posted by geeblock....That really doesn’t cover mass shootings and school shootings which is what comes to my mind first.
Eventhough that's less than 5% of murders committed with a gun?
Statistically speaking, your kid is only slightly more likely to die in a school shooting than a school bus accident.
posted by gutEventhough that's less than 5% of murders committed with a gun?
Statistically speaking, your kid is only slightly more likely to die in a school shooting than a school bus accident.
I get it but gangs really never came to my mind when I think of gun violence.. I would maybe say drugs but my post was really saying police shootings specifically and not really about gun violence. I don’t know the percentages of cops killled by gangs but those seem to make more headlines just like when a cop kills a black person as opposed to shooting a white person
posted by geeblockI get it but gangs really never came to my mind when I think of gun violence.. I would maybe say drugs but my post was really saying police shootings specifically and not really about gun violence. I don’t know the percentages of cops killled by gangs but those seem to make more headlines just like when a cop kills a black person as opposed to shooting a white person
Yeah, that's true. Cop kills a black man, it gets national attention. Immigrant kills a cop, it makes national headlines.
Cop guns down a white guy? Can't make a political statement with that one way or the other, so it gets no play on the national news front. Just the local papers.
So, Elizabeth Warren wants to break up big tech companies. I go full circle with this. I start out not wanting government to get involved. Then I think that the political censorship that goes on with places like Facebook, Twitter, etc. shouldn't be allowed to happen either, because history shows us that political censorship always ends up with millions dead. Then I circle back to the fact that if government starts getting their fingers stuck in this that political censorship is apt to happen, anyway.
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1104411930381484033
Elizabeth Warren@ewarren
Big Tech spent almost $50 million on lobbying last year. They know they have a lot to lose if Washington starts putting the interests of consumers first. That’s why I’m proposing to break up Facebook, Amazon, and Google to protect consumers and competition. Are you with me?
posted by CenterBHSFanSo, Elizabeth Warren wants to break up big tech companies. I go full circle with this.
I certainly don't like the privacy issues, much less their efforts to control/filter news. Imagine the outcry if these companies were ultra conservative with their potential to spread their brand of evil influence.
From a free market perspective, there's no real justification to break them up. However, I do believe the FCC and DOJ have gone very, very soft on anti-trust/monopoly. Warren has a pretty good point that the tech giants keep doing deals (competitors, in many cases) that probably should have never been given regulatory approval.
I'm just hoping they can ban those infernal "recaptcha" tests to prove you're human. The VPN doesn't help that, for starters, but then I have to decide to either put up with that on a few sites, or leave cookies on my computer so I can be tracked everywhere.
She is an idiot. Lobbying happens from every part of our economy.
posted by Spock....Lobbying happens from every part of our economy.
Right, because if you don't stupid politicians pass some real dumbass legislation.
I don't know how the percentages break down, but a significant part of lobbying is about educating politicians about how the industry actually works. There's a huge misconception out there that all, or even most, lobbying is greasing politicians to get some corporate welfare in return.
posted by gutRight, because if you don't stupid politicians pass some real dumbass legislation.
I don't know how the percentages break down, but a significant part of lobbying is about educating politicians about how the industry actually works. There's a huge misconception out there that all, or even most, lobbying is greasing politicians to get some corporate welfare in return.
thats its only prupose
posted by Spockthats its only prupose
No, it's not. At smaller companies, it's almost all reactive to educate politicians on the impact of legislation, or opposing lawyer's and other entities trying to get a handout at their expense. Other times smaller companies will support an industry group that pools those collective resources to hire lobbyists to represent that industry. Lawyers are a huge part of it - they're always trying to force companies to track and disclose a bunch of stuff to make it easier for them to find lawsuits. If you ended lobbying, I actually worry how much worse govt would screw things up than they do now.
Again, IMO lobbying is made out to be much more of a boogeyman than it is. Let's say Google could actually buy a few hundred politicians at the state and federal level to get a special exemption not to pay taxes. That's how most people think it works. But in reality Apple, Microsoft and others are going to pay to oppose it, and so it's not even practical for Google to attempt it. I would guess most lobbying is actually centered around ensuring your company is not adversely harmed, or that your competitors don't get an unequal advantage.
Think about the Affordable Care Act or Dodd-Frank. Massive and complicated legislation that would be impossible to craft without industry input. If you don't think that's important, then go ahead and put an end to lobbying. Money wins elections, and for the most part politicians won't waste their time with someone that can't write them a check.
posted by gutNo, it's not. At smaller companies, it's almost all reactive to educate politicians on the impact of legislation, or opposing lawyer's and other entities trying to get a handout at their expense. Other times smaller companies will support an industry group that pools those collective resources to hire lobbyists to represent that industry. Lawyers are a huge part of it - they're always trying to force companies to track and disclose a bunch of stuff to make it easier for them to find lawsuits. If you ended lobbying, I actually worry how much worse govt would screw things up than they do now.
Again, IMO lobbying is made out to be much more of a boogeyman than it is. Let's say Google could actually buy a few hundred politicians at the state and federal level to get a special exemption not to pay taxes. That's how most people think it works. But in reality Apple, Microsoft and others are going to pay to oppose it, and so it's not even practical for Google to attempt it. I would guess most lobbying is actually centered around ensuring your company is not adversely harmed, or that your competitors don't get an unequal advantage.
Think about the Affordable Care Act or Dodd-Frank. Massive and complicated legislation that would be impossible to craft without industry input. If you don't think that's important, then go ahead and put an end to lobbying. Money wins elections, and for the most part politicians won't waste their time with someone that can't write them a check.
LOL..you are either blind or stupid.
posted by SpockLOL..you are either blind or stupid.
The irony
posted by SpockLOL..you are either blind or stupid.
I've actually worked with legal/govt affairs at companies. I know how and why they spend their lobbying money. You coach dodgeball.
So Warren is talking about "fair share" again, but with a subtly devious spin framing it as a % of WEALTH. The rich pay like 3.5% of their wealth in taxes each year, while everyone else pays @ 7% (so that's where she gets her 3% wealth tax on the rich from).
And you know this is going to be popular and catch-on with some people. I find this alarming, because I'm not naive enough to believe if a wealth tax becomes acceptable that a lot of "non-rich" people won't eventually be hit with this.
posted by gutSo Warren is talking about "fair share" again, but with a subtly devious spin framing it as a % of WEALTH. The rich pay like 3.5% of their wealth in taxes each year, while everyone else pays @ 7% (so that's where she gets her 3% wealth tax on the rich from).
And you know this is going to be popular and catch-on with some people. I find this alarming, because I'm not naive enough to believe if a wealth tax becomes acceptable that a lot of "non-rich" people won't eventually be hit with this.
Did you see AOC claim we should tax Corporations at 90% over the weekend and called Capitalism irredeemable? While at expensive ass SXSW? I think she says this shit to see how much backlash she will get.
posted by iclfan2Did you see AOC claim we should tax Corporations at 90% over the weekend and called Capitalism irredeemable? While at expensive ass SXSW? I think she says this shit to see how much backlash she will get.
I saw that and her comments about moderates and FDR were just insane.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/ocasio-cortez-sxsw-moderate-meh-policies.html
As a moderate, I can attest I do not live my life just with a "meh" attitude. That comment is just lazy.
She is not helping herself by constantly making insane and stupid comments.
posted by iclfan2Did you see AOC claim we should tax Corporations at 90% over the weekend and called Capitalism irredeemable? While at expensive ass SXSW? I think she says this shit to see how much backlash she will get.
Well, she was a bartender so it's a good bet that being stupid is not an act....
But saying outrageous things gets all the coverage, from both right & left, these days. Although I still maintain her primary motivation is angling for a cushy job at CNN or MSNBC in a few years.
Still disturbing to see how many people cheer and agree with her stupidity, but it's probably mostly the "I paid a gazillion dollars for a college degree that taught me nothing about economics" crowd.
AOC is a moron.
I saw where she was angry at the fact that “in America, if you don’t work, you starve.” Uhhhh, yeah. That’s kinda how it should work, no?
posted by SportsAndLadyAOC is a moron.
Obviously didn't learn anything from her economics degree, and probably wasn't college material which is why she is so disillusioned that she couldn't get a decent job. Not smart enough for a real job, but she gets elected to Congress. Wow.
She herself is a millenial trope - bunch of free shit, hates capitalism because she [was] losing at it, and OMG! climate change is killing us....
posted by SportsAndLadyAOC is a moron.
I saw where she was angry at the fact that “in America, if you don’t work, you starve.” Uhhhh, yeah. That’s kinda how it should work, no?
How I've seen this teased out amounts to "the robots are coming for our jobs." The worry among some is that there will be, at some point, significantly fewer jobs than people who wish to work them.
But I mean ... if we've only got 12 more years before climate change kills us all, does it really matter?
posted by O-TrapHow I've seen this teased out amounts to "the robots are coming for our jobs." The worry among some is that there will be, at some point, significantly fewer jobs than people who wish to work them.
But I mean ... if we've only got 12 more years before climate change kills us all, does it really matter?
Lol she said we should be glad automation is taking jobs, in the same interview. The original FAQ of the green deal she posted also talked about paying people who didn't want to work. Not to mention the trillion dollar safety net we already spend for people not working. She's a certified dumbass.
I've also been wondering how she got elected with not having a real job for 4 years after college. Seems very odd.
