Wang Chung Wu Tang Clan Thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,386
32,367
1,743
oklahoma city
#21
Here's something I'm curious about. At what income level would the ubi become a wash? In other words, the point where people start seeing more than 12K coming out of their paychecks and thus actually losing money on the deal. And will that be set in stone or fluid so that future sessions of Congress could run on "moving" that line up or down?
Being that it is mostly funded by a VAT, it isn't income level as much as spending level, but the current best guess is $120K or so.
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,001
374
713
#22
He is clearly intelligent and level headed. At this point i think kinda like Gabbard, should be an attractive VP choice, but don't think he can get enough traction to get the nomination.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,386
32,367
1,743
oklahoma city
#23
Think the media is only anti-conservative? Even worse, think the media is just reporting?

Look at the Yang media blackout. One or two random oops could be overlooked. But, this is obviously a concerted effort by the more liberal side of the media to pick the dem primary winner for us.

https://vocal.media/theSwamp/a-visual-history-of-the-yang-media-blackout
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,379
6,885
1,743
Yukon, OK
#24

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,478
3,880
743
49
#25
Think the media is only anti-conservative? Even worse, think the media is just reporting?

Look at the Yang media blackout. One or two random oops could be overlooked. But, this is obviously a concerted effort by the more liberal side of the media to pick the dem primary winner for us.

https://vocal.media/theSwamp/a-visual-history-of-the-yang-media-blackout
Wow, everyone knew that in the last few elections with Obama and Hillary.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,386
32,367
1,743
oklahoma city
#26
Wow, everyone knew that in the last few elections with Obama and Hillary.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
What do you mean? Who did the media (not the DNC, the media) rig the primaries against with Obama and Hillary? Please point me to similar data to what I posted above so I can be wowed, too.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,379
6,885
1,743
Yukon, OK
#28
This is not the same thing.
Rigging the primary is rigging the primary... It's not like the media would rig it in favor of someone the DNC didn't approve of. I also don't see the DNC speaking out about it, so in a sense they're enabling it which isn't any better than doing the work themselves.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,386
32,367
1,743
oklahoma city
#29
Rigging the primary is rigging the primary... It's not like the media would rig it in favor of someone the DNC didn't approve of. I also don't see the DNC speaking out about it, so in a sense they're enabling it which isn't any better than doing the work themselves.
I don't see it that way. I don't think that Bernie Madoff means that there is no need to point out new white-collar crime discovered on Wall Street and I don't think the fact that the DNC used superdelegates etc to help their preferred candidate means that you shouldn't point out a new tactic used by the media. What is your point? Because something similar happened before I shouldn't post now? Why have a political board at all then as all this crap is just cycles of the same stuff?
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,379
6,885
1,743
Yukon, OK
#30
I don't see it that way. I don't think that Bernie Madoff means that there is no need to point out new white-collar crime discovered on Wall Street and I don't think the fact that the DNC used superdelegates etc to help their preferred candidate means that you shouldn't point out a new tactic used by the media. What is your point? Because something similar happened before I shouldn't post now? Why have a political board at all then as all this crap is just cycles of the same stuff?
Not at all. To see someone point out potential rigging in a Democratic election just is no surprise to me. For a party that's so "for the people" they just have an ironic was of showing it. I'd be incredibly upset if I were a democrat to constantly see stuff like this. This instance, the 2016 rigging, the entire concept of a "super delegate". It ALL just screams "we know better than you do" for a party that's supposedly for the people... Like I said, get irate and raise hell about it. Hopefully some change can be initiated about it, I'm just not surprised to see it.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,386
32,367
1,743
oklahoma city
#31
Not at all. To see someone point out potential rigging in a Democratic election just is no surprise to me. For a party that's so "for the people" they just have an ironic was of showing it. I'd be incredibly upset if I were a democrat to constantly see stuff like this. This instance, the 2016 rigging, the entire concept of a "super delegate". It ALL just screams "we know better than you do" for a party that's supposedly for the people... Like I said, get irate and raise hell about it. Hopefully some change can be initiated about it, I'm just not surprised to see it.
Right, but @Binman4OSU makes a post about nearly every mass shoot and nobody posts, "Gee, a mass shooting, what, are you surprised about it???? I'm not surprised to see it."

And, if you think this is a democratic party only issue, well, I think Gary Johnson would like to tell you a story or two about what he faced running as a republican. And, when he gets done, Ron Paul will completely finish you off.

I'm not a democrat. I'm an an American. I want what I believe is best for the country, regardless of party.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

― George Washington
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,379
6,885
1,743
Yukon, OK
#32
Right, but @Binman4OSU makes a post about nearly every mass shoot and nobody posts, "Gee, a mass shooting, what, are you surprised about it???? I'm not surprised to see it."

And, if you think this is a democratic party only issue, well, I think Gary Johnson would like to tell you a story or two about what he faced running as a republican. And, when he gets done, Ron Paul will completely finish you off.

I'm not a democrat. I'm an an American. I want what I believe is best for the country, regardless of party.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

― George Washington
I voted for Gary this last go around so I'm at least somewhat aware but I still feel fairly comfortable saying that this is a much bigger problem on one side of the aisle than it is the other...
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,066
3,317
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#33
I don't see it that way. I don't think that Bernie Madoff means that there is no need to point out new white-collar crime discovered on Wall Street and I don't think the fact that the DNC used superdelegates etc to help their preferred candidate means that you shouldn't point out a new tactic used by the media. What is your point? Because something similar happened before I shouldn't post now? Why have a political board at all then as all this crap is just cycles of the same stuff?
You may have been out of country at the time but when the dnc emails were released, there were several emails between various news outlets and the dnc on talking points and points to NOT talk about. Additionally, the questions to the cnn debate were also released ahead of time but not to all the candidates. And there was a coordinated effort to negatively talk about Sanders since his quick rising caught them off guard. I think he even won the delegates vote only to be overruled by the dnc. Lastly, it appeared as if Jake Tapper was actually getting paid on the side by the dnc as well as cnn at the same time. The point being, yang, has not earned his dues to be in leadership despite his popularity or what the voters want.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,386
32,367
1,743
oklahoma city
#34
You may have been out of country at the time but when the dnc emails were released, there were several emails between various news outlets and the dnc on talking points and points to NOT talk about. Additionally, the questions to the cnn debate were also released ahead of time but not to all the candidates. And there was a coordinated effort to negatively talk about Sanders since his quick rising caught them off guard. I think he even won the delegates vote only to be overruled by the dnc. Lastly, it appeared as if Jake Tapper was actually getting paid on the side by the dnc as well as cnn at the same time. The point being, yang, has not earned his dues to be in leadership despite his popularity or what the voters want.
I do know all that. But, still is a different thing than systematically trying to pretend a candidate does not exist! And, I do not think it is because Yang has not paid his dues, it is that they do not like his ideas because he is not screaming that billionaires should not exist. he is not anti-capitalism, and he is wanting to take away they power they wield through never ending big government programs. And no, I am not saying he is a small government conservative, but he is a good government person.
Look at this proposal, for example:
Screen Shot 2019-11-19 at 3.59.57 PM.png


The old DC powermongers from each party don't want this. But, I bet most Americans would agree.
 
Last edited:

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,379
6,885
1,743
Yukon, OK
#38

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,386
32,367
1,743
oklahoma city
#39
Researchers Find A Remarkable Ripple Effect When You Give Cash To Poor Families

December 2, 20195:01 AM ET

Nurith Aizenman



Denis Otieno and his daughter plant a cypress sapling purchased with money received from the charity GiveDirectly back in 2017. More recently, the charity teamed up with researchers to study the impact of cash grants on the wider community.


Over the past decade there has been a surge of interest in a novel approach to helping the world's poor: Instead of giving them goods like food or services like job training, just hand out cash — with no strings attached. Now a major new study suggests that people who get the aid aren't the only ones who benefit.


Edward Miguel, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-author of the study, says that until now, research on cash aid has almost exclusively focused on the impact on those receiving the aid. And a wealth of research suggests that when families are given the power to decide how to spend it, they manage the money in ways that improve their overall well-being: Kids get more schooling; the family's nutrition and health improves.


But Miguel says that "as nonprofits and governments are ramping up cash aid, it becomes more and more important to understand the broader economy-wide consequences."


In particular, there has been rising concern about the potential impact on the wider community — the people who are not getting the aid. A lot of them may be barely out of poverty themselves.


"There's a fear that you just have more dollars chasing around the same number of goods, and you could have price inflation," says Miguel. "And that could hurt people who didn't get the cash infusion."


So Miguel and his collaborators teamed up to conduct an experiment with one of the biggest advocates of cash aid. It's a charity called GiveDirectly that, since 2009, has given out more than $140 million to impoverished families in various African countries.




The researchers identified about 65,000 households across an impoverished, rural area of Kenya and then randomly assigned them to various groups: those who got no help from GiveDirectly and a "treatment group" of about 10,500 families who got a one-time cash grant of about $1,000.


"That's a really big income transfer," notes Miguel. "About three-quarters of the income of the [recipient] households for a year on average." It also represented a flood of cash into the wider communities where they lived. "The cash transfers were something like 17% of total local income — local GDP," says Miguel.


Eighteen months on, the researchers found that, as expected, the families who got the money used it to buy lots more food and other essentials.


But that was just the beginning.


"That money goes to local businesses," says Miguel. "They sell more. They generate more revenue. And then eventually that gets passed on into labor earnings for their workers."


The net effect: Every dollar in cash aid increased total economic activity in the area by $2.60.


But were those income gains simply washed out by a corresponding rise in inflation?


"We actually find there's a little bit of price inflation, but it's really small," says Miguel. "It's much less than 1%."


The study — recently released through the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research — also uncovered some evidence for why prices didn't go up: A lot of local businesses reported that before the cash infusion they weren't that busy.


"They may be a shopkeeper that doesn't really have that many customers [because] it's a poor area. They may be someone working at a grain mill that only has one or two customers an hour."


So when they suddenly get more customers, they don't have to take extra steps like hiring more workers that would drive up their costs — and their prices. In economic parlance, there was enough "slack" in the local economy to absorb the injection of cash.


Eeshani Kandpal is an economist with the World Bank who has done research of her own on cash transfers — including a study that found that a cash aid program in the Philippines did drive up the cost of certain perishable food items.


But Kandpal says the lens she and her collaborators applied was narrow — focusing on a limited set of food items in an area where local businesses were particularly isolated. This meant they were likely to face extra difficulties shipping in additional supplies to meet stepped-up demand.


By contrast, the new study has a far broader scope, says Kandpal — encompassing not just a much larger number of participants but a vast range of goods and businesses whose pricing practices the researchers meticulously monitored.


"It's a super credible, interesting study," says Kandpal. "And very carefully done."


Her main caveat about the results concerns the timing.


"I'd be curious to see if they persist in the longer run," she says. "Eighteen months is certainly not short. But it's not terribly long either."


Indeed, some studies of one-time cash grants have suggested that over time those who did not get the aid ultimately catch up to those who did — reaching similar levels of income and other measures of well-being.


But Michael Faye, co-founder and president of GiveDirectly, says even if it turns out that a one-time cash infusion provides only a temporary boost, "I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing." After all, he points out, during the period people are getting the boost, their lives are substantially better. And that has become all the more significant "when we now know that the people not receiving cash may also be benefiting indirectly."


The finding also adds a new twist to an argument that GiveDirectly has been making about how donors should judge their non-cash aid programs. The charity has long maintained that donors should ensure that any non-cash program provides more benefits than simply giving recipients an equivalent amount of cash.


This study, Faye says, suggests donors should also gauge how much spillover benefit any non-cash program brings to the broader community.


Miguel agrees. In the competition between traditional aid programs and cash aid, he says, "cash just became a lot more effective."
 
Feb 7, 2007
17,270
24,239
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#40
Republicans have been dealing with a biased media for years. Just like the poem, some of us have been telling Democrats "you may not care about Republicans, but some day they'll give unfair coverage to somebody you DO care about".....that day has arrived.

The time to help Yang was 20 years ago. Doesn't mean Yang supporters shouldn't hold the MSM media accountable now, but it's probably too late to change anything for this election cycle.

On a similar note, when conservatives complain about censorship of right leaning voices on social media, the same thing applies. You may not care about right wing speech but some day, people you do support might suffer a similar fate and by then it will be too late.