Owsley County, Kentucky - Poorest county in the US

why must there be rancor amongst men of goodwill

I believe you! Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

we believe you too ... and a cow jumped over the moon.

Hanoi COG, you might as well be making a claim that you "taught university-level" Nuclear Physics. By bragging that you were a university professor, you were the one who started this debate!

Without providing actual proof, your above quote is nothing but words. No one really cares if you taught "university-level economics." In your 20,000 Eccie posts the only thing you have proven thus far is how to start a Dipshit Poll and almost have it backfire on you!

To settle the dispute all you have to do is provide the actual proof that you were a "university-level economics" Professor. In simpler terms, prove the Captain wrong, or STFU! Originally Posted by bigtex

I'd say it DID backfire on him. Remember, there are far more of THEM than there are of US. And as long as that's the measuring stick, we'll continue to have Democrats elected nationwide and narcissistic dipshits circle jerking in the Political Forum spanking their monkey over who's the biggest LIBRETARD.

I like the trend. Makes me feel very patriotic.

You?

On a related note, I've long wondered why we don't build nuclear power plants in some of the poverty-stricken valleys of Appalachia. Safer, new-generation plants could add a great deal of additional baseload capacity as well as replace the 1970s-era stuff still in operation, such as Indian Point just north of New York City. Imagine what would happen in the event of even a minor incident there. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The Devil's Advocate compels me to point out that it is STILL the case that more people have died riding in Teddy Kennedy's car than as a result of US civilian nuclear power facilities.

If you're viewing this strictly through the lens of evaluating its potential efficacy as a "jobs program," then I'm largely in agreement with you.

But I see this as something that would be an unambiguously good thing, irrespective of whether it offers substantial benefits to the population of the subject area. I view that as merely a bonus. And perhaps it should additionally be noted that property tax revenue would be like a "gift that keeps on giving" to that impoverished area. Consider the case of Somervell County, Texas, where the Comanche Peak plant was built 20-25 years ago. Prior to that, Somervell was one of the poorer counties in Texas. But as greatly increased tax revenue flowed to the county, very poor quality county roads quickly became much better, and local residents claimed that the school system quickly improved.

It seems to me that it makes sense to locate nuclear power plants as far from densely populated areas as possible. Eastern Kentucky is about 300 miles from Washington, D.C., and about 500-600 miles from the population centers of New York City and Philadelphia. Although that sounds like a long distance over which to transmit power, it's not all that much further than the distances between the wind farms of West Texas and the state's biggest load centers. An electrical engineer friend tells me this would be easily doable with ultra-high voltage DC transmission lines.

The only nuclear power plant in California, as far as I know, is in the coastal region just north of Santa Barbara, and it's an early-generation plant. Why was such a plant built in a high-risk earthquake zone, and not that far from major population centers? Wouldn't it make far better sense to place safer, new generation plants in the lightly populated desert areas of Arizona and Nevada, or even eastern California? So much of what we've done over the past four decades was very poorly thought out.

Although this discussion is getting a little far afield from the subject of this thread, it's simply my belief that we need to start getting serious about multi-faceted, long-term solutions to energy security -- not just oil & gas, but electrical as well. And if it otherwise makes sense for some of the resultant economic activity to take place in areas that have been plagued by dwindling employment opportunities, I see that as a nice bonus. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Fukushima Daiichi plant, in Japan is enough evidence for me...

That would be a fantasy fulfilled for you, wouldn't it, BJerk?

While we're at it, why don't we just get Treasury (abetted by the Fed, as usual) to print up a few trillion more dollars and send shitloads of cash to every black household in the U.S.?

I mean, paying reparations to anyone who even might be a descendent of slaves would be the right thing to do.

Right? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I could be persuaded to go along with it if you think it is a good idea...

Once again, you miss the point ENTIRELY.

My purpose was to point out the limits to welfare and government action. At some point, you simply create dependence in people who could otherwise work, even if it is for low wages.

Typically, that type of argument is met with accusations of racism by progressives. They typically assert that arguments about the futility of many welfare programs as being "code words" that cover for racist intent.

Which is why I chose this article about Owsley County, which is over 98% white.

But, apparently, that wasn't enough to dissuade you from bring up the same old tired arguments. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You make valid points if the sampling amount is statistically valid - 5000 inbred hillbillies isn't a large enough sample to extrapolate your premise with any certainty.

There is no race of people who "want" to be poor. There are usually issues well beyond the color of the skin. Not necessarily the same issues each time. You have this example, you have urban ghettos. You have the Navajo rez. To say the current system is broken is easy (and often true), but to just say "THOSE people just don't want to work" is a very serious oversimplification.

Thanks for posting it, EX.

You make valid points if the sampling amount is statistically valid - 5000 inbred hillbillies isn't a large enough sample to extrapolate your premise with any certainty. Originally Posted by BJerk

What the fuck does THAT mean?

A progressive tax system is one where the richer you are, the more tax you pay. That's the FairTax. Poor people don't pay a dime in federal taxes under the FairTax, not even Medicare or Social Security.

And I encourage anyone and everyone to read the thread Cap'n NotBright linked to. Decide for yourselves.

He has no clue what he's talking about. As usual. If you want to find out more, simply go to FairTax.org. Learn something.

A progressive tax system is one where the richer you are, the more tax you pay. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That statement wouldn't earn you a very good grade in anyone's class, ex-professor. Google the term and learn something for a change before thoughtlessly popping off again. A progressive tax system is one wherein the effective tax rate (expressed as a percentage of income) rises as one's income rises through the distribution, or at least most of the distribution. That's irrespective of whether one pays more tax simply in terms of absolute dollars. As should be intuitively obvious to everyone else participating in this forum's discussions, the FairTax is a very regressive tax system in all but the lowest portion of the income distribution. (Because of a provision referred to as the "prebate.")

Do you simply have an unlimited appetite for embarrassing yourself? It's quite amazing to see an ignoramus who never even bothered to learn the most elementary concepts taught to new economics students start repeatedly babbling that he taught the subject at the university level -- and while continually exposing his own abject cluelessness and hurling insults of other people's intelligence!

Hold off on the 'intuitively obvious' Cap't, some of us aren't claiming to be professors here. I went to that fairtax website and I can see how its regressive. When somebody throws 'intuitively obvious' at me I usually prepare for the sales pitch of a bridge or swampland.

The first thing that strikes me about fairtax is the loss of work for a large number of IRS employees. These are good and bad people that work in a fucked up system, but I don't see how having less people employed helps. I do not believe retailers that collect the tax will hire more people to do so, in fact, they may see less sales of new product and cut their workforce more.

And how is this to affect a bunch of hillbillies cheating welfare? Employ those IRS people to go to the source and prosecute welfare fraud relentlessly. That's a good first step; it's fair, it keeps people employed and provides incentive to get employed.

That statement wouldn't earn you a very good grade in anyone's class, ex-professor. Google the term and learn something for a change before thoughtlessly popping off again. A progressive tax system is one wherein the effective tax rate (expressed as a percentage of income) rises as one's income rises through the distribution, or at least most of the distribution. That's irrespective of whether one pays more tax simply in terms of absolute dollars. As should be intuitively obvious to everyone else participating in this forum's discussions, the FairTax is a very regressive tax system in all but the lowest portion of the income distribution. (Because of a provision referred to as the "prebate.&quot

Do you simply have an unlimited appetite for embarrassing yourself? It's quite amazing to see an ignoramus who never even bothered to learn the most elementary concepts taught to new economics students start repeatedly babbling that he taught the subject at the university level -- and while continually exposing his own abject cluelessness and hurling insults of other people's intelligence! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You nailed it Capitan!

What the fuck does THAT mean? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Five thousand people in a country of 300 million isn't statistically significant hence you cannot draw conclusions with confidence. Find a larger group!

Five thousand people in a country of 300 million isn't statistically significant hence you cannot draw conclusions with confidence. Find a larger group! Originally Posted by BJerk

making that statement shows you know nothing of statistical sampling but there has to be a randomness to the selection process