Slashdot Mirror
Prediction Markets and the 2008 Electoral Map
Electionwatch submitted a predicted electoral map of the 2008 US Presidential election, based on the bets made by the intrade prediction markets. I'm always interested in these markets and how accurate they end up being. This one calls it for Obama, but then again you probably could guess that by just watching 10 minutes of any TV "News" channel.
He can walk on water and make the dead rise.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
I visit http://www.electoral-vote.com/ every day.
So, rather than appear foolish afterward, I renounce seeming clever now.
Should this map be on the Diebold site?
So socialized medicine, which has been proven to work far better than privatized medicine in the entire rest of the developed world, somehow equates to 100% of Americans losing their property rights?
If socialism is so evil, I'm sure you'd like to do away with socialized armed forces, police, fire departments, roads, sewers, electric companies and all the other evil socialist practices America currently has?
Where is Obama against privacy? Where is he against personal, as opposed to corporate property rights? You are simply scare mongering, not presenting a rational position.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
On the one side, you have people who believe that social safety nets bring down the whole system--because they are a burden to everyone (even those who are able to do without), and they allow people to be lazy.
On the other side, you have people who believe that social safety nets bring up the whole system--because they limit the formation of a highly disenfranchised class (who then turn to crime, etc.), protect everyone (even those who have, so far, been lucky enough to not need them), and they allow people to take "risks" (like getting an education), which often leads to progress.
Both viewpoints have some merit. On the balance, I think that a well-run social program can lift society more than the distributed burden it engenders (e.g. I think libraries do more good in educating than the cost we must communally bear to fund them). I do, however, agree that people need to take responsibility for their actions (e.g. irresponsible borrowing of money).
This alone is reason enough for me to vote against him. No matter if the alternative is a water cooler.
Think about what "lower taxes" basically means. Lower taxes means less money in governmental pockets. Thus less governmental spending (or increasing the national debt, either way you're fu..ed). Less fed spending means less money for public schools, less money for roads, less money for wellfare, less...
Wait, you don't care about wellfare you say? Doesn't affect you? It does.
Allow me to tell you something about my country, in Europe. We pay taxes that would make your head spin. All in all, when my buck is spent, only about 30 cents thereof go to some sort of good or service, the rest is siphoned away in taxes, directly or indirectly. Wage tax, healthcare tax, VAT... pretty much the only thing not taxed is taxes. And you pay extra tax on alcohole, fuel, housing, you name it.
In other words, my country has quite a bit of cash to spend. And they do. Wellfare checks are about a thousand bucks a month. You can easily live on that. If you have family, you get more. And your rent is paid as well.
Why does that affect me, when I have to work so that moocher can sit on his lazy ass and get fat? Because people have something to lose. People who don't have anything to lose don't care if they have to bash your head in for the 20 bucks you have on you.
Our crime rate is low. Incredibly low. I live in the capital, still a murder makes the evening news, and is certainly the headline of tomorrow's papers. It happens once a year, so it's quite some event!
What I want to say is that you have to pay for what you want, one way or another. When you're done paying for healthcare, security (which includes living in a "good" neighborhood, buying some alarm system and maybe even hiring security goons), retirement and other insurances, you're probably where I am.
Though I'd guess, you have less money on your hands than I do. Despite paying about 30% of my income directly in taxes, and another 50% indirectly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't think anyone has a right to keep 100% of the wealth they produce, unless maybe you live a completely self-sufficient self-sustaining lifestyle off the grid in some remote place. I recognize that an individual does have some responsibility to the collective society which allowed that individual to succeed. For the most part, far right-wingers and libertarians just want to take their ball and go home, forgetting that their success is in part due to the work done by others before them. Wanting to wiggle out of your responsibilities of the social contract while retaining the benefits is pretty self-centered and short sighted.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I suppose you could have a private interstate that you could charge toll on, but how the fuck would private roads operate? If you own the downtown roads, there's no way to build more without tearing down city blocks, not to mention the insane amounts of overpasses it would require to have separate road networks.
Private sewage might work in rural areas, but try patching up a few city blocks with multiple independant sewage systems, particularly if some of them are asshats and won't let you pipe through even if you don't want their service all while keeping a downward flow in all pipes.
None of these are going to happen, instead you'll create private mini-monopolies where there's no competition whatsoever. That is if you seriously want to privatize all that, not have the government hire private companies to run it (which would mean competition, but still paid for by tax dollars). Do you think you will have any control over your personal records (medical, financial, etc) under a system where an entity backed by force is controlling the service that is utilizing those records? You would be incorrect to assume that. So far, the track record is that you have zero control unless backed by law. It's also my impression that private companies are far more likely to break those laws in search of profit, while public companies use it a as lever to gain more funding. I actually prefer the latter. Both he and his wife have spoken very openly about altruism, which by definition must require the curbing (read: abolition) of property rights. Is there any color except black and white in your world? Don't you have say, restrictions on playing loud music at 3AM? OMG private property is abolished, welcome to Soviet America. Stay off the drugs, man.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings