Economy thread:11-13-07 Half Million dollar home neighborhoods fighting inner-city problems like gangs, drugs and theft

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: sirjonk

You're right in that I was arguing that it is their moral duty to protect civilians. For example, if you, a civilian, are walking down the street and pass an infant facedown and drowning in a 2 inch puddle of water, you have no legal duty to save it. You cannot be sued (unless you live in an extremely rare jurisdiction that has good samaritan laws). You can sit there and watch it drown or ignore it completely. However, I would argue it's your moral duty as a human to save that infant. You can't get sued, but try showing your face in public after it gets out that you didn't save a baby drowning in a puddle. Just because you can't be sued doesn't mean a moral duty has no teeth.

Why do you think such a person has a moral duty to save the infant?

Could it be argued that the end result of saving the unwanted and uncared for infant will be increased costs (for care and legal proceedings) for the unwanted infant? Does our society really need more unwanted children who live in orphanage and foster homes? What if the infant has already suffered brain damage at this point and will end up being severely retarded? The infant doesn't have an abstract human personality yet--there really isn't a person in there. So, would allowing the infant to drown be similar to a late term abortion or infanticide?

That having been said, perhaps against my better judgment, I'd save the infant. I'm just asking the question because I'm not sure that it's necessarily as black-and-white as you make it sound.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
I am marking the start of this latest Recession as now so that Republicans can't say it didn't start under Bush like they tried to pin the last one on Bill Clinton:

10-17-2007 Home starts at 14 year low, CPI up on energy

U.S. home construction starts fell in September to their lowest level in more than 14 years, while consumer prices rose at the sharpest rate in four months, separate reports showed on Wednesday.

Weak housing data boosted U.S. government bond prices and the U.S. dollar slipped versus euro and yen as some investors saw the data as a sign of continuing headwinds for the economy.

So far in 2007, consumer prices have risen at a 3.6 percent annual rate, well ahead of the 2.5 percent increase registered for all of 2006 and likely enough to keep Federal Reserve policy-makers concerned about the potential for a flare-up in inflation.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
You guys have been trying to come up with a number of what is considered "rich" fro quite some time.

Apparently the IRS has determined that $5,000 is rich:

10-19-2007 IRS to require poker tournaments to report winnings over $5,000

WASHINGTON - They're not bluffing: Tax collectors will start requiring poker tournaments to report the winners' take.

Casinos and other sponsors of poker tournaments will be required to report winnings of more than $5,000 to the Internal Revenue Service beginning March 4, 2008, the tax agency said Friday.

Sponsors who meet the reporting requirement won't need to withhold federal income tax at the end of a tournament, it said.

If a sponsor does not report winnings, it is responsible for withholding the taxes and sending the money to the IRS, normally 25 percent of the amount subject to reporting.

The IRS said poker tournament winners must provide their taxpayer identification number, usually a Social Security number, to the sponsor. If the winner fails to do so, the sponsor must withhold federal income at a rate of 28 percent.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
A lot of this just isn't possible according to the resident Republicans in here.

Clearly the Journalists and everyone are lying:

10-19-2007Living paycheck to paycheck harder for more Americans

The calculus of living paycheck to paycheck in America is getting harder. What used to last four days might last half that long now. Pay the gas bill, but skip breakfast. Eat less for lunch so the kids can have a healthy dinner.

Across the nation, Americans are increasingly unable to stretch their dollars to the next payday as they juggle higher rent, food and energy bills. It's starting to affect middle-income working families as well as the poor, and has reached the point of affecting day-to-day calculations of merchants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 7-Eleven Inc. and Family Dollar Stores Inc.

While economists debate whether the country is headed for a recession, some say the financial stress is already the worst since the last downturn at the start of this decade.

Many consumers, particularly those making less than $30,000 a year, are cutting spending on nutritious food like milk and vegetables, and analysts fear they're further skimping on basic medical care and other critical services.

Coupon-clipping just isn't enough.

"The reality of hunger is right here," said the Rev. Melony Samuels, director of The BedStuy Campaign against Hunger, a church-affiliated food pantry in Brooklyn.

The pantry scrambled to feed 5,000 new families over the past 12 months, up almost 70 percent from 3,000 the year before.

"I am shocked to see such numbers," Samuels said, "and I am really concerned that this is just the beginning of what we are going to see."

In the past three months, Samuels has seen more clients in higher-paying jobs ? the $35,000 range ? line up for food.

Food costs have increased 4.5 percent over the past 12 months, partly because of higher fuel costs. Egg prices were 44 percent higher, while milk was up 21.3 percent over the past 12 months to nearly $4 a gallon, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And while overall wage growth is a solid 4.1 percent over the past 12 months, economists say the increases are mostly for the top earners.

The average family of four is spending anywhere from $7 to $10 extra a week ? $40 more a month ? on groceries alone, compared to a year ago, according to retail consultant Burt Flickinger III.

He said the last time he saw this was 2000-2001, when the dot-com bubble burst and the economy went into a recession after massive layoffs.
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,664
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
A lot of this just isn't possible according to the resident Republicans in here.

Clearly the Journalists and everyone are lying

Dave,

According to forums rules, you are to comment on the article. Your two comments are about this forum.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
A lot of this just isn't possible according to the resident Republicans in here.

Clearly the Journalists and everyone are lying

Dave,

According to forums rules, you are to comment on the article. Your two comments are about this forum.

and you post is as well.

I am the OP, it has 109 replies and over 1200 views.

No one is forcing you to read or reply.
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,664
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No one is forcing you to read or reply.

Indeed, but you posted this link about paycheck-to-paycheck living without offering any analysis or comment. I am merely reminding you of your forum duty to do such. Because obviously you posted the article for a reason, how about sharing that reason with all of us?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No one is forcing you to read or reply.

Indeed, but you posted this link about paycheck-to-paycheck living without offering any analysis or comment. I am merely reminding you of your forum duty to do such. Because obviously you posted the article for a reason, how about sharing that reason with all of us?

Because I am one of the many Americans living check to check.

You new here or something? :confused:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No one is forcing you to read or reply.

Indeed, but you posted this link about paycheck-to-paycheck living without offering any analysis or comment. I am merely reminding you of your forum duty to do such. Because obviously you posted the article for a reason, how about sharing that reason with all of us?

Because I am one of the many Americans living check to check.

You new here or something? :confused:
In that case why don't you what people did back in the old days and go find an extra job?

'Waaahhh. I'm living paycheck to paycheck. I can barely afford my internet connection to troll ATP&N.'
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No one is forcing you to read or reply.

Indeed, but you posted this link about paycheck-to-paycheck living without offering any analysis or comment. I am merely reminding you of your forum duty to do such. Because obviously you posted the article for a reason, how about sharing that reason with all of us?

Because I am one of the many Americans living check to check.

You new here or something? :confused:

In that case why don't you what people did back in the old days and go find an extra job?

'Waaahhh. I'm living paycheck to paycheck. I can barely afford my internet connection to troll ATP&N.'

Interesting. I was working 12 to 16 hrs a day as it was. When should I sleep?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
A lot of this just isn't possible according to the resident Republicans in here.

Clearly the Journalists and everyone are lying:

10-19-2007Living paycheck to paycheck harder for more Americans
In the past three months, Samuels has seen more clients in higher-paying jobs ? the $35,000 range ? line up for food.

Are you smart enough to think you're solving this problem by blindly attacking Republicans and supporting Dems? Well if you think government ownership of everything is a solution to everything I can see why....

I hope you have padding for when reality hits you, and another hobby for when you no longer shill for your current heroes.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
A lot of this just isn't possible according to the resident Republicans in here.

Clearly the Journalists and everyone are lying:

10-19-2007Living paycheck to paycheck harder for more Americans
In the past three months, Samuels has seen more clients in higher-paying jobs ? the $35,000 range ? line up for food.

Are you smart enough to think you're solving this problem by blindly attacking Republicans and supporting Dems? Well if you think government ownership of everything is a solution to everything I can see why....

I hope you have padding for when reality hits you, and another hobby for when you no longer shill for your current heroes.

Of course not but Republicans had seven years to fix something and all they did was break everything.

Me a shill, hahahahaha you're funny.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No one is forcing you to read or reply.

Indeed, but you posted this link about paycheck-to-paycheck living without offering any analysis or comment. I am merely reminding you of your forum duty to do such. Because obviously you posted the article for a reason, how about sharing that reason with all of us?

Get used to it. It's Dave modus operandi
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No one is forcing you to read or reply.

Indeed, but you posted this link about paycheck-to-paycheck living without offering any analysis or comment. I am merely reminding you of your forum duty to do such. Because obviously you posted the article for a reason, how about sharing that reason with all of us?

Get used to it. It's Dave modus operandi

As yours for spin and dodge with latest Republican talking points from your masters.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No one is forcing you to read or reply.

Indeed, but you posted this link about paycheck-to-paycheck living without offering any analysis or comment. I am merely reminding you of your forum duty to do such. Because obviously you posted the article for a reason, how about sharing that reason with all of us?

Get used to it. It's Dave modus operandi

As yours for spin and dodge with latest Republican talking points from your masters.

Is that so Dave? Can you name one talking point you have challenged me on that I havent responded, usually with supporting links?

And how about you, troll? I can find easily 5 or 6 different things I personally have challenged you on, not to mentioned others in here, requesting you provide ANYTHING to support your outrageous trolling lies. What do we get out of it? NOTHING. SILENCE. All you do is post shit and never back it up. Not to mention your cute little trick of lying by omission by not including your entire articles. I can think of 3 or 4 time recently you've pulled that trick out of your ass.

So quit with your spin and dodge shit. Your posts are nothing more than one line venom...unsupported.