A Separate Reality

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Fungible

Postby Crux » 2012 Nov 30 08:01

It is a fun word. Take the Federal Road you mention. The construction MUST use Union labor, or wage rate pay at least. We know this is COSTING taxpayers more as it makes the project more expensive. Perhaps by 20%. For some this is fungible. Not all money is equal. Public sector Unions and Private Sector Unions are a bit different. They are not fungible. The monies involved in pensions are not fungible. Is it defined benefit of defined contribution? I trust you geniuses know the differences, and they are not fungible.

Here's Mayor Bing, who wrestles with some of the fun in Democrat La La Land, Detroit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... SfcHKbYEBM

Grow up. "We are in an environment of ENTITLEMENT..."

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Fungible

Postby Uji » 2012 Dec 01 16:13

crux wrote:The monies involved in pensions are not fungible. Is it defined benefit of defined contribution? I trust you geniuses know the differences, and they are not fungible.

Anyone ("genius" or not) who wants to talk about "fungibility" might well start by getting his or her definition straight:
MerriamWebster (my highlighting) wrote:Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution, such as crude oil, shares in a company, bonds, precious metals, or currencies. It refers only to the equivalence of each unit of a commodity with other units of the same commodity. Fungibility does not describe or relate to any exchange of one commodity for some other, different commodity.

The monies involved in pensions certainly are fungible -- that's what money is: it's either fungible or it's not money. Do you mean that one pension cannot be exchanged for another? Well, that may or may not be so, depending on the pension. (Defined Benefit pesions are swapted regularly by, say, a Virginia teacher moving to Oregon and recieving credit on the Oregon pension for monies payed to the VA pension, etc.) Pensions of which I am aware can be converted into money as well (be cashed in, as it were) -- even the Commonwealth defined pension plan. In that sense the pension is "fungible" -- although that is a misuse of the word I suspect.
And what do you mean by saying that the 20% additional cost that you think union labor will cause is "fungible for some"? Some can exchange their union labor for some other union labor? I doubt it -- but if so, so what? What's your point? To say that "Not all money is equal" is to miss the most basic property of money: It's fungible by definition -- which is to say, "It's all equal." Again, I miss your point.
crux wrote:...The construction MUST use Union labor, or wage rate pay at least. We know this is COSTING taxpayers more as it makes the project more expensive. Perhaps by 20%.

We know no such thing. The cost of the job is 20% more (accepting your estimate), but that is not the cost to the tax payer: Those union wages are paying for healthcare support, unemployment support, re-training for laid-off workers, pensions for retired workers, etc. These same union workers are still paying their payroll taxes as well. To equate a union wage with "cost to the tax payer" is simply false.
crux wrote:... I trust you geniuses know the differences, and they are not fungible... Grow up. "We are in an environment of ENTITLEMENT..."
Is the sarcasm necessary, Crux? Why do you feel "entitled" to speak with such rancor? Can't we just express opinions and disagree like gentleman and gentle-ladies?
And what, in the name of Milton Q. Freidman, does any of this have to do with entitlements? This is a country based upon the notion of entitlement, by the way: Read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, or the first ten amendments to the Constitution... Why don't we call those "entitlements?" I think it's because we feel entitled to the rights outlined there. We are in an environment of entitlement, alright: one in which we feel entitled to the goods and service of government but feel no need to pay for them in the form of taxes. Perhaps that is what you mean.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Coondog » 2012 Dec 03 15:04

The ancient Egyptions built some fine archetectural monuments and the Romans built endurable roads, some of which are still in use today.

But, it's time some people who despise the idea of union labor, because they're told it's fashionable to do so, realize that infrastructure enhancement by the economical use of slave labor is no longer a viable option.

Major construction jobs payed for all or in part by a government entity generally go to the lowest bidder. Keep in mind, also, that the people employed who receive contracts or union wages or minimum wages are also tax payers who make a lot less than company bosses or the politicians who got bribed in the process.

There is at least something romantic about the days of the Old South and Stephen Foster and good manners. The slavery part is pleasantly nostalgic only to those who adhere to the tenents of the New South. The New South maintains the slave labor mentality, but Stephen Foster has been replaced by the likes of Ted Nugent and good manners are nowhere to be found.

Unions are the result of over a hundred years of blood and strugle against an abusive and repressive relationship between labor and management. The pendulum swings! The struggle continues, and as long as labor is not rendered powerless by malleable politicians, probably will continue for a long, long time. That's a good thing.

A semblence of fairness achieved through negotiation, regardless of the ugliness of the process, is preferable to the reinstitution of a subjugated class of human drones toiling away in sweat shops for a few farthings a day.

Coondog

Please Sir, may I have some more? :sip:

User avatar
Buck Turgidson
Posts: 108
Joined: 2011 Mar 10 22:48

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Buck Turgidson » 2012 Dec 04 13:49

That's the ticket.
Yes, the ultimate objective of Republicans seems to be to help Walmart-type businesses drive American workers to the depths of despair.
What could be a more perfect objective than American workers as slave labor as used by the ancient Egyptian pharaohs?
Have the workers no gratitude?
Did we not refrain from killing them today?
Did we not allow them to work for us another day?
Did we not provide them with a few scraps of food?
Health care? Why should we pay for it? We can always get new workers if they sicken. We are merciful, helping them to die quickly.
Ungrateful wretches.

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby fangz1956 » 2012 Dec 04 15:05




Pharaoh he sits in his tower of steel
The dogs of money all at his heel
Magicians cry "Oh truth! Oh real!"
We're all working for the Pharaoh

A thousand eyes, a thousand ears
He feeds us all, he feeds our fears
Don't stir in your sleep tonight, my dears
We're all working for the Pharaoh

It's Egypt land, Egypt land
We're all living in Egypt land
Tell me, brother, don't you understand
We're all working for the Pharaoh

Hidden from the eye of chance
The men of shadow dance a dance
We're all struck into a trance
We're all working for the Pharaoh

The idols rise into the sky
Pyramids soar, Sphinxes lie
Head of dog, Osiris eye
We're all working for the Pharaoh

And it's Egypt land, Egypt land
We're all living in Egypt land
Tell me, brother, don't you understand
We're all working for the Pharaoh

I dig a ditch, I shape a stone
Another battlement for his throne
Another day on earth is flown
We're all working for the Pharaoh

Call it England, you call it Spain
Egypt rules with a whip and chain
Moses free my people again
We're all working for the Pharaoh

And it's Egypt land, Egypt land
We're all living in Egypt land
Tell me, brother, don't you understand
We're all working for the Pharaoh

Pharaoh he sits in his tower of steel
Around his feet the princes kneel
Far beneath we shoulder the wheel
We're all working for the Pharaoh


Says it all, doesn't it. It goes beyond Walmart (although they are the business model that is driving the bus)...it's far-reaching and widespread with no business or industry immune from the oligarchy. Nothing will change unless we do something besides sit back and prattle on about it. Talk is cheap!
Boycott, protest, sign petitions, write letters.........hold the pharoahs accountable. Stand up for your fellow citizens...for your fellow man.

:curse:

Shop Walmart????? When Hell freezes over and pigs fly!
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

More moral equivelency

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 05 09:40

Egypt is not England, or Spain. Oh, you're making a philosophical point. I see... You know, Walmart has better prices on some quality products. I shop around. The health food store, Kroger, Food Lion, I support local business, AND I get certain items at Walmart, or ONLINE. Walmart has been a great thing for POOR PEOPLE.

Follow the money? How about the Academy that snubbed the documentary film that made more money at the box office than ALL 15 other films that were eligible COMBINED. 2016: It just didn't have the right politics...

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Coondog » 2012 Dec 05 14:59

Boycott Walmart? Ah! If only that was possible.

Walmart is an addiction without a cure. The Home of Low Prices has a strangle hold that no intervention, hyptnosis or rehab has the capacity to alleviate. Right now, I have a craving to purchase a Great Value product to assauge my hedonistic dependency. Any Great Value product will do. I just need a fix!

Perhaps I could survey the $5.00 DVD bin for a copy of 2016. I hear it made a lot of money, which means (to some) that it was very good and worthy of an Oscar. Then again, Transformers 2, a film targeting the least sophisticated element of society, made a lot of money. As far as I know, it didn't win Best Picture, either. But, I don't follow that Red Carpet tripe all that closely.

Having said that.......I'm off to Walmart!

Coondog :tiphat:

I'm putting some Bonz on lay-away

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

An OSCAR is one thing....

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 05 15:53

...mere CONSIDERATION is another...

Yes, connect the dots. BO invited the ENTIRE MSNBS/NBS NEWS/COMMENTARY line-up to the White House,
for "serious business"....

Connect the dots. Oh. Detroit is in the news. Too big to fail? Should we BAIL THEM OUT?

I wish I had a 10$ bill for every time one of you "intellectuals" uses the word TRIPE.

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby fangz1956 » 2012 Dec 05 16:18

Actually, it's easier than one thinks to live without Walmart in your life. Everything you buy there can be had at other places. As long as we continue to support this kind of business model with our shopping dollars and our silence on their repugnant practices, they will continue to thrive and the band will play on.
Before the advent of the Big Box stores like Walmart, Main Street was a good place to purchase goods. Walmart and its ilk are the the root of the destruction of Main Street and local businesses. Get the picture, Skeezix????

:violent1:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

What is your problem ?

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 05 16:58

So you believe money is strictly FUNGIBLE or something? One dollar is just like any other dollar? Like a dollar spent at one store is the same as at another? Things cost different. Wall Mart pays as good as any Mom and Pop store, and then some. Is it entry level goods sold by entry level wage earners to entry level wage psyches?

Seriously. We are talking about the poor. And Middle Class. ..not the Rich Much. :dontknow:

You seem to think there is no place for Walmart. Fine. It does present certain bargains against all others. Pick a product. You might get a better quality part on the internet cheaper, or at the local main street store. Maybe not.

What is your problem. What if you need a bottle of liquid vitamin E. Or a micro wave. Sure produce from Food Lion is better, and if you want Converse All Stars at Peebles or Rent A Center or Goodwill...

Get you Oil Change where the hey you wish. Mom and Pop have to compete, and do quite well in a small niche.

I can hear Sam say. "I can remember my Mom say, Grow your own food. It's more satisfying and better for you too."

Educate if you must but heck, just don't boycott...
:crab: I'd actually like a flat screen TV in the back woods.

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2012 Dec 06 09:51

Image

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: More moral equivelency

Postby Wise One » 2012 Dec 06 15:31

crux wrote:How about the Academy that snubbed the documentary film that made more money at the box office than ALL 15 other films that were eligible COMBINED. 2016: It just didn't have the right politics...

I had never heard of this particular documentary, so I looked it up, downloaded it, and watched it.

Omigod, what a tedious chore it was to get through the damn thing! D'Souza's personal story is mildly interesting. Everything else was the lowest kind of pop psychology, conservative talking points, conspiracy theories, guilt by the most tenuous of associations, unsubstantiated suspicion, and slogans.

Why did it win no awards? It is DREK!

News accounts of its financial success have most of the revenue coming from reliable Republican coffers, waves of anti-Obama zealots we've seen so much of in the past few years. There were accounts of frenzied tea party groups arriving in busloads to buy out the theater, showings of the film in the usual extremist-conservative circles, etc. I was unable to learn much about the film's financing but note that the lead producer is a Mormon and that it was released and distributed to time well with Romney's ascension in the presidential race.

It was a financial success according to IMDB numbers, but as others have pointed out artistic quality is not necessarily related. For example, The Stewardesses is one of the most profitable movies of all time on a percentage basis. No awards.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Coondog » 2012 Dec 06 16:10

Once upon a time, not so long ago, individuals lacking education sought, sometimes against great obstacles, to acquire the education they lacked.

Today, the uneducated seem to prefer to band together and attend films rife with propaganda and superstition in order to make themselves less educated.

One must wonder if these are not the same people who, having died, reanimate into flesh eating Zombies......having no memory of their former selves, but retaining the same level of sophistication as before.

Coondog :laughing:

The only way to tell a zombie from it's living counterpart is, while the living have supressed the yearning for education by attending films like 2016, zombies often articulate their inherent desire to better themselves. "Brains! Want Brains!"

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

For Neck,

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 07 15:08

Dear Neck. Billionaires and Plumbers do IN FACT pay the same tax rates on Capital Gains. On income, higher wage earners pay a greater tax rate than lower wage earners. In fact fully half of tax filers pay ZERO income tax. The top 1% of wage earners, and we are talking income tax here, pay 42% of the total tax. The top 10% pays like 75% of the total income tax.

You like too many, conflate or confuse INCOME tax with CAPITAL GAINS tax. It is a fun game, but do you actually understand this or not???

2016: I think the connections between Obama and his mentors, Wright and Davis for example, his own father's Marxist ideologies, and Obama's own words and actions are anything but"tenuous". His own Mother's sympathies speak for themselves. I found the part about Obama's second dad (step dad) and brother's differing ideological views of economics/colonialism to be interesting. It was a bit slower as it went on but it was very interesting. Ignore it. Why not...

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: For Neck,

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2012 Dec 07 20:36

crux wrote:Billionaires and Plumbers do IN FACT pay the same tax rates on Capital Gains.
Is this a comedy act or just blatant obtuseness? Plumbers and teachers don't have wealth managers to design portfolios so that their income arrives as capital gains! Rich people do.

crux wrote:On income, higher wage earners pay a greater tax rate than lower wage earners.
You are either a liar or amazingly out of touch. When all the exemptions, deductions, and tax preferences are taken, the percentage tax on gross incomes of the wealthy is lower than for middle incomes.

crux wrote:The top 1% of wage earners ...pay 42% of the total tax.
Duh. Always have, always will. It's simple arithmetic, something Republicans cannot seem to grasp.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: For Neck,

Postby Uji » 2012 Dec 08 12:47

Neck-aint-red wrote: You are either a liar or ...

IMHO, here's the problem with this discussion...
  • There's no point in talking about anything unless we can agree on the facts. Failing that, we have to at least agree on how the facts of the matter can be established and establish them as best we can.
  • We can debate the facts, but only by comparing sources for them -- which is more reliable, which is more worthy of respect/belief?
  • And then, once we have established the facts of the matter, then we can have a discussion. "Facts" in this complex society are open to so many interpretations that we don't have to disagree with someone's facts in order to disagree with their take on them.
  • But, once the facts of the matter have been established, we have no obligation to take seriously any participant who refuses to accept them.
  • Anyone who refuses to accept facts as established by persons or institutions in a position to provide objective assessment of those fact, is indeed being "obtuse," stubborn, unreasonable, or -- knowing the facts of the matter but willing to assert the opposite -- a "liar."
I see no reason to think that Crux is a "liar." He doesn't seem "obtuse", either. I think he is just stubborn: he has a view of the world that he sometimes expresses clearly and reasonably. (This is why I am sorry when his tone gets so nasty. I'd much rather hear what he thinks about the matter then what he thinks about the person he's addressing.) But, like the rest of us, when Crux is backed into the corner by bits of reality that don't fit his view, he snaps.

We are all biased: we all have bedrock beliefs, convictions, and ideologies born of nature, nurture, and the vagaries of human existence. We can't help that, and we shouldn't want to: our biases are who we are. Never-the-less, we all have a human obligation to be objective, to accept the facts of the matter, and to be willing to adjust -- or even overthrow -- elements of our belief system that conflicts with the fact as they are known.

Facts change over time; the facts that were "known" a century ago have been altered in many ways. I assume the same will be true in the future. Yet, the-facts-as-they-are-known now are all we have to go on in designing and maintaining a humane and free society.

The clearest difference between fact and opinion is that, while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. Let's feel free to express opinions, to try out new ones, recant old ones; but what is gained by repeatedly expressing views that are contradicted by the facts of the matter? :dontknow: I don't get it...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Neck,

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 08 17:28

Firstly I am not rich, by any stretch, except in the GLOBAL sense. But hey. The POOR in this country are RICH in the GLOBAL sense. I have paid some capital gains taxes in years past, as I have held some stocks that did well, and some that didn't. I am talking several thousands of dollars, not TENS of thousands... But still. folks like you do nothing but whine about BILLIONAIRES. I have said it before. I have never suffered from WEALTH ENVY, nor have I ever been persuaded by class warfare. I love Capitalism. Free enterprise. Private Property and am a working hard playing hard Man, not a mouse, or dog...

Thanks Uji for not being a simple minded ideologue...

crux wrote:On income, higher wage earners pay a greater tax rate than lower wage earners.
So here is Neck: You are either a liar or amazingly out of touch. When all the exemptions, deductions, and tax preferences are taken, the percentage tax on gross incomes of the wealthy is lower than for middle incomes.

crux wrote:The top 1% of wage earners ...pay 42% of the total tax.
...and again: "Duh. Always have, always will. It's simple arithmetic, something Republicans cannot seem to grasp."

Here you seem to just be an Arrogant One wanna be... I grasp plenty.

Uji is right. Facts matter. I will provide you with a link that bears out the veracity of my statement, "On income, higher wage earners pay a greater tax rate than lower wage earners."

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42870 You will note that the higher the quintile, the higher the AVERAGE tax rate paid, AFTER all those deductions, exemptions and loopholes be they applicable to rich or poor. I have actually provided this kind of reference here on this forum before. Perhaps you missed it...

Neck. You really are just another Lib whiner. Congratulations on the Obama "victory". It is a darn shame.

crux

Uji thanks again for actually giving me a chance. This is novel. Well, upon occasion Fangz has. All the best.

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Neck,

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2012 Dec 09 12:04

crux wrote:On income, higher wage earners pay a greater tax rate than lower wage earners.

Actually, you have me on this one, I erred reading fast and carelessly, missing the modifier in "wage earners" and answered as if you had referred to the more general class of "earners."

It's probably true that "wage earners" at the high end pay a larger percentage tax than "earners" who are wealthy, because they must take most of their income as "wages." It's mostly on other kinds of income that the wealthy can legally evade taxation.

It's the unfairness of lower resulting tax rates for the very wealthy that disturbs us. I have no hatred of wealthy people, only a sense of fairness that demands they carry at least the same percentage load that the rest of us must.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

That's just it Neck,

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 10 21:08

These "wealthy" folks DID pay higher taxes on their wages. They WORKED. They SACRIFICED. They RISKED. They SAVED and built and achieved, and then:

They invested. They RISKED their heavily taxed profits and risked them again. Capital LOSSES, they paid no tax. Capital GAINS and guess what:

They get taxed on that money AGAIN.

Sure it is at a lower rate. You can cry foul, but understand Capital-ISM. APPRECIATE these folks who have paid for all your glorious Governmental Projects:

Roads, medicines, universities, new products and services.

ETC

Don't be such a HATER, socialistic class warrior. It is WEALTH ENVY and CLASS WARFARE you spew, wicked little man.

Oh: Then all these "rich" turds die don't you know. You laugh and rub your hands together for again they will pay the "death tax". That nasty little inheritance tax paid somewhat vicariously through the heirs and assignees. :clap:

You really do need to get a grip upon your inappropriate guilt at being born white. MANY a good conservative no matter race, religion or creed would support your mental health and healing....

...or is just a more simple Utopian Fascism you suffer from???

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: That's just it Neck,

Postby Uji » 2012 Dec 11 13:32

crux wrote:These "wealthy" folks DID pay higher taxes on their wages. They WORKED. They SACRIFICED. They RISKED...

Some of them did, no doubt. Some of them inherited their money and haven't done a lick of work. Some of them just had a lot of dumb luck. Some of them are crooks. Some of them are saints who just happened to make a lot of money doing something they enjoy or are good at. So what? What's your point?

The same is true of poor folks: Some are poor because they are lazy. Some are poor because they are unlucky. Some are poor because of institutional racism. Some are poor because they are stupid... Some are poor with an Einsteinian IQ... What's the point in listing this stuff? There are just as many poor people who "work hard, sacrifice, risk, etc." as rich folks. None of those qualities are about making money, anyway; they are qualities of character. If you apply them towards making money, you chances of getting some money are much improved; if you apply them towards something else -- raising a family, for instance -- your chance of success in that endeavor or certainly improved.

Life happens. Statistically, good and bad fortune are evenly distribute; but, in individual cases, the distribution is not at all even. I've been incredibly lucky, and my neighbor hasn't. That mean since my luck made me financially comfortable, I am am some how a better person (harder working, etc.) then is he? Of course not. He works just as hard as I do; he's just as smart as I am; he certainly as "good" a person as I am. We get lucky (by birth, by natural endowment, by country of origin, etc.), and we get poor the same way.

The notion which, tacitly you seem to accept, that being wealthy proves (somehow) that you are deserving of that wealth is, at the very least, circular. It is a ideological premise that is not supported by the data or common sense.

crux wrote:You can cry foul, but understand Capital-ISM. APPRECIATE these folks who have paid for all your glorious Governmental Projects: Roads, medicines, universities, new products and services. ETC

Oh, come on, Crux... Those "roads, medicines, universities, etc." subsidize the moneyed classes, too. You can't have a Walmart without the interstate; you can't have a real-estate development without the roads and services that are subsidized by taxpayers. You can make the case that everyone benefits.

Then why does it not make sense that those who benefit the most (as determined by their net income) should pay in proportion to the benefit that they receive?