Reply With Quote
would be ironic if you die of a stroke during one of these...
All the interesting classes only have ugly Asian es though. I occasionally had a fine Persian or Indian in my CS courses, but not many. Go humanities for the hoes worth your sugar daddy dollars tbh.
we all gotta die of something. It could be worse than motor boating nice young ties.
Yeah, better than laying there in the hospital dying of nothing.
cowboy is right. do what we did. the guys behind you.
Can they do that? I don't keep up with new porn.
Remember the good old days when everyone was unionized, had a pension, and died before age 60?
Everyone was unionized with pensions in the 1930s?
DarrinS is right about life expectancy increasing significantly, but he really exaggerated the point. Men dying off before 60 on average is Great Depression level.
Not really. In the past 55 years it has gone from 70 to 79:
It's almost purely dictated by income level.
That's weird, it doesn't jive with these figures I found:
http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html
Looks consistent to me. For example, in your table the 1980 life expectancy was 70 for men and 77.4 for women, an average of 73.7.
My table shows 73.66
1998: 76.65 from your table. World Bank graph shows 76.58
My charts bigger than your chart!
Bork example offers little help to Republicans
Senate Republicans know exactly what they want to do: maintain a blockade against any President Obama nominee for the Supreme Court. What GOP senators don’t know is how to defend their scheme.
I received an email yesterday from a conservative reader responding to a piece on Republicans abandoning traditional norms with their radical tactics. His response read, “Two words: Robert Bork.” As Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert noted, there’s apparently a lot of this going around.
“Democrats have been blowing up the appointment process piecemeal since they turned Judge Robert Bork’s last name into a verb back in 1987,” wrote Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times, in a column about the fight over replacing Scalia.
“Look at what the Democrats have done in poisoning the well, particularly on judicial nominations, stretching back to 1987 and the character assassination against Robert Bork,” complained Townhall political editor Guy Benson on Fox News.
The problem with the comparison is that the two examples just don’t have much in common – or at least not as much as Republicans and their allies would like to believe.
As longtime readers may recall, Bork was a Reagan nominee for the Supreme Court in 1987, and he became one of the most controversial choices in American history. Shortly after the president’s announcement, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) delivered a famous condemnation on the Senate floor: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artist could be censured at the whim of government.”
It was a stinging indictment, based largely on fact.
Bork, who developed an unfortunate reputation stemming from his role in Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973, was on record
defending Jim Crow-era poll taxes,
condemning portions of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public accommodations, and
arguing against extending the equal protection of the 14th Amendment to women.
As we discussed several years ago, the ensuing fight marked a turning point in the confirmation wars. It was during consideration of Bork that senators largely decided it wasn’t enough to merely consider a Supreme Court nominee’s qualifications; they also had to consider whether he or she was ideologically and temperamentally suited for the bench.
In Bork’s case, it was a test he failed. When his nomination reached the Senate floor, 58 senators, including six Republicans, voted to reject him. (After the vote, Strom Thurmond, of all people, urged the Reagan White House to nominate someone less “controversial.”) The Republican president soon after nominated Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate, 97 to 0.
Nearly three decades later, the left looks back at the results as a victory for civil rights and modernity. The right still see the dispute as the first modern example of mean liberals blocking a qualified conservative from reaching the high court.
That argument will probably continue for a while, but to suggest this is comparable to the contemporary fight is a stretch. If the Senate Democratic majority had announced that no Reagan nominee would be considered under any cir stances, regardless of merit, conservatives would obviously have a reasonable case to make.
But that’s not what happened. Reagan nominated a radical, and Democrats considered the nomination in committee and on the Senate floor. There was no filibuster, in part because the era of filibustering everything and everyone had not yet begun, and in part because it wasn’t necessary – there was bipartisan opposition to giving Bork a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
A little tidbit: more Republicans voted against Bork’s nomination in 1987 than voted for Justice Elena Kagan’s nomination in 2010. (Six Republicans opposed Bork; five Republicans supported Kagan.) It’s the sort of thing that adds some context to the trajectory of GOP politics.
How is the Bork example relevant to the 2016 dispute? At a superficial level, both involve a Supreme Court vacancy at a time of divided government. But after acknowledging that, the similarities effectively end – the Bork controversy was about one person, who was deemed unacceptable by a bipartisan majority, but who was followed by another nominee was easily confirmed.
The current controversy is about a party imposing a blockade on any nominee, sight unseen, because the party hates a democratically elected, two-term president.
Boehlert’s conclusion rings true:
“If conservatives can put forward a common sense argument why Obama should ignore his cons utional obligation to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court, they ought to detail that argument. Because pretending today’s crisis is just like the Bork battle only highlights the holes in the GOP proposal.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Yeah, because any time you start talking about what you HAVE to do, you're actually talking about limiting freedom, not expanding it. Freedom is simply the ability to do what you want. There's nothing self-evident about it being a social-Darwinist concept like you were imply. (And yes, that's the only place where saying success and failure should be based on merit leads.)
My point was that our ability to do what we want is limited by our need to do things we have to do. In the most basal sense, that means that we have to sacrifice some of our day eating and sleeping and taking care of bodily functions. In a more pointed sense, it means that we have to sell our time for money that we can use to buy a means to meet our needs. The more you make per hour, the fewer hours you have to sell, or more practically, the more money you have left over after your needs are met in order to use on paying for things you want to pay for.
I don't want to make this long-winded, so I'll just wrap up by saying that the motivation I described is usually accepted, hence why conservatives want lower taxes to give them more money to spend as they see fit, and why liberals want more money for more people. The idea that people have to be able to meet some abstract standard of "success" to be free is rather foreign and not really pertinent to the daily lives of many people who are just looking to survive. When you have people who work 40 hours a week providing necessary services struggling to make ends meet, that's where you have a loss of freedom that requires action, not when you have a rich person who wants to government to take out less money from their bonus check.
First, MJ was lying about that. Second, I was speaking philosophically. Humans are not minds in a vat looking for meaning. We are organic machines trying to keep functioning as long as possible. The tension between us as mental beings and us as physical beings is where the "slavery" comes in.
Personally, I'm not desperate for actualization at the moment. I would like to make more money and do a job I love, but I don't hate my current job, and I make more than a lot of people. So I'm content to spend time doing this. If I'm still here when I'm 30, that would be a bigger issue. Anyway, yeah, I have a lot of hobbies and interests that keep my mind working, my interest in the Spurs being the most obvious to people on this board. I can't do everything I'd like to do (like have season tickets at the AT&T Center), but I'm also not the one crying for maximum freedom.
Where the Senate Stands on Nominating Scalia’s Supreme Court Successor
Of the 46 Democratic* senators, 46 say President Obama should nominate a successor:
Of the 54 Republican senators, 29 say the Senate should not confirm a nominee from President Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...omination.html
I was under the impression that MJ was cut from his high school basketball team. If not, then my bad. I don't understand the bolded statement. I don't consider myself a slave to anyone. I suppose I willingly submit to God and my husband in terms of the way I live my life and the decisions I make. And I guess, my husband trades his labor for money. If anything, the slavery would be to government where I feel I contribute my taxes and the government is wasteful and irresponsible with that money.
I was alarmed more of your previous mention of "needs" but this post sounds content, if not happy. My suggestion was just to expand our horizons because ideally we'd want income from various sources - not just our job.
Hatch: Don’t ‘denigrate’ Court through cons utional process
“No one will be appointed who isn’t a consensus choice,” Graham said. “Now can the president find someone who 90 percent of us will agree upon? Maybe someone like Orrin Hatch.”
It was a sign of the times: a Republican senator believes the Democratic president should nominate another Republican senator to the Supreme Court in the hopes of reaching a “consensus.” Democrats, presumably, would be expected to just go along.
Hatch spoke to PBS’s Judy Woodruff last night, repeating the arguments one would expect him to make. The senator said, for example, that “whoever wins the presidency is going to be able to make this nomination” – overlooking the nagging detail that Barack Obama has already won the presidency. Hatch added, “Usually, you never nominate anyone during the last year of a president,” a claim that is demonstrably untrue – not only have plenty of nominations come during presidential election years, they’re also usually confirmed. The longtime GOP senator has the entire story backwards.
Hatch added, in reference to his Senate colleagues’ penchant for politicization, “[L]ook at what they did to Clarence Thomas.” If by “what they did,” Hatch means confirm Clarence Thomas to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court, then sure, by all means, let’s “look at what they did.”
But it was the senator’s conclusion that simply amazed me.According to Orrin Hatch, following the process outlined in the Cons ution risks “politicizing” and “denigrating” the Supreme Court.
“I just don’t want the court politicized
And this would be the biggest politicization the court in history.
And that is saying something, because there have been some other times that certainly would come close to matching this.
“But, in all honesty, I just don’t want to see the court denigrated
any further than it would be in this very caustic election year with the way things are going right now.”
But allowing rabid partisans to impose a year-long blockade, motivated by nothing but contempt for a democratically elected president, and leaving a Supreme Court vacancy in place for 11 months, would calm the political waters.
In all honesty, I keep expecting Republicans to come up with better arguments. If this is the best the GOP can do, this dispute is only going to get uglier.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Repugs!
Basically the gist of 101A's oppositiin to Bernie not even that liberal of policies. Help eliminate debt, rebuild our infrastructure, close obviously 100% corrupt loopholes and tax evasion? That's not how freedom works!
"I guess if you extrapolate that return through the years of my work, and add it to my salary, you could come up with a discrepancy between what I have, and what my employees make"
You hit on it exactly. Wealth ac ulated by owners of capital is wealth provided by the labor of employees, whose true value to the enterprise is not realized. Those with money to save, can save, and you simply have an exponential progression from there. It is an inevitable feature of capitalism. It is a mathematical certainty that wealth will ac ulate at the very top.
As the video notes, it isn't the top 1% here that skews it. It is a fraction of that 1%, the hyper-wealthy. They own as much as EVERYONE else combined, even those in the top 1%.
The solution in the past was a very steep marginal tax rate, capital gains taxed as normal income, an estate tax with teeth, and unionized labor that fought for a larger share of the profits.
All of which prevent hyper-wealth from ac ulating, and arguably made society better off overall.
People should be allowed to be rewarded for owning businesses, and having great ideas. The question we need to ask ourselves is... how much?
When the actual:
is so far from what we all agree is fair:
What SHOULD we do? It is obvious that the GOP is the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. They have bought into the propaganda and parrot it incessantly. "job creators" etc.
The hyper-rich do not create jobs, arguably so to anyone who understands economics, i.e. marginal propensity to save, and ulative effects of compound interest.
You can't call collecting compound interest on $1,000,000,000 "hard work". It shouldn't be given kid gloves and taxed LESS than the actual hard work of people working 80-120 hours a week.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-18-2016 at 09:04 AM.
You're under that impression because that's what MJ said. It just turns out he was lying his ass off and was lambasting the coach for no other reason than Jordan being an egomaniac.
You can consider yourself a slave to "no one" as much as you like up until the point that you die from not eating or breathing. My point was to essentially show the dualist tension that exist between humans as thinkers and humans as animals. And I don't mean id/superego. I mean that you can only function as a person so long as you meet your human needs. Because the needs come first, the person's ability to truly be free, to be creative, to explore, to just chill out, it's all limited by being in the physical world and having to do what we have to in order to stay here. So "you" the person you think of yourself as being is a slave to "you", the organism that demands to keep living at the expense of your (the first you) time and effort.I don't understand the bolded statement. I don't consider myself a slave to anyone.
I know that sounds far out there. But the concept of freedom at its base is really abstract. Behind all government is contract theory, behind contract theory is rights theory, behind rights theory is Hegelian dialecticism and so forth. So when people want to talk about "freedom", I think it's important to understand how nebulous it actually is and how little it jives with the real world.
But thanks for your concern about my financial well-being. I probably will look into expanding my sources of income relatively soon. Gotta knock out those student loans first.
FWIW.The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality. It was developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini and published in his 1912 paper "Variability and Mutability" (Italian: Variabilità e mutabilità).[1][2]
The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example, levels of income). A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example, where only one person has all the income or consumption, and all others have none).[3][4] However, a value greater than one may occur if some persons represent negative contribution to the total (for example, having negative income or wealth). For larger groups, values close to or above 1 are very unlikely in practice.
The Gini coefficient was proposed by Gini as a measure of inequality of income or wealth.[5] For OECD countries, in the late 2000s, considering the effect of taxes and transfer payments, the income Gini coefficient ranged between 0.24 to 0.49, with Slovenia the lowest and Chile the highest.[6] African countries had the highest pre-tax Gini coefficients in 2008–2009, with South Africa the world's highest, variously estimated to be 0.63 to 0.7,[7][8] although this figure drops to 0.52 after social assistance is taken into account, and drops again to 0.47 after taxation.[9] The global income Gini coefficient in 2005 has been estimated to be between 0.61 and 0.68 by various sources.[10][11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
