Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.
Property taken in 1959 is a sunk cost. Move on you aren't getting it back.
I agree, but he's sorta throwing the reparations issue back in their faces. If property taken in 1959 is a sunk cost (and I agree that it is), then property (or labor) taken in the 17th - 19th centuries is definitely a sunk cost.
Retail Sales 1.6%, Exp. 1.0%
Retail Sales ex autos/gas 0.9%, Exp. 0.4%
Strongest US retail sales report since Sept 2017
Initial jobless claims 192K vs 205K est
What do you say about this @bystander?
Should Cubans displaced by the Communists get their stolen property back? How is this any different from art work looted by the Nazis? Is this an acceptable rule - 'Nazis stealing property is very, very bad but Commies stealing property is just sunk cost?"
And what about some type of justice for their murdered relatives?
What about the idea that all Cubans deserve some type of compensation for being forced to live through the biggest failed social experiment in human history? You cant just shrug it off and say "well, that's how democracy works."
That 1Q GDP that came in low at ~ 0.5% now looks like it is going to be revised up. Some economics pundits have suggested it might get a huge bump (to ~2.5%)
The Fed comes out with its new economic forecasts May 1. If a new trade deal is made, which seems possible, the 2nd half of the year looks like 2.5%+.
"Should" is a simple answer, sure. But "how" is the bigger question and "how will you do it without doing other unjust things" is still bigger. At some point, a loss is a loss and only God can bring justice. Doesn't make it right just not sure how to disentangle everything that happened in the past.
Real property records would generally be much easier to track than art provenance yet the Nazi-art is still being returned.
Well, if he's saying move on then that goes 'round the world. Israel: Tell the Palestinians to move on. Atzlan (mythical home of Aztecs including much of the SW US): Tell all immigrants from south of our border to move on. Crimea: Tell Ukraine and the world to move on. Taiwan: Tell China to move on. Falkland Islands (known as Islas Malvinas in Argentina): Tell Argentina to move on.
My family moved on many years ago. I read one time there is a man who had an entire volume of Cuban law with him in Miami and wanted to reinstate it once the Castro's were gone. I suppose it's just a dream. Fidel once said that if anyone wanted their assets back they should pay taxes retroactive to 1959. Clever little despot.
We know he was once hailed as a savior because Bautista was an SOB ("Our SOB"). But his egomania altered the history of the island for the worse and changed the lives of countless innocent Cubans including my Father. He did move on. He made a new and great life for himself and his two sons in the United States.
That comment is a Machiavellian to the winners go the spoils rationalization. Not sure why it needs to be said. Not sure what it proves. But if we wish to lock in the world map today then there are many people who need to move on.
Good Perspective By
We seem to be the only who want to keep flailing our white guilt
White guilt/privilege has it's roots in a horrible reality. I am absolutely repulsed when I read about slavery, the KKK and see pictures of lynchings with smiling white people milling about. It is more shocking to me than ever. I can't relate to it. I can't understand what kind of a mind would treat them that way. The further along in time we go the more sickened I feel about it. And I don't feel black people should get over it. I don't even know what "get over it" would mean. It's part of who they are just like Jews have the same internal identity of the diaspora and the holocaust. Being black or being a Jew means someone is out to get you. They will probably always feel that way.
But for me personally I do not feel any guilt. I'm white but as you know, I'm also half Cuban. Am I privileged? Depends on how you wish to define it. My Dad was broke when he arrived as was my Mom when he met her. That was the start for me. My Dad became a professor and probably never made more than $50K in any given year. He also knew nothing about the business world, wasn't a handyman and I inherited nothing when he passed away. Does that sound like I was privileged? I say no. But I'm not walking around pounding my chest bragging about my bootstraps or being self-made. I just work hard guided by the following two quotes:
"An honest man's pillow is his peace of mind." (John Mellencamp; "Minutes to Memories from the Scarecrow album)
"Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." (Einstein?)
In short, personal responsibility.
So, I don't know what to do with accusations of "white privilege." But I will tell you this; regardless of any philosophical merit in the debate about class differences, I believe the white privilege campaign to be purely political and fully directed towards wealth redistribution. I'm not asking the government to pay for my kids college tuition. I'm not asking the government to take care of me when I get old. I'm only asking the government to honor the deal we made with all the payroll deductions over the last 40 years for SS and Medicare. Damn right it's an entitlement. I'm entitled to the deal. In other words, instead of having Liberal government employees (i.e. politicians) trying to intimidate and shame me for something I had nothing to do with, they should instead send me a medal for my family not being a burden on our society.
If you have documentation showing ownership of property that was stolen and there is a justice system in place that has a chance of restoring to you what was taken, then by all means go through that system.
But how far do you go? How much of your life to give up trying to get back something that you never will realistically?
What if the person who stole the item then sold it many times over and now the current owner needs that item for his livelihood? That person didn't steal the land, business, equipment, etc from you? Why punish that person and not the thief?
I am totally for justice and restitution being made for theft even if that theft occurred a long time ago. But then should we entertain every border grievance since it was taken by force (stolen)?
In the case of illegal immigrants they are currently law breakers and under a justice system that has the capability and the right to remove them. That is a much different conversation.
Certainly you make all the relevant practical common sense points in a situation such as this. I don't think seizing property is the answer. I supposed it can be likened to a reparations type argument. I wonder if the nation-state would want to repatriate their own and in doing so at least give them some sort of compensation? But so much time has passed that those most likely to demand a right of return are dead (My Dad passed away in 2014 at the age of 86). As the offspring of a man who left prior to the overthrow I would not necessarily want to move to Cuba as a condition of compensation ("Show me the money!). My home is here in the states. So in that instance the nation (Cuba) would be giving away assets (Cash? Gold? Gift cards to a casino?) that might not benefit Cuba unless I spent it there. If I moved to Cuba would my "brain" be of some use to them? I'm 60 years old and probably not much of an asset in terms of my human capital. Being such a small island they have limited resources to compensate those who were displaced. If they gave us land, then we'd probably become landlord's. Would they allow us to charge rent to the occupants? Would it be what the market could bear or would there be rent controls? Would I just turn around and sell it back to the government so they could then offer it to the occupants (who probably are poor) on a right of first refusal basis or would they just sell it to the highest bidder and give the occupants special rights (which would impair the value of the land) or just force them out? I don't think that would be in the best interest of the state.
In the end, it seems moving on is the easiest answer. The emotions have, for the most part, been buried. I have some feelings for my Dad's emotions but I'm detached enough to say it no longer is my affair.
1960 electoral map vs. 2016 - some key flips
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Of course, the South was solidly Democratic in the JFK days, and the West Coast mostly GOP since entering the Union, but a few interesting things stand out to me. Upper New England solidly GOP (I guess traditional-Old Yankee-Cabot Lodge, etc ). And Florida and Tennessee bucking the Southern Democratic block and going GOP (Tennessee afraid of a Catholic Pres,???). Beats me on Florida. Florida Crackers plus New York/NJ transplanted retirees--both solidly Democratic.
And hard to believe Rs ever controlled Calif! -- but its true. Back then, Calif was arguably the sweetest place to live on earth.
But now ....
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhh! The poop is flamable!!!!!
I understand this mentality, but there are problems with it. First, there was no "deal." Paying FICA does not per se entitle one to Social Security and Medicare benefits, and not paying FICA does not per se eliminate one's entitlement to Social Security and Medicare. FICA is a tax, not an investment in a retirement plan.
Second, even if we presume that there is a deal, the government gave away the FICA money you contributed as soon as you contributed it, so it has already breached the deal. It can only pretend to honor it if it burns somebody to do it. Somebody is going to get hosed. It'll either be us or the next generation.
Third, since somebody is going to get hosed, I think we should consider who is more deserving to get hosed. The decision to breach the deal was made by previous generations and by the current generation. Basically it's happening because of our collective greed, stupidity, and generally f'ed up priorities. It's on us. I know it sounds harsh, but we deserve to get hosed, not them. They had nothing to do with it.
A friend who is on Medicare told me that even after paying into Medicare your whole working life you still pay something like $130 a month .
I had no idea.
I think I'm most curious about Oklahoma. It's solid red except the bottom right corner is sliced off into blue. I wonder what or how that happened.
Oklahoma was won by incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon (R–California), running with United States Ambassador to the United NationsHenry Cabot Lodge, Jr., with 59.02% of the popular vote, against SenatorJohn F. Kennedy (D–Massachusetts), running with Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, with 40.98% of the popular vote. Nixon received eight of Oklahoma's nine electoral votes; the ninth was cast by a faithless elector to Harry F. Byrd of Virginia.
Harry Byrd was running with Barry Goldwater as a Southern Democrat party representative. I guess they weren't on the Ok ballot getting zero votes yet received one electoral college vote. Huh.
Even worse Deez. Things like Social Security are paid by debt. That means the government is stealing from the next generation to buy votes for the current generation. It is really an awful deal.
I will add one more thing. The most just thing that the government could do is spend the money in the government pensions to pay Social Security before it goes away. Their pension money is partly taken from taxes. When Social Security falls apart the last payments out should wipe out the pension for all government workers.
That is another thing to file into the "never going to happen" folder, but it would be the most just thing they could do.
That can happen when you have faithless electors. The map doesn't show it, but there were 7 of them in 2016 including 2 from Texas (one for Kasich and another for Ron Paul). Strangely, three from Washington State voted for Colin Powell.
It can also happen with Nebraska and Maine, which cast some of their electoral votes according to congressional district. Trump lost Maine, but he picked up one of their electoral votes by winning one of their congressional districts.
I'm not sure why that would be just. It would just divert blame away from where it is due. Federal employees didn't conspire to make Social Security a bad program. It's a bad program because Congress made it so with the full blessing and endorsement of the American electorate in every election since 1932. Of course, the people had choices all along the way. There were candidates who opposed creating Social Security in the first place, candidates who were ok with the program but opposed some of the amendments that made it worse, and candidates who wanted to reform it in various ways over the years. The people rejected all of them, because we (the collective American electorate) were greedy and/or stupid. It real is that simple. We are culpable, and nobody else is. We f'd it up and have consciously decided to keep f'ing it up even worse going all the way back to 1932.
Federal employees had no more to do with it than anyone else. In fact, since many federal employees live in Washington, D.C., which has no voting representatives in Congress, they, if anything, had a little less to do with it than everyone else.
Social Security is Bernie Madoff's ultimate wet dream.
Most Republicans, including even the tame Eisenhower Admin folks, urged Nixon to challenge the results. And history reflects he had a good case to be made. But Nixon refused, "for the good of the country."
I guess I'm of the opinion that my SS/Medicare deductions to be used to fund a monthly payment when I retire was a deal. As for how the government racked up $20 Trillion in debt, I'd say I wasn't necessarily for that. I didn't know which politician would force a balanced budget amendment through. I supposed none of them want that. They also like to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats like that apparently as they attacked the Tea Party for their efforts in that regard.
I'm not sure what I'm hearing here. Are you saying the government should cancel SS, tell all of us who are on the cusp of getting our money back that we are doing this for your children so too bad?
The Trump Administration has decided not to renew sanctions waivers to eight countries importing oil from Iran. This will apply even further economic pressure on the regime in Tehran.
US cancels Iran oil waivers in bid to choke off Tehran’s exports