Feeding People is Cultural Appropriation?

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Of course he is privatizing the highway system. Right now taxes fund most of the federal highway system, which includes design, build, and maintenance. Trump proposes that corporations build the highways and we pay tolls to use them. With the money collected going to the corporations. 

Besides the fact that privatized roads cost more to design, build and maintain. There is the fact that paying a toll to drive a often travelled stretch of highway will cost taxpayers more than what we pay in taxes. And third, corporations will prioritize based on profit not on need. Profitable areas are urban centers, rural areas will be neglected, as the profit/loss analysis would dictate where a corporation focuses its resources rather than the needs of the people. 

You better believe economic priority should be given to food production. It doesn't take much research to see why. 

Okay, the bold line above is Fake News.  Name a government project that is run more efficiently than a private enterprise except for the Military (and even that is a problem - hello, VA, Benghazi - the private security service held down the fort while the Military twiddled their thumbs -,,etc.).

But, it doesn't matter because, the entire quote is Fake News.

On another note - tons of States has toll roads.  Now, THAT is double-taxing - you get dinged on taxes, and then you pay tolls.  Not all of these roads are tolled to recoup cost to build.  Some of these roads are tolled to control traffic - if too many cars are on it causing heavy traffic, tolls go up.

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Just wondering what everyone thinks the government (election) choices and economic system will be in the heaven they plan to live in forever in the next life?

Without sin or scarcity, why would you need Government and economics?

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Just wondering what everyone thinks the government (election) choices and economic system will be in the heaven they plan to live in forever in the next life?

 

The Traveler

You do know that economic systems are mortal solutions to mortal problems, right?  It's like the question, what everyone thinks the medical system will be in the heavens...

Edited June 15, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Just wondering what everyone thinks the government (election) choices and economic system will be in the heaven they plan to live in forever in the next life?

 

The Traveler

“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.”-Ronald Reagan 

 

[Traveler]

23 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Without sin or scarcity, why would you need Government and economics?

 

Governments (G-d) only governs sin?  Why is heaven called a "Kingdom"?

And for economics?   Are you thinking service and sacrifice will not be a principle?  Can there be service and sacrifice if there is no scarcity - what-so-ever?

 

The Traveler

 

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.”-Ronald Reagan 

 

I am thinking some may go to hell thinking there is socialism only to find it more like a place full of hungry sharks.

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Governments (G-d) only governs sin?  Why is heaven called a "Kingdom"?

And for economics?   Are you thinking service and sacrifice will not be a principle?  Can there be service and sacrifice if there is no scarcity - what-so-ever?

 

The Traveler

 

Governance is only needed where human behavior needs to be in some way regulated for the benefit of the community.  Calling it God's Kingdom doesn't somehow mean a literal monarchy in the way it's implemented on Earth.

Can there be service and sacrifice where there's no scarcity whatsoever?  An interesting thought question.  In any case, that isn't economics in any meaningful way as we know it.

[Blueskye2]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, the bold line above is Fake News.  Name a government project that is run more efficiently than a private enterprise except for the Military (and even that is a problem - hello, VA, Benghazi - the private security service held down the fort while the Military twiddled their thumbs -,,etc.).

But, it doesn't matter because, the entire quote is Fake News.

On another note - tons of States has toll roads.  Now, THAT is double-taxing - you get dinged on taxes, and then you pay tolls.  Not all of these roads are tolled to recoup cost to build.  Some of these roads are tolled to control traffic - if too many cars are on it causing heavy traffic, tolls go up.

Really, the fake news bit is old. Trump's budget describes a public-private partnership.  These have not been shown to run more efficiently. Quite the contrary, they have a history of costing us taxpayers more than the traditional design build model. People think private means more efficient. No, in public-private partnerships, the private part is focused on profit. Any efficiencies are designed to benefit the private half. The private half desires inefficiencies on the public side, as they profit from them.

Otherwise, your point is the same old same old, people want public projects such as highways, complain about paying for them, but of course don't stop using them. The obvious solution is to drive less and decrease suburban sprawl. That isn't going to happen, so we build more roads, which then must be maintained which requires funding.  Public-private partnerships do not require less funding. They require more funding.

Public-private partnerships is a fleecing of the American public. I recommend this read. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2012/1112bondgraham.html

Tolls have multiple uses.  1) Public-private agreements is one use. 2) State governments are always trying out ways in which to pay for the building of highways, their maintenance and expansions. Toll roads is one solution. 3) States also look for ways to defer highways projects. Toll roads is one solution. States have their major highway projects planned out for the next fifty years (not exaggerating).  The roads you're paying tolls on, with the intent to reduce traffic, most likely are on the 50 year plan somewhere, sometime, to expand or add new highways as the bigger solution. In the meantime, the traffic control side of engineering takes over and places a toll to mediate what they have projected is going to happen, traffic-wise, until expansion takes place.

In addition! States have in the past relied on gasoline taxes to help fund highway projects. Higher fuel efficiency vehicles, electric and hybrid vehicles and lower fuel prices, have reduced very significantly the fuel taxes collected, that are earmarked for highway projects.  So in reality,  the public is paying less fuel tax and the states will make the loss up.  One way to do this is by charging a toll. They may also ask for a bond, that increases a tax elsewhere temporarily.

Toll roads as a means to privatizing highways has a high risk to the private consortiums that design and build them.  These groups have moved away from the risk of toll roads and now go for leasing a highway back to the state, which is, of course paid for from public funds (taxes). 

My husband is a highway engineer, and has decades of experience designing and building federal highways. He knows all the angles and of course we talk.  State transportation projects are not turned over in whole to private companies or consortiums of companies. States negotiate a partnership, and sadly, they are not equipped with the funding to match the private side's army of financiers and lawyers, who have well honed skills at getting as much out of public funding as they possibly can. While putting as much of the financial risk as possible on the State, which ultimately, is us.

Anyway, people have this very wrong idea that privatization of public projects equals an inoculation against socialism.  Yet don't stop to think about how they are lobbying against their own interests.

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Blueskye2

[NeuroTypical]

 

Quote

 

Quote

You better believe economic priority should be given to food production. It doesn't take much research to see why. 

Blueskye2, I wonder if you could help me out.  What do you mean by "economic priority should be given"?

What is an "economic priority"?  Who "gives" it?

 

Hi Blueskye2, I was hoping you'd address my questions here.

[Blueskye2]

On 6/14/2017 at 7:21 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Blueskye2, I wonder if you could help me out.  What do you mean by "economic priority should be given"?

What is an "economic priority"?  Who "gives" it?

 

I dunno Neuro, I thought you were being facetious. 

On a national level, Congress and the Executive branch work on a budget. The budget reflects a lot of "stuff", one being, the economic priorities of the nation. What are they, what funds are needed? Congressional committees address what projects, what laws, what regulations, what taxes, and legislation then gives priority to economic activities. They can be in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, changing regulations, etc.  I.e, it is a big part of what our reps in DC do.

Local governments, at state, county, city, municipality levels, are doing the same for the areas/regions they have jurisdiction over.

Economic priority is seen in food production, via tax breaks for farming and fishing, regulations to support food production, subsidies when required.  It is a human effort, and works well, as evidenced by the fact that we haven't had a large regional famine since the Great Depression.

Human efforts can have flaws, such as wrong projections of production yields. Sometimes the result is a shortage and prices go sky high and other times it is oversupply and you have "government cheese". The overall goal is to keep our food supply and those who produce it, as successful as possible. As this is a benefit for the US public as a whole.

BTW, I remember the cheese surplus.  A neighbor, who was on hard times, out of work, went door to door selling government cheese in an effort to make a few dollars.  Also, my own grandfather practically lived on cheese for a year.  Lol.  He had little in his old age retirement and every little free thing he was on it. It helped his budget. He really liked Cadillacs but was more of a Ford pickup kind of guy.

But using an example of a poor projection and poor regulation of a single instant over a 80 yr span of success, is I think you know, hyperbole. No?

[NeuroTypical]

Asked and answered - thanks, Blueskye2.  For me and my house, the world would be a better place if Congress and the Executive branch, and their budget, spent a tiny fraction of their current effort and money figuring out the nation's priorities.  

Sing it, Milton!

Quote

When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Blueskye2]

13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Asked and answered - thanks, Blueskye2.  For me and my house, the world would be a better place if Congress and the Executive branch, and their budget, spent a tiny fraction of their current effort and money figuring out the nation's priorities.  

Sing it, Milton!

 

I get the sentiment, but it is unrealistic. Heavy regulation occurring in response to an economic crisis, or heavy regulation to avert an economic crisis. That's really the choice. Allowing "market force" to dictate ultimately benefits a few, and ultimately leads to economic crisis.

For myself, deregulation is a myth. There is only changing regulatiion, and it is built into the Constitution via federal taxes and the once, long ago, controversial federal banking system. If taxes are levied or removed, with no thought or planning for economic impact, then economic crisis will eventually reveal itself.  Purposefully taxing and managing public resources, via regulation, with the goal of a successful economy, really must take place, and is the fiscally responsible course.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Blueskye2

[NeuroTypical]

It's an old argument, and one I don't think will be solved in this thread.

 

[askandanswer]

On 2017-6-14 at 11:59 PM, yjacket said:

Capitalism is the best system that will allow faith and religion to thrive (outside of a theocracy).  

The biggest arguments against communism and socialism is that it inevitably removes God from the public. Every government that goes down the socialistic route eventually roots out God.

I've read a lot of stuff in the media over the last couple of years that makes me think that removing what remnants of God yet remain with the public is exactly what the most capitalist country in the world is working hard to achieve.  

[JohnsonJones]

Well, something of interest.  Did you know that income tax did not always exist.  It's actually relatively new in comparison to our nation.  Our nation survived for over 100 years without income taxes.

Of more interest, our Forefathers threw something called a Boston Tea Party, and were opposed to a tax on tea...as well as a tax on stamps.

If they paid the amount we pay in taxes today...percentagewise...they'd probably be agoggle over how much we put up with!!!!

Of course, 150 years ago, churches had a LOT more charity and helped a LOT more people in a LOT more ways than anything any church in the US does today.  In fact, if they did now what they did then, as well as provided resources where men could actually provide for themselves if they wished (of course, they also had a whole lot of land where people could just go off to in order to try to make a living if they wished), there would be no need for welfare.  The very fact that welfare finally had to be created so people weren't starving to death and homeless by the millions speaks a LOT more about how wicked our nation and world have become than whether we have a socialistic (and tax heavy government) or capitalistic government.

 

PS: of course, the other interesting thing about welfare is originally they would put you to work for you to get that welfare in many instances.  It wasn't until I think the 60s and 70s where you didn't have to do something to get welfare anymore.  If they had nothing, they would even give you a shovel and have you dig holes and then fill them in again...if nothing else.  From what I understand about the early days of the welfare and other state driven programs to give men jobs at the time (one of the big creators of many of the national parks were these programs instituted during Roosevelts time, as well as the highway system and a LOT of other government jobs that worked on our infrastructure).

Edited June 27, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, something of interest.  Did you know that income tax did not always exist.  It's actually relatively new in comparison to our nation.  Our nation survived for over 100 years without income taxes.

Of more interest, our Forefathers threw something called a Boston Tea Party, and were opposed to a tax on tea...as well as a tax on stamps.

If they paid the amount we pay in taxes today...percentagewise...they'd probably be agoggle over how much we put up with!!!!

The justification for such high tax rates (historically speaking) is that by comparison, we make a whole lot more money than any of our predecessors did.  We have more disposable income.  And even after taxes, we have a higher level of disposable income.

Not that I'm agreeing with income tax...

[Guest]

Apparently, the left coast is trying to squash free enterprise and, by extension, their economy.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/albany/business/tiki-bar-stirs-up-cocktail-of-accusations/article_910fbb5c-afd9-51fc-bf85-4b22f8a04e64.html

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Apparently, the left coast is trying to squash free enterprise and, by extension, their economy.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/albany/business/tiki-bar-stirs-up-cocktail-of-accusations/article_910fbb5c-afd9-51fc-bf85-4b22f8a04e64.html

New game: Every time a restaurant is pressured out of existence due to "cultural appropriation", the owner should state the reason for the closure is that he/she doesn't want to support colonializing of America.

Let the fireworks begin.

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Apparently, the left coast is trying to squash free enterprise and, by extension, their economy.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/albany/business/tiki-bar-stirs-up-cocktail-of-accusations/article_910fbb5c-afd9-51fc-bf85-4b22f8a04e64.html

Although the silver lining is that this is happening based on social pressure instead of legal action.

[NeuroTypical]

Wow.  Back in the '90's, the news was all about the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  It was going around doing similar things.  It would take racial demographic data of a given geography, and compare it to the racial makeup of local businesses' employees.  When they found a business that didn't have roughly the same percentage of black workers, as lived in the surrounding area, they'd sue.  So of course, they sued minority-owned, traditionally-family-run businesses like Korean restaurants, because they didn't have 'enough' black people working there.

It eventually fizzled out when someone started suing individual EEOC offices under the same grounds.  Apparently most of the EEOC offices had racial makeups that were wildly divergent from local areas.  

I bet some enterprising young Oregon zealot could do a few open records searches to find out about who is filing the lawsuits, and do something similar...  

(Yes, please, someone consider this an open challenge...)

Edited July 5, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I bet some enterprising young Oregon zealot could do a few open records searches to find out about who is filing the lawsuits, and do something similar...  

(Yes, please, someone consider this an open challenge...)

Send it to 4chan.