maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:56 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:47 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 10594
Reputation points: 11323
jack t ripper wrote:
"chavsters" :lol: :lol:


Chav - generic chav
Chavster - chav with a bit of bling
Chavette - female chav
Chavalanche - many chavs

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 23378
Reputation points: 15557
EUBanana wrote:
jack t ripper wrote:
"chavsters" :lol: :lol:


Chav - generic chav
Chavster - chav with a bit of bling
Chavette - female chav
Chavalanche - many chavs



"Chavalanche" :lol:

We claim ownership of "bling", by ra way

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:20 am 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 pm
Posts: 5965
Reputation points: 1905
EUBanana wrote:
Had this argument re. subsidy with someone the other day.

I've worked on the minimum wage - it was about £800 a month at the time, and the G took about £150 in tax directly, before VAT.

There's much talk of subsidising the poor, but aside from the basics, like infrastructure, there's no way on earth the G was subsidising me personally. On the other hand I know benefits chavsters on £30k a year, and people coining in even more on tax credits who you would think are middle class by looking and talking to them, rather than the benefits chavsters they actually are.

No doubt they are all in the bottom quintile for statistical purposes, but that state largesse is not distributed evenly, to put it mildly. The poor who are actually working poor generally get fuck all though. Doesn't take many chavsters on 30k of benefit to make the stats look very bad for that economic group though.


The UK government provides public healthcare, and I doubt that 150 pounds can even cover this cost for a person of your age. On the the hand, the US federal government does not provide public healthcare or public free high education (with the exception of relatively modest grants which mostly benefit the poor). The only thing provided by the federal government to individuals is Social Security and Medicare for which all individuals, including poor, pay taxes. But these taxes are paid for the personal benefit of the tax payer when he becomes older, and there is still a need for somebody to pay for public projects like roads or infrastructure or other things related to the public good. These things can only be paid by the federal income tax (or state taxes). If the redneck ideologues had a little bit of decency, they would have used enough state taxes to cover most of the projects they need in their state without asking from the federal government more money than what the state's residents contribute. But they do not want to do it because they are "free" tea party activists who hate taxes. They also do not in general support higher minimum wage or pro labor laws. As a result, many more workers in these states are below the minimum threshold required to pay even a single dollar in federal income taxes and they have joined the club of the 45% of Americans who do not pay a single dime on federal income taxes ( http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of- ... 2016-02-24).

_________________
I have blocked mdhiel and will do the same to any person who may decide to alter my quotes in the future
(see thread viewtopic.php?f=5&p=273210#p273210)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8831
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10226
Slav version of "chav" = Gopnik

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 10594
Reputation points: 11323
I peeked, forgive me. But, a sensible comment!

The poor don't stay poor necessarily; I'm above the amount where you are a net contributor now. So in that sense, treating things like healthcare as a cost over your whole life is not fair comparison. In my 20s I was below that amount, also in my 20s I didn't use the NHS once, so clearly I personally was not subsidised in that part of my life when on that low salary, anyway. I imagine when I'm old and using the NHS I'll have contributed rather more.

Similarly infrastructure and the like, well... the benefits of that don't flow into the hands of people completely evenly. For example, things like roads will increase the value of the land around it, which means landowners get a dividend, poor folks who don't own land however might actually lose out if rents go up. Similarly, governments supporting business where poor folks work, much of the benefit for that presumably disproportionately goes to whoever is making the profits. Maybe in something like a cafe run by a family that's pretty much the same thing as the people who actually work in it but in many cases it's not, so again the poor aren't getting an equal share of the wealth the government is showering on an area.

And on top of that, if you don't use public services you're not getting the benefit of them. If you never use a library, the libraries budget is irrelevant for you. The fact you're charged for it and deemed 'not contributing' is not fair either. People are only subsidised if they actually use the services being offered, otherwise they really are not. And nebulous socialistic bullshit about how the fact libraries exist improve the lives even of those who don't use them is utter BS IMO.

So, in short, it depends. I have no idea how things work in the US, but to make some inferences based on how it is here and attempt to conjure up an example, lets consider, I dunno, Kansas. I bet the US has plenty of big agricultural subsidies because all western countries do. I'm sure some people in Kansas are coining it in in agricultural subs. I'm sure this expenditure makes the 'expenditure per head' in Kansas look pretty high compared to tax taken. OTOH, most ... Kansanians? are not going to be benefiting from that, at least not directly. I guess the shoeshine boy of a rich farmer is indirectly but if Pammy really thinks like that one wonders if the term 'left wing' means anything at all in the modern age. ;)

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 19536
Reputation points: 11537
Quote:
I have no idea how things work in the US,


Pamak doesn't know either.

Quote:
but to make some inferences based on how it is here and attempt to conjure up an example, lets consider, I dunno, Kansas. I bet the US has plenty of big agricultural subsidies because all western countries do. I'm sure some people in Kansas are coining it in in agricultural subs. I'm sure this expenditure makes the 'expenditure per head' in Kansas look pretty high compared to tax taken. OTOH, most ... Kansanians? are not going to be benefiting from that, at least not directly. I guess the shoeshine boy of a rich farmer is indirectly but if Pammy really thinks like that one wonders if the term 'left wing' means anything at all in the modern age.


It's more complicated still. Kansans may be coining it so to speak through something like agricultural subsidies. But the truly enormous subsidies are gleaned at corporate HQs, which are pretty much always in urban areas. Continuing with your ex of Kansas, most of the grain grown in Kansas is centralized at coops, who then sell to a major distributor. The coops are not for profit so they apportion returns on sales among the people who contribute grain to them, based on the volume of contribution. The distributors have the largest markups, and they are usually owned by Big Agri. The Big Agri are all located in "revenue generating" (by Spamelak's calculus) urban areas, and the Big Agri are intensively subsidized in a variety of ways (for ex, having their corporate campuses declared to be export zones, using interstate highways and rails subsidized by drivers, etc). They also (through some very strange IP protection laws) basically screw small scale and mid-scale farmers through grain use rights monopolies.

One of the reasons why KS small scale farmers often need public relief is because the Federal Gov't has rules written by corporates in Blue States that are designed to suck cash out of rural farmers using morally and ethically sketchy tactics.

Do the same with coal. Was all the "subsidized" WV, PA, or Montana coal miners who receive federal health care because of black lung, or who occasionally go on supplemental nutrition assistance, when the coal commodities market gets ginned up by some regulator, and were they all to stop mining coal, petty little birds like Pammy would suddenly find themselves without electricity. It's literally the case that his a.c. maintenance job is powered by the slow erosion of workers' lungs in flyover country. But that's not in his calculus, because it's all about himself.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 10594
Reputation points: 11323


:lol:

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:42 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8831
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10226
It's true that we shouldn't laugh at the sick.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:22 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 17231
Reputation points: 13550
mdiehl wrote:
Quote:
I have no idea how things work in the US,


Pamak doesn't know either.

Quote:
but to make some inferences based on how it is here and attempt to conjure up an example, lets consider, I dunno, Kansas. I bet the US has plenty of big agricultural subsidies because all western countries do. I'm sure some people in Kansas are coining it in in agricultural subs. I'm sure this expenditure makes the 'expenditure per head' in Kansas look pretty high compared to tax taken. OTOH, most ... Kansanians? are not going to be benefiting from that, at least not directly. I guess the shoeshine boy of a rich farmer is indirectly but if Pammy really thinks like that one wonders if the term 'left wing' means anything at all in the modern age.


It's more complicated still. Kansans may be coining it so to speak through something like agricultural subsidies. But the truly enormous subsidies are gleaned at corporate HQs, which are pretty much always in urban areas. Continuing with your ex of Kansas, most of the grain grown in Kansas is centralized at coops, who then sell to a major distributor. The coops are not for profit so they apportion returns on sales among the people who contribute grain to them, based on the volume of contribution. The distributors have the largest markups, and they are usually owned by Big Agri. The Big Agri are all located in "revenue generating" (by Spamelak's calculus) urban areas, and the Big Agri are intensively subsidized in a variety of ways (for ex, having their corporate campuses declared to be export zones, using interstate highways and rails subsidized by drivers, etc). They also (through some very strange IP protection laws) basically screw small scale and mid-scale farmers through grain use rights monopolies.

One of the reasons why KS small scale farmers often need public relief is because the Federal Gov't has rules written by corporates in Blue States that are designed to suck cash out of rural farmers using morally and ethically sketchy tactics.

Do the same with coal. Was all the "subsidized" WV, PA, or Montana coal miners who receive federal health care because of black lung, or who occasionally go on supplemental nutrition assistance, when the coal commodities market gets ginned up by some regulator, and were they all to stop mining coal, petty little birds like Pammy would suddenly find themselves without electricity. It's literally the case that his a.c. maintenance job is powered by the slow erosion of workers' lungs in flyover country. But that's not in his calculus, because it's all about himself.



Mdiehl explains it pretty well.

The big companies, essentially the middle men set up in urban centers, have been the ones gaining the most in the whole chain. With support from their gov't cronies. The little guys at the bottom, doing a lot of the actual work, have been getting shafted for a very long time.

_________________
..
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lefty Losers
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 pm
Posts: 5965
Reputation points: 1905
NefariousKoel wrote:
mdiehl wrote:

Pamak doesn't know either.

but to make some inferences based on how it is here and attempt to conjure up an example, lets consider, I dunno, Kansas. I bet the US has plenty of big agricultural subsidies because all western countries do. I'm sure some people in Kansas are coining it in in agricultural subs. I'm sure this expenditure makes the 'expenditure per head' in Kansas look pretty high compared to tax taken. OTOH, most ... Kansanians? are not going to be benefiting from that, at least not directly. I guess the shoeshine boy of a rich farmer is indirectly but if Pammy really thinks like that one wonders if the term 'left wing' means anything at all in the modern age.

It's more complicated still. Kansans may be coining it so to speak through something like agricultural subsidies. But the truly enormous subsidies are gleaned at corporate HQs, which are pretty much always in urban areas. Continuing with your ex of Kansas, most of the grain grown in Kansas is centralized at coops, who then sell to a major distributor. The coops are not for profit so they apportion returns on sales among the people who contribute grain to them, based on the volume of contribution. The distributors have the largest markups, and they are usually owned by Big Agri. The Big Agri are all located in "revenue generating" (by Spamelak's calculus) urban areas, and the Big Agri are intensively subsidized in a variety of ways (for ex, having their corporate campuses declared to be export zones, using interstate highways and rails subsidized by drivers, etc). They also (through some very strange IP protection laws) basically screw small scale and mid-scale farmers through grain use rights monopolies.

One of the reasons why KS small scale farmers often need public relief is because the Federal Gov't has rules written by corporates in Blue States that are designed to suck cash out of rural farmers using morally and ethically sketchy tactics.

Do the same with coal. Was all the "subsidized" WV, PA, or Montana coal miners who receive federal health care because of black lung, or who occasionally go on supplemental nutrition assistance, when the coal commodities market gets ginned up by some regulator, and were they all to stop mining coal, petty little birds like Pammy would suddenly find themselves without electricity. It's literally the case that his a.c. maintenance job is powered by the slow erosion of workers' lungs in flyover country. But that's not in his calculus, because it's all about himself.



Mdiehl explains it pretty well.

The big companies, essentially the middle men set up in urban centers, have been the ones gaining the most in the whole chain. With support from their gov't cronies. The little guys at the bottom, doing a lot of the actual work, have been getting shafted for a very long time.


So, nobody bothered to see the graph I posted in which it is clearly shown that Kansas is NOT a moocher...So, the whole "analysis" about Kansas is pretty much irrelevant. By the way, I did not say anything about Kansas or their big farming subsidizing. As for the argument about coal mining, perhaps somebody should ask himself about the contribution of strong unions (which are so much despised in redneck, "right to work" states) in improving health conditions for workers in general. Not to mention that such expenses pale compared to those that California pays for its immigrants, including illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities. And still, the middle class and "middle men" in California pay from their pockets federal income tax that benefits assholes in South Carolina and in other redneck states, and this is true regardless of their exploitation by corporations.

_________________
I have blocked mdhiel and will do the same to any person who may decide to alter my quotes in the future
(see thread viewtopic.php?f=5&p=273210#p273210)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group