-Distribution of contraceptives and sexual education.
-Heavy police presence.
Leave on simmer for 50 years. Done.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I want to see everyone here paying in full for the smallest dental/medical treatment right out of their own pockets. Why do I get paid less based on which insurance carrier you have?
I have done this. The dentist and oral surgeon were both surprised and quite happy.
They gave me the time period rate plus materials, and it worked out for everybody very nicely.
[/quote]
It’s the way of the Game X, I get paid different based on the ins all the time. Of course, I could decline to belong to various credentialing organizations, but I would lose patients. Do you take my insurance?, is a very common question.
[quote]Majin wrote:
-Distribution of contraceptives and sexual education.
-Heavy police presence.
Leave on simmer for 50 years. Done.[/quote]
What would that do ?
[quote]matsm21 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
matsm21 wrote:
easy with the white-black thing, Go back far enough and the ghettos of new york were white. There still are many white ghettos in this country. “The war on drugs”, while a failure is not the reason we have poor people.
The war on drugs turns poor neighbor hoods into Ghettos
Watch out for the UFO’s there buddy boy…It’s the same thing. stop with the conspiracy theories[/quote]
From your post, I assume you disagree with me. . Please state where my errors of thinking are .
[quote]dhickey wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Check the party leadership in these areas, I mean which party they belong to. For years. Unopposed. And then you’ll have your answer.
Are you just going to say, “This is the democrat’s fault” and leave it at that?
Try thinking out of the box for a second.
Honest to god, I’m with irish on this one. Sometimes it’s time to shut the hell up about political parties and actually discuss issues.
It is impossible to implement certain issues with one party control tot he degree that is is. the average ghetto has been so predominatly democratic, usually over 90% of the time and it has not gotten better.
Except that a lot of these problems are caused (or more likely, exacerbated by) federal policies that Republicans had a lot to do with. Th War on Drugs is the biggest example.
Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”
explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty. [/quote]
Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.
See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Professor X wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I propose we also erase all insurance discounts for medical procedures.
If you get cancer, you should immediately go bankrupt.
I want to see everyone here paying in full for the smallest dental/medical treatment right out of their own pockets. Why do I get paid less based on which insurance carrier you have?
Hurt on the job? Shit, take the pay cut and lose the job. Why get paid for work you aren’t doing? Hell, you knew it was risky when you took that job at Target.
Hell, we can use this “do nothing” idea in all walks of life.
Agreed. It’s kind of sad that conservatism has morphed into the “fuck you” celebration of individualism that was once the province of Sixties radicals.
They are coming across like political ass holes.
I see all kinds of people from high income to just scraping by and all of them act the same when the bill is due for medical procedures.
Apparently, that “take care of it all yourself” attitude only lasts as long as they aren’t the ones in need.
Conservatives, as a group, give much more of themselves than liberals. Liberals like to give other peoples money away. Conservatives just want to chose where there money goes. They want results. Gov’t social policies do not provide results, they cause damage.[/quote]
Complete BS…and you know it.
[quote]
Don’t ask me to gleefully pay for programs that don’t work for people that don’t want to provide for themselves. We all have the choice of whether or not to be a worthless piece of shit. I have no problem helping those that chose not to be a worthless piece of shit. Just let me decide. [/quote]
Agreed. Programs should work or be cut.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Professor X wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I propose we also erase all insurance discounts for medical procedures.
If you get cancer, you should immediately go bankrupt.
I want to see everyone here paying in full for the smallest dental/medical treatment right out of their own pockets. Why do I get paid less based on which insurance carrier you have?
Hurt on the job? Shit, take the pay cut and lose the job. Why get paid for work you aren’t doing? Hell, you knew it was risky when you took that job at Target.
Hell, we can use this “do nothing” idea in all walks of life.
Agreed. It’s kind of sad that conservatism has morphed into the “fuck you” celebration of individualism that was once the province of Sixties radicals.
They are coming across like political ass holes.
I see all kinds of people from high income to just scraping by and all of them act the same when the bill is due for medical procedures.
Apparently, that “take care of it all yourself” attitude only lasts as long as they aren’t the ones in need.
Conservatives, as a group, give much more of themselves than liberals. Liberals like to give other peoples money away. Conservatives just want to chose where there money goes. They want results. Gov’t social policies do not provide results, they cause damage.
Don’t ask me to gleefully pay for programs that don’t work for people that don’t want to provide for themselves. We all have the choice of whether or not to be a worthless piece of shit. I have no problem helping those that chose not to be a worthless piece of shit. Just let me decide. [/quote]
“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.”
G. Gordon Liddy
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”
explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.
Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.
See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin
[/quote]
Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”
explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.
Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.
See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin
Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?[/quote]
Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?
You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.
Look up the theories listed above for an overview.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Conservatives, as a group, give much more of themselves than liberals. Liberals like to give other peoples money away. Conservatives just want to chose where there money goes. They want results. Gov’t social policies do not provide results, they cause damage.
Complete BS…and you know it.
[/quote]
Suck it…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=140476
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=736
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”
explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.
Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.
See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin
Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?
Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?
You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.
Look up the theories listed above for an overview. [/quote]
simple cost benefit. why would we let politicians pick their favorite industries to protect? Why not let the market (people)decide?
show me an industry that you think should be protected, and i’ll show you two that will be harmed becuase of it.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=736[/quote]
Fascinating. I have to wonder if liberals-speaking in general-suffer from projecting their own charitable shortcomings onto the rest of us. As if at the end of the year they realize they’ve personally done very little to lift up their fellow man.
Yet, instead of being driven by guilt to do better on a personal level, they feel the need for a government to make them do it. Who hasn’t heard someone say something like, “I know I should be doing X, but I really need someone to make me do it?” I have numerous times.
And secular vs. religious? Wow. I guess-again, generally speaking-government does become their motivating conscience in helping their fellow man.
Now, I said “in general.” So, I don’t want to hear individual stories defening your private secular-liberal giving selves.
I’m just commenting on the numbers provided, after all. I’ll be CHARITABLE (I’m a religious conservative, I can’t help but to be) and assume all our secular-liberal friends are exceptions, and are themselves very giving of time and money.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Is there any way to fix this mess? How do you rejuvenate a city that’s as run down as Baltimore (or, around here, Paterson/Newark/Camden).
[/quote]
Dude, Baltimore isn’t that bad. Not as bad as the show makes it out to be. Yea it’s got some rough ghettos but not as bad as a lot of other places.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The first step is it should be safe. You should feel safe. That takes the police and the citizens who live there. The police can provide the muscle but the residents have to stop tolerating crime and lawlessness from their neighbors and themselves.
[/quote]
Emphasis mine.
What exactly does this mean and how is it done?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Majin wrote:
-Distribution of contraceptives and sexual education.
-Heavy police presence.
Leave on simmer for 50 years. Done.
What would that do ?
[/quote]
Raise a few generations of wanted children in a much less violent environment.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”
explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.
Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.
See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin
Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?
Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?
You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.
Look up the theories listed above for an overview.
simple cost benefit. why would we let politicians pick their favorite industries to protect? Why not let the market (people)decide?
show me an industry that you think should be protected, and i’ll show you two that will be harmed becuase of it.[/quote]
You’re missing the point. You said, “[quote]explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty.[/quote]” The above theories try to explain this for you.
The short version: Trade is good for a country and should be promoted. However, because consumer surplus is spread widely throughout a country, and generally the “losers” to increased trade are a specific group, income (what you can buy with your money) redistribution can greatly affect that group.
Have you looked up the theories yet?
I always argue FOR free trade. These theories try to explain some of the effects. In the real world, there are always winners and losers to any policy decision. To say, “free trade doesn’t affect income distribution” (and with that, by definition, poverty), is simply incorrect. The benefits of free trade are greater than than costs. But there are costs.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”
explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.
Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.
See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin
Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?
Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?
You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.
Look up the theories listed above for an overview.
simple cost benefit. why would we let politicians pick their favorite industries to protect? Why not let the market (people)decide?
show me an industry that you think should be protected, and i’ll show you two that will be harmed becuase of it.
You’re missing the point. You said, “explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty.” The above theories try to explain this for you.
The short version: Trade is good for a country and should be promoted. However, because consumer surplus is spread widely throughout a country, and generally the “losers” to increased trade are a specific group, income (what you can buy with your money) redistribution can greatly affect that group.
Have you looked up the theories yet?
I always argue FOR free trade. These theories try to explain some of the effects. In the real world, there are always winners and losers to any policy decision. To say, “free trade doesn’t affect income distribution” (and with that, by definition, poverty), is simply incorrect. The benefits of free trade are greater than than costs. But there are costs. [/quote]
I disagree, the losers are the labor market that is undercut by, the manufacturer shopping in a labor market that cheaper than the previous. China was reportedly subsidizing certain markets to guarantee that they came in the cheapest. On the short side the consumer is getting a product fractionally below what a product would cost in a fair market; the manufacturing company is making a considerable profit margin. It is not taxes, its labor
I think it is fair the Manufacturers shop for the cheapest labor; I also think it fair the American Government levels the playing field with taxes
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”
explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.
Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.
See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin
Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?
Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?
You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.
Look up the theories listed above for an overview.
simple cost benefit. why would we let politicians pick their favorite industries to protect? Why not let the market (people)decide?
show me an industry that you think should be protected, and i’ll show you two that will be harmed becuase of it.
You’re missing the point. You said, “explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty.” The above theories try to explain this for you.
The short version: Trade is good for a country and should be promoted. However, because consumer surplus is spread widely throughout a country, and generally the “losers” to increased trade are a specific group, income (what you can buy with your money) redistribution can greatly affect that group.
Have you looked up the theories yet?
I always argue FOR free trade. These theories try to explain some of the effects. In the real world, there are always winners and losers to any policy decision. To say, “free trade doesn’t affect income distribution” (and with that, by definition, poverty), is simply incorrect. The benefits of free trade are greater than than costs. But there are costs.
I disagree, the losers are the labor market that is undercut by, the manufacturer shopping in a labor market that cheaper than the previous. China was reportedly subsidizing certain markets to guarantee that they came in the cheapest. On the short side the consumer is getting a product fractionally below what a product would cost in a fair market; the manufacturing company is making a considerable profit margin. It is not taxes, its labor
I think it is fair the Manufacturers shop for the cheapest labor; I also think it fair the American Government levels the playing field with taxes
[/quote]
Actually, I don’t think we are disagreeing. You are simply pointing out that China has, according to you, disrupted the market a bit. The overall theory is the same. Certain groups are “hit harder” by free trade, while overall the consumer surplus (the consumer getting product fractionally lower) is spread widely across the population.
Overall free trade is the way to go, but there are realities on the ground.
I’d also point out that even in a completely free market, labor would be cheaper in China (1.4 billion people, many of who live on less than $1/day or $2/day). So China will move to produce more labor intensive products and the US, with a higher capital-to-human ratio, will produce more capital intensive products.
Lots of police and flamethrowers…
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”
explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.
Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.
See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin
Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?
Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?
You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.
Look up the theories listed above for an overview.
simple cost benefit. why would we let politicians pick their favorite industries to protect? Why not let the market (people)decide?
show me an industry that you think should be protected, and i’ll show you two that will be harmed becuase of it.
You’re missing the point. You said, “explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty.” The above theories try to explain this for you.
The short version: Trade is good for a country and should be promoted. However, because consumer surplus is spread widely throughout a country, and generally the “losers” to increased trade are a specific group, income (what you can buy with your money) redistribution can greatly affect that group.
Have you looked up the theories yet?
I always argue FOR free trade. These theories try to explain some of the effects. In the real world, there are always winners and losers to any policy decision. To say, “free trade doesn’t affect income distribution” (and with that, by definition, poverty), is simply incorrect. The benefits of free trade are greater than than costs. But there are costs.
I disagree, the losers are the labor market that is undercut by, the manufacturer shopping in a labor market that cheaper than the previous. China was reportedly subsidizing certain markets to guarantee that they came in the cheapest. On the short side the consumer is getting a product fractionally below what a product would cost in a fair market; the manufacturing company is making a considerable profit margin. It is not taxes, its labor
I think it is fair the Manufacturers shop for the cheapest labor; I also think it fair the American Government levels the playing field with taxes
Actually, I don’t think we are disagreeing. You are simply pointing out that China has, according to you, disrupted the market a bit. The overall theory is the same. Certain groups are “hit harder” by free trade, while overall the consumer surplus (the consumer getting product fractionally lower) is spread widely across the population.
Overall free trade is the way to go, but there are realities on the ground.
I’d also point out that even in a completely free market, labor would be cheaper in China (1.4 billion people, many of who live on less than $1/day or $2/day). So China will move to produce more labor intensive products and the US, with a higher capital-to-human ratio, will produce more capital intensive products. [/quote]
I think Fair Trade is the way to go