caricature of a Republican boogeyman than the last. Elon’s commitment to paying his fair share has nothing to do with your commitment to paying yours. Clearly you feel you’re not completely shouldering your share of the burden, or you woukd not be willing to part with more. At the same time, you’re unwilling to contribute a penny more until the government compels you to, and/or Elon Musk is compelled to pay more. You’re like the love child of Donald Trump and Liz Warren. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 12 Posted July 12 (edited) 45 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I know you keep thinking you’re eventually going to make sense, but with each comment, you sound more like the caricature of a Republican boogeyman than the last. Elon’s commitment to paying his fair share has nothing to do with your commitment to paying yours. Clearly you feel you’re not completely shouldering your share of the burden, or you woukd not be willing to part with more. At the same time, you’re unwilling to contribute a penny more until the government compels you to, and/or Elon Musk is compelled to pay more. You’re like the love child of Donald Trump and Liz Warren. I was a Rockefeller Rebublican til I met my wife. We are now extinct. Rocky was cool. Built the 2nd best State University system in the country. Cali has the best. Education is good. Edited July 12 by Joe Ferguson forever
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 12 Posted July 12 I'm sure there's a list of famous academics. But the people want celebrity. Some pretty accomplished actors: https://wpdh.com/famous-suny-ny-alumni/
Recommended Posts