Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«2483 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Jurgan
May 8, 2007

Just pour it directly into your gaping mouth-hole you decadent slut


Cognac McCarthy posted:

You can find this with quite a few Frank Capra movies, actually. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is nominally nonpartisan and traditionalist, but I remember reading somewhere that given some of the elements which don't mean much to us now (Eastern/Western state divide, federal purchases of land for public use, etc.), it wasn't actually that wishy-washy at the time it was made. I think it's that, prior to the '50s and '60s, economic populism wasn't seen as a counterculture thing, so it was much easier to pair it with traditional values and patriotism.

e: Looking at Wikipedia now, it seems a lot of people in DC attacked Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as radical and dangerous for alleging that there could be corruption in US government. Weird, since it's just about the most traditional, patriotic, safe movie about politics I can think of.

What's really ironic about that last statement is that apparently there was a time your patriotism could be questioned for not trusting the government enough? Now the people who love to call themselves patriots never shut up about how worthless government is.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fat Samurai
Feb 16, 2011

To go quickly is foolish. To go slowly is prudent. Not to go; that is wisdom.


Jurgan posted:

What's really ironic about that last statement is that apparently there was a time your patriotism could be questioned for not trusting the government enough? Now the people who love to call themselves patriots never shut up about how worthless government is.

This is obviously the (current) Government's fault.

Buzkashi
Feb 4, 2003


College Slice

Jurgan posted:

What's really ironic about that last statement is that apparently there was a time your patriotism could be questioned for not trusting the government enough? Now the people who love to call themselves patriots never shut up about how worthless government is.

Seems like with some people a black President is about as well-received as it would have been when Mr. Smith first came out.

Dr. Arbitrary
Mar 15, 2006



Bleak Gremlin


Oh, if that's the one then I have one based on more current tax information:

BASED ON 2012 TAX DATA
http://taxfoundation.org/article/su...come-tax-data-0

Income Tax paid = 1,184,978 Million. Normalized to $1000
Total AGI = 9,041,744 Million. Normalized to $7630
If there are better numbers, I'll use them.
I round a bit here and there so some numbers might seem a bit off. If you notice anything that seems REALLY wrong, let me know



100 people go to see a movie.


The first 50 pay 56 cents for their ticket, they spend the majority of the next two hours working at the concession stand or sweeping floors.
If they're caught watching the movie they're berated. After all, if they have time to watch a movie then they have time to earn enough money to pay more for their ticket.

The next 25 pay $4.32 apiece for a ticket.
They each spend a portion of the movie working the projector, repairing the popcorn machine and working as security.
The movie is ruined for them though because they spend so much time dealing with people in the first group of 50.

The next 15 pay $10.87 each for their ticket.
They spend a portion of their time at the theater maintaining the projector or keeping concessions running.
They get to see almost all of the movie unless something goes wrong.

The next 5 pay $22.40 dollars each for their ticket.
They are responsible for keeping the projector and concessions running, they don't actually do any of the work, they delegate all tasks to members of the previous 3 groups.
They get free sodas and nicer seats than the first three groups.

The next 4 pay $52.25 dollars each for their ticket.
Their job is to pick the movie. They get an entire meal and unlimited soda. Their seats are unbelievably comfortable.

The last person pays $381 for his ticket.
His job is to have the theater named after him.
His meal is decadent and he drinks the finest beverages. He sits in a golden throne. He has security guards who keep the bottom 95 from even getting near him.

At the end of the first day the money made from concessions is split up.
pre:
The first 50 each get 17 dollars. They each paid 56 cents. They take home $16
The next 25 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 4 dollars . They take home $56
The next 15 each get 109 dollars. They each paid 11 dollars. They take home $98
The next 5 get 168 each. They each paid 22 dollars. They take home $146
The next 4 get 286 each. They each paid 52 dollars. They take home $234
The last takes 1671. He paid 381. He takes home $1290
The people from the 25 and 15 group exclaim that it's not fair that the people in the first group get to take home almost all their pay because of the way ticket prices are set up. They develop the flat ticket price plan where everyone pays their fair share.

After doing a little math they find the magic number, 13%
At the end of the second day the money made from concessions is split up.
pre:
The first 50 each get 17 dollars. They each paid $2.20. They take home $15
The next 25 each get 60 dollars. They each paid $7.78 They take home $52
The next 15 each get 109 dollars. They each paid $14.15. They take home $94
The next 5 get 168 each. They each paid $21.82. They take home $146
The next 4 get 286 each. They each paid $37.20. They take home $248
The last takes 1671. He paid $217.23. He takes home $1453
The people from the 25 and 15 group are pretty confused but are certain it's the bottom 50 that are screwing them over. They decide to split the ticket costs straight across the board. The total costs for the evening are $1000, split 100 ways is $10 each.

At the end of the third day the money made from concessions is split up.
pre:
The first 50 each get 17 dollars. They each paid 10. They take home $7
The next 25 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $50
The next 15 each get 109 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $99
The next 5 get 168 each. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $158
The next 4 get 286 each. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $276
The last takes 1671. He paid 10. He takes home $1661
The people from the bottom 50 group decide they've had enough.
At the end of the fourth day the money made from concessions is split up.
pre:
The first 50 each get 84 dollars. They each paid 11. They take home $73
The next 25 each get 84 dollars. They each paid 11 dollars. They take home $73
The next 15 each get 84 dollars. They each paid 11 dollars. They take home $73
The last 10 get hanged by their necks from the projector booth.
The moral of the story: Maybe progressive taxation isn't a terrible idea.

Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at Mar 25, 2015 around 18:17

TerminalSaint
Apr 20, 2007

Where must we go...

we who wander this Wasteland in search of our better selves?


Pillbug

*hanged

Dr. Arbitrary
Mar 15, 2006



Bleak Gremlin


Works for me!

Mister Bates
Aug 4, 2010


Jurgan posted:

What's really ironic about that last statement is that apparently there was a time your patriotism could be questioned for not trusting the government enough? Now the people who love to call themselves patriots never shut up about how worthless government is.

I've said it before, but practically all of the right wing's rhetoric about government (and also about 'producers' and 'parasites', 'job creators' and 'welfare queens') used to be things socialists or communists would say. They've changed the meaning, obviously, but the words and the general thrust of right-wing populist arguments borrow really heavily from the communist and socialist movements. Being mistrustful of the big bad government man used to be a typical lefty trait a hundred years ago.

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.

Fun Shoe

This crossed my FB feed last night:

SalTheBard
Jan 26, 2005

I forgot to post my food for USPOL Thanksgiving but that's okay too!


Fallen Rib

Lemniscate Blue posted:

This crossed my FB feed last night:



Anyone that wants Ted Cruz to win should look at what a poo poo hole Kansas has become. Also the Kansas house just passed the "Constitutional Carry Bill" so in a few short weeks permitless concealed carry for all!

Toasticle
Jul 18, 2003

Hay guys, out this Rape

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I guess what's important is how this is actually being implemented. If it's being used to steal from poor people then it's obviously a bad policy.

What I worry about is that it's actually being used to target people who are engaged in criminal activity, and those people are trying to create a story that mean ol' Mr. Government is bullying good Americans for having the gall to use cash.

Not that I think you mean it but that sounds a lot like "If you have nothing to hide....". Hell, most illegal drug buys are still done on the dark net in Bitcoin, including large buys in the thousands. I know two of them. (They aren't buttcoiners they just know it's easier to hide than using cash. Not risk free just easier).

Of course it targets poor people, rich people have plenty of ways of moving money around for shady or outright illegal poo poo, because someone wants a lot or all of their cash seems a pretty flimsy starting point to target them. If it's someone they already have legally obtained information that they are doing something illegal maybe. Most people here at least are against the WoD so who cares if it's for a fuckton of weed or coke. When I could afford to I bought in bulk, dealers offer volume discounts like anyone else. I don't know how often it happens but there have been cases where people who had 5k or more seized based only on the fact that they 5k or more. If memory serves one was to buy a car and even contacting the seller to prove yes he was buying a car didn't get his money back

I guess I don't have more than 'someone wants a lot of their own money at once' as a reason to suspect them of something rubs me the wrong way. I know poo poo all about these types of laws but if someone buys 10k in bitcoins do they also get reported? I'd be willing to bet at least half of those transactions are for drug buys. I've watched a friends cousin make multi-thousand buys in bitcoins. Not 10k but he's not a kingpin, just someone who gets for a smallish client list.

Mister Bates
Aug 4, 2010


Lemniscate Blue posted:

This crossed my FB feed last night:



I always enjoy it when rightists try to tell me who 'the left' is terrified of, because it's basically always someone we all consider a giant loving joke rather than anyone we're actually even remotely scared of.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Lowtax needs a new spine and my posts are poopy

Toasticle posted:

Of course it targets poor people, rich people have plenty of ways of moving money around for shady or outright illegal poo poo, because someone wants a lot or all of their cash seems a pretty flimsy starting point to target them. If it's someone they already have legally obtained information that they are doing something illegal maybe. Most people here at least are against the WoD so who cares if it's for a fuckton of weed or coke. When I could afford to I bought in bulk, dealers offer volume discounts like anyone else. I don't know how often it happens but there have been cases where people who had 5k or more seized based only on the fact that they 5k or more. If memory serves one was to buy a car and even contacting the seller to prove yes he was buying a car didn't get his money back

You're conflating banks taking reasonable precautions with civil forfeiture. They're not the same thing at all. The bank double-checking an anomalous transaction is not anything like a cop searching your car and taking whatever he finds.

Nevvy Z
Jan 3, 2004



VitalSigns posted:

You're conflating banks taking reasonable precautions with civil forfeiture. They're not the same thing at all. The bank double-checking an anomalous transaction is not anything like a cop searching your car and taking whatever he finds.

Context. People are saying that any such law will likely be used in parallel with civil forfeiture.

Bank calls cops, cops seize cash.

Dr Christmas
Apr 24, 2010

Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!


Mister Bates posted:

I always enjoy it when rightists try to tell me who 'the left' is terrified of, because it's basically always someone we all consider a giant loving joke rather than anyone we're actually even remotely scared of.

Or the left is actually terrified of them, because they're terrible people.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Lowtax needs a new spine and my posts are poopy

Nevvy Z posted:

Context. People are saying that any such law will likely be used in parallel with civil forfeiture.

Bank calls cops, cops seize cash.

This does not sound likely.

Bloodnose
Jul 30, 2006


Trust me, compañeros. I'm very good. I got Trump elected.


Fun Shoe

VitalSigns posted:

This does not sound likely.

Last Week Tonight convinced me that there are some police departments that actively seek out people on whom to use civil asset forfeiture. Like they deliberately find marks who have lots of cash on them to seize

Mister Bates
Aug 4, 2010


Dr Christmas posted:

Or the left is actually terrified of them, because they're terrible people.

No one's terrified of Ted Cruz, the guy has zero chance at the Presidency. He almost certainly isn't going to be nominated, and probably won't even stay in the race for the entire primary.

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.

Fun Shoe

I am terrified of President Ted Cruz in roughly the same proportion I am of a zombie attack. If it happens it will be catastrophic and gently caress everything up and I will run screaming. But it has precisely zero chance of actually occurring, and the people who cream their pants over the idea are creepy as hell.

Dr. Arbitrary
Mar 15, 2006



Bleak Gremlin

Lemniscate Blue posted:

I am terrified of President Ted Cruz in roughly the same proportion I am of a zombie attack. If it happens it will be catastrophic and gently caress everything up and I will run screaming. But it has precisely zero chance of actually occurring, and the people who cream their pants over the idea are creepy as hell.

Prester John's thread on authoritarianism might actually be a good reference if you want to understand why they think that we're afraid of guys like Cruz: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...hreadid=3708238

Prester John posted:

When I was a shithead Conspiracy Theorist my CT friends would occasionally ask my opinion on this or that emerging person in the movement, and I would go and research the person for them. I used to have an oft used quip of "Well I don;t know if I accept their claims yet, but all the right people are laughing at them". What I meant was, the ridicule directed at Conspiracy Theorists would legitimize them in my eyes. Cruz being laughed at right now, to the mind of an Authoritarian, seems petty and childlike. It also indicates fear and makes them invest themselves emotionally in Ted Cruz. by being the first out the gate he has guaranteed both plenty of ridicule of the variety that will legitimize him in an Authoritarian's eyes, and plenty of time for Authoritarians to invest themselves emotionally in him before another candidate comes along to sweep them up.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Lowtax needs a new spine and my posts are poopy

Bloodnose posted:

Last Week Tonight convinced me that there are some police departments that actively seek out people on whom to use civil asset forfeiture. Like they deliberately find marks who have lots of cash on them to seize

Goddamnit I just looked for evidence of this, and you're right and I'm wrong.

gently caress this country

Capt. Sticl
Jul 24, 2002

In Zion I was meant to be
'Doze the homes
Block the sea
With this great ship at my command
I'll plunder all the Promised Land!


Perhaps I should bring a little levity to the thread. Enjoy a screed on "evolution" sort of:

quote:

Do you think that beached whales (and other sea life) are their nature to evolve, and we are preventing it when we try to help them back into the ocean. When you look at life on earth through an evolution standpoint you have to imagine that even humans have to evolved from life from the ocean where the breeding ground is perfect do to elements that caused the life on earth to be possible. And after a long time of this process what did grow lungs and learn to walk and this added with the bacteria and any parasites or elements that were in the water that have not yet been introduced to the surface before and this causes other evolution of other species.
So if that's taken into consideration then we have the instinct to prevent any other species to evolve so we stay on top as the dominant species of a planet that only has the name earth because we decided by ourselves to call it that. For some reason we do this even when thinking we are helping when we are really preventing them from becoming a superior species by not allowing many to die so that as an effort as a whole they are going to be better off.
Or maybe that is just way off?

Twelve by Pies
May 4, 2012

Again a very likpatous story


Because whales dying on beaches is evolution, somehow!

Actually I thought there was debate on exactly why whales beach themselves.

Ashcans
Jan 2, 2006

Let's do the space-time warp again!


Twelve by Pies posted:

Because whales dying on beaches is evolution, somehow!

Actually I thought there was debate on exactly why whales beach themselves.

One day, a whale will beach itself and live. On that day, the reign of man will end, and the era of the cetaceans will begin. We will be nothing more than picturebook monsters for their children.

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.

Fun Shoe

Ashcans posted:

One day, a whale will beach itself and live. On that day, the reign of man will end, and the era of the cetaceans will begin. We will be nothing more than picturebook monsters for their children.

I'd be okay with this.

1stGear
Jan 16, 2010

MEIDAY



College Slice

Although it does make me kind of curious as to the current thinking on how and why life moved from water to land.

archangelwar
Oct 28, 2004

Teaching Moments


VitalSigns posted:

Goddamnit I just looked for evidence of this, and you're right and I'm wrong.

gently caress this country

But you are still correct, this is fundamentally different than bank reporting anomalous transactions. When they do so, they are not contacting a police officer standing outside who will then seize your funds; they are alerting oversight and compliance committees, and/or the FBI. These organizations are not targeting people withdrawing cash to purchase cars or drugs, but for evidence of money laundering and organized crime. The Jon Oliver piece is primarily talking about local and state police conducting, often random, traffic stops and seizing anything they find (because DRUGS!!!). They were not tipped by banks.

Cognac McCarthy
Oct 5, 2008

It's a man's game, but boys will play


Capt. Sticl posted:

Perhaps I should bring a little levity to the thread. Enjoy a screed on "evolution" sort of:

Beached whales are only a problem because whale populations have been devastated by human activity. Also because when they die they loving smell and need to be blown up just so people can use the beach.

Mister Bates posted:

I've said it before, but practically all of the right wing's rhetoric about government (and also about 'producers' and 'parasites', 'job creators' and 'welfare queens') used to be things socialists or communists would say. They've changed the meaning, obviously, but the words and the general thrust of right-wing populist arguments borrow really heavily from the communist and socialist movements. Being mistrustful of the big bad government man used to be a typical lefty trait a hundred years ago.
There's a really great Jacobin article about just this that everyone should read. The long and short of it is that when the US center-left (and far left, in some cases) defends the state in broad rather than very specific terms against libertarian critiques, it tacitly buys into and legitimizes libertarian talking points and modes of argumentation. It's pretty compelling and should make a lot of people on the left think critically about how we argue for social change.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Lowtax needs a new spine and my posts are poopy

archangelwar posted:

But you are still correct, this is fundamentally different than bank reporting anomalous transactions. When they do so, they are not contacting a police officer standing outside who will then seize your funds; they are alerting oversight and compliance committees, and/or the FBI. These organizations are not targeting people withdrawing cash to purchase cars or drugs, but for evidence of money laundering and organized crime. The Jon Oliver piece is primarily talking about local and state police conducting, often random, traffic stops and seizing anything they find (because DRUGS!!!). They were not tipped by banks.

That's what I was about to argue, but then.

archangelwar
Oct 28, 2004

Teaching Moments


VitalSigns posted:

That's what I was about to argue, but then.

Both of these asset seizures were after investigation by federal authorities, one of which involves peripheral involvement with a guilty party. Of course the laws should be structured such that innocent parties are immediately returned their assets, but this is not a case of some dude withdrawing 5k once to purchase a car or drugs, as has been argued. Additionally, you need to be wary of these editorial articles. In the first one, the store owner was returned all of his assets around the time that the article was published, yet that same article and story has been reposted multiple times over the past couple of years with the claim that his assets were still being kept by the IRS.

JVNO
Dec 2, 2006

Programmable Polyphonic Synthesis


1stGear posted:

Although it does make me kind of curious as to the current thinking on how and why life moved from water to land.

Easy exploitation of completely untapped resources? You have to imagine being the first plants on land was extremely advantageous (nothing can eat you, and nothing else is exploiting the nutrient rich soil!), and likewise being a herbivore who evolved to eat these plants gave you access to a completely safe, predator free environment with endless food.

It's really not that big of a stretch or a hard puzzle to figure out- evolution is all about favouring creatures and plants that exploit new niches.

Mc Do Well
Aug 1, 2008

by FactsAreUseless


1stGear posted:

Although it does make me kind of curious as to the current thinking on how and why life moved from water to land.

Tidal areas create a selection pressure to move away from being purely aquatic.

Strom Cuzewon
Jul 1, 2010



McDowell posted:

Tidal areas create a selection pressure to move away from being purely aquatic.

Also lungfish and similar mud dwelling creatures with squelchy farty lungs.

ErIog
Jul 11, 2001



archangelwar posted:

Both of these asset seizures were after investigation by federal authorities, one of which involves peripheral involvement with a guilty party. Of course the laws should be structured such that innocent parties are immediately returned their assets, but this is not a case of some dude withdrawing 5k once to purchase a car or drugs, as has been argued. Additionally, you need to be wary of these editorial articles. In the first one, the store owner was returned all of his assets around the time that the article was published, yet that same article and story has been reposted multiple times over the past couple of years with the claim that his assets were still being kept by the IRS.

Go do your homework. Asset forfeiture is a huge problem. I thought the skepticism about it would go away after the deport on John Oliver, but apparently not.

Go look up the John Oliver segment on YouTube. Go watch the PBS Frontline special on it. Read this article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/institu...d-with-a-crime/

Then come back and tell us we're all over reacting.

Bloodnose
Jul 30, 2006


Trust me, compañeros. I'm very good. I got Trump elected.


Fun Shoe

I don't think he's suggesting that asset forfeiture isn't a problem. I understand and agree with his idea that there is little risk of bank reporting being used by local police departments in asset forfeiture revenue schemes because of the way the reporting goes down.

Federal agencies wouldn't benefit from exploiting asset forfeiture the way local departments do.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011



ErIog posted:

Go do your homework. Asset forfeiture is a huge problem. I thought the skepticism about it would go away after the deport on John Oliver, but apparently not.

Go look up the John Oliver segment on YouTube. Go watch the PBS Frontline special on it. Read this article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/institu...d-with-a-crime/

Then come back and tell us we're all over reacting.

You're really bad at reading.

He was saying that these cases federal agencies are required and federal agencies really super aren't motivated by 'let's get a few thousand from this rando' like local ones are. The bank reports to federal agencies not local ones, federal agencies do not work the same way local ones do.

ErIog
Jul 11, 2001



Tatum Girlparts posted:

You're really bad at reading.

Listen, I can't let facts get in the way of my poo poo-posting. That's a slippery slope. I might have to pay attention and do some homework.

ErIog fucked around with this message at Mar 27, 2015 around 00:33

Doctor Butts
May 21, 2002

AFC NORTH PITY FUCK


So my brother posted this poo poo on Facebook from noted war criminal Allen West:

Is Obama obstructing Christian president of Nigeria to help the Muslim opponent?

Basically Allen West is crazy and thinks this has to do with Obama trying to help Muslims when the reality is that the state department blocks sales of arms to countries with poor human rights records.

He tries to link this by trying to make the point that saying special forces = selling arms. But Allen West is crazy.

Countblanc
Apr 20, 2005

Help a hero out!

Nevvy Z posted:

I'm listening to this thread happen in real life right next to me.




I work for a State agency with quasi judicial oversight of medicaid and welfare benefits.

Speaking as a sociology/social work student, this poo poo always pisses me off the most. How do you decide to become a public servant and harbor such blatantly hostile views to said public? I hear it all the time from my peers, people who are paying tens of thousands of dollars to study to become social workers, but who still think welfare has gone too far or whatever other bullshit claims they make up.

RagnarokAngel
Oct 5, 2006

D:


The irony is exposure to welfare recipients can increases these biases. If you go into it already assuming most if not all welfare recipients are moochers your confirmation bias will only see behavior that reinforces that belief, making it even stronger.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

VideoTapir
Oct 18, 2005

He'll tire eventually.


RagnarokAngel posted:

The irony is exposure to welfare recipients can increases these biases. If you go into it already assuming most if not all welfare recipients are moochers your confirmation bias will only see behavior that reinforces that belief, making it even stronger.

This happened to my dad in Vocational Rehabilitation.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«2483 »