Slashdot Mirror
Romney-Ryan Release Space Policy Paper
RocketAcademy writes "The Romney-Ryan campaign has released a white paper on space policy, which observers find to be long on criticisms of the Obama Administration but short on specific recommendations. The policy promises 'a robust role for commercial space,' but it's clearly a supporting role: 'NASA will set the goals and lead the way in human space exploration.' When it comes to space, both parties put government ahead of private enterprise. Some see a parallel with the policies which are driving space companies out of California. Newt Gingrich, one of the few politicians who thinks seriously about space, says the policy is a step in the right direction but not enough."
Seems I've been hearing that for the last month or so.
I keep expecting Mitt and Paul to get elected, then slip out of their disguises as Kang and Kodos.
I for one ... ah, bugger it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
47% of space is lazy...
Even us die-hard Obamatrons are tired of them!
No space. There are poor people. Give all money to them. kthxbye.
What NASA needs is a specific goal (moon in this decade), and the money to achieve it, free of political constraints. None of this "No ATK, no $$$" garbage.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Romney thinks the windows in our space craft need to be able to open.. ya know, in case there is a fire and they need to let the smoke out.
If you want to think that a President Romney will think big and ramp up the manned space program, you're free to think that
But if you're more concerned about budget deficits and restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington, you bet that Mitt is all over that!
Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.
And who pays for this "free" clinic?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
It's like walking into an emergency room with blood spurting out of an artery and the doctor notices you got a little sun earlier in the day and offers you some aloe with these guys.
And that's what we call politics. The only ones that haven't flip-flopped are Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. I think the real elections should be about those two competitors.
I don't.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Whoa so wait a minute... Romney's policy is almost identical to Obama's? What a shocker! Who could have predicted such a thing, when they are so.diametrically opposed on every other issue? Gee, that makes it so much harder to decide which tyrant to vote for.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no - and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous.
Clearly, Romney is an expert on these things, so I hope they take his input seriously in the design phase. We wouldn't want future astronauts dying from not being able to open their windows.
(yes, I know I'll be moderated down for this. but I've got karma to burn - even if I can't get oxygen at 30,000 feet to burn it with)
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
47% of space doesn't pay any taxes
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.
And who pays for this "free" clinic?
Magic. Magic pays for everything. It's the new fiscal accounting model.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
We can blame ether side all we want, but the truth is that without a perceived threat there isn't any political power to throw to NASA. If their was a known killer asteroid that was going to hit in 10 years we'd put every penny of the defense budget towards stopping it. If North Korea were building a lunar station we'd do everything to get one up first. But without the credible threat of something like what USSR presented we have no motivation other than just "to do it". I'm sorry but as much as we like to think we do things just because we can we do things a lot faster when you're in fear for your life.
47% of space is distributed along its Y-Axis.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Hell, forget Obama's space plans. We know he doesn't have any plans (at least those that he'll articulate, anyway...)
Where the hell is the BUDGET the Dems have YET to pass since they took office in Jan 2009?
And don't blame "Republican stonewalling" - Obama, Reid, and Pelosi had enough clout to ram Obamacare through. They damn well could have passed a budget.
The Dems don't WANT to pass a budget, because that one document would show how much they really want to spend.
But no, this being /. we can create a distraction by making fun of Teh EEEVIL RETHUGLICAN!!!!!
Ha ha! Take that eldery, homeless, children, and handicapped! Anonymous Coward has, in two of the most devastatingly effective sentences ever written, has demonstrated both his/her boundless understanding of economics and the nearly infinite well of compassion he/she holds for his/her fellow man! Your apparent lack of immediate value to our economy is your death sentence. Best you die now and decrease the surplus population!
Anywhoodlidoodle, don't worry sir(or ma'am), you need not fear paying for check-ups, immunizations, and whatnot. You can simply wait and pay tons more for what could have been easily preventable emergency care. Just like Rand would have wanted.
...because we shouldn't be putting rockets in the air while people are dying of preventable diseases on the ground.
To answer your statement of "Find a Free Clinic" who do you think pays for those?
I personally am only comfortable with financing NASA (whose efforts advance the whole country) because we have decent health care coverage in place.
To answer the underlying argument which you haven't addressed: You have a basic choice, you can let people die outside the emergency rooms for failing to carry a health care card, or you can save them.
If you choose the "save them" path then those of us who can pay for it, will end up paying for it. Period.
Then it's a question of "Which is more efficient?" On the one hand we pay for 30 million ER visits (many people go more than once, some never, for the last 20 years of life, 1 is a good average). On the other we pay for preventative care for 30 million people, and 10 million ER visits. You pick. Ask any hospital worker which one is cheaper.
It wasn't at all necessary.
1:Science and innovation important, some how having nasa means our workforce is some how more scientifically educated and skilled. Which makes no sense because I thought education did that, not Nasa.
2: Space is important some how to a bunch of industries, despite the only real importance being research and satellite launching.
3:Military in space good, need to secure space against space terrorists. More money to defense contractors. Could be hostile aliens?
4:Nasa and our space program is like fancy armor in WoW, it is the international penis we can wave in the face of non-space faring countries. People respect space penis. Also private space penis is good too.
Restate all the above and say that the country needs clear and concise leadership etc.
pretentious quote by me. Who quotes themselves in their own policies? I do. I'm that awesome
Huge diatribe on how Obama is bad and stuff. Also commercial space stuff is good
who needs NASA?
Really. Space-X has docked a test capsule to the ISS, and their first cargo delivery launches October 7th. Astronauts will follow on later flights.
NASA hasn't developed a successful new booster in 30 years, despite about three failed attempts. Space-X has a new booster that works. Arianespace has a new booster that works. NASA has old ICBM derivatives and a "Space Launch System" proposal.
Space-X has only 1800 employees. NASA still has 34,000. NASA does some good stuff, but it's far too big for what it accomplishes.
and if you a pre-existing condition = go to a Nazi like death camp as you can't get insurance.
And the only plan that will cover you will be jail / prison care
Anywhoodlidoodle, don't worry sir(or ma'am), you need not fear paying for check-ups, immunizations, and whatnot. You can simply wait and pay tons more for what could have been easily preventable emergency care. Just like Rand would have wanted.
Actually, ol' Ayn would have preferred they die in the street, assuming it's not a street she frequents.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Do you really think that parents that take their kids to the ER for a fever and/or ear infection are going to suddenly stop taking their kids to the ER and go to their regular doctor? Do you really think that the homeless, who account for a large percentage of ER costs, are going to find a doctor who will take them that doesn't work in an ER?
Mitt's plan is to let the States work this out for themselves. In some states that can be Robamacare and in others it can be insurance and tort reform. Tort reform would save the system more money then any of the current proposals.
January 27, 2012 Republican debate:
“I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired!’” -Mitt Romney
Calling for anything other than a minimal to nonexistent manned space program is hypocrisy for Mitt Romney.
Pretty good troll. Got a lot of responses already I see.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Simple, Ryan has this one covered...
You just have to rob a bank to steal the money to pay for your health care. If you get away, you can now afford it. And if you get caught, no worries, the government will now pay for all of your health care, food, and lodgings anyway.
Anywhoodlidoodle, don't worry sir(or ma'am), you need not fear paying for check-ups, immunizations, and whatnot. You can simply wait and pay tons more for what could have been easily preventable emergency care. Just like Rand would have wanted.
Actually, ol' Ayn would have preferred they die in the street, assuming it's not a street she frequents.
Who pays to clear the bodies away?
Be the first to promote exploration and logistical security, in space. It is the vague responses that are reported by the media. If the country cannot refocus legacy programs into these two options; issuing tax incentives for health, agriculture and resource procurements in space for new products, could be legitimized. Using similar engineer from the Navy, most notably - Submarines; the Marines should be building, at the very least - Life Guard stations, in space. Sharing knowledge might be better to leave to Educators and theologians.
This might quickly be interpreted are a foreign relations issue; however, it is a great resources to build partnerships, with other nations – For resources. As a country: When have the skills we need to build the infrastructures for mass production; Else, R&D with current COTS/ off the shelf to get more Americans in space.
If you build it: People will come .. . .. .
Bullshit, insurance overhead is your number one problem.
If you develop multiple sclerosis down the road your words will haunt you.
s/bank/taxpayer/g...
Fixed that for you ;^)
Anywhoodlidoodle, don't worry sir(or ma'am), you need not fear paying for check-ups, immunizations, and whatnot. You can simply wait and pay tons more for what could have been easily preventable emergency care. Just like Rand would have wanted.
Actually, ol' Ayn would have preferred they die in the street, assuming it's not a street she frequents.
I like the Margaret Sanger approach myself - actively kill the undesirables (blacks) even before they're born.
Not really, Romney is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. The guy is pro-healthcare, he's proud of what he did in Mass. Don't be deceived by his rhetoric to the tea party.
Kebab restaurants!
This is blinging
And you don't think taxpayers pay for prisons?
Wow, Magic Johnson must pay a LOT of taxes to cover for medicare alone!
Tomorrow is another day...
I guess you have not been incarcerated in a California prison:) http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/05/04/32295/california-officials-attorneys-inmates-sumbit-plan/
Someone rich enough who doesn't want their view sullied or the the local owner of that strip of road in front of his house/business who paid to have it built in front. S/he is responsible for cleaning it off of his property, or keeping the unkempt masses off of his/her properly so they don't die there.
That, or the body just sits there and rots/is eaten by scavengers. Pure 'personal responsibility' also allows for the problem to simply not be solved and piles of bodies can just lie around. Because that works so well.
P.S. Yes, I'm serious that's probably about the argument ayn rand types would make, no, I don't think that's even remotely sensible.
Re:Romney-Ryan is a Health Care flip floper and with him you may end up with a mini med plan that does cover any thing.
Really? I call bullshit. Support that with facts please AC.
Do you care to discuss this point using reason and logic, or it this just flamebait?
Honest question, it is worth discussing.
Intellectual honesty, or coward? Just asking,
I'd point out something about anonymous coward and finger pointing, but don't expect you have the grace to say, "Touché"
Sometimes it's just about having a little light hearted fun, after all this is a political thread. I don't expect anything in here to influence a vote, one way or the other.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well yeah, they'll have insurance. These people aren't hopeless morons, and they love their children and what whats best for them. Indigent homeless are trickier, but you see a lot of working homeless families lining up around the block to get their non-emergent medical needs addressed. Under a
You forgot to call the President "hopey changey," or make a reference to the "democrat party." Minus two points.
Tort reform is a bit of a red herring. Orrin Hatch's Tort Reform proposals in '09 would have saved about $54 billion, which isn't chump change, but it would only reduce total national health spending by 0.5%. So we could claim that money on the table, but the limitations in Hatch's proposal specifically were extremely low, to the extent that they reduced pain and suffering awards to a slap on the wrist and would probably cause incidents of malpractice to increase.
State-by-state solutions are doomed in the US because of regulatory arbitrage. Employers and tax units in states with expensive programs can simply move their paper addresses to states with lower tax liability. Insurance companies can shop around for states that offer them the most favorable regulation (the ones with the least customer protections), and employers can play states off each other to obtain favorable tax treatment. States simply can't design their own programs when the employers within it can simply evade the costs of the system by filing paperwork, while enjoying all the benefits of the system by dumping their employees into the state public program. A state-by-state healthcare system in the US would end up looking a lot like the consumer credit card system in the US, which is to say, we'd all have whatever rights the North Dakota and Delaware legislature had agreed to, because they were the highest bidder for the health insurance company's business.
"States' Rights" has been keeping 60's-style state capitalism alive for decades, by giving employers a huge stick with which they can extract free services from a state government, guised under the threat of "killing jobs." An employer simply threatens to move unless they can stay tax-free, dumping the costs of roads, schools, police, and health care on everyone else.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Wow, Magic Johnson must pay a LOT of taxes to cover for medicare alone!
I think his on-going HIV treatments are sufficient medical expense deductions he doesn't end up with much owed at the end of the year.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"Mitt's plan is to let the States work this out for themselves. "
Mitts plan is he has no plan then...just let the states get into more debt by paying for this stuff.
You see one of these stories every few months. Behold, these people are homeless and seek out non-emergent care for their children. Wouldn't you rather these people be paying for this through insurance premiums, rather than having to rely on charity? No other country in the developed world has this.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
At least they are still alive, and not lying face down in a gutter. And of course those inadequate facilities are probably still costing taxpayers about 10x what providing basic insurance would...
Always amazing the stupid decisions people (politicians and voters) will make with emotion or spite over reason. Reminds me of the CA death penalty. 13 people have been executed since it was reinstated in 1978, at a cost of about $4B. And the process takes so long that over *80* death row inmates have died of other causes. So $200M a year has been wasted just to wait around for 90% of the inmates to die on their own, same as in life without parole.
I think the specific quote was "Mars, bitches!"
Or maybe it was "Mars...BITCHES!" indicating the former Speaker of the House and perennial presidential candidate thinks there are hot bitches on Mars who could be persuaded to do a little chubby chasing. After all, Calista isn't getting any younger, if you get my drift.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's correct. They skipped the "flip" part and just flopped.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Not really, Romney is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. "
His plan is 90% the same as Obama, but without explanation for how it will be funded. "better" needs explanation which he hasn't yet provided.
I got mine fuck you. I certainly hope you don't call yourself a good christian/human being
Tort reform would save the system more money then any of the current proposals.
That, unfortunately, is unlikely to be true.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751009
No matter how you 'reform' the system there will remain some liability.
Do you really think that parents that take their kids to the ER for a fever and/or ear infection are going to suddenly stop taking their kids to the ER and go to their regular doctor?
You never stop it completely. But after they've waiting 5 hours in an ER once, versus getting an appointment the next day with their family physician the problem isn't nearly as bad as it sounds. This has the downside of inflating ER wait times considerably in Canada and the UK for example, but most sane parents get the message.
The US spends almost 18% of GDP on healthcare. France and the UK both have better healthcare and come in around 10-12% of GDP. The best way to save money would be to copy either of their systems and tell the insurance companies to GTFO, you'd get better care for about half the price. Effectively this would be the same as extending medicare or medicaid to everyone with some relatively minor adjustments. Right now you've decided to copy the swiss system (which is still better than the US system by far), so it's something, but it could be better.
Keep in mind that part of medical lawsuits is the (entirely justifiable) cost of fixing whatever went wrong. When you have socialized care you still have that cost - but it's not a lawsuit anymore, the cash transaction is much smaller, so lawyers are taking less of a cut on top of it, and it becomes a system problem to try and reduce the cost fro accidents, rather than a liability problem to shield yourself from bankruptcy due to the cost of making a mistake.
One would give states jurisdiction over a woman's uterus, and the other favors a profit motive for imprisoning people. That's no choice I want to have to make. The Libertarian party is as much of a sham as the two leading parties.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Right, they both are strict adherents to bad ideas. Just what you want in a politician, righteous determination to stick to a plan in spite of evidence the plan is bad.
I'm not an american, but I'd rather a dishonest politician who does good things than an honest one who does bad things.
LOL ;-) I hope this get modded down but I wanted you to know I appreciated your reply.
Tomorrow is another day...
The free market, of course!
I have a better chance of being the first man on Mars than Mitt Romney has of winning the presidency, so it doesn't really matter what his policy is.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Ol' Ayn would have been one of the people dying in the streets.
but I'd rather a dishonest politician who does good things
And how do you know the dishonest politician is going to do good things? At least, the honest politician stays bought.
Charitable giving? That's the old fashioned way of doing it.
I've never understood this statement. It's invariably made by people who wouldn't vote for Romney if his tax returns showed that he gave 50% of his income to charity and the other 50% to the IRS, so why would you care if he releases them? It's not going to make one bit of a difference in who you vote for.
At least they are still alive, and not lying face down in a gutter. And of course those inadequate facilities are probably still costing taxpayers about 10x what providing basic insurance would...
Always amazing the stupid decisions people (politicians and voters) will make with emotion or spite over reason. Reminds me of the CA death penalty. 13 people have been executed since it was reinstated in 1978, at a cost of about $4B. And the process takes so long that over *80* death row inmates have died of other causes. So $200M a year has been wasted just to wait around for 90% of the inmates to die on their own, same as in life without parole.
It's cheaper to give life without parole, since the death sentence has an automatic appeals process that goes up to the Supreme Court, costing over $3,000,000.
In a recent townhall meeting, ex-governor Romney promised that NASA will be funded "without limit from the United States treasury" to find "the planet and/or star, Kolob", and that he will personally pilot a starship to said planet and/or star with the goal of geoforming a nearby planet in which ex-governor Romney, in his Mormon-godform, will rule with "the dignity and respect" that he "will rule 53% of the United States".
I didn't know Paul Ryan was a Democrat. Sorry when he spoke at the Republican national convention, I thought he was a Republican. I mistook him for the same Senator Paul Ryan that criticized the President for not ramming the budget through Congress, the same budget that Republicans like Paul Ryan actively tried to defeat. There must be like six Paul Ryans in Congress these days.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Cancelling accidental incorrect moderation. Sorry about this.
Interestingly, your post contains precisely as many demonstrable statements of fact as Romney's actual, stated position.
And that's what we call politics. The only ones that haven't flip-flopped are Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. I think the real elections should be about those two competitors.
Ron Paul hates Social Security but doesn't mind collecting it. Is that a flip-flop or just outright hypocrisy?
Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.
And who pays for this "free" clinic?
WTF does this have to do with TFA about Romney and space? This is why I dont like reading /. anymore
You don't, naturally, it's more of a Bill Clinton versus whomever is running as the communist party candidate. You might know slick willy is a womanizing asshole, but at least he's not actually a communist.
"I don't want a president who looks like a game show host." - David Letterman
Eh, yeah, my statement may not have been clear... by the "same as in life without parole" I mean the same results - dead inmate - but as you say millions of dollars saved in the process.
State-by-state solutions are doomed in the US because of regulatory arbitrage.
In other words, because California can't put up an iron curtain blocking the freeways leaving the state, they can't keep the over-milked taxpayers from fleeing the state.
Tough cookies.
It's called an "Emergency Department"
Thread drift is a hallowed part of /. history. From the time I joined after lurking for a while, thread drift has become a major feature of this atmosphere. To ensure you like it, next time you get mod points, use the Offtopic mod.
Most geeks have at least a touch of ADD. The original topic, which talked about a Space Program by the opposition candidates, was made after one of them wondered, in all seriousness, why you couldn't open windows on airliners. Any semblance of subsequent sanity is purely accidental.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
...failing laughably badly
You keep pimping that vid, but seriously, do you really think a feeble clip of Obama saying "fifty..." when he clearly mean "forty..." is anywhere close to the same Domain of Gaffdom that Romney inhabits? If that's the best you've got, you must be too stupid not to be embarassed.
I have had a drink and Retract everything I said above.
I realized, as I stared into my empty Bud Light, that I need to get a life, get out of the house, and talk to real people.
And you don't think taxpayers pay for prisons?
Taxpayers pay for everything that government does...
Bottom line, if you don't get health insurance yourself, we are collectively robbing taxpayers are paying for it (one way or another). Who do you think picks up the insurance when someone robs money from a bank? We do. Witness TARP.
Not troll, off-topic. Jeez.
The really stupid thing here is that the comment system doesn't hide all the off-topic followups, just the really stupid post that started it all.
I remember wondering why it was illegal to shoot buzzards once when I was a kid.
I was told
"How much would it cost for the county to remove a dead animal from the road, or for you to do it? Buzzard does it for free."
No idea if there's any truth to it, but hey, it seems like it answers the question :)
--- Mercutio was right.
The states haven't worked this shit out yet.
If they left the state that'd be fine with everyone, the problem is corporations staying in the state, using the public services, the roads, the police and fire department, the courts, and sending their employees to the Medi-Cal office, all the while claiming that they don't have to pay for any of it because they happen to rent a mailbox in Reno, Nevada.
It's even worse in some states, where the threat of a multi-national employer moving out-of-state has convinced legislatures that they have to extend open-ended tax holidays, or grant the employer the right to pocket their employee's payroll taxes, among other things.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Yes it is a topic worth discussing, with polite reason and logic. But the more relevant question: is it worth discussing here with reason and logic? Is it going to change anyone's mind or preach to one of the choirs? Will it be informative, or a bunch of "me too"?
I'm not saying you should discuss it, but that it should be pretty obvious that many people are not going to expect much return on an investment in political discussion on the internet.
100% of 2012 U.S. Republican presidential candidates are certified assholes. Fuck you Mitt. Die with festering boils you SOB.
Mitt's plan is to distract us while he robs the bank. He's a crook.
If a state is dependent upon multinational employers who can blackmail the government, it sounds like it is time to start encouraging local business development instead that may have at least some sort of loyalty to that particular state and its culture.
That some state governments are incredibly stupid can't be helped. At least when one of the 50 states goes nuts and does stupid things, there will at least be some sanity in a couple of the other states. If you instead rely upon a federal solution to problems that really belong on the sate level, it often means one awful solution that can't be culled at a later time. Different state solutions at least provide incentive for a state to give up and try something different when a failed policy isn't working.
...you cannot escape that.
Actually, you can escape that easily... don't bother replying on the internet and go off to have an actual discussion with someone, instead of playing some game about boosting egos by arguing over who is a drone. Maybe instead of arguing about who does and doesn't think for themselves, some people are off busy thinking for themselves. And you wonder why people don't want to discuss this with you? Here's a hint: for many, it is not due to lack of ability.
The article's editorializing isn't really fair. No, Romney doesn't have a plan, but the goal of the article isn't to propose a space policy, but to bash Obama's. And it's true that space exploration has taken a hit during the Obama administration, but all the key events took place before his administration.
Bush, 2004: "Screw that space shuttle, boys, we're going back to the moon!"
NASA, 2004: "Cool! Just so you know, that's kind of expensive."
Bush, 2006: "Is a buck fifty enough?"
NASA, 2006: "No. And BTW, we're cancelling the shuttles like you asked."
Obama, 2009: "Umm, guys? Let's be honest here, going to the moon on a buck fifty isn't going to happen. We need a new plan for what to do with your buck fifty."
Congress, 2009: "What buck fifty?"
Obama, 2011: "Oh for fuck's sake."
I've talked to lots of NASA employees over the year. Lots of them are really pissed off at Washington politics. But the names that inspire curses are George Bush and Congress. Obama is rarely mentioned.
NASA's woes are a classic case of the Republican game plan:
1) When in power, make grand plans without sweating the details or the cost.
2) When out of power, block all solutions to the problems that arise from your grand plans.
3) When seeking power, blame the opposition for failing to solve the problems you caused.
Actually the FDIC takes money from banks to be a member. It is an actual insurance.
Now, as for the police looking for the criminals... yes... yes it is our tax money.
But I guess I would rather pay taxes for cops, firefighters, teachers, medical care than to have people dieing on the streets because someone broke into a house and lit it on fire because they dont know that inflammable means flammable.
I must be a bleeding heart liberal... or someone who can critically think how things affect our society.
That's one way to think of it, but not the only way.
Another would be that taxpayers are collectively funding a safety net that help anyone who is in dire need.
Another is that taxpayers are paying a form of insurance against the inevitable flood of people who end up in the ER with no way to pay for their emergency services - one that will cost an order of magnitude less than the currently badly broken ER "safety net".
Or if you don't even believe in even helping poor people in the ER because letting someone die when you don't have to is morally wrong, another way to think of it is an alternative to buying all of those extra street cleaners and incinerators to sweep up the piles of dead homeless and unemployed people who were denied affordable health care AND emergency medical care, and are now an eyesore and health hazard to those God-fearin' taxpayers who didn't want to help them sooner.
100% of 2012 U.S. presidential candidates are certified assholes. Fuck them all. Die with festering boils you SOBs.
FTFY
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
"So that's what's covering Obama's multi-trillion-dollar deficits!"
No, you are. And me, and that guy over there, and a whole shitload of people--every single American, plus millions of other people worldwide. We, collectively through the markets, decide the value of the dollar. We've collectively decided that the value of the dollar is pretty damn good and that it's long-term prognosis is absofuckinglutely marvelous. Sound as a pound is so 1800's. Big Daddy Dollar's large and in charge, the reserve currency of the motherfucking planet. Fucking hell people are lining up for the opportunity to buy our debt, and are willing to pay for the privilege. That's right, a 20 year T-bill doesn't even beat inflation. The US government can spend money, for fucking free, for 20 years! God damn all hail the power of the markets, baby!
Until freedom from religion is a constitutional right.
Of course, this is a vicious cycle, because the local employers are all stuck with the taxes that the multinational employers talk their way out of. "Loyalty" or "culture" of course are irrelevant, because they mean nothing to shareholders (nor am I sure they should).
But if the law allows people to dump all of their costs in state A, and keep all their profits in state B, it's impossible to tell what policies "work."
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I like it. Outside the box thinking, that. Efficient. It's actually a way of letting the 'market' solve the problem. (Ecosystems and free markets operate under essentially the same mathematical models.) :)
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
You call that fair? How about mentioning the fact that Obama tried to convince us that taking the buck fifty from NASA was a good way to help reduce our national debt? Or that Obama has had nearly four years to do something with NASA? Or do all the facts get in the way of beating the dead horse that is George Bush?
The truth is, neither of the two main political parties in America give a damn about NASA or the space program. If this is truly important to any readers, find a more worthy political party, and give them your vote.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
One would give states jurisdiction over a woman's uterus, and the other favors a profit motive for imprisoning people. That's no choice I want to have to make. The Libertarian party is as much of a sham as the two leading parties.
You could just imprison people IN a woman's uterus. It's a win-win.
Maybe it's time to admit that it's inefficient and unnecessary to give the supreme court a crack at every death row inmate's case.
I'm from Massachusetts. He fucked us. He's fucks anyone he can. It's what he does. He's a fucker. First he's over there fucking those people. Then he's here fucking us. Soon he could be everywhere fucking everyone. He's not pro-healthcare. He's pro-big-business-fucking-innocent-people.
I am involved in several companies and own one in California and I can conclusively say most harmful regulation is state not federal. State regulations are in desperate need of changing in favor of business and jobs generally and less in favor of government, public employee unions, state endorsed journeymen, and local rules.
None of this has to do with taxes. Taxes are higher in CA than anywhere but NY, but that would even be okay if the regulatory choke hold could be reduced. The good news is this country has NV and TX to solve this issue.
It's not just space, but aerospace, industrial tech, manufacturing, and medical technology. It's any labor intensive occupation.
The federal layer is a case of a jobs program managed by the military-industrial complex. Wanna have massive private space innovation? Of the $20B space budget or more each year, put $10B into $100m per aerospace company with less than 50 employees and who has actually tested hardware or flown something, and all of a sudden you will have a rennissance era.
Good luck with that.
JJ
Patient: Doctor, Doctor. My asshole hurts.
Doctor: That's because Mitt Romney fucked you.
Patient: Can you fix it?
Doctor: Sorry, not covered under RomneyCare.
Patient: Drat, fucked again by Mitt Romney.
Ron Paul hates Social Security but doesn't mind collecting it. Is that a flip-flop or just outright hypocrisy?
He paid into Social Security, so he deserves to collect it. He wants there to be a way for people to opt out of it. Some people may wish to put the money toward something else instead of giving it to the government.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm explains his view on this in more detail.
So no, I don't think it's hypocritical or flip-flopping. If you were forced to pay money into the program, why shouldn't you collect from it later on?
I agree with this 100%. But if your Dad says he'll buy you a jet-ski, your Mom says "sorry honey, we can't afford a jet-ski", and your uncle says "what a horrible Mom, depriving her kid of a jet-ski" --- might as well face it, you're not getting a jet-ski. But at least your Mom was straight with you.
You could just imprison people IN a woman's uterus. It's a win-win.
I think you just invented double rape.
Romney: "Why don't space ships have windows that open? This is a serious problem."
Sheesh I don't see what the big deal is. There are no corpses littering the streets in the Libertarian Utopia. If you can't afford insurance then you're an undeserving parasite who should hurry up and die, unless you've got something to trade. Most people are born with a spare kidney, lung, eye, a few feet of intestine, and 80% of the liver can be chopped out too. Make a deal with the doctors in the ER. You're capable of acting rationally with that sucking chest wound, aren't you? If not, you should have planned for this eventuality and have a trusted legal representative. Anyway, if the free market value of your spare parts covers your heart attack and triple bypass, or having every bone crushed in that freak accident, or whatever, congratulations my fellow capitalist purist you get to live! If not, well you (or your legal representative) can sign a waiver and the proceeds from your being "parted" can be passed on to your next of kin. Less expenses of course; operations are pricey. All hail the Invisible Hand of the Free Markets, and Prosperity Be Upon Her, Profitess Ayn Rand!
What's that old saying? "I didn't protest when they left the liberal state. I didn't protest when they left the moderate state. Now they are leaving the country and leaving all the burdens on citizens. "
Maybe not a faithful quote but you might get the gist of it.
Corporations don't care about your values. They only care about the bottom line. That's how it is set up and probably how it should be. OTOH it's our job to hold them accountable. Part of that social contract is to make them contribute back to the community they have benefited from. The infrastructure, the subsidies, etc.
Laws and regulations enforce that contract. Without them corporations are bound to screw us over by their own rules.
The flip side is feast and famine. When the predator over hunts a territory he either moves on and fights his way into a new one or dies of starvation.
Civilization is supposed to moderate that cycle for us smart humans. Part of civilization is rules and regulation. Really that's all it is. Agreed upon self regulation to avoid feast and famine.
You are an ignorant person.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The banking side of TARP is going to turn a profit.
Universal health care will decrease the cost of health care to the entire population, while increasing overall health. Arguing against it is short sighted and stupid.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
And this little analogy you've written out applies how? Neither party is being straight with voters. Obama talks about how important NASA is, but he's already tried to cut their funding. Romney is now taking cheap shots at Obama for it, but that doesn't change the fact that he's actually correct in his criticisms. Frankly, his rhetoric is largely identical to Obama's rhetoric about the wars - lots of bluster, but no real action.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
One would give states jurisdiction over a woman's uterus, and the other favors a profit motive for imprisoning people. That's no choice I want to have to make. The Libertarian party is as much of a sham as the two leading parties.
You could just imprison people IN a woman's uterus. It's a win-win.
Depends on the uterus. Do we get a choice? And if so, can we choose a non-American?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
But if the law allows people to dump all of their costs in state A, and keep all their profits in state B, it's impossible to tell what policies "work."
The problem is the size of these companies and being beholden to them. If you had a thousand companies employing nearly the same number of people that the one mega multinational company was employing, I would argue that there would be much more economic productivity in that same part of the country, more general tax revenue, and arguably less ability to engage in those kind of accounting shell games because those companies in state A would not have any office in state B to play those kind of games in the first place.
Vermont was able to keep Wal-Mart from coming into their state for a long time simply because they refused to play the political games that Wal-Mart was expecting them to play. Other states could do the same sort of thing and not give in to these companies, but instead encourage local businesses to grow and develop. A tax incentive that helps bring a huge business with a thousand jobs that was instead given to a thousand local businesses or even encouraged ordinary people to become entrepreneurs to start businesses creating a thousand jobs would go a whole lot further and benefit state and local governments far more.
BTW, with small businesses, the "shareholders" are local too, citizens and voters of that state who have a stake in what happens in that government, culture, and society. It is the large businesses that don't care or have likely been managed by executives that have never even heard of that state much less their shareholders.
That's so stupid. I blogged it, I didn't want to let this one go unnoticed.
Bruce Perens.
Take that first bit of the article and simply substitute the topic of the day:
I think this could be used successfully to describe virtually everything released by the Republican candidates. Try it with "economic", "immigration", etc. See? It works!
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Oh they most have been in Florida this week...
Texas passed tort reform and has seen a dramatic influx of health care professionals. They actually want to work and no, they haven't increased the incidents of malpractice. That is a bizarre idea, that tort reform would lead to more malpractice.
I had socialized medicine when living in Europe and it wasn't great. It was a lot of waiting in line and even more complete indifference to the people waiting in line. I also experienced socialized medicine in the USMC and it was exactly the same. Give something away for free and you will find that there are a lot of people who will abuse the system.
You could just imprison people IN a woman's uterus. It's a win-win.
I think you just invented double rape.
Ahhhh, but if it's court ordered, it's legitimate double rape.
...Who do you think picks up the insurance when someone robs money from a bank? We do. Witness TARP.
Nobody robbed the banks. They threw away money they didn't have.
TARP isn't issuance, strictly speaking. That's the FDIC. (TARP is rewarding failure, but it isn't insurance.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Inefficient, absolutely. Unnecessary - well, you may call it unnecessary, but I think the US (as opposed to almost every other country with the death penalty) should at least be somewhat proud of the fact that there are no *confirmed* wrongful executions yet (though there are several in doubt).
While I think CA spending $4B to execute 13 people is absurd, if it had led to the exoneration of one person who would have otherwise been executed it was worth it. Though by "worth it" I definitely do not mean "money well spent" as the same outcome would been achieved much more efficiently with life without parole.
Ah, nice to see the Republican platform distilled down to it's basic premise: FUCK THE POOR.
Look, any good Republican can tell you that you don't need all that money, all that satanic science. You just get down on your knees and that 'wing and a prayer' will git'ur done. Hallelujah Brothers!
You clearly don't understand what TARP was. IMO it may go down in history as one of the better ideas the government has had. Why? In the end it was about purchasing preferred stock in those banks. Most banks have already repaid/bought back that loan/investment. And, for example, the Treasury has already made a $12B profit (that's about 30% return) on Citibank. Smaller profit on some others. There are 3-4 who have not fully paid it back, but shit, even AIG has committed to paying it all back, with a tidy profit to the taxpayers.
Not sure if you are conservative, libertarian, or just don't understand shared risk, but the same principles can be applied to universal healthcare (not that Obamacare is universal healthcare, just as close as he could get given the opposition). The key is to look for the longer term benefit, not the short term costs and "inconvenience". Just like TARP.
You need to check the workflow. Multiple sclerosis is definitely on the death list.
Amen!
California State Universities Have More Administrators Than Teachers!
http://polipundit.com/?p=31990
"Take the California State University system, the second tier in that state’s public higher education. Between 1975 and 2008, the number of full-time faculty members rose by 3 percent, to 12,019 positions. During those same years, the number of administrators rose 221 percent, to 12,183. That’s right: There are more administrators than teachers at Cal State now."
Well I'm certainly impressed by your whit and intelligent banter. I guess this is how you influence people to vote for your issues!
LMCSS (roll) or SSLoral (pitch) Y-Axis ?
1) When in power, make grand plans without sweating the details or the cost.
2) When out of power, block all solutions to the problems that arise from your grand plans.
3) When seeking power, blame the opposition for failing to solve the problems you caused.
I don't know that you can claim that as a purely Republican game plan. I thought that was just called "politics".
Because when your mom is named Obama, it's okay to lie about assisting to kill a federal agent through policy, wage war on other countries, kill citizens without due process, lie about terrorist attacks your State department could have prevented if properly protected, and increase the power of the police state because you really understand how the middle class feels. Or something...
Dude, ease up. There is gas passing aplenty on all sides. If you're going to get an ulcer over a candid moment with Mitt and his billionaire buddies, you won't even make it to the inauguration (whichever it may be.) Personally,Mitt knows on which side his bread is buttered or in this case spoon is silvered. He had wealthy folk "contributing" looking to buy influence and make things happen like money's going out of style (whoops, that was fearfully prescient.)
(Note: I'm not a fan of Obama, did not vote for him last time, do not plan to vote for him this time. That said, let the rant begin...)
This should come as no surprise to anyone with a brain. They are simply quoting their right-wing puppet masters, taking the standard line they've taken since day 1 of Obama's administration. Criticize Obama, no matter what he does, without regard to whether or not it was a good thing, and then fail to give any real details on what they would have done different, or how it would have been better counting on the American people, or at least the subset of the American people who listen to the drivel they spout, to be credulous morons. In fact, if Obama did something that EXCLUSIVELY benefited the Republicans, they'd STILL criticize him for it. That's the Republican standard operating procedure, and they don't deviate from it for any reason.
If America has a fit and does something retarded like vote Romney into office, they'll find that for all the grandiose promises that have been made without specifics, the policies are going to do one thing, individually or taken all together: they'll further facilitate all of Romney's co-criminals, the self-styled "job creators" as they desperately want others to see them, running away to the banks with all the money they've stolen from the REAL job creators, the majority of people in this country whose day to day lives necessitate purchases of basic goods and services that drive the American economy. The middle class mostly, not people like Romney who has never done an honest day's work in his fucking overprivileged, overindulged, pampered life.
That's WHY there are no specifics. If they had to be specific, we'd have a chance to conclude that their plans won't work, or worse will just further trash the American economy, hurting the majority to benefit the few, and realize just how stupid a decision electing FlipFlop Romney would be. Remember, Romney and his friends think you're a sack of worthless shit because you refused to stoop to the same level of unethical behavior he did to funnel other people's money into his pockets. He's a hacker of the business world, and not the good kind, who learns of a way to exploit a system, and advises those responsible for maintaining it so they can put a patch in place, he's anti-regulation, and in this analogy, that means he's in favor of eliminating patching of America's financial Operating System, which will further facilitate the actions of men like him, for whom honor and integrity are meaningless words, words that are useful only for influencing the behavior of the masses.
Bottom line, Romney is insincere. Every good thing he's ever done that people praise him for now, was undoubtedly done in a carefully calculated fashion to maximize the number of people willing to say nice things about him in front of a camera. I'll bet if he ever were in a position to help someone who could in no way EVER help him back, were there no benefit to him personally or professionally on some level, he wouldn't waste the time or effort to do so, since he could make more profit doing something else.
I have no problem with others being rich if they worked for it. I DO EMPHATICALLY have a problem with people being rich because they stole it from others, and the only reason they're walking around free after committing the theft is that due to an oversight in the making of the laws, that particular form of theft was not specifically outlawed. Like when you get paid to buy companies, strip them of their value, divide off a part with no assets, saddled with all the liabilities, then sell the good part at a profit, or take a fat paycheck for having done this, while those people holding the bag for the part of the company that holds all the liabilities goes belly up, and the poor fools who had money in that part of the company lose their fucking shirts...
Imagine if a bank lost a million dollars, they hire Romney to help find it. Romney explains that their record keeping is faulty, and the
"NASA's woes are a classic case of the Republican game plan:
1) When in power, make grand plans without sweating the details or the cost.
2) When out of power, block all solutions to the problems that arise from your grand plans.
3) When seeking power, blame the opposition for failing to solve the problems you caused."
How is that different from any political party's game plan?
-Styopa
What will be shocking and scary is this guy will get roughly 50% of America's votes.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I'm no fan of her ideology, but playing Devil's advocate, let's say a thief steals your car and leaves his bike behind. Is it hypocrisy to use the bike to get to work and still criticize the thief?
Now, I don't view taxes as theft, but if one does, I think the analogy is accurate.
Dilbert RSS feed
On second thought, I realized I was staring into an empty person and talking to a Bud Light, so I reinstate everything I said above the above.
The Slashdot editors are in the tank for Obama, just like the last election. This is all you need to know, the rest is bullshit ans ass covering.
Vote for Johnson. If there is a market it will be served and competition will drive down the costs. We are finally seeing this, at least the early stages, but only after it was clear that NASA was leaving the business.
Anywhoodlidoodle, don't worry sir(or ma'am), you need not fear paying for check-ups, immunizations, and whatnot. You can simply wait and pay tons more for what could have been easily preventable emergency care. Just like Rand would have wanted.
Actually, ol' Ayn would have preferred they die in the street, assuming it's not a street she frequents.
Who pays to clear the bodies away?
Well, assuming we're still in the Rand-ian dystopic fantasy world - no one; somebody "smart" will find a way to turn all those corpses into profit, of course!
Anybody care for some Soylent Cola?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Becasue ti wasn't always that way. That's a product of post Reagan neo cons
in short, step 2 is pretty new, especially at the level of 'block all the things!' perspective.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm no fan of her ideology, but playing Devil's advocate, let's say a thief steals your car and leaves his bike behind. Is it hypocrisy to use the bike to get to work and still criticize the thief?
If you spent your entire life up to that point demonizing bikes and their riders, accusing them of being the number one social fault in the world, then yes, it's the definition of hypocrisy.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
New? It has been the model since Reagan in 1980.
I haven't read TFA, but I expect Romney's space program to include a long distance starship to head to Kolob to visit Mormon God.
At least Mormons aren't Scientologists - I probably won't have to fear for my life for that previous statement, which I really meant in jest.
If you cant afford insurance, *why* cant you?
For some, sure, it is laziness. Not all. Small issue of jobs ( not steve ).
And the same people who don't want you to have free health care seem to be in control of most of the jobs ( they being the "job creators" ), and the wages being paid ( with the increase profits due to worker productivity gains going mostly to the "job creators" ).
emt 377 emt 4
"That is a bizarre idea, that tort reform would lead to more malpractice."
Moral hazard. If you have little or no skin in the game, you will be more likely to do something risky.
This is why I would expect tort reform ( esp in Texas ) to increase incidences of malpractice.
How are you measuring this lack of rise in incidences? If it is in lawsuits filed, then you are using the wrong metric, by definition.
Not sure how the issues with socialized medicine intrude.
emt 377 emt 4
At the free clinic the doctors all have invisible hands. (Or maybe it's just a disembodied invisible hand that treats you...)
Is 1563649 a prime number?
And banks essentially own the federal reserve and can just print money to pay for the FDIC, so it is money from nothing and really falls on the taxpayer's back as the currency deflates and prices inflate. Gotta hand it to JP Morgan, he knew how to screw the common man while blinding them to the fact they were being raped. His work with De Beers creating a diamond monopoly and then selling a worthless rock as a wedding necessity was genius. Rockefeller too - first he bails out the banks in 1907, then creates a bank that can print money from nothing, is privately owned by banks, and has no effective government regulation.
So you have a fair way to enforce abortion rights that every state agrees on? This seems to be a political swing issue for many people, and I'd personally like to see it out of federal politics, because I know far too many Republicans that vote Republican on that issue alone, despite fundamentally disagreeing with every other policy (some of these people are multiple years on welfare, and will likely lose benefits under Romney). I can understand why you don't want to give states jurisdiction over a woman's uterus though - my state will most likely become a no abortion state, even though people like me think women should have at least some choice (especially early in a pregnancy).
So you have a fair way to enforce abortion rights that every state agrees on?
The state has absolutely no right to "agree" on what a woman does with her uterus. Neither does the federal government for that matter. That decision belongs to the woman, and the woman alone. Anything else is tyranny.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
But she didn't really demonize the bikes/benefits, she demonized the theft/taxes that paid for them. And yes, she benefited from the system, but she was also forced to pay into it, much like the guy who benefits from the bike was forced to give up the car.
Again, I have no sympathy for Rand, but you can't force people into a system and then call them hypocrites because they want to recoup their losses.
Dilbert RSS feed
Again, I have no sympathy for Rand, but you can't force people into a system and then call them hypocrites because they want to recoup their losses.
I'm not calling her a hypocrite for using the system, I'm calling her a hypocrite for being such an unholy bitch to everyone who used said system other than herself. If that's not hypocrisy, I guess I don't know what is.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Can be reduced to the single phrase "Nuh-huh!!!". Won't you children puhleez play nice!
I'm the OP, checking in: Yep. But Step 3 is also unusual. Usually party A blames party B for stuff party B did, but the Republicans are faulting Obama for problems the Republicans created, which I've never seen before. Obama's supposed crimes include failing to get the country out of recession, failing to strengthen America's leadership role in foreign affairs, allowing American soldiers' lives to be wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the present case, failing to implement a viable manned spaceflight program. But the recession, the loss of international respect, the wars, and the ludicrous space program were all created under the Bush administration.
Private enterprise is taking the lead in space interests in which it is no longer worth while for NASA to work on. Humans were in orbit, in space, traveling on trajectories around the moon 40+ years ago... that was exciting for NASA, our citizen's, and mankind 40 years ago.
NASA's mission is to push the envelop, with dollars given, of space exploration and develop technology and space mission to expand our fundamental knowledge of cosmos... so NASA has focused on robotic exploration of distant planets and moons, space telescopes, and the like: Hubble, Cassani, Mars rovers, the James Webb... these missions and so many others that NASA and international colleagues in the ESA, etc. are working on is what is pushing the frontiers of space today, within the budget constraints placed upon NASA and the other fine space agencies around the globe.
This little viginette of an article is focused on an aspect of space travel that is, frankly, easy now. Indeed, NASA would have trouble keeping top talent if most of the day to day was simply launching payloads into LEO's. But more than that, I tend to believe that the sources this article cites are politically insincere at best... but perhaps the sources shed light on something that is a even bigger problem that is clouding the future of space exploration: the hard lobbying by industry to dilute and dismantle NASA's budget for corporate gain (i.e. give NASA dollars to industry).
Hey, I feel your pain. The big O has certainly contributed to the erosion of freedom and civil liberty, but let's not forget that the process is a long time coming. Inn fact the two largest hammers on American Civil Liberties were Ron Reagan and George W. Bush. The last President who was actually more interested in doing the right thing vs. expanding the powers of the office was Jimmy Carter. So piss and moan all you want about Obama, this thing is way bigger than partisan politics.
You are actually claiming Reagan's and Bush's violations of civil liberties hold a candle to Obama's, who has executed American citizens without due process? I can't imagine anything worse a President could attempt to do.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
the song "Uncle Sam's On Mars"
Have a heart... modded down to '0', I'm hoping its because your not amused by his sense of humor, I mean his tongue is firmly planted in his cheek... Your tongue's in your cheek right? ;-)
This article is just plain wrong, and not a single assertion is backed up by fact. It's just more political propaganda, which seems to be all that we get any more. I am so sick of political lies. People who spout propaganda should be jailed for life, because they violate air pollution laws.
Note that I said "taxpayers fleeing the state", not "corporations".
Almost everything in the replies to my posting has been sloganeering with little apparent thought, a whole lot of assumptions (mostly wildly wrong) about what I was saying, and not much understanding of what I actually said.
It's not just massive corporations fleeing California. Massive corporations can usually get a tax and regulatory environment they can live with, with the added "bonus" that it shuts down upstart competition. One of the examples I bring up from time to time, from back before digital had almost completely engulfed the photography market, was an article written by the owner of a small photo shop in the Bay Area who wanted to expand his shop into the vacant store next to his in the strip mall. After spending a few thousand dollars and the better part of a year on bureacratic paperwork hoops, and no end in sight, he took a short vacation to Reno, and just for giggles, decided to check on how expensive it would be to open a shop in Nevada. Not planning to move or anything, just out of curiosity.
He got his business license on the spot.
When he got home, he closed his shop, sold everything, and moved to Nevada, where he was doing pretty well at the time. Doubtless, the digital revolution has done him in, too, along with most of the rest of the "chemicals and darkrooms" photography industry, but that would have happened if he'd stayed in California, too.