What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

top of the heap to third world status in one generation

P

packerfan79

Active member
Veteran
growlegal said:
Hahahaha
Just weather to the EXTREME

Tell your grand kids you left them with a lifetime of debt and voting against science is a family value :moon:
Click to expand...

Sorry, dude I don't do extremism, I'll leave that to you. Nothing is cut and dry, and science is never settled. That goes against the scientific method. I don't vote against science, whatever the fuck that means. I've never seen science on the ballot.

I have however seen a once great state like California, turn into a cesspool of homelessness, blight, poverty, pollution, crime, and corruption. If that's the science you want you are welcome to have it. California welcomes you, just bring your checkbook, this shithole ain't cheap.
 
Microbeman

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
packerfan79 said:
It seems alot of the hysteria is over blown. This is a once in a century storm. I lived in Tucson and we got snow on Easter, the day before was 100+. Strange shit happens, I would say its highly debatable if planning for freak occurrences like this is feasible.

It's tragic people lost there lives. My brother lives outside of ft. Worth, he said the power was out for 3 days, but they had heat. Worst part is working in it, without clothes for it, according to him.
Click to expand...

Seems to me Texas had a warning in 2018. I had to wait for ice storms to subside to pass through.
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
Once in a century storms is a term that energy companies dearly love.
I think we are having a lot more of the so called once in a century storms than we used to see.
Would imagine the insurance industry would have interesting input to offer.
 
P

packerfan79

Active member
Veteran
Gry said:
Once in a century storms is a term that energy companies dearly love.
I think we are having a lot more of the so called once in a century storms than we used to see.
Would imagine the insurance industry would have interesting input to offer.
Click to expand...

The insurance companies will claim it's an act of God, eliminating there responsibility. I have seen it happen with a freak hail storm, with some flood damage.

The energy companies are licking there chops, now they can raise rates to fund protections against something most people will never see happen in there life.

Corporations are the worst, with the exception of the government. Where incompetence is rewarded.

Considering the track record of California, I would imagine Texas record is light years ahead.

I would never live in Texas, not enough public Iands for an outdoor enthusiasts like myself.
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
packerfan79 said:
I love my traeger, but I am a bbq fanatic.

I don't see much difference in the risk to kids from gas or electric. ultimately, I teach my kids, so they don't need extra safety everything.

We always have dinner as a family, except Friday movie night. Those nights we eat in the living room. Family time is of a paramount importance.

I got a request for pulled pork for my daughter's birthday, and pork spare ribs on my youngest sons birthday.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the making of some wonderful memories.
Hope you get to make many of them.
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
packerfan79 said:
The insurance companies will claim it's an act of God, eliminating there responsibility. I have seen it happen with a freak hail storm, with some flood damage.

The energy companies are licking there chops, now they can raise rates to fund protections against something most people will never see happen in there life.

Corporations are the worst, with the exception of the government. Where incompetence is rewarded.

Considering the track record of California, I would imagine Texas record is light years ahead.

I would never live in Texas, not enough public Iands for an outdoor enthusiasts like myself.
Click to expand...
Had grandparents in each state, they were each neat places to spend time as a kid. Texas runs the schools off property taxes.
Family paid for school taxes there for three generations and never had a child in their school system.
As a kid, South Texas was a neat place to be able to spend time, and by the time I was a teenager, it was a convenient source for kilos.
 
G

Guest

Sent by an ex-pat friend in France.

-----------------------------------------------------

""As economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have reported, the country has moved from a progressive tax system to one where the overall tax rate, as a percentage of income, is lowest for the very wealthiest of us. That’s bad enough. When we view the policy shift through the lens of taxation of wealth, as the IPS briefing paper does, it’s far uglier.""

February 17, 2021
Radical tax transformation in the U.S. over the past 65 years, particularly since 1980.

Inequality.org

America hasn’t stopped taxing its wealthiest citizens entirely.

But that’s where we’re headed.

According to a new IPS briefing paper, the richest .01 percent of Americans, about 33,000 lucky souls today, now pay just one-sixth of what they used to pay in tax, when measured as a percentage of their total wealth.

The top .01 percent in America is a phenomenally wealthy group. Even during America’s most egalitarian periods, the average member of the top .01 percent held over 200 times the wealth of the average American. Today, the wealth of the average top .01 percenter is nearly 1,000 times that of the average American and is closing in on one billion dollars.

Hence, it doesn’t matter to the top .01 percent what type of tax they pay, be it income, sales, property or anything else. Taxes don’t influence their spending decisions or such mundane things as how many hours they work, when they retire, or whether their spouse must work. For a group whose poorest members are worth more than $100 million, the only impact any tax has is its impact on their wealth–and tax payments decrease the rate at which their wealth grows.

America’s radical tax transformation occurred over the last 65 years. The process started slowly between 1953 and 1980. It took 26 years for tax payments by the top .01 percent to fall by one-third from their 1953 peak. But starting in 1980, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have followed a clear pattern: When Republicans have held power, tax cuts for those at the top have been slashed; When Democrats have held power, they’ve enacted a few slight tax increases, but mostly have maintained the status quo.

The result has been a systematic shift in America’s tax policy, with taxes on wealth moving inexorably lower and taxes on work moving inexorably higher. As economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have reported, the country has moved from a progressive tax system to one where the overall tax rate, as a percentage of income, is lowest for the very wealthiest of us. That’s bad enough. When we view the policy shift through the lens of taxation of wealth, as the IPS briefing paper does, it’s far uglier.

Effectively, taxes on the ultra-wealthy have nearly been eliminated. The members of the top 0.1 percent pay only one-sixth of what they paid a half century ago in taxes. What used to be paid every two months is now paid every twelve.

And there’s no sign this trajectory is changing.

This article is from Inequality.org.
 
P

packerfan79

Active member
Veteran
moose eater said:
Sent by an ex-pat friend in France.

-----------------------------------------------------

""As economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have reported, the country has moved from a progressive tax system to one where the overall tax rate, as a percentage of income, is lowest for the very wealthiest of us. That’s bad enough. When we view the policy shift through the lens of taxation of wealth, as the IPS briefing paper does, it’s far uglier.""

February 17, 2021
Radical tax transformation in the U.S. over the past 65 years, particularly since 1980.

Inequality.org

America hasn’t stopped taxing its wealthiest citizens entirely.

But that’s where we’re headed.

According to a new IPS briefing paper, the richest .01 percent of Americans, about 33,000 lucky souls today, now pay just one-sixth of what they used to pay in tax, when measured as a percentage of their total wealth.

The top .01 percent in America is a phenomenally wealthy group. Even during America’s most egalitarian periods, the average member of the top .01 percent held over 200 times the wealth of the average American. Today, the wealth of the average top .01 percenter is nearly 1,000 times that of the average American and is closing in on one billion dollars.

Hence, it doesn’t matter to the top .01 percent what type of tax they pay, be it income, sales, property or anything else. Taxes don’t influence their spending decisions or such mundane things as how many hours they work, when they retire, or whether their spouse must work. For a group whose poorest members are worth more than $100 million, the only impact any tax has is its impact on their wealth–and tax payments decrease the rate at which their wealth grows.

America’s radical tax transformation occurred over the last 65 years. The process started slowly between 1953 and 1980. It took 26 years for tax payments by the top .01 percent to fall by one-third from their 1953 peak. But starting in 1980, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have followed a clear pattern: When Republicans have held power, tax cuts for those at the top have been slashed; When Democrats have held power, they’ve enacted a few slight tax increases, but mostly have maintained the status quo.

The result has been a systematic shift in America’s tax policy, with taxes on wealth moving inexorably lower and taxes on work moving inexorably higher. As economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have reported, the country has moved from a progressive tax system to one where the overall tax rate, as a percentage of income, is lowest for the very wealthiest of us. That’s bad enough. When we view the policy shift through the lens of taxation of wealth, as the IPS briefing paper does, it’s far uglier.

Effectively, taxes on the ultra-wealthy have nearly been eliminated. The members of the top 0.1 percent pay only one-sixth of what they paid a half century ago in taxes. What used to be paid every two months is now paid every twelve.

And there’s no sign this trajectory is changing.

This article is from Inequality.org.
Click to expand...

Why are we worried about the Frenchman opinion , I will commend Macron for speaking out about the disgusting cancel culture, woke cult forming in America. They should probably focus on there own problems.

This is a disingenuous article. Taxes are based on income, not wealth. Taxing wealth is incredibly destructive. A great way to give greedy politicians access to your retirement, savings and home equity. As much as it might suck, the rich right the laws, we just have to live by them.

I could probably be open to a tax on the wealthy, I just don't trust the government not to use it against the middle class, and retires. As much money as the wealthy have is dwarfed by the collective wealth of the middle class. Again, the rich write the laws.

The complaints should be about the loopholes. Biden is probably going to reinstate the SALT, deductions. This only helps the rich.
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
packerfan79 said:
The insurance companies will claim it's an act of God, eliminating there responsibility. I have seen it happen with a freak hail storm, with some flood damage.

The energy companies are licking there chops, now they can raise rates to fund protections against something most people will never see happen in there life.

Corporations are the worst, with the exception of the government. Where incompetence is rewarded.

Considering the track record of California, I would imagine Texas record is light years ahead.

I would never live in Texas, not enough public Iands for an outdoor enthusiasts like myself.
Click to expand...
Had one set of grandparents in TX and one in CA, I got to spend time in each as a kid, and cared a great deal for each state. Was fortunate that my grandparents in TX lived right on the coast, and the water was where I spent most of my time. Used to run trot lines and pull in redfish which I would sell to a packing house for gas money to be able to spend the rest of the day on the water. Had neighbours who actually bought a jeep out of the back of a comic book for fifty bucks, and then paid a couple of hundred for the shipping. Watched them build the thing over a summer, and then talk this guy who had an airboat into taking it over to Padre Island, where it sat there with the key in it for anyone to use who would take over the gas. Was neat as could be. Lasted until the next hurricane. I recall it as a neat place with good people. Do not have property there any more, am left with lot of neat memories of the time spent there.
 
Im'One

Im'One

Active member
I would prefer a state where both political parties have a voice and can check the other. CA is all democratic all the time, Texas is Republican. Oklahoma's government is totally Republican and corrupt as hell. When they were all democratic they were corrupt as hell. One party rule doesn't work
Taxing wealth is not a disaster.
Taxing income is not a disaster
Taxing the rich is not a disaster
The USA has done all these things and many countries are doing it now.
Basing all your countries revenue on the backs of the poor via regressive taxes is a disaster. Income levels in the USA have plunged since the seventies and we are seeing the economic results of that.
Anyone who studies history and economic theories can quickly verify that this started with Nixon ending the war in poverty then exacerbated when raygin became president and keynesian economic theories were abandoned for the ridiculous nonsense GHW Bush called Voodoo's economics!
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
Im'One said:
I would prefer a state where both political parties have a voice and can check the other. CA is all democratic all the time, Texas is Republican. Oklahoma's government is totally Republican and corrupt as hell. When they were all democratic they were corrupt as hell. One party rule doesn't work
Taxing wealth is not a disaster.
Taxing income is not a disaster
Taxing the rich is not a disaster
The USA has done all these things and many countries are doing it now.
Basing all your countries revenue on the backs of the poor via regressive taxes is a disaster. Income levels in the USA have plunged since the seventies and we are seeing the economic results of that.
Anyone who studies history and economic theories can quickly verify that this started with Nixon ending the war in poverty then exacerbated when raygin became president and keynesian economic theories were abandoned for the ridiculous nonsense GHW Bush called Voodoo's economics!
Click to expand...
This is no ball park, but I saw this one go soaring over the wall.
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
An Antidote to the Age of Anxiety: Alan Watts on Happiness and How to Live with Presence

Wisdom on overcoming the greatest human frustration from the pioneer of Eastern philosophy in the West.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/06/alan-watts-wisdom-of-insecurity-1/


picture.php
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
Cuba has a lung cancer vaccine. Many US patients can’t get it without breaking the law.


Trump’s recent tightening of travel restrictions to Cuba has made it harder for Americans to reach the island. Some US cancer patients say they have no other options.

George Keays is not a rogue kind of a man. A Colorado realtor and grandfather of three, the 65-year-old practices yoga and meditates regularly. But the US government, he says, has left him no choice but to break the law. If, that is, he intends to stay alive.
Keays has stage 4 lung cancer. As his treatment options appeared to be dwindling this fall, he went to Cuba for a vaccine treatment despite a federal lawthat prohibits Americans from going there for health care. Now, with President Donald Trump’s recent tightening of the regulations governing travel to Cuba, it has become much harder to travel there. But Keays needs more of the vaccine. This spring, he’s going back.
Related:Trump’s new restrictions on travel to Cuba are being panned by American travelers
“I am not looking to break the law. But I am not looking to die, either,” Keays declared. “People with stage 4 cancer, like me, should be allowed to try whatever they want to stay alive, whatever they think will work. The last thing they need is the government on your neck over some archaic regulation saying just take what is available here and die.”
Keays has abundant company. In the two years since relations between the US and Cuba were normalized under President Barack Obama, a growing number of lung cancer patients traveled to Cuba for a vaccine called Cimavax, and more recently, a newer vaccine, Vaxira. These patients are an elusive group. None of those who went apparently provided their real reason for going to Cuba when applying for a visa, nor did many of them declare to US customs officials that they were bringing multiple vials of the vaccine into the US on their return. Few even tell their doctors they are taking the injections for fear they will refuse to treat them further.
“I am not looking to break the law. But I am not looking to die, either.” — George Keays, stage 4 lung cancer patient
​
“I can only see it as compromising him because now he has a patient on a drug that is not approved by the FDA,” said a patient in Florida named Larry, who asked that his last name not be used. Larry has gone to Cuba twice for the vaccine — both times without telling his doctor because, “He might be afraid he would be sued, or he might stop treating me.”Just how effective are the vaccines they’re smuggling into the country in their small refrigerated lunch boxes is unclear. Neither of the vaccines prevents cancer; rather, they are a kind of immunotherapy that prompts the body’s immune system to battle the disease in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. In January, the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, launched a clinical trial of Cimavax with Cuba’s Center of Molecular Immunology, which developed the vaccine. It is the first such joint venture between the two countries since the Cuban revolution.
Roswell is now doing research to determine if they want to do a similar trial with Vaxira. It will take years for either of the drugs to receive any final approval.
For many patients, including some who were not accepted into the Roswell trial, travel to Cuba has become a much-talked-about option. So popular has the practice become that patients on internet support groups routinely trade anecdotes and travel tips about their Cuban journeys. Until, that is, Trump threw a wrench into the process.
The change in regulations governing travel to Cuba that went into effect in November altered one of the most popular categories of travel to Cuba initiated by Obama, known as “people-to-people,” which allowed travelers to go to Cuba on their own. That’s how many Americans have been quietly going to the island for medical care, even though doing so is prohibited under the US embargo against Cuba. Now, people in this category must travel with an organization and have a guide present.
Americans can continue to travel on their own to Cuba for the purpose of professional research or to provide “support for the Cuban people.” But given that travelers in those categories are required to maintain a full schedule of activities, it’s likely that neither will be a good option for cancer patients.
At the La Pradera International Health Center in Havana, where most American cancer patients go for treatment, Dr. Anabely Estévez García felt the impact of the new regulations in her inbox as soon as Trump announced back in June that the changes were in the works. American patients began canceling their plans in a flood.We can not go at this time,” a Texas man emailed García on the day of Trump’s announcement. “President Trump changed everything today. It is not possible to go directly from here. Keep us in touch.”
A patient in New York on the brink of travel wrote that she had decided “to wait a little longer. Now, it will be harder to get there as our President has made it impossible to travel alone.”
Nancy Kelly, a 71-year-old California patient who traveled to Cuba for Vaxira this past spring, emailed that she was worried about the new regulations, too. How would she replenish her vaccine supply when it ran out in October? She decided not to go herself but sent a friend to Cuba to pick up more for her.
“It was important to get back to Cuba before Trump’s restrictions went into effect,” sighed Kelly. “With the new restrictions, I would need to go through a third country. The problem is that the vaccine has to be refrigerated, so, if you were on a long flight, that was going to be a problem.”
The tighter regulations are only part of what is keeping patients from going. Another factor is the State Department advisory issued this past September warning American citizens not to go to Cuba due to alleged assaults against American Embassy staff. Investigators have yet to determine exactly who or what was behind the assaults, and the staff in Havana has been significantly reduced. For some travelers, it’s all just too much.
Since relations between the US and Cuba were normalized at the end of 2014, the number of patients going to the plush La Pradera clinic at the city’s edge had risen steadily. In 2016, 50 Americans came for treatment. Last year, the number of inquiries about the vaccines tripled over the previous year while 47 patients had already made the journey to Cuba in the first eight months of 2017, according to García. Now, the numbers have plateaued.“There are many patients who are suitable for treatment but who do not come for political reasons,” said García,seated in a treatment room at La Pradera this fall. “As a physician, I feel very bad because I believe our vaccine is a good treatment that can extend these people’s lives.”
Because their own doctors are often not involved, patients wanting to go to Cuba must make arrangements themselves. First, they get in touch with La Pradera either through email or one of a number of medical tourism agencies in the US or in Canada. They then send their medical records for evaluation by La Pradera physicians who determine if they are eligible for one of the vaccines, and if so, which one.
Under the Obama-era regulations, accepted patients usually informed the airlines issuing their visas that they were going for educational purposes or under the general people-to-people category. Questions were rarely asked and most flew directly to Cuba.
Patients stay at the La Pradera clinic, a resortlike facility with a swimming pool and fountains, for four days, during which they receive their first of several doses of the vaccine. Each dose consists of four injections — two to the arms and two to the buttocks. One dose costs about $860, so the total cost of the trip, including airfare, lodging and a supply of the medication to take back home, can run well over $10,000.
At P&G Travel in Ontario, long one of the more popular agencies among Americans for booking travel to Cuba, the numbers are both up and down. Since Trump announced in June that he would be reversing aspects of the Obama administration’s overtures to Cuba, the number of Americans booking travel directly from the US to Cuba through the agency has plummeted by 60 percent. Instead, they’re now going through third countries just like they used to do before Obama’s normalization of relations. Since June, the number of bookings by Americans going to the island from countries other than the US has increased by 30 percent, according to Tathiana Gonzalez, the agency’s Cuba travel specialist.
“You’re either going to go or not go,” said Gonzalez. “When you’re given a month to live, you go. It’s kind of basic.”
What they are going for is part of the new wave of immunotherapy treatment that works by triggering a patient’s immune system to fight cancer. Cimavax, for example, stimulates the immune system to make antibodies that bind to a protein called epidermal growth factor, or EGF, that cancer cells need to grow, effectively starving the cancer. Vaxira is somewhat different; it triggers an immune response against a molecule specific to several cancers and is intended to ultimately block the cancer’s growth.Only patients who have already received chemotherapy are eligible for the vaccines.
While Cuba is often recognized for its pristine beaches and throbbing rumbas, it is also home to a burgeoning biotechnology industry. Prompted by the country’s high rate of lung cancer, researchers began work on a lung cancer vaccine back in the mid-1990s. In the most recent of several Cuban trials, patients receiving Cimavax lived about three to five months longer than those who did not. Available to Cubans for free since 2011, it has been given to more than 5,000 patients worldwide.
https://gpinvestigations.pri.org/cu...-get-it-without-breaking-the-law-31bf43a7b8a1
 
buzzmobile

buzzmobile

Well-known member
Veteran
Gry said:
View Image
Click to expand...
I cannot help but think that quote could be attributed to a certain Ringo.:dance013:

"It is generally forgotten that our guarantees of religious freedom were designed to protect precisely those who were not members of established denominations, but rather such (then) screwball and subversive individuals as Quakers, Shakers, Levellers, and Anabaptists. There is little question that those who use cannabis or other psychedelics with religious intent are now members of a persecuted religion which appears to the rest of society as a grave menace to "mental health," as distinct from the old-fashioned "immortal soul." But it's the same old story."

Alan Watts
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top