• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hoarding Money Cures Diseases

Hallelujah! You are beginning to see a crack of light in your liberal thinking.

There is nothing wrong with greed. America was founded on greed, and when kept in check is a good thing. When allowed to run rampant, you end up with the conditions that existed in the 1890's, where coal miners were not thought of as human beings, but as pieces of equipment which could be run into the ground, and even killed, before replacing them with more pieces of equipment. I like capitalism, but I have seen the results of too much capitalism, and they are not pretty.
 
It's not nitpicking. By definition nothing has been eradicated. We've just been lucky it wasn't worse.

You are nonetheless scaremongering. Any "accident" is a question of it's probability of happening and when it will be made. (If you've been watching too many Hollywood movies, that probability is heightened for effect.)

One failure in a highly-dangerous lab does not make for a history of faulty labs across the country. It is a danger for those living around it, and were I such a person, I'd certainly get the hell out quickly.

Besides, if our history of debris contamination is nothing to be proud of in America, it's likely because we did not have the "containment" laws until fairly recently.

We need labs to discover and neutralize molecule-based diseases of all sorts, that happen naturally and un-naturally. Where might you suggest we put them, on the moon? And if we put them anywhere on American soil they need highly sophisticated policing devices. That expertise cannot be found in the US? Of course it can.

I cannot imagine that, like France, the US is not wealthy enough to put such labs sufficiently far enough away from civilian populations, and without adequate containment measures. Yes, we take a risk in having such labs. But we take an even greater risk not having them. It is purely a defensive measure that such labs as you note exist.

Moreover, the treaties in place to assure that preventive measures exist and there is no generalized leakage (since we cannot stop one at our borders) are multiple and worth noting.

Here are just three references:
*List of environmental international agreements (Hazardous Substances)
*International Treaties and Initiatives: Chemicals and Waste: Multinational Environmental Initiatives
*ADR (treaty)
________________________
 
ALL EVIL LARGE AND SMALL

There is nothing wrong with greed. America was founded on greed,

Crass ignorance, that thought.

Greed = intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

If that is the sort of world you want to live in, then I suggest you populate a distant planet. Whilst intelligent people here on earth try to "level the playing field".

And that does not mean, as Socialism goes, that we should all be earning the same or similar incomes. Neither should the absurd differences in taxation generate unfair Wealth. There is ample room for a market-economy to apply Capitalism towards investing in new products/services thus creating new markets - and Wealth. But fairly.

Where we got it monstrously wrong (at present) in the US was thinking that the inducement to do such required a massive reduction on upper-income taxation (introduced by Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s) as presently exists in the United States. - that actually started with (of all people) LBJ in the 1960s. See here:
Taxation - Historical Marginal Rates,  Highest & Lowest Wage Earners.jpg

The direct result of America's Income Disparity (the worst of any developed nation as shown by the Gini Index) is a fundamental reason for the great number of families incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold. That insufficiently-taxed income could have served better purposes.

The situation in America will become more acute every day we waste not bringing Income Fairness to America. Which means what?

It means that we change our taxation system that allows individuals to amass excessively huge amounts of Wealth, and to pass it down dynastically within the family. Exactly the same kind of system that we had, once upon a time in America, and against which we fought a revolution.

We need Wealth as the prize for innovation, we don't need billionaires who haven't the foggiest notion of what to do with their Exaggerated Wealth* except to place it on Wall Street - to the great pleasure of those making millions managing it.

We have, as a nation, placed money at the heart of our existence. Money, money, money - the God of Mammon and the primary source of all evil large and small ...

*Zuckerberg just gifted 6% of his wealth to a good cause that should not need it - had it been taxed and spent intelligently by a government. Or governments, because Facebook is being investigated for avoiding taxes illegally (as much as $5B) in both Europe and the US.
______________________
 
Last edited:
That's what eradication means when it comes to diseases. The disease is not known to exist on any living host. It exists only in vials..

That's what they thought about polio in Africa until it broke out again in 2013. Both the Gates Foundation and the Rotary Club spent millions there to bring it back under control.

Such re-outbreaks are rare, but we are only beginning to understand the life-cycle of such debilitating diseases ...
________________
 
That's what they thought about polio in Africa until it broke out again in 2013. Both the Gates Foundation and the Rotary Club spent millions there to bring it back under control.

Such re-outbreaks are rare, but we are only beginning to understand the life-cycle of such debilitating diseases ...
________________

No one has ever thought polio was eradicated.
 
You are nonetheless scaremongering. Any "accident" is a question of it's probability of happening and when it will be made. (If you've been watching too many Hollywood movies, that probability is heightened for effect.)

It's not scaremongering. When just a couple years go NIH found vials of smallpox sitting in a closet when it wasn't suppose to be there.

One failure in a highly-dangerous lab does not make for a history of faulty labs across the country. It is a danger for those living around it, and were I such a person, I'd certainly get the hell out quickly.

It's not just one lab. CDC in Atlanta have also "misplaced" or lost some deadly viruses. We aren't talking about it happening once in a while.. 1,100 times between 2008 and 2012.


We need labs to discover and neutralize molecule-based diseases of all sorts, that happen naturally and un-naturally. Where might you suggest we put them, on the moon? And if we put them anywhere on American soil they need highly sophisticated policing devices. That expertise cannot be found in the US? Of course it can.

I cannot imagine that, like France, the US is not wealthy enough to put such labs sufficiently far enough away from civilian populations, and without adequate containment measures. Yes, we take a risk in having such labs. But we take an even greater risk not having them. It is purely a defensive measure that such labs as you note exist.

I never said we shouldn't have it.. I am saying as long as those labs sit in major cities there is always a risk of an outbreak with how poorly things are taken care of. 1,100 cases in 4 years (almost 1 a day) of misplaced or lost viruses. Labs should absolutely be in the middle of nowhere. They shouldn't be in major cities like DC, Atlanta, Columbus, Houston, Chicago and so on. Well CDC did create a hyper virus by putting H5N1 with another bird flu to see how quickly it would spread (that's not really defensive).
 
Mark Zuckerberg is going to give $3 billion toward eliminating all diseases. Bill Gates has also donated billions, not to mention many of the other one percenters. If they weren't one percenters they wouldn't be able to do this and if there were tax or other laws in place not allowing one percenters to be one percenters in the first place then they wouldn't be able to do it either.

WHOOOSH!....right over my head...
 
Mark Zuckerberg is going to give $3 billion toward eliminating all diseases. Bill Gates has also donated billions, not to mention many of the other one percenters. If they weren't one percenters they wouldn't be able to do this and if there were tax or other laws in place not allowing one percenters to be one percenters in the first place then they wouldn't be able to do it either.

It is a good point. Without the ability to amass large sums of cash these heavy lift projects wouldn't be possible by anyone other than the federal government.

It is no small point that, while Gates and Buffet and Zuckerberg push for liberal tax policies, when dealing with their OWN money they would much rather decide where their money goes through philanthropy than just hand it to the Federal government to spend.
 
It is a good point. Without the ability to amass large sums of cash these heavy lift projects wouldn't be possible by anyone other than the federal government.

It is no small point that, while Gates and Buffet and Zuckerberg push for liberal tax policies, when dealing with their OWN money they would much rather decide where their money goes through philanthropy than just hand it to the Federal government to spend.

It's a common liberal fault to be hypocrites, particularly when it comes to the Hollywood elite.
 
It's a common liberal fault to be hypocrites, particularly when it comes to the Hollywood elite.

Well, they see their progressivism as being selfless, you see, pay no attention that they don't actually practice what they preach. If they get two millionaires to pay more taxes then they have earned the right to pay less taxes.
 
Well, they see their progressivism as being selfless, you see, pay no attention that they don't actually practice what they preach. If they get two millionaires to pay more taxes then they have earned the right to pay less taxes.

Yep. It's kind of funny how liberals defend the Hollywood elite because the elite like to mouth off about rich CEO's becoming rich at the expense of the little guy while at the very same time the Hollywood elite demand excessive monies for their work, causing movie prices to escalate more than they should - at the expense of the little guy. It's OK for the Hollywood elite to hoard their money but a CEO, that's blasphemy. There is no such thing as income inequality with the Hollywood elite, only business CEO's.
 
Last edited:
Examples....from this forum?

I'm not going to spend all afternoon searching for things. I have better things to do with my time. Many liberals here blast business CEO's but never blast and even defend the Hollywood elite. They don't ever seem to be examples of rich excesses, of hoarding their money, or being guilty of income inequality. Of course I am sure you will be able to blast Clint Eastwood.
 
You keep repeating this, it seems you see it so often....which causes you to repeat it.....yet you refuse to show any example.

Weird.

It comes up from time to time. As I said, I am not spending all afternoon searching through thousands of posts to prove something. Maybe you can help clear it up. Are you also against the Hollywood elite for hoarding their money, not paying their fair share of taxes, and making themselves rich at the expense of the little guy? Aren't they really no different than a CEO, one percenter?
 
.... in your dreams. :)

If we didn't have the income and wealth disparity that we have currently, the 1%-ers wouldn't be seen in the negative light in which they are currently seen .... but there'd still be 1%-ers.

The top 1% controls almost half of the wealth in this country and 20% of annual income, while the top 5% controls nearly 3/4 of the wealth and 35% of the income.

well since incomes begets wealth, tell me what the bottom 20% as a whole have done to increase their share of the income?

have they stopped dropping out of school? no....

have they stopped having kids at ungodly young ages? no....

have they gone to vocational schools to increase their skill level so that they can increase their earnings? nope

so what has the bottom 20% been doing to try and increase their earnings, other than voting democratic and holding out their hand asking "may i have some more now"

sometimes personal responsibility has to be a part of this all....and i have yet to see that from the liberal or leftist point of view
 
It comes up from time to time. As I said, I am not spending all afternoon searching through thousands of posts to prove something. Maybe you can help clear it up. Are you also against the Hollywood elite for hoarding their money, not paying their fair share of taxes, and making themselves rich at the expense of the little guy? Aren't they really no different than a CEO, one percenter?
If you want a blanket statement, I think the wealthy, no matter what business they reaped their wealth from, have enjoyed since 1981 huge advantages in keeping and creating their wealth. When it comes to the entertainment industry, I think the worst have been the recording industry where bands/artists have historically been ripped-off by the corps. I have no idea why you continuously cite movie execs and ticket prices, you have a choice to by a ticket for a first run, or wait a year and rent it for a buck at redbox, the choice is yours, no one is forcing you.
 
well since incomes begets wealth, tell me what the bottom 20% as a whole have done to increase their share of the income?

have they stopped dropping out of school? no....
Um, drop-outs have declined significantly.

have they stopped having kids at ungodly young ages? no....
Um, teen pregnancy has declined dramatically, especially for blacks and hispanics.

have they gone to vocational schools to increase their skill level so that they can increase their earnings? nope
Most employees are over-educated for their position.

so what has the bottom 20% been doing to try and increase their earnings, other than voting democratic and holding out their hand asking "may i have some more now"

sometimes personal responsibility has to be a part of this all....and i have yet to see that from the liberal or leftist point of view
Yer obviously blind to the indicators you picked, so what else is new.
 
Last edited:
Every year, over 1.2 million students drop out of high school in the United States alone. That’s a student every 26 seconds – or 7,000 a day.

About 25% of high school freshmen fail to graduate from high school on time.

The U.S., which had some of the highest graduation rates of any developed country, now ranks 22nd out of 27 developed countries.
The dropout rate has fallen 3% from 1990 to 2010 (12.1% to 7.4%).

The percentage of graduating Latino students has significantly increased. In 2010, 71.4% received their diploma vs. 61.4% in 2006. However, Asian-American and white students are still far more likely to graduate than Latino & African-American students.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-high-school-dropout-rates

1.2 million a year....really good numbers there :3oops:

and hispanic kids graduate at an astounding 74% rate....and they wonder why they have poverty issues?

i dont care where we were 40-50 years ago....back then you could get a decent job without a high school diploma....there were factories still working, and they needed bodies to work the machines

those factories arent here today for the most part....and yet, you all still think that if the numbers are better, that we are fine

well we arent fine, and we wont be....until we get 98% of the kids graduating or higher

you want more income equality....you have to have families that require their kids complete the basics of education

until then, you are just spitting into the wind
 
If you want a blanket statement, I think the wealthy, no matter what business they reaped their wealth from, have enjoyed since 1981 huge advantages in keeping and creating their wealth. When it comes to the entertainment industry, I think the worst have been the recording industry where bands/artists have historically been ripped-off by the corps. I have no idea why you continuously cite movie execs and ticket prices, you have a choice to by a ticket for a first run, or wait a year and rent it for a buck at redbox, the choice is yours, no one is forcing you.

How is that different than a person who has a choice of working for company X or company Y or not working at all? The left tried to claim that it was a good thing that Obamacare has allowed people to quit their jobs and not work at all because they had the freedom to do so because I guess they didn't really need to work after all except for having health insurance. People can choose to quit Walmart where they make $10 per hour and the CEO's get massively wealthy off of their labor and go to work for some mom and pop that pays $10 per hour where the business owners do not get wealthy.
 
How is that different than a person who has a choice of working for company X or company Y or not working at all?
You wanted a statement from me about how I felt about the wealthy elite of Hollywood, you ignore this, you wont acknowledge the statement....or the counter to yer obsession to "movie ticket prices".....and so you go off on an Obamacare tangent. This is just a typical bs action by you, you have no ability to stay focused on the subject YOU BROUGHT UP. If you can't bring yerself to stick to yer own argument, the current argument, then don't bother to respond and dont expect responses from me. This is not yer personal playground where you get to bounce from one shiny thing to the next. For the love of gawd, try for once to stick with an argument to the end or accept your error.
 
You wanted a statement from me about how I felt about the wealthy elite of Hollywood, you ignore this, you wont acknowledge the statement....or the counter to yer obsession to "movie ticket prices".....and so you go off on an Obamacare tangent. This is just a typical bs action by you, you have no ability to stay focused on the subject YOU BROUGHT UP. If you can't bring yerself to stick to yer own argument, the current argument, then don't bother to respond and dont expect responses from me. This is not yer personal playground where you get to bounce from one shiny thing to the next. For the love of gawd, try for once to stick with an argument to the end or accept your error.

I was responding to YOUR post which said, "I have no idea why you continuously cite movie execs and ticket prices, you have a choice to by a ticket for a first run, or wait a year and rent it for a buck at redbox, the choice is yours, no one is forcing you".

I responded, "How is that different than a person who has a choice of working for company X or company Y or not working at all? People can choose to quit Walmart where they make $10 per hour and the CEO's get massively wealthy off of their labor and go to work for some mom and pop that pays $10 per hour where the business owners do not get wealthy".
 
Every year, over 1.2 million students drop out of high school in the United States alone. That’s a student every 26 seconds – or 7,000 a day.

About 25% of high school freshmen fail to graduate from high school on time.

The U.S., which had some of the highest graduation rates of any developed country, now ranks 22nd out of 27 developed countries.
The dropout rate has fallen 3% from 1990 to 2010 (12.1% to 7.4%).

The percentage of graduating Latino students has significantly increased. In 2010, 71.4% received their diploma vs. 61.4% in 2006. However, Asian-American and white students are still far more likely to graduate than Latino & African-American students.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-high-school-dropout-rates

1.2 million a year....really good numbers there :3oops:

and hispanic kids graduate at an astounding 74% rate....and they wonder why they have poverty issues?

i dont care where we were 40-50 years ago....back then you could get a decent job without a high school diploma....there were factories still working, and they needed bodies to work the machines

those factories arent here today for the most part....and yet, you all still think that if the numbers are better, that we are fine

well we arent fine, and we wont be....until we get 98% of the kids graduating or higher

you want more income equality....you have to have families that require their kids complete the basics of education

until then, you are just spitting into the wind
You just went and confirmed my point about HS grads, they continue to improve:

HS%20Graduation%20Rates%2019402008.JPG


and the level of college grads is also improving, but wages have NOT tracked with this increasing level of education.....education is not the issue, depressed wages due to declines in labor market leverage (unions, stagnate MW) is the main culprit.
 
Back
Top Bottom